It strains credulity to find a 2200+ player that's not familiar with Saavedra's position. Or that's never read a chess book or entered a chess club.
/the horse
//I think I saw it move
///beat it again
I've seen some fairly strong street players that don't know opening thoery (etc.) but still play 1800+ tactically. Hypothetically you could get to master strength and maybe above if you had regular master-level opponents. But this sort of player (if he even exists) isn't likely to join an online correspondence site.
////Ok it stopped moving
6 edits
In response to the post by Cludi on page 6 of this thread (I tried to do a direct quote but the system kept removing important parts of your quote)
I agree with you regarding learning openings and even opening principles. With regard to learning middlegame play, I think you underestimate the amount of effort involved that a person would have to exert if they expected to learn without the aid of interactive help e.g. only using books, tactics training programs, etc. Overall, I would say we disagree about learning middlegame play. Learning endgame play is a funny thing - I agree that it can be very difficult learning basic endgames from books alone, but I think once a player reaches a certain level of endgame proficiency, learning more endgame knowledge actually becomes easier! Consider the following example: We have a player who, if informed whose turn it is to move, can immediately state the correct outcome of any K+P vs. K position we present. We then give this player the classic Reti problem (White to move and draw; White: Kh8, Pc6 Black: Ka6, Ph5). I'm not saying that our hypothetical player could solve the problem, but I am saying that this person could learn the principle involved in its solution almost as easily from a book as they could from a tutor. So with regard to learning endgames, we sort of agree and sort of disagree.
Originally posted by AlboMalapropFoozerLearning endgames has to be a mixture of practice and study, but I would emphasise the study. Practice mainly helps if the opponent has at least the same (preferably higher) insight in the problems faced.
In response to the post by [b]Cludi on page 6 of this thread (I tried to do a direct quote but the system kept removing important parts of your quote)
I agree with you regarding learning openings and even opening principles. With regard to learning middlegame play, I think you underestimate the amount of effort involved that a person would ...[text shortened]... could from a tutor. So with regard to learning endgames, we sort of agree and sort of disagree.[/b]
As a sidenote, OTB games don't too often lead to interesting endgames, as the majority of games are decided before that phase at the average club level.
Originally posted by Mephisto2I don't think you can learn endgames without study...an almost unimaginable amount of study.
Learning endgames has to be a mixture of practice and study, but I would emphasise the study. Practice mainly helps if the opponent has at least the same (preferably higher) insight in the problems faced.
As a sidenote, OTB games don't too often lead to interesting endgames, as the majority of games are decided before that phase at the average club level.
Originally posted by Red NightI think the amount of study required is not nearly so large as you believe. For example, let's consider rook endings. I think once a player knows the Lucena and Philidor positions, that should be sufficient until the player reaches 1800 or so. Once they reach that level, they could read a booklet like "Practical Rook Endings" by GM Edmar Mednis, which should be good enough until they reach Master strength. I happen to think studying rook endgames is kind of fun, but the fact of the matter is that only once (out of hundreds of tournament games) did my study of a well known Gregoriev problem (given in the classic work "Rook Endings" by Levenfish & Smyslov) actually prove useful. I think the key to studying endgames is limiting one's study to those positions which have a reasonable possibility of occurring someday. I'm a big fan of GM Mednis' endgame books as well as books like "Improve Your Endgame" or "Practical Endgame Play - Beyond the Basics", both books by GM Glenn Flear. I don't think it's necessary to go cover to cover through "Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual" unless one is already a strong player and has goals of going for some type of FIDE title e.g. FM, IM, or GM.
I don't think you can learn endgames without study...an almost unimaginable amount of study.
1 edit
Originally posted by AlboMalapropFoozerEndgames, short of basic endings are extremely difficult and as has been pointed out already rarely met OTB so study of them in depth until you reach IM or GM level rarely pays the dividends that study of openings and tactics pays.
I think the amount of study required is not nearly so large as you believe. For example, let's consider rook endings. I think once a player knows the Lucena and Philidor positions, that should be sufficient until the player reaches 1800 or so. Once they reach that level, they could read a booklet like "Practical Rook Endings" by GM Edmar Mednis, w g player and has goals of going for some type of FIDE title e.g. FM, IM, or GM.
I have over a dozen end game books (mainly a series by Averbach) all of which I have flipped through but none have been studied in detail in the 20 years I have owned them.
I tell myself I have them to refer to in the event of an adjournment but in the last 20 years no adjourned position has come up OTB that warranted this.
Of course when you can play dozens or even 100s of games here the situation can change but even here I have only had about 5 or 6 games that warranted reference to these books, i.e. about 1 game out of every 100-200 played. I did have my 1st K & 2Ns vs K & P (won but I messed it up and drew) and a K & R vs K, R & 2Ps where my end game manual helped secure a draw (with about an hours work on every move). The other games going to these theorectical endings I either already knew (they were in the more "basic" category) or the books were of no use.
So I think a valid point has been made. The amount of end game study required increases dramatically for small gains in ability and limited practical benefit once you know the basics. It is so enormous that anyone who says they know it and can recognise a position instantly is lying. Even GMs fail OTB with endings of the sort I referred to above.
