Its a matter of technique

when an advanced players states that the rest of the game is a matter of technique can anyone explain what that means? in fact ,are there any chess books written for amateurs where the title is, its a matter of technique, if not, can someone please write one. thanks in advance - Robbie.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
when an advanced players states that the rest of the game is a matter of technique can anyone explain what that means? in fact ,are there any chess books written for amateurs where the title is, its a matter of technique, if not, can someone please write one. thanks in advance - Robbie.

Gerald Abrahams did and I believe Dover reprinted it. I think it was the transcript of a series of radio broadcasts or something. The only thing I remember from it was the one liner - Openings, like ladies hats, are affairs of fashion!

It's just an expression. An empty phrase which "means" that that an that position is "dead won"...

Originally posted by Ragwort
Gerald Abrahams did and I believe Dover reprinted it. I think it was the transcript of a series of radio broadcasts or something. The only thing I remember from it was the one liner - Openings, like ladies hats, are affairs of fashion!

Gerald Abrahams did, wow, i am sure I have one of his chess books kicking around, but not that one, most difficult chess book to read if my memory serves me correct.

Originally posted by vandervelde
It's just an expression. An empty phrase which "means" that that an that position is "dead won"...

hmmm, you have to admit that its misleading, what technique are they implying is what i wonder. Are you saying that there is no technique being implied? What a strange thing to say, at least to my mind.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
when an advanced players states that the rest of the game is a matter of technique can anyone explain what that means? in fact ,are there any chess books written for amateurs where the title is, its a matter of technique, if not, can someone please write one. thanks in advance - Robbie.

It just means that the winning method is obvious to them, even though it takes several moves.

I am playing horribly these days, so I save it for really obvious ones like

Originally posted by SwissGambit
It just means that the winning method is obvious to them, even though it takes several moves.

I am playing horribly these days, so I save it for really obvious ones like

[fen] 8/3k4/8/8/8/8/3KR3/8 [/fen]

Ok, this I understand, I understand how to mate with a rook and a king v a king, this is a well known endgame technique. So in this instance there is actually a technique, restricting the king, driving it to the edge of the board, bringing your own king up, etc etc🙂

Normally this should mean that a position has been reached where one person has a winning advantage and converting the win is "just a matter of technique".

This is why you sometimes see grandmasters resigning in positions where lower ranked players would play on.

Hi Robbie

Congruent's explantion is spot on.
The position is won and just requires the winning player to 'usually'
trade down into a clearly won ending.

The Abrahams book you are thinking of Robbie is 'The Chess Mind.' and
yes it is a rather difficult book to read.
His Technique in Chess on the other hand is quite superb.

He does mention the use of the phase 'Technique' is over used and
sometimes wrong.
A better term according to him is 'the winning method' and should be
explained by lazy authors instead of copping out with:
"...and the rest is a matter of technique."

Technique = a win without specualtion.

You know the winning method in how to mate with a King & Rook.
This is a win without specualtion. It's technique.

You can have tactical technique.
For instance spotting a Phildors Legacy or seeing a mate in ALL varations
of a combination, something like a perfect Greek Gift Bishop sac on h7.
You are pulling out all the mating patterns as you do when playing a
King & Rook v King ending.

Knowledge is technique.
You know in some cases split pawns can beat connected pawns.
He is a wee study I just composed leading to a position in Abrahams
Technique in Chess.





Here is a position from a recent game of mine. Game 9978132


White is a piece up so the win is a matter of technique.
No. Not yet. Black has a pawn for the piece.
White needs to find a way of crashing through.
First we must see the 'method' to obtain the Technically won position.

Here is one method of winning. (which I cocked up and had to find
another way which involved saccing all my Queenside pawns.) 🙂

Method One. (the plan)
Select the advanced pawn on f5 as a promotion candidate, sac the piece
back for two pawns.
Black has a way of stopping this plan, so it's not technically won....yet.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Hi Robbie

Congruent's explantion is spot on.
The position is won and just requires the winning player to 'usually'
trade down into a clearly won ending.

The Abrahams book you are thinking of Robbie is '[b]The Chess Mind.' and
yes it is a rather difficult book to read.
His Technique in Chess on the other hand is quite superb.

He d a technical win. White will be a Queen up the win is not in any doubt}[/pgn][/b]

pretty good GP, yes that's the book, the chess mind, it has a yellow cover.