Endgame study

Originally posted by wormwood
the first time I got KNB in blitz, I had 25 seconds which should've been enough. but because the human opponent made weird moves, I fumbled about 30 moves before I finally got the opponent into the 'starting corner' with 3 seconds to go.

about 15 moves later I timed out 1 move (I think) before the mate.


that's what easily happens against a human, no matter how well you have prepared against engine.

We are getting a little off topic as regards the purpose of this thread, so to the author I do apologize.

You point there is regards time management, if you had played your opening/middlegame moves faster then you would of had more time for the endgame. So in that situation I think spending alot of time studying unusual replies in endgames wouldn't of helped a great deal due to time issues.

My basic point is that I think people should study the principles and understand them fully, with proper knowledge of how to win the so called winning position it shouldn't matter a great deal if the person plays an unusual move.

Originally posted by Audacious
We are getting a little off topic as regards the purpose of this thread, so to the author I do apologize.

You point there is regards time management, if you had played your opening/middlegame moves faster then you would of had more time for the endgame. So in that situation I think spending alot of time studying unusual replies in endgames wouldn't of ...[text shortened]... called winning position it shouldn't matter a great deal if the person plays an unusual move.

no, my point was that I would've mated an engine in 10s, but mating a human took twice as long both on time AND moves, resulting almost into a draw by 50-move rule.

that's not just a time management problem, it's an endgame technique problem.

girls,girls,girls stop fighting. 🙂

wormwood is right btw.

Originally posted by wormwood
no, my point was that I would've mated an engine in 10s, but mating a human took twice as long both on time AND moves, resulting almost into a draw by 50-move rule.

that's not just a time management problem, it's an endgame technique problem.

So you're basically saying that you'd whoop an engines ass which makes the best moves but you'd have trouble with a human making weak moves ? The logic ain't quiet working for me there lol

So yeah it comes down to time and knowledge for me.

Originally posted by Audacious
So you're basically saying that you'd whoop an engines ass which makes the best moves but you'd have trouble with a human making weak moves ? The logic ain't quiet working for me there lol

So yeah it comes down to time and knowledge for me.

yep, that's exactly what I'm saying, in a way at least. and greenpawn. and varenka.



you'll find out it's true soon enough. 🙂

Originally posted by Audacious
So you're basically saying that you'd whoop an engines ass which makes the best moves but you'd have trouble with a human making weak moves ? The logic ain't quiet working for me there lol

So yeah it comes down to time and knowledge for me.

So you're basically saying that you'd whoop an engines ass which makes the best moves but you'd have trouble with a human making weak moves ?

Certainly when the engine always makes the same best move and you learn the response to it - you play fast. A human player can divert you down some unfamiliar back roads rather than the same old familiar best move.

The difference is between having the move already committed to memory - an automatic response if you like - and having to make a new complex calculation at the board.

We're talking set piece endgames here.

Originally posted by Mahout
[b]So you're basically saying that you'd whoop an engines ass which makes the best moves but you'd have trouble with a human making weak moves ?

Certainly when the engine always makes the same best move and you learn the response to it - you play fast. A human player can divert you down some unfamiliar back roads rather than the same old familiar best ...[text shortened]... n automatic response if you like - and having to make a new complex calculation at the board.[/b]

But that is proving my point, if you learn the principle behind the position it shouldn't matter if the move is unusual or not you still know how to go about winning it. It may take you 10 moves or 30 moves but you win it.

Originally posted by Audacious
But that is proving my point, if you learn the principle behind the position it shouldn't matter if the move is unusual or not you still know how to go about winning it. It may take you 10 moves or 30 moves but you win it.

Not necessarily. It may take you longer causing you to lose on time and it may take you more moves causing you to draw by the 50 move rule.

The reason it takes longer is obvious and the reason it takes more moves will be due to errors. Making deep calculations live at the board is more prone to mistakes than playing through a familiar pattern.

Hence - in some endgames it can be harder to play a human opponent than a powerful computer.

Originally posted by Mahout
Not necessarily. It may take you longer causing you to lose on time and it may take you more moves causing you to draw by the 50 move rule.

The reason it takes longer is obvious and the reason it takes more moves will be due to errors. Making deep calculations live at the board is more prone to mistakes than playing through a familiar pattern.

Hence - in some endgames it can be harder to play a human opponent than a powerful computer.

This convo is going on WAY too long lol and is well off topic. So final post from me.

