Choosing your end game

I am finishing a game in which the end game I entered into I saw from the start of it.

I knew he had nothing on the side his king was on so I gave him that side. I had a bishop on my side I could sac to stop the passed pawn he could make. On my side it was my king and pawn against his pawn.


I saw that this was a win after deciding I could not save my two pawns on the side his king controlled.

This is new to me, making a decision to enter a known won endgame. How often does this happen for you?

1. Discussing an on-going game is bad form.

2. Knowing which endgames are won, lost, or drawn is the critical decision-point when to trade down in a mid-game.

3. In every game where no blunder occurs in the opening.

Originally posted by @moonbus
1. Discussing an on-going game is bad form.

2. Knowing which endgames are won, lost, or drawn is the critical decision-point when to trade down in a mid-game.

3. In every game where no blunder occurs in the opening.

Perhaps bad form so I should edit out the paticulars. But then I am not discussing the game, just describing my thinking once the game is all but over. I'm not sure why that should be bad form.

In any case, it is a first for me to see how things would go that far off.

Much of chess for me is simply opportunity. So for a 1500 it isn't too important to know the end game because my opponent hasn't a clue either. Maybe it is more of a 1900 skill.

...How often does this happen for you?

Quite often. The two big questions for me are:

1. Where should my King go?
2. What pieces do I want on the board?

Question 1 often involves if my King should be attacking enemy pawns or helping my pawns advance.

Question 2 involves getting rid of Bishops and Knights if I have a passed pawn or keeping them on the board if my opponent has the passed pawn. I think the theory is Bishops and Knights are excellent blockaders of passed pawns.

Originally posted by @montymoose
...How often does this happen for you?

Quite often. The two big questions for me are:

1. Where should my King go?
2. What pieces do I want on the board?

Question 1 often involves if my King should be attacking enemy pawns or helping my pawns advance.

Question 2 involves getting rid of Bishops and Knights if I have a passed pawn or keeping th ...[text shortened]... passed pawn. I think the theory is Bishops and Knights are excellent blockaders of passed pawns.

How many moves out do your thoughts go? Are they relatively short ideas of moving pieces or general plan of how the game will be played out from that point forward?

Knights are blockades while bishops can work both sides of the board.

I saw what has taken about 11 moves to work out, with about 5 more to queen then however many to mate k q vs k.

I've never seen this far out.

With pieces on the board, I usually have short term plans, 2-3 moves ahead, but no more than that.

With passed pawns I see a general plan on how to win and work towards that goal. This becomes a matter of technique, not planning as such.

Originally posted by @montymoose
With pieces on the board, I usually have short term plans, 2-3 moves ahead, but no more than that.

With passed pawns I see a general plan on how to win and work towards that goal. This becomes a matter of technique, not planning as such.

Generally I agree with you. In the case that I described the position was such that I knew the exact moves that would be played.

It was a unique situation for me and wondered if stronger players have this happen more often or if it very rare even for them.

Originally posted by @eladar
Generally I agree with you. In the case that I described the position was such that I knew the exact moves that would be played.

It was a unique situation for me and wondered if stronger players have this happen more often or if it very rare even for them.

When this sort of thing happens less and less, when you bring it to fruition more and more, you will know that you are advancing towards strategic understanding of the game.

Originally posted by @moonbus
When this sort of thing happens less and less, when you bring it to fruition more and more, you will know that you are advancing towards strategic understanding of the game.

That's why I need to get that middle game manual.

More and more I think the middle game is positional play. This, of course, is not an either/or situation. But when I hear the mantra 'tactics, tactics, tactics', I think 'positional play gives birth to tacticical shots'.

Originally posted by @eladar
That's why I need to get that middle game manual.

"Chess Strategy for Club Players" by Herman Grooten.

Originally posted by @moonbus
"Chess Strategy for Club Players" by Herman Grooten.

Attacking chess worth buying with this one?

Originally posted by @eladar
Attacking chess worth buying with this one?

I have not read "Attacking chess" and so cannot comment. Start with the first one I mentioned; there is plenty of material there to digest. It will put 400 points on your rating.

Originally posted by @eladar
I am finishing a game in which the end game I entered into I saw from the start of it.

I knew he had nothing on the side his king was on so I gave him that side. I had a bishop on my side I could sac to stop the passed pawn he could make. On my side it was my king and pawn against his pawn.


I saw that this was a win after deciding I could not save my ...[text shortened]... s new to me, making a decision to enter a known won endgame. How often does this happen for you?

I just finished this one, deliberately trading down to opposite-color bishops because I saw he could not stop my pawns.

ZorroTheFox vs. BDP