Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 06 Sep '10 23:16
    After reading a very very enjoyable book, which i would recommend, with out a moments hesitation, Andrew Soltis, studying chess made easy, Batsford Chess, Mr Soltis asks the question, in the section, Overcoming endgame phobia, how many exact (forced win or draw) endgames do we need to know? He sites various authors, Jesus de la Villa 100 endgames you need to know, Lajos Portisch and Balasz Sarkosky examined 600, 150 of which were theoretical, their term for exact (forced win or draw), Mark Dvoretsky in his endgame manual weighed in with more than 200 exact end games (forced win or draw), which he terms basic endgame knowledge. He even stated that it was reduced. what is the truth? until you are master level how many do you need to know?

    GM Soltis reckons you need to know no more than two dozen exact endings before master level, phew!
  2. Standard member wormwood
    If Theres Hell Below
    06 Sep '10 23:52
    given infinite time & energy: all of them.

    given no time or no energy: none of them.

    given some time & energy: some of them.



    the more, the better. but you can't fix everything at once, and you only have a limited amount of energy & time to spare.

    I'd say you'd be best off to treat chess as a craft, instead of a ratings race. take pride in craftmanship, always seek to improve your technique. zen the hell out of it.
  3. 07 Sep '10 00:18
    Originally posted by wormwood
    given infinite time & energy: all of them.

    given no time or no energy: none of them.

    given some time & energy: some of them.



    the more, the better. but you can't fix everything at once, and you only have a limited amount of energy & time to spare.

    I'd say you'd be best off to treat chess as a craft, instead of a ratings race. take pride in craftmanship, always seek to improve your technique. zen the hell out of it.
    yes indeed, i wonder what two dozen are the must knows, prior to master level? i myself only know about five or six,
  4. 07 Sep '10 00:33
    Must knows equals zero.

    It might help if you know something but its not nessecary to become a master.

    For example rook endings where you have an extra pawn just moving around any old place but also while trying to queen will make you win when you have the extra pawn most of the time.

    That technique may not work 100% percent of the time but it doesn`t really make much of a difference since you will simply occasionally draw instead of win a few games and not very many anyways you will win the majority simply by moving around and trying to queen this technique even works against masters in completely drawn positions but not 100% of the time.


    Its like bishop and knight mating its ok if you know how but its not a practical necessity.Once again simply playing on and trying to checkmate your oponnent will make you checkmate often even if you don`t know an exact method.Against a computer this technique however fails but it works against humans since they don`t know how to defend.
  5. 07 Sep '10 00:50 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by National Master Dale
    Must knows equals zero.

    It might help if you know something but its not nessecary to become a master.

    For example rook endings where you have an extra pawn just moving around any old place but also while trying to queen will make you win when you have the extra pawn most of the time.

    That technique may not work 100% percent of the time ...[text shortened]... er this technique however fails but it works against humans since they don`t know how to defend.
    umm, with all due respect NMD, i must disagree, for unless one knows the correct
    technique, its virtually impossible to find it OTB. For example, this position here, its
    quite well known,



    Is it a win or a draw, does it matter whose move it is?, if its blacks move, what
    should his move be?, if its whites move, what should his move be? If you know the
    technique, it will be, well a matter of technique, if you don't, well, you lose games,
    or draw won games.

    With regard to bishop and knight, we are given the idea that its a basic mate? but
    the real truth of the matter is, learning bishop and knight will be one of the best
    lessons a learner can get, because its easy to learn, it teaches piece co ordination
    and harmony, it teaches restriction etc etc, but the best part about learning exact
    endgames (forced win or draw) is that they are rating proof, it dont matter if you
    are facing chessmaster10, rybka, fritz or Carlsen, if you know the tequnique, its
    rating proof!
  6. 07 Sep '10 01:13
    In that diagram which I certainly don`t know that position.

