1 edit
I was having myself a good thinking session earlier today and I know most of you are saying, "Oh no. How bad is it this time?" but I have a theory. My theory is that you should devote 90% of your chess study time to endgames, serious devoted study, 9% on tactics and 1% on your openings (knowing one main opening for each color and the various replies to those openings) and the middle game patterns that result from those openings. Say after 2 years of this study(just going to assume say six hours day. eight hour work day, six hour study, two hour freetime.) You were an endgame virtuoso supremo. What do you think your rating would be (if you could just snap your fingers and be at your true rating)? Might be dif for some.
Originally posted by tomtom232"The endgame starts with the first move." Not my quote but very profound. 🙂
I was having myself a good thinking session earlier today and I know most of you are saying, "Oh no. How bad is it this time?" but I have a theory. My theory is that you should devote 90% of your chess study time to endgames, serious devoted study, 9% on tactics and 1% on your openings (knowing one main opening for each color and the various replies to th ...[text shortened]... ld be (if you could just snap your fingers and be at your true rating)? Might be dif for some.
Originally posted by tomtom232what about life, and family and friends and watching cartoons and playing the wii?
I was having myself a good thinking session earlier today and I know most of you are saying, "Oh no. How bad is it this time?" but I have a theory. My theory is that you should devote 90% of your chess study time to endgames, serious devoted study, 9% on tactics and 1% on your openings (knowing one main opening for each color and the various replies to th ...[text shortened]... ld be (if you could just snap your fingers and be at your true rating)? Might be dif for some.
2 edits
Originally posted by tomtom232I think we have a living example of that: petrovich in RHP. (not a perfect example of course). I remember being very surprised to see his rating below 2100. I was expecting something around 2300~2400, because he knows so much about the endgame.
I was having myself a good thinking session earlier today and I know most of you are saying, "Oh no. How bad is it this time?" but I have a theory. My theory is that you should devote 90% of your chess study time to endgames, serious devoted study, 9% on tactics and 1% on your openings (knowing one main opening for each color and the various replies to th ...[text shortened]... ld be (if you could just snap your fingers and be at your true rating)? Might be dif for some.
and by the way, your theory doesn't make sense to me. let's say you are below expert level. hardly 3~4 in 10 of your games will make it to a playable endgame for both sides, and 90% doesn't seem very logical in this case.
let's say you are above expert level. then, %1 to opening study is just way too low, there's very little chance you'll survive with that kind of opening knowledge up there.
1 edit
Originally posted by philidor positionI was exaggerating plus I was expecting most who were to take the game that serious to already know the openings they use inside and out. Also, opening knowledge is something you can "learn as you go." What I mean is when you are thrown off by a weird move you can analyse it in post mortem then look it up in a database.
I think we have a living example of that: petrovich in RHP. (not a perfect example of course). I remember being very surprised to see his rating below 2100. I was expecting something around 2300~2400, because he knows so much about the endgame.
and by the way, your theory doesn't make sense to me. let's say you are below expert level. hardly 3~ w, there's very little chance you'll survive with that kind of opening knowledge up there.
Originally posted by philidor positionI agree. But i also agree that it is very important to know your engames. I'd say, for a player below master: 30%endgames 20%tactics, 10%strategy, 10%opening, 10% studying games of masters and 20% analysing your one games, something like that would give you an all-around good training
I think we have a living example of that: petrovich in RHP. (not a perfect example of course). I remember being very surprised to see his rating below 2100. I was expecting something around 2300~2400, because he knows so much about the endgame.
and by the way, your theory doesn't make sense to me. let's say you are below expert level. hardly 3~ ...[text shortened]... w, there's very little chance you'll survive with that kind of opening knowledge up there.
Originally posted by greenpawn34I don't know if I agree with that. Tactics are tactics and relevant to each stage of the game, if you get someone with a knight fork then it's the same in both phases. The fundamental difference between the end game and the middle game is that in endings your king is not in serious danger of checkmate because of the reduced amount of material and therefore can be used as an attacker, but this is a strategic difference, what each player is trying to achieve changes, but the tactical building blocks remain the same.
Splitting up your study into percentages is a nice idea but you
have the percentages slightly wrong.
90% middle game tactics.
9% Endgame
1% openings.
Sadly with a lot of players it's 100% openings.
For beginners endings are easier to understand than middle games due to the reduced material, which makes analysing positions completely easier. The main flaw with my chess is that I don't check threats correctly, both mine and my opponents. This is a lot easier to learn to do as a beginner as you don't have to unlearn sloppy thinking habits 🙁. The single thing that most affects how strong a player is is their calculational ability, and checking threats completely is fundamental to this. The advantage of the ending is that the situation is simpler, so it's easy to get into the habit of checking every threat correctly, until you do it sub-consciously.
In this game, on move 22 I had planned 22. Bxf6 expecting 22. ... Bxf6 23. Rxe8 Rxe8 24. Nh7+ winning the exchange. Because I'm trying to get into the habit of checking all threats I looked at the "stupid" 22. Qxg6, which "I can't do" due to the pawn being protected. As it turns out it's better than what I had planned as I get both the exchange and a couple of pawns, which came in handy when I blundered the exchange back later (move 33).
Once I'd finished the game I checked it with Crafty which, to my irritation, pointed out that 22. Ne6 is better still. I also missed 37. Kf3 when black has a choice between giving up the rook or allowing 38. g4#.
1 edit
Originally posted by greenpawn34I tend to agree.
Splitting up your study into percentages is a nice idea but you
have the percentages slightly wrong.
90% middle game tactics.
9% Endgame
1% openings.
Sadly with a lot of players it's 100% openings.
the thing with endgame is it's an investment for the future. in most cases at club level the game will be dead lost or won before reaching the ending, so it won't matter. it will increase your understanding of middlegame and openings (I'd go as far as say you won't really understand modern openings before you understand endings), even your games will be better, but it won't show in your rating until you get everything else at 2000+ level. it WILL make a decisive difference after that, when people stop falling into the tactical tricks (on regular basis), but not much before.
still, the bottom line is: at some point, you'll need to pick up the endgame if you ever want to get good, so you might as well save yourself from wrong thinking patterns and get on with it straight from the beginning. in moderation of course.
