Originally posted by robbie carrobie Gulp!, i have McKay version, manufactured in he United States of America, game 8, mmmm, that would be J.Mieses v Capa, Berlin 1913, centre game. will check it out, but i need to prepare my mind before attempting the endgame stuff.
I don't have the book in front of me at the moment, but no, I don't think it's "Game 8", it's "Example 8". Example 8 is just a single endgame position in the endgame section.
It's not a big deal - Like GP said, you can skip the endgame examples if you like. I just thought you might get a kick out of a typo in a famous Capa book. 🙂
Originally posted by Mad Rook I don't have the book in front of me at the moment, but no, I don't think it's "Game 8", it's "Example 8". Example 8 is just a single endgame position in the endgame section.
It's not a big deal - Like GP said, you can skip the endgame examples if you like. I just thought you might get a kick out of a typo in a famous Capa book. 🙂
here is the diagram Rook my friend
example eight
capa states
in the above position white cant win by 1.P-B5 (f5). blacks best answer would be P-kt3 (g6) draws (the student should work this out)
Originally posted by Mad Rook Yes, that is the position. The problem is, 1.f5 does win. You can prove it by plugging the position into the online Shredder endgame tablebases:
Endgames are sexy, and Capablanca is right to start there. That he failed to check a few of the solutions with Shredder should not detract from the insights gained from seeing how he thinks one ought to approach endgames. Even when his conclusion is wrong, his approach is correct.
Originally posted by Wulebgr Endgames are sexy, and Capablanca is right to start there. That he failed to check a few of the solutions with Shredder should not detract from the insights gained from seeing how he thinks one ought to approach endgames. Even when his conclusion is wrong, his approach is correct.
Yeah, back then "Shredder" was run on an abacus, and the 'algorithm' was printed on paper. Running through tablebases then would be as boring and tedious as, well, studying endgames is today. 😛
Originally posted by SwissGambit Yeah, back then "Shredder" was run on an abacus, and the 'algorithm' was printed on paper. Running through tablebases then would be as boring and tedious as, well, studying endgames is today. 😛
ummm, what are table bases if you do not mind me asking?
Get a copy of Silman's Endgame Course and study it seriously -- that'll get you past 1800. Then study anything by Averbach or Dvortsky. Be patient. You may learn how to solve endgame problem in just a few minutes, but it takes much longer to learn to create these positions in your games. It is also a requirement to read Nimzowitsch's My System. Some of his ideas remain unproven, but read it anyway -- it will teach you how to think. Study the endgame about 15 minutes every day and you'll have a basic understanding in about a year.
Download a copy of this study. It will help. http://personalchesstraining.com/endgame.pdf
Originally posted by Goshen It takes so long to be good at chess. I don't know why i even bother...
oh my friend, take heart, it is a mountainous journey, a trek through the Hindu Kush, over glaziers and torrent valleys, rockfalls and difficult precipices but one must keep the summit in mind, persevere and you will prevail!
Capablanca, chess fundamentals
04 Aug '09 13:04
Back to Top