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

Only Chess Forum

  1. Subscriber Paul Leggett
    Chess Librarian
    12 Jul '11 18:09 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by greenerpawn
    Forgive me for posting this here, but I don't seem to be able to start a new thread;

    Does anyone here ever use The Theory of Corresponding Squares in pawn endgames?

    Looks frightfully complicated to me.
  2. Subscriber Paul Leggett
    Chess Librarian
    12 Jul '11 18:09
    King opposition is the theory of corresponding squares in its purest form. I think there are lots of times where someone analyzes that way, and understands the position in that context, without actually thinking of the theory as such.

    In other words, they study the position and arrive at an understanding that "whenevery he moves to this square, I need to be at that square" without actually thinking "Hey, this is a corresponding squares situation!"
  3. 12 Jul '11 19:58
    This was one of the games that greeted me when I logged on.

    tamariske (1433) - nvqcharles (1497) RHP June 2011

  4. 12 Jul '11 21:22
    Originally posted by Paul Leggett
    King opposition is the theory of corresponding squares in its purest form. I think there are lots of times where someone analyzes that way, and understands the position in that context, without actually thinking of the theory as such.

    In other words, they study the position and arrive at an understanding that "whenevery he moves to this square, I ne ...[text shortened]... at that square" without actually thinking "Hey, this is a corresponding squares situation!"
    Actually opposition is just a part of the theory of corresponding squares. It is just a method to infiltrate the enemy position with your king.
  5. 12 Jul '11 22:20 / 1 edit
    actually i was wondering, what the 'theory of corresponding squares' is... does it have to do with something sneaking up from behind?

    Edit: i kind of had to post something on the topic. ops are very sensitive, you must now. when you highjack their thread, they might start to play nasty... or become green of envy... (german lesson #41: gruen vor neid means to be especially envious, to turn green actually. germans are weird...)
  6. 12 Jul '11 22:27
    Originally posted by tharkesh
    actually i was wondering, what the 'theory of corresponding squares' is... does it have to do with something sneaking up from behind?

    Edit: i kind of had to post something on the topic. ops are very sensitive, you must now. when you highjack their thread, they might start to play nasty... or become green of envy... (german lesson #41: gruen vor neid means to be especially envious, to turn green actually. germans are weird...)
    it is pretty much a tool in king and pawn endgames. They are squares where your king has to be if your opponents king is on a certain square. Its rather more complicated but that is the simplest way I can explain it without actually going into it.
  7. Standard member SwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    12 Jul '11 23:11
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corresponding_squares
  8. 12 Jul '11 23:17
    Originally posted by Paul Leggett
    King opposition is the theory of corresponding squares in its purest form. I think there are lots of times where someone analyzes that way, and understands the position in that context, without actually thinking of the theory as such.

    In other words, they study the position and arrive at an understanding that "whenevery he moves to this square, I ne ...[text shortened]... at that square" without actually thinking "Hey, this is a corresponding squares situation!"
    Good reply Paul. I would like to understand corresponding squares better . I think corresponding squares are more clear with kings in close direct opposition, but also apply to indirect or distant opposition, including triangulation, and even triangulation. I watched these two videos below a few months ago when thinking about corresponding squares. Close direct opposition is pretty much known to all and easy to understand. Triangulation adds a little. And the indirect distant opposition requires a little more thinking.

    http://www.youtube.com/user/jrobichess#p/c/6B20EB3BF3EB9160/2/LFRNFh3eyuo

    YouTube


    As you indicate, a lot of this (close direct opposition, triangulation) is intuitive and we do it without thinking.

    For me, since it has been 30 years since I studied end games, I had technically forgotten about the indirect distant opposition in a stric sense, though that is arguably intuitive also, but thinking about the big square or rectangle helps.
  9. 12 Jul '11 23:59
    Originally posted by Paul Leggett
    Originally posted by greenerpawn
    Forgive me for posting this here, but I don't seem to be able to start a new thread;

    Does anyone here ever use The Theory of Corresponding Squares in pawn endgames?

    Looks frightfully complicated to me.
    ah - thanks for posting this for me Paul.
  10. Subscriber Paul Leggett
    Chess Librarian
    13 Jul '11 05:03
    Originally posted by tomtom232
    Actually opposition is just a part of the theory of corresponding squares. It is just a method to infiltrate the enemy position with your king.
    ...or prevent infiltration by the enemy king- I think we were saying the same thing in the first sentence of your post, but the second sentence is only partly accurate in that the opposition can be used by either side as an offensive or defensive weapon.

    Moon1969's post really expands the post for both of us, especially with the reference to triangulation. If I could redo my post, I would modify it to say that "opposition and triangulation are the theory in it's purest form", as I think it is a better, clearer idea.
  11. 13 Jul '11 06:36
    Another simple introduction:

    http://temposchlucker.blogspot.com/2006/02/corresponding-squares.html
  12. 13 Jul '11 20:00
    Originally posted by Mephisto2
    Another simple introduction:

    http://temposchlucker.blogspot.com/2006/02/corresponding-squares.html
    Good
  13. Subscriber Paul Leggett
    Chess Librarian
    15 Jul '11 02:54
    Originally posted by greenerpawn
    ah - thanks for posting this for me Paul.
    No prob- any post that exposes us to new ideas or makes us think, makes the forum a better place!
  14. 15 Jul '11 13:19
    A while back, I attempted to learn the subject from some book, I don't remember which one for sure, maybe Averbakh's Pawn Endings? I sort of understood the simple stuff like basic opposition and triangulation, but the more complicated stuff was a complete mystery to me. (For example, how to determine the key squares for a more complicated position during a game.)

    Can anyone here say that he completely understands the totality of corresponding squares and uses it in games? And if so, what elo rating would you guess is needed for someone to thoroughly absorb the topic?
  15. 15 Jul '11 14:26
    Originally posted by Mad Rook
    A while back, I attempted to learn the subject from some book, I don't remember which one for sure, maybe Averbakh's Pawn Endings? I sort of understood the simple stuff like basic opposition and triangulation, but the more complicated stuff was a complete mystery to me. (For example, how to determine the key squares for a more complicated position during a ...[text shortened]... d if so, what elo rating would you guess is needed for someone to thoroughly absorb the topic?
    Not me,I don't use that theory in endgames.
    But I'm intrested in those complicated positions you mention.Could you give an example of one you didn't understand?