Originally posted by greenpawn34I don't agree. All fine if you achieve a won game in the middlegame, but if you can't transform it into an actual win you have a problem. I have swindled countless points in blitz games because my opponent didn't know how to handle the endgame. And it is precisely because of this attitude (blabla, I can work it out myself, it's all too easy) that so many players neglect their endgame.
100% totally agree.
The basics knowledge is all you need. How to mate with a Rook etc.
(never had to do it with two Bishops or any of the other wierd
mating pairings)😉
Games are won/lost in the Middle Game. This is the phase of the
game where the real chess player takes over.
Endgame Books are a con. You can work these things out for
yo ...[text shortened]... do it standing
on your head if only you had the faith in your inert ability.
Endgames? Pah!
Originally posted by schakuhrIn an 'ideal' world, all of us who want to improve would have countles hours to spend on every aspect of our game.
I don't agree. All fine if you achieve a won game in the middlegame, but if you can't transform it into an actual win you have a problem. I have swindled countless points in blitz games because my opponent didn't know how to handle the endgame. And it is precisely because of this attitude (blabla, I can work it out myself, it's all too easy) that so many players neglect their endgame.
Openings all day Monday and Tuesday/middlegames on Wednesday and Thursday/ endings on Fridays and then over the weekend we put it all into practice and win the tournament sweeping all before us!
In real life, a few hours study per week is about all the time we can spare. We have to neglect many areas of our chess - this neglect should begin with the endgame, until such time as we can play the openings well enough to give us a decent middlegame knowledge complete with a practical arsenal of tactical weapons which will see off most of our opponents.
In short, if you can look through your games and NOT spot any major errors (tactical blunders/dubious strategic plans) THEN study endgames. It will help at this stage-not before.
2 edits
Originally posted by schakuhrI agree for all 100%. Endgame is the most underrated stage of the game.
I don't agree. All fine if you achieve a won game in the middlegame, but if you can't transform it into an actual win you have a problem. I have swindled countless points in blitz games because my opponent didn't know how to handle the endgame. And it is precisely because of this attitude (blabla, I can work it out myself, it's all too easy) that so many players neglect their endgame.
2 edits
Originally posted by streetfighterI would say that endgame knowledge is useful for majority of players as in practice its not so often when you catch your opponent in opening or mate in middle game.
Probably it is in some ways, but for the [b]vast majority of players it is not the main area which needs to be worked on.[/b]
"Endgame knowledge is absolutely crucial in chess. By understanding endgames, you can work backward to find the proper plans in the middlegames and even openings."
Susan Polgar
Originally posted by KorchKorch, there is very little sense in quoting Susan Polgar to the majority of average chessplayers! Did you read my previous post about how much time Joe Bloggs has available for chess study?
I would say that endgame knowledge is useful for majority of players as in practice its not so often when you catch your opponent in opening or mate in middle game.
[b]"Endgame knowledge is absolutely crucial in chess. By understanding endgames, you can work backward to find the proper plans in the middlegames and even openings."
Susan Polgar[/b]
What might work in an ideal world - e.g. following a training programme set up by a strong master like Polgar; acquiring a broad chess knowledge and assimilating it all; long-term strategic planning etc. etc etc is all fantasy to most players.
They won't have time or one thing; and they will still drop pieces, miss tactical blows, walk into mating nets etc. because they didn't use what time they do have for study wisely!
1 edit
Originally posted by streetfighter"Few hours study per week" means that at least half an hour per week you can devote to endgame. Anyway - independently of time for studies I will be against such an one-sided approach.
Korch, there is very little sense in quoting Susan Polgar to the majority of average chessplayers! Did you read my previous post about how much time Joe Bloggs has available for chess study?
What might work in an ideal world - e.g. following a training programme set up by a strong master like Polgar; acquiring a broad chess knowledge and assimilati s, walk into mating nets etc. because they didn't use what time they do have for study wisely!
Originally posted by KorchKorch, in your last OTB tournament, where did you usually loose/win your games? Was any game decided in ending ?
"Few hours study per week" means that at least half an hour per week you can devote to endgame. Anyway - independently of time for studies I will be against such an one-sided approach.
In my last OTB tournament, both games that I have lost were lost in the ending...
on the other side, in the last internet long games tournament, I lost about one in the ending and about 4-5 in the middlegame...
Somehow OTB I get more adrenaline and I can put more will power into the game, or maybe the competition was also a little bit stronger online...
for me it seems it should be balanced...middlegame versus endgame...
Originally posted by vipiuIn my latest OTB tournament ( Thread 95721 ) I lost 4 games:
Korch, in your last OTB tournament, where did you usually loose/win your games? Was any game decided in ending ?
In my last OTB tournament, both games that I have lost were lost in the ending...
on the other side, in the last internet long games tournament, I lost about one in the ending and about 4-5 in the middlegame...
Somehow OTB I get more adrenaline ...[text shortened]... e bit stronger online...
for me it seems it should be balanced...middlegame versus endgame...
In one of them I was overplayed in middle game.
In other one I blundered piece in opening.
Other 2 games were decided in endgame.
Also 2 of my draws were in endgame - in one of them I missed opportunity to get better position and in other one I missed win.
