What do you think? Should one spend much time on this field of chess? I´m not talking about the top level here as I think the endgame becomes more important there.
I might have to check my games better but my feeling is that the majority of the games are decided in the middle game and are normally won or lost (or dead draw) when it reaches the endgame.
Since 100% of the games will have an opening and a middle game (well, 99% ) it might be best not to waist your time on endgame study but focus more on openings and the middle game. In my opinion one should study the middle game the most as it increases your understanding of the game a lot.
By this I am not saying that one shouldn´t look at endgames at all. Some basic endgames manouvers should be known like rook vs rook and pawn etc.
Originally posted by thbwell, tactics my dear friend is the solution! Study tactics and you will soon see your rating go up 1800 and then you can study endgame.(Endgame study is vital, but it is all about calculation, knowledge helps too but to some extent, computers for example play almost perfect ending and they suck at opening)
What do you think? Should one spend much time on this field of chess? I´m not talking about the top level here as I think the endgame becomes more important there.
I might have to check my games better but my feeling is that the majority of the games are decided in the middle game and are normally won or lost (or dead draw) when it reaches the endgame.
S ...[text shortened]... endgames at all. Some basic endgames manouvers should be known like rook vs rook and pawn etc.
Why tactics? and only tactics before you are 1800???
BEcause let's say you got a GM level endgame teqnique but if you cant see a 3 move combination coming at you, you will go endgame a piece down and your GM level endgame skill will not be visible!
Tactical study is not only for attack but it helps every phase of the game! I always say that and will keep saying it! But say if you do not know what is opposition and outflanking and king vs king and a pawn engdame that is different story. But still you can figure them out on the board.Endgame is pretty logical, (sometimes can be very illocigal, but you are talking about class level not gm or im level)
Study tactics and soon you will see wonders in your game!😉
In my opinion one should study the middle game the most as it increases your understanding of the game a lot.Studying middlegame is the most fun part. Reading books on it and see grandoise strategical battles between GMs. But Trust me i did it, and it only added some chess culture to me, not any Elo Rating points. For example one of the best books you can read about middle game is: Reasses your Chess By Jeremy Silman..Or Think Like a Grandmaster or Art of Middle Game by Keres.... I did read all, but what a waste of time was it then! If you are below 1800, it will improve your game maybe 3 percent or something!Now I am understanding what Silman was talking about, before it was all blurry tome me and I would mess everything up over the board. After studying tactics, i developed a firm grasp of the game. Is it better to know that not to castle is bad or solving 100 puzzles where the king gets mated in the middle of the board? You ponder that out!
Say, If your opponent didnt castle early you tell yourself ''Gee, he doesnt know chess, he should have castled'' but you wont know how to punish him. But if you know solved 100 puzzles on it, you will know 100 ways to punish him swiftly😵
Let me be more conrete from a book i recently read:
In Think like a grandmaster, Kotov writes ''All Candidate moves should be identified at once and listed in one's head'' This advice is of course simply ridicoulus for the class player. Unless a specific algorithm is given for identifiying the candiatae moves this is equivalent to saying ''If there is a five move combination that wins, make the five-move combination'' I can imagine a post mortem conversation between Kotov and a class player
Class player '' here I played Rooka7''
Kotov: ''You should not have played that move''
Class player: ''Why?''
Kotov : ''It is not a candidate move''
🙂🙂
We've had this discussion before but I think studying the endgame is critical (after tactics, of course) because you see how the small advantages in the opening and middle game translate into a winning endgame. Passed, doubled, isolated pawns all count for or against you when you get there. Once you see how much these advantages count, you can play better earlier in the game.
On the face of it this game looks fairly even although I was a pawn down but the moment we reached the endgame I could see that I was dead. I played on a bit but I was wasting my time. Game 1133921
Originally posted by buffalobillThat was a terribly good king run to b7, i like it😀
We've had this discussion before but I think studying the endgame is critical (after tactics, of course) because you see how the small advantages in the opening and middle game translate into a winning endgame. Passed, doubled, isolated pawns all count for or against you when you get there. Once you see how much these advantages count, you can play bett ...[text shortened]... ame I could see that I was dead. I played on a bit but I was wasting my time. Game 1133921
Originally posted by tolikcheturiI agree that Kotov’s method in “Think Like a GM” is too simplistic and rigid. Authors such as Tisdall, Nunn, Soltis and Dvoretsky have since written good follow ups to this. But largely, they don’t dismiss the method; they refine it.
