13 Sep 08
[Event "Leningrad"]
[Site "Leningrad"]
[Date "1946.??.??"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "?"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Zikov"]
[Black "Viktor Korchnoi"]
[ECO "B00"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "40"]
1. e4 Nc6 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. e5 Nd5 4. c4 Nb6 5. d4 d6 6. exd6 exd6
7. b3 Bg4 8. Be2 Be7 9. Bb2 Bf6 10. O-O Qd7 11. Nbd2 O-O-O
12. Bc3 Rde8 13. b4 Rxe2 14. Qxe2 Na4 15. Rac1 Nxc3 16. Rxc3
Nxd4 17. Qe3 Nxf3+ 18. Nxf3 Bxc3 19. Qxc3 Bxf3 20. Qxf3 Re8
0-1
I'm just curious why white resigned in this position. I guess I don't see the winning move(s) for black.
13 Sep 08
Originally posted by stockton1984I don't think there's a specific line. White is already a pawn down and black's rook is much better. but it's still a little strange to resign I guess.
[Event "Leningrad"]
[Site "Leningrad"]
[Date "1946.??.??"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "?"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Zikov"]
[Black "Viktor Korchnoi"]
[ECO "B00"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "40"]
1. e4 Nc6 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. e5 Nd5 4. c4 Nb6 5. d4 d6 6. exd6 exd6
7. b3 Bg4 8. Be2 Be7 9. Bb2 Bf6 10. O-O Qd7 11. Nbd2 O-O-O
12. Bc3 Rde8 13 ...[text shortened]... in this position. I guess I don't see the winning move(s) for black.
15 Sep 08
Originally posted by diskamylAfter 21. Qc3, white threatens the g pawn, and if it's defended, he can move his rook to e1, bringing the rooks on par with each other.
I don't think there's a specific line. White is already a pawn down and black's rook is much better. but it's still a little strange to resign I guess.
I guess I also don't see why white doesn't have drawing chances here.
15 Sep 08
2 edits
Originally posted by stockton1984Final position is hopeless for White - extra pawn and control over only open file is quite enough for each 2100+ player to win this position even in blitz.
[Event "Leningrad"]
[Site "Leningrad"]
[Date "1946.??.??"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "?"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Zikov"]
[Black "Viktor Korchnoi"]
[ECO "B00"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "40"]
1. e4 Nc6 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. e5 Nd5 4. c4 Nb6 5. d4 d6 6. exd6 exd6
7. b3 Bg4 8. Be2 Be7 9. Bb2 Bf6 10. O-O Qd7 11. Nbd2 O-O-O
12. Bc3 Rde8 13 in this position. I guess I don't see the winning move(s) for black.
15 Sep 08
4 edits
Originally posted by KorchThis is one of the most common questions I would ask myself as I tried to study grandmaster games. Why did he resign this position? Then after studying the endgame I not only found the answer to this question, but found myself asking, "Why did he make this move when it is an obvious mistake." It is an incredible feeling to shift from not understand why a grandmaster resigned a position to spotting mistakes in his game. You can only go from point A to point B by learning the fundamental knowledge of the endgame. A lot of players publicly argue that this is not necessary, but these players still ask themselves in private, "Why did he resign this position?"
Final position is hopeless for White - extra pawn and control over only open file is quite enough for each 2100+ player to win this position even in blitz.
15 Sep 08
Originally posted by petrovitchI think it's more a question of when to study endgame, than whether it's necessary or not. getting higher, it'll become a necessity, there's no escaping that fact. but for a beginning player there won't really be any (immediate) rewards for investing the time, as his games are won & lost far before reaching the ending. you only have so much time & energy at your disposal, so it makes sense to put it into work which gives the most bang for a buck.
... A lot of players publicly argue that this is not necessary, but these players still ask themselves in private, "Why did he resign this position?"
15 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by wormwoodIt my contention to suggest that while beginners may not reach the endgame that this is not the purpose of the study. Endgame study teaches piece coordination. Beginners move pieces one by one without purpose. Learning how the pieces work together moves them to a new level of understanding. Even players rated below 1800. Ask them to create a plan and most understand only that they must develop their pieces, and to them development means relocating them from their original squares -- not finding the best square for each of them. So, it is my belief that study of the endgame is the best bang for the buck for beginners. They learn far more about their pieces than wasting time memorizing opening lines that change as quickly as fabric design.
I think it's more a question of when to study endgame, than whether it's necessary or not. getting higher, it'll become a necessity, there's no escaping that fact. but for a beginning player there won't really be any (immediate) rewards for investing the time, as his games are won & lost far before reaching the ending. you only have so much time & en ...[text shortened]... your disposal, so it makes sense to put it into work which gives the most bang for a buck.
Study of tactics may be most important, but without endgame knowledge even these studies may be meaningless.
15 Sep 08
Originally posted by petrovitchyeah, that's a very good point. and I must say it's been my experience as well now that I've finally gotten into endgame training during the last year or so. but at the same time, there's very little change in my playing strength. where as during the heavy tactical training it was constant progress. (can't really do both at the same time, I simply run out of steam.)
It my contention to suggest that while beginners may not reach the endgame that this is not the purpose of the study. Endgame study teaches piece coordination. Beginners move pieces one by one without purpose. Learning how the pieces work together moves them to a new level of understanding. Even players rated below 1800. Ask them to create a plan and ...[text shortened]... tics may be most important, but without endgame knowledge even these studies may be meaningless.
15 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by wormwoodI first saw the light after learning R+2P v R. This gave me a whole new understanding of what the game was all about. It's more than just chasing the king. It's about predetermined ideas that can only be created after you understand them. You can't begin to create until you have an understanding of what is possible.
yeah, that's a very good point. and I must say it's been my experience as well now that I've finally gotten into endgame training during the last year or so. but at the same time, there's very little change in my playing strength. where as during the heavy tactical training it was constant progress. (can't really do both at the same time, I simply run out of steam.)
That would be like me trying to play Jimi Hendrix leads on the guitar without understanding the relationship of major and relative minor scales. Wind Cries Mary Hendrix plays a major progression followed by the same thing in a relative minor. Hendrix did with a minor pentatonic what Fischer did with the endgame. He created something beautiful.
Likewise, you can't deconstruct a fortress if you don't understand how it is to be constructed. Without this knowledge your opponent could easily obtain a draw from a game you had won. That's not fair; drop a win you fought so hard for just because the other guy knew a technical combination. It's not about who can think the best or knows the most -- it's about combining the two. Many times strategy and tactics play out simultaneously; one without the other leads to certain defeat.
15 Sep 08
what an amazing analogy, thanks Petrovich, this is the most sence i have heard for ages and is quite inspirational, i do enjoy learning endgame stuff but was persuaded that there was no practical value in it for someone of my measly rating, however this is something quite different that you are saying, thanks
'a broom is drearily sweeping, up the broken pieces of yesterdays life, somewhere a queen is weeping, somewhere a king has no wife, and the wind cries Mary', - J Marshall Hendrix.