Time and errors in play are vast throughout chess, the strong players and people who make it to the top make very few errors in their games. My point as I have stressed throughout this thread, is that I believe if you fully understand the principles of why the position is winning and how you should win it, it shouldn't matter if the opp plays the best or worst move because your reply should be the best move because you fully understand the theory behind the position.

Originally posted by Audacious
So you're basically saying that you'd whoop an engines ass which makes the best moves but you'd have trouble with a human making weak moves ? The logic ain't quiet working for me there lol

So yeah it comes down to time and knowledge for me.

I don't think he meant having "trouble" as in "omg I don't know what to do now", but he means it demands some thinking, which he, strangely enough, doesn't like to do much 😛

seriously. you don't want to think much in blitz, ideally you should never have to think in the opening and endgame. long games are another story.

(off topic, but I never understood why people study NB vs K and Q vs R anyway.)

and to the OP and others, if you like the drilling idea, chessimo ("personal chess trainor" a few years ago) is based on exactly the same idea. it forces you to drill the exercises over and over, and it has a nice set for endgames.

I personally don't like the drilling idea too much though. I don't believe any human can blitz even simple pawn endings perfectly (except PK vs P). they are a mess.

I mean take this one. this doesn't qualify for my argument as it is KP vs K, but nevertheless. white to move. . if you don't take your time (say 5-6 seconds for good blitzers, and for people like me, a lot more than that), you may want to hit your head against the wall for a while.

Originally posted by diskamyl
I don't think he meant having "trouble" as in "omg I don't know what to do now", but he means it demands some thinking, which he, strangely enough, doesn't like to do much 😛

seriously. you don't want to think much in blitz, ideally you should never have to think in the opening and endgame. long games are another story.

(off topic, but I never underst a lot more than that), you may want to hit your head against the wall for a while.

looks drawn to me

EDIT: oh wait it's not drawn. I see, I'd better keep that idea in mind for future endgames..

Originally posted by diskamyl
I don't think he meant having "trouble" as in "omg I don't know what to do now", but he means it demands some thinking, which he, strangely enough, doesn't like to do much 😛

seriously. you don't want to think much in blitz, ideally you should never have to think in the opening and endgame. long games are another story.

(off topic, but I never underst ...[text shortened]... a lot more than that), you may want to hit your head against the wall for a while.

Kb2 1-0 🙂

took 0.5 seconds for the drill guy. didn't have to think.

Originally posted by wormwood
Kb2 1-0 🙂

took 0.5 seconds for the drill guy. didn't have to think.

OK then 🙂. I have always sucked at claims with numbers (like 5-6 secs) on this forum anyway.

Originally posted by Audacious
This convo is going on WAY too long lol and is well off topic. So final post from me.

Time and errors in play are vast throughout chess, the strong players and people who make it to the top make very few errors in their games. My point as I have stressed throughout this thread, is that I believe if you fully understand the principles of why the positio your reply should be the best move because you fully understand the theory behind the position.

I believe if you fully understand the principles of why the position is winning and how you should win it, it shouldn't matter if the opp plays the best or worst move because your reply should be the best move because you fully understand the theory behind the position.


Compare fully understanding the theory of a position that has a forced checkmate some 20 moves away with the same scenario where you simply know the best move resulting from having played the position many many times before. The latter will be faster and more accurate.

In both cases you should be fine in correspondence chess with plenty of time and an analysis board to help with the calculations.

But in an OTB scenario with time constraints when given a less than best move - resulting in a checkmate say 12 moves away but producing an unfamiliar position - it's harder to play.

Speed is greater and errors are less likely when playing through a familiar sequence with a recognised pattern. A complex and unfamilar position presents more difficulty, is more prone to error and takes longer to play.

The only learned this from the experience of learning the Knight and Bishop versus lone king checkmate. (Yes even though some argue the position is so rare that the training is pointless...I just liked the challenge)

Once I learned the sequence of moves, which follow a pattern I became proficient to the point where I could take out the ICC training bot in a 30 move sequence in a matter of minutes. After this I found human opponents playing inferior moves took more time and was more prone to error...although the last 15 or so moves were the same for anyone I could slip up when forcing the king into the corner.

You might argue that I should train against a human opponent but I've yet to find one willing to sit for an hour shuffling a king around while I play the game of my life...even my dog gets bored of this one.

I think we're on topic here as we're discussing training in endgame technique.