Let me be more conrete from a book i recently read:
>> “Candidate moves should be identified at once and listed in one's head''
Kotov was naïve to think that all candidate moves can be generated upfront. The other authors have since pointed out that some candidate moves may only be realised after some other calculation, etc. So Kotov’s advice isn’t useful from this point of view.
However, what Kotov is trying to suggest is that a player should generally consider what all the candidate moves are in a given position before focusing on any one of them. This is good advice. Too often, a player starts calculating the first move that comes into their head. But this can be a waste of time and effort if some other move – which may be obviously better – is overlooked. In one of my recent games I spent about 5 minutes calculating a sacrifice to try to mate my opponent’s king. It seemed like the most natural continuation and I dived straight into thinking about it. Then I realised that my opponent had a mate in 1 threat. My earlier calculation became totally redundant.
Your hypothetical chat with Kotov should be something like:
Class player '' here I played Rooka7''
Kotov: “ok, but before you spent too much time calculating Rook a7, did you consider what other moves were also appealing? You can investigate Rook a7 more deeply once you’ve had a shallow look around at other moves…”
V.
Originally posted by VarenkaYou are absolutely right to the point!!! However, I am not dismissing Kotov's but which is a chess classic for years, it is an outstanding piece of work! What I am trying to communicate is that, Class players should not even consider(!) reading this book before they get an expert rating. Then, they should read this book every six months over and over again! It teaches methodical thinking and many great chess players benefited from it for years...
I agree that Kotov’s method in “Think Like a GM” is too simplistic and rigid. Authors such as Tisdall, Nunn, Soltis and Dvoretsky have since written good follow ups to this. But largely, they don’t dismiss the method; they refine it.
>> “Candidate moves should be identified at once and listed in one's head''
Kotov was naïve to think that all candi ...[text shortened]... can investigate Rook a7 more deeply once you’ve had a shallow look around at other moves…”
V.
Hi! Mike here. I just posted in the forum above you then read yours. I am struggling with the same belief as you may read. Because once at the stage I was at, the endgame was the easy bit. I was in control of every move till the end once at move 16. It was getting to move 16 which I am lost as to how I achieved and don't think I could repeat, may be due to inexperience of game studies (like none) or because I don't have a strategy for middle game and almost sail on a wave until I see something. This part to me is almost still an unknown and I perceive as a great weakness in my game and the part, as I agree with you, where most study needs to be done. However as a relatively new begginer may I ask where does one begin to study? What is one looking for in a study? what do I record and why? Is it purely my own game and strengths or a catalogue of my opponents reactions? I want to start studying games but don't even know where to begin. Would you help me so I can learn more as to how I got to the strong position I did? Thnx...
Study basic endgames first--checkmate with queen and rook, queen and king, rook and king--then study tactics. The two skill areas are not exclusive, and when you're playing someone of the same ability as yourself, it may well come down to a pawn, which you turn into a queen.
Then after some tactics, master the opposition and other king and pawn endgame principles.
Openings should be last, as these are mere memorization without understanding if the study of openings precedes endgame and middlegame principles.
In your middlegame study, do not neglect positional considerations: mobility, vulnerability, piece coordination, center control, ...
Of course they can, but I can show you hundreds of games where my opponents (rated even higher than you) have demonstrated a lack of understanding of such fundamentals, although they rattled off book lines for the first fifteen moves.
Far too many players neglect sudy of all aspects of the endgame, even the easy stuff. The endgame is as putting in golf (the place you'll find the money). Just look at San Luis yesterday, for example, where the endgame was the battle for the points.
People that are new to chess should absolutely start with the fundamentals( ie opening principles, basic endgames, tactical themes such as fork/pin/discovery/etc.,and basic checkmate patterns). This info is readily available in most primers like Simon and Schuster Pocket Book of Chess or Chess for Dummies. There are probably dozens of websites that can show you this stuff for free as well. Beyond that, intensive tactics study will reap the fastest results for most people. The book Rapid Chess Improvement argues the case (tolikcheturi borrows very liberally from it in his previous posts), but the study program that the author outlines is probably unrealistic for most people. You can do ok by gettinga decent book of tactical puzzles and just going through it repeatedly until the solutions begin to get obvious for you. This is the basic idea in Rapid Chess Improvement. Don't get me wrong, if you have the time to use the author's regimen, it will no doubt reward you. But my point is that you simply must know some basic endgame ideas because they are part of the fundamentals. How can you find a tactic that produces a winning endgame if you don't know what a winning endgame looks like?