I agree with you that chess studies must be balanced
Originally posted by vipiuYou can't play a middlegame effectively if you don't know when you have achieved an imbalance which gives you a won endgame.
Korch, in your last OTB tournament, where did you usually loose/win your games? Was any game decided in ending ?
for me it seems it should be balanced...middlegame versus endgame...
My buddy has improved at least 200 points since he added endgame study to his plan. Previously, he'd continue a middlegame attack beyond the point where he had gained an advantage, giving his opponents chances of counterplay. Now, once he has an advantage which he knows equates to a won endgame, then he starts trying to exchange off.
I believe korch is advising the holistic approach from the beginning.
D
Originally posted by streetfighterNonsense. For the vast majority of players it is the main area which needs to be worked on. View it like this:
Probably it is in some ways, but for the [b]vast majority of players it is not the main area which needs to be worked on.[/b]
opening------>middlegame------->endgame
Here's a few typical games of "player A" who neglects his endgame:
-player A comes out of the opening with a good position. In the middlegame he has a nice attack until his opponent sacrifices a pawn to force queens off. Player A doesn't know what to do anymore since he can't attack anymore, his opponent wins the pawn back and wins the remaining endgame.
-player A plays a game versus someone who is stronger than him. He is outplayed in the middlegame but manages to reach a rook endgame which is distinctly unfavourable for him. He doesn't know how to defend a philidor position and loses the endgame.
-player A wins a piece in the opening and retains this advantage the entire game. In the endgame however, he happily exchanges pawns until he is left with a rook-pawn and a bishop of the wrong color.
if you do not know what you are aiming for in the middlegame in the first place, you have a big problem.
- Joined
- 20 Jan 07
- Moves
- 24972
1 edit
Originally posted by streetfighterThat's the most sense i've read on this site for a long long time! I've really only ever read one endgame book, Grandmaster secret Endings by Soltis. it was so superb that i haven't really felt the need to follow this phase of the game further. In any case every time i lose a game, which is quite regularly OTB, it's nearly always a middle game or opening blunder that's to blame.
In an 'ideal' world, all of us who want to improve would have countles hours to spend on every aspect of our game.
Openings all day Monday and Tuesday/middlegames on Wednesday and Thursday/ endings on Fridays and then over the weekend we put it all into practice and win the tournament sweeping all before us!
In real life, a few hours study per w ...[text shortened]... blunders/dubious strategic plans) THEN study endgames. It will help at this stage-not before.
I now feel compelled to pick up a copy of your book!
is it available on Amazon?
Originally posted by schakuhrI'm with SF and GP on this one.I tought about this years ago and checked my own OTB games(I play at an 1800 belgian ELO level).There were only very few that couldn't have been decided by tactics in the middlegame.Of course I reached many endgames but only because both sides missed winning tactics.The examples you give:
Nonsense. For the vast majority of players it is the main area which needs to be worked on. View it like this:
opening------>middlegame------->endgame
Here's a few typical games of "player A" who neglects his endgame:
-player A comes out of the opening with a good position. In the middlegame he has a nice attack until his opponent sacrifices a pawn ...[text shortened]... know what you are aiming for in the middlegame in the first place, you have a big problem.
-an attack isn't over when queens come off.At your level do you really think this way??
-I consider a philidor position basic endgame knowledge.I do believe SF/GP stated basic endgames is all you need to know
-if you lose a piece in the opening you'll be hard pressed to reach an endgame.Even if this happens the player will have learned a valuable lesson at the cost of a half point.
The vast majority doesn't play at your level or Korch' or even mine(which is significantly lower still).The vast majority drops pieces,misses mates,3 or 4 move combo's etc....
I'm only talking about OTB here.When I have time I'm going to check CC games to see if there's any significant difference.
Originally posted by Katastroof
I'm with SF and GP on this one.I tought about this years ago and checked my own OTB games(I play at an 1800 belgian ELO level).There were only very few that couldn't have been decided by tactics in the middlegame.Of course I reached many endgames but only because both sides missed winning tactics.
A couple of points. You will reach endgames whether you make tactical mistakes or not. Also, even if you practise tactics 100% of the time, you will still make tactical mistakes. Besides, not only will practising endgames increase your skill in that aspect, you will also be able to judge middlegame positions more accurately since you know what to aim for.
The examples you give:
-an attack isn't over when queens come off.At your level do you really think this way??
In general, it is. I know I know, there are always exceptions to the rule in chess. I am not claiming an attack is automatically over when queens come off. For the sake of this example, it was.
-I consider a philidor position basic endgame knowledge.I do believe SF/GP stated basic endgames is all you need to know
No. GP stated you can work out 'these things' for yourself OTB. SF stated that if you are going to have to neglect an aspect of chess, it should be endgames. (I have never heard more idiotic advise. If there is any aspect one should neglect, it is openings.)
-if you lose a piece in the opening you'll be hard pressed to reach an endgame.Even if this happens the player will have learned a valuable lesson at the cost of a half point.
Indeed; he will have learned to pay more attention to his endgame.
The vast majority doesn't play at your level or Korch' or even mine(which is significantly lower still).The vast majority drops pieces,misses mates,3 or 4 move combo's etc....
The vast majority also makes lots of mistakes in basic endgames which costs them lots of points. I agree that tactical training is important. But endgames even more so.