Jose said: "In order to improve your game you must study the endgame before anything else; for whereas the endings can be studied and mastered by themselves, the middlegame and the opening must be studied in relation to the endgame." Who here has followed this advice? Who here has done the opposite?
Capablanca was a superb endgame player. Loved end games, even at the beginning of his career. It's understandable he advocates lots of study of this feature and i think it has value. BUT first you have to get into the endgame in decent shape. In my case, by the time the endgame is reached I'm losing by one or two pawns and have no hope or I'm up one or two pawns and it practically plays itself. There are however several endgames where i had to consult the books for advice, usually Fine's Basic Chess Endings and learned something in the process. At the beginning of his career Capablanca knew almost nothing of openings so his technique was to fight his way into the endgame where his talent and knowledge would come to the fore. You can read lots of his early games, where he was in trouble out of the opening, then gradually he turn things around.
Originally posted by buddy2Capa was probably the best endgame player ever. The first - and for a long time - the only chess book he had ever read was on endgames.
Capablanca was a superb endgame player. Loved end games, even at the beginning of his career. It's understandable he advocates lots of study of this feature and i think it has value. BUT first you have to get into the endgame in decent shape. In my case, by the time the endgame is reached I'm losing by one or two pawns and have no hope or I'm up one or ...[text shortened]... s early games, where he was in trouble out of the opening, then gradually he turn things around.
You can take his point, though, and learn from your unfavourable position in the endgame and track back to the point where you lost those pawns. What went wrong, how did that happen, could it have been avoided? Perhaps even your bad position could go back to the opening where you made an unnecessary move that came back to punish you. A good endgame goes back to a solid opening and sound positional play in the middlegame.
In this game Game 1133921 I thought I was in reasonable shape in the endgame. Although a pawn down I thought there was a possibility of holding him to a draw. No chance - the structural weaknesses of my second move which I had failed to rectify in the middlegame were shown up badly. 30. Bd5 was the killer move and I should have resigned on the spot. I now have the choice of giving up the Falkbeer or understanding and playing it better.
So, yes, a good grasp of the endgame is vital in creating advantages throughout the game. A snaffled pawn here, an isolated pawn there, a passed pawn - all give you small advantages which you come to appreciate in the endgame, if you get there.
Understanding the endgame, then, can affect your choice of openings. If, for example, you play the Albin Counter Gambit you must realise that you're tossing away pawns for an attacking advantage and that *if* you reach the endgame, you're probably sunk, so you've got to continue to play aggressively.
You need to have a sound understanding of endings in order to play middlegames properly.
There will be many times when you have the option of exchanging down to an ending. You need to know if this is winning (and also whether you actually know how to win it - no point liquidating to a theoretically won ending you can't actually win). If it isn't winning, you stay in the middlegame.
I was taught from the endings 'backwards', and I taught my kids the same way.
Originally posted by bobbob1056thI agree with Capa's advice. As a relative beginner, I sometimes have trouble formulating a plan. Having a clearer idea of your destination, is certainly helpful when you're trying to figure out how to get there.
Jose said: "In order to improve your game you must study the endgame before anything else; for whereas the endings can be studied and mastered by themselves, the middlegame and the opening must be studied in relation to the endgame." Who here has followed this advice? Who here has done the opposite?
Originally posted by bobbob1056thI did the opposite.
Jose said: "In order to improve your game you must study the endgame before anything else; for whereas the endings can be studied and mastered by themselves, the middlegame and the opening must be studied in relation to the endgame." Who here has followed this advice? Who here has done the opposite?
Originally posted by bobbob1056thI'm not sure where I fit in here.... I learned endgames through experience, and I trully think I'm a good endgame player. In the meantime, I've been using books to help me learn openings and middle-games, where my play is not as controlled. But either way, I'm not Capablanca, I'm my own player, so meh.
Jose said: "In order to improve your game you must study the endgame before anything else; for whereas the endings can be studied and mastered by themselves, the middlegame and the opening must be studied in relation to the endgame." ...[text shortened]... ho here has followed this advice? Who here has done the opposite?
-Kev