    I would simply play on if I was black and would win a large percentage of the time whether or not its drawable or not.My only plan would simply be to try and queen.
  7. 07 Sep '10 01:50
    Originally posted by National Master Dale
    In that diagram which I certainly don`t know that position.

    I would simply play on if I was black and would win a large percentage of the time whether or not its drawable or not.My only plan would simply be to try and queen.
    Pretty obvious you would try and queen if you were black.
    With some basic knowledge I realized what has to/will happen. You don't have to know all the positions but you have to have some basic knowledge from which you can deduct the CORRECT solution
  8. Standard member wormwood
    If Theres Hell Below
    07 Sep '10 03:15
    Originally posted by National Master Dale
    In that diagram which I certainly don`t know that position.

    I would simply play on if I was black and would win a large percentage of the time whether or not its drawable or not.My only plan would simply be to try and queen.
    yes, but you should know the ending already when you choose to (or allow to) simplify into it. that will be almost impossible if you don't have the technique down cold already.
  9. 07 Sep '10 03:46
    Originally posted by wormwood
    yes, but you should know the ending already when you choose to (or allow to) simplify into it. that will be almost impossible if you don't have the technique down cold already.
    That was what I was trying to get at in a more roundabout way
  10. Standard member SwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    07 Sep '10 06:56
    Originally posted by National Master Dale
    In that diagram which I certainly don`t know that position.

    I would simply play on if I was black and would win a large percentage of the time whether or not its drawable or not.My only plan would simply be to try and queen.
    My, my what a chess bizarro world this is. Black wins the majority of the time from this position, and National Masters aren't aware of basic concepts like Opposition.
  11. Standard member SwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    07 Sep '10 07:04
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    After reading a very very enjoyable book, which i would recommend, with out a moments hesitation, Andrew Soltis, studying chess made easy, Batsford Chess, Mr Soltis asks the question, in the section, Overcoming endgame phobia, how many exact (forced win or draw) endgames do we need to know? He sites various authors, Jesus de la Villa 100 endgames yo ...[text shortened]... eckons you need to know no more than two dozen exact endings before master level, phew![/hidden]
    Hmm, there's 3 for King and Pawn versus King, Lucena and Philidor positions for Rook and pawn vs. Rook, Queen vs. Bishop pawn draw, Bishop and wrong-color rook pawn draw.

    Answer: at least 7. Really, the more the better, especially with rook endings and pawn endings, which are the most common.
  12. 07 Sep '10 08:47
    Lol, here is my list, feel free to add anything to it

    1.the opposition
    2.distant opposition
    3.general opposition
    4.king and pawn v king (how white wins, how black draws)
    5.king and pawn on the sixth rank
    6.Grigorievs squeeze (illustrated diagram)
    7.rook pawns
    8.king and pawn v king and pawn
    9.king and pawn v king and pawn (neither king in the square)
    10.king and pawn v king and pawn (queening with check)
    11.king and pawn v king and pawn (rook pans)
    12.king and pawn v king and pawn (skewers)
    13king and pawn v king and pawn (instant mate)
    14.king and pawn v king and pawn (bishops pawn)
  13. Subscriber Paul Leggett
    Chess Librarian
    07 Sep '10 21:14
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    Hmm, there's 3 for King and Pawn versus King, Lucena and Philidor positions for Rook and pawn vs. Rook, Queen vs. Bishop pawn draw, Bishop and wrong-color rook pawn draw.

    Answer: at least 7. Really, the more the better, especially with rook endings and pawn endings, which are the most common.
    No lie, I was going to write this, and SG beat me to it. I'd recommend it if it weren't narcissistic on my part.

    SG's 7 positions are the difference between 1400 and 1800 on the site, based on the over 900 games I have played in the last year here.

    Not a week goes by that I don't get a challenge from some 1400 player who plays his opening well, avoids my cheapos, and then transposes down into a lost ending, or reaches a drawn ending that I swindle.

    I'd lose more if more people read the forum.