Hi,
This debate can go on and on and I doubt if anyone will change their mind.
I did say all you need is basic Knowledge (mating with rook etc) then
you should be able to work out OTB what to do. It is quite easy.
There are rules of thumb to guide you.
Push passed pawns, Activate Kings, never be left with a tame Rook,
(sac a pawn to activate it if need be).etc etc.
Don't waste precious time looking at something you might get
the chance to play once a year, (and then forget it OTB).
(Here I'm talking OTB about difficult double-edged endings.)
The middle game is where it's at, anybody who claims different is
trying to sell you an endgame book.
No amount of arguing will make me change my mind.
And I don't expect to change the mind of you endgame boys.
It's Chess, I like the Latvian, you like the Caro Khan, I like the Knight,
you like the Bishop....I like the Beatles - you like ABBA...
Originally posted by greenpawn34I think the problem is in people defining words like "basic" differently. You view a rook mate as basic (me too), katastrof views philidor position as basic (I don't).
Hi,
This debate can go on and on and I doubt if anyone will change their mind.
I did say all you need is basic Knowledge (mating with rook etc) then
you should be able to work out OTB what to do. It is quite easy.
There are rules of thumb to guide you.
Push passed pawns, Activate Kings, never be left with a tame Rook,
(sac a pawn to activate i ...[text shortened]... Caro Khan, I like the Knight,
you like the Bishop....I like the Beatles - you like ABBA...
Without some idea of endgames, you can't argue that faulty strategy will be employed more often in the middle game.
I also agree with Schakuhr that if study time is at a premium, it is openings study that should be sacrificed, not tactics, strategy or endgames.
D
I see in some other way:
let's say you are a 2000 ELO player, with strong tactics, so 2150 middlegame player and weak endgame (1700 endgame player) and you want to improve somehow...
If you want to improve your middlegame tactics from 2150-2250 you need to work much more(practice dayly a lot of tactics, very long and complicated) than to improve your endgame knowledge from 1800-1900 (maybe just read some chapter from Silman's book...)
So in the end you should just balance all these parts to have a faster progress...
I agree about ' it is openings study that should be sacrificed,'
Players spend far too much time on it.
Ok if it's shapr one (Latvian etc when you will have to know a trick
or two) but stuffing variations into your mind is pointless.
I like the idea of breaking up a players abiity into 3 and giving him
a grade for each aspect of the game.
But I don't think it's as simple as that. You are either a good player
or you are not.
You get better by playing - you must play the game to understand it.
You must store and recognise the patterns.
There are endgame patterns and settings that you must know.
Essential knowledge.
But there are many more in the middle game. This is where 90%
of the games at our level are won or lost. This is where it's at.
Chess endings can be compared to putting in golf.
But first you have to get to the green! and if you cannot hack your
way out of the rough, then your putter will never leave your bag.
Originally posted by greenpawn34I think it's the opposite. I won't feel like a "real chess player" unless I have at least several games against decent opposition (that is, 2000+) where I hold on to a slight advantage in a hard fought middlegame in which no sides have made obvious blunders, and carry it accurately into a slowly but surely won endgame. yes, that's when I will call myself a ches player. of course, that would be at least 3-4 years from now 🙂
Games are won/lost in the Middle Game. This is the phase of the
game where the real chess player takes over.
This is probably just about style/personality.
having said that, I'm so sick of blundering pawns and pieces so stupidly in the opening or middlegame that I cannot make up my mind to start serious endgame study yet. I see tactical ability as a material and all the other as ideas. I have watched all the press confrences after the games of the World Championship match, and I have noticed that they (kramnik and anand) very rarely talk about general concepts or plans. For every question asked, or for every annotation they give, they always, without exception, talk in terms of concrete variations and give the impression that you need to walk very carefully in a tactical forest full of traps just to realize even the simplest of strategical plans. If you want to implement an idea, you should be able to do it without blunders along the way.
There's also one thing about tactical study: you can't go wrong with studying tactics. It's a very straightforward process, and it improves your play, all the time, and at the same time, when considering future studying plans, it potentially makes room for implementing your plans accurately, if say you end up having more time and get into serious endgame study.
Originally posted by diskamylTotally agree.
There's also one thing about tactical study: you can't go wrong with studying tactics. It's a very straightforward process, and it improves your play, all the time,
Tactics study is immediately accessible. I feel like I need to be in a certain state of mind to be able to concentrate on studying strategy/endgames. With tactics, even when I'm shagged, I can still go onto something like cts, and practice my tactics.
D
"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.)"
Well Schakuhr, perhaps in between studying K&P endings and R&P endings, you might learn some f###### manners.
I don't come on here and call Korch's, yours, GP's or anyone else's advice/thoughts/whatever idiotic - and I don't expect my ideas to be called that either.
There were a lot of interesting points made in your post-but now I can't be arsed discussing them. Thanks for that.
actually are there not two ways in which to win a game of chess, either by the accumulation of material which would include pawn promotion as in the endgame and the other by direct means - check mate. in the former we are trying to simplify the position, exchange our pieces and magnify our slight advantage and in the latter we are trying to keep our pieces on the board until such times as we deem it advantageous to try our attack, is it not so? certainly the latter is more exciting and demands good calculation skills and creativity and imagination, the former relies more on knowledge and technique, is it not so? who can say which is the better approach?
Originally posted by schakuhrI feel as if we're not talking about the same thing here.Let me write down my stance to minimise misunderstandings: I believe the vast majority of players would benefit most from tactical training provided they already possess basic endgame knowledge,and I say this with regard to OTB chess only.Example: 2 players rated 1400 have 20 hours a week to study chess.Player A devotes 15 hours to tactics and 5 hours to endgames,player B vice versa.I believe player A will show faster improvement.
Originally posted by Katastroof
[b]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 o ...[text shortened]... lots of points. I agree that tactical training is important. But endgames even more so.[/b]
"You will reach endgames whether you make tactical mistakes or not."
-Yes,of course.But with tactical training many games will be won before that and many endgames you do reach will be ones where you have a huge material advantage.
"even if you practise tactics 100% of the time, you will still make tactical mistakes."
-True.Also holds true for endgames.Don't understand your point here....
"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."
-True about helping increase skill.Not true about judging middlegames because for the vast majority it's over their heads(I know it's too difficult for me most of the time).
"Indeed; he will have learned to pay more attention to his endgame."
-Yes,but you were already simply assuming the player will lose an endgame while a piece up.Quite a big assumption,imo.With better tactical skills there wouldn't be an endgame or he can win that endgame with his tactical knowledge(it works both ways,you know).
"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"
-I do state basic endgame knowledge is a must.
-I do not agree an attack is generally over when queens come off but we'd need statistical evidence to prolong that part of the discussion and it's not worth the effort.
-Agreed on the opening being first to neglect.In SF's defense I think he just tried to make a point.
Good post Katastroof. But I still disagree entirely on the idea that if you have to neglect an area of your game (due to time constraints/whatever) that it should be the openings rather than the endgame.
I have the feeling that when 'openings' is mentioned, people automatically think I'm