Originally posted by Dragon Firehmm, in this case why it is said that studying endings it is the best way for your chess to improve(not talking about basic endings I suppose)
Endgames, short of basic endings are extremely difficult and as has been pointed out already rarely met OTB so study of them in depth until you reach IM or GM level rarely pays the dividends that study of openings and tactics pays.
I have over a dozen end game books (mainly a series by Averbach) all of which I have flipped through but none have been s ...[text shortened]... a position instantly is lying. Even GMs fail OTB with endings of the sort I referred to above.
1 edit
Originally posted by DawgHausMaybe you're talking about me when I get my rating graph up. I play good blitz, but I realize I suck at CC.
It strains credulity to find a 2200+ player that's not familiar with Saavedra's position. Or that's never read a chess book or entered a chess club.
/the horse
//I think I saw it move
///beat it again
I've seen some fairly strong street players that don't know opening thoery (etc.) but still play 1800+ tactically. Hypothetically you could get to m ...[text shortened]... en exists) isn't likely to join an online correspondence site.
////Ok it stopped moving
I play engines all the time though on Chessmaster 10th Edition, and I was able to beat 2000 rate coms multiple times
Originally posted by AlboMalapropFoozerI guess I was looking back to my earlier days when I spent 18 months playing through BCE, which proved to be not nearly enough time.
I think the amount of study required is not nearly so large as you believe. For example, let's consider rook endings. I think once a player knows the Lucena and Philidor positions, that should be sufficient until the player reaches 1800 or so. Once they reach that level, they could read a booklet like "Practical Rook Endings" by GM Edmar Mednis, w ...[text shortened]... g player and has goals of going for some type of FIDE title e.g. FM, IM, or GM.
And I have to agree with DF that the short-term beneift of that study was probably negligible and the long-term non-existent.
Originally posted by vipiubecause endings can help with
hmm, in this case why it is said that studying endings it is the best way for your chess to improve(not talking about basic endings I suppose)
(a) tactics and strategy; and
(b) you learn which sort of positions to aim for.
but studying them in exhaustive detail hoping they will come up in your games is unlikely to give a direct benefit (i.e. you are unlikely to see that position in 100s of games, especially OTB where endings are rarely reached and if they are its a blitz finish).
1 edit
Originally posted by Dragon FireApparantly I don't study the endgames the way you do. I don't try to memorize hundreds of positions hoping one of them will just come about by happenstance.
because endings can help with
(a) tactics and strategy; and
(b) you learn which sort of positions to aim for.
but studying them in exhaustive detail hoping they will come up in your games is unlikely to give a direct benefit (i.e. you are unlikely to see that position in 100s of games, especially OTB where endings are rarely reached and if they are its a blitz finish).
I study the endgame so I will learn to coordinate my pieces, and learn how to do things with them that is not intuitive.
Without an understanding of critical positions and ideas how could I hope to create them? Your argument is like saying, "I should not learn to paint because I will never become a great artist, " or "I should not learn instrument flight rules because I will never become a commercial pilot." I've been caught in a lot of storms where a fundamental understanding of IFR has come in handy.
The more anyone learns about the endgame the more it will benefit their understanding of the entire game. Again, using the analogy of aviation, it's like a flight plan. You can't get there if you don't know where you are going. The game of chess is not about checkmate or attacking the king; it's about finding the beauty of solving complex problems.
The study and memorization of openings is a waste of time. You can't possibly memorize every opening line even in a single variation. I've played hundreds of games with players who have memorized opening lines and then the second you get out of book their games fall apart immediately because they have no understanding of how to use their pieces. The study of endgame has a direct impact on middlegame, and an indirect impact on the opening. I'll use aviation as analogy one more time. Anyone can launch an aircraft. Taking-off is easy. It's a lot more difficult to teach student pilots to land safely. So as a chess player you think it's okay to take-off in the opening, fly around a while, then crash and burn because you don't know how to land the endgame.
If you are a student SCUBA diver, it is easy to drop into the water and suck-in the air, but if you see a snake and rush to the top then your lungs would explode. So, it's all about the ending.
1 edit
Originally posted by petrovitchApparently you do study endgames the way I do.
Apparantly I don't study the endgames the way you do. I don't try to memorize hundreds of positions hoping one of them will just come about by happenstance.
I study the endgame so I will learn to coordinate my pieces, and learn how to do things with them that is not intuitive.
Without an understanding of critical positions and ideas how could I ho o the top then your lungs would explode. So, [b]it's all about the ending.[/b]
I study them to understand basic principles, what to aim for and what to avoid, how to get my pieces working together better if I get there, etc.
but we get off the point as I think we were talking at one stage about someone who alledgedly memorised detailed ending variations and I am merely saying that is a pointless excercise unlikely to serve any valid purpose.
As far as openings are concerned you study them to understand the basic opening principles so you can avoid common pitfalls and apply them when you get out of book. If you do not understand why you are playing certain moves then as soon as you leave your DB you will blunder and lose as I have seen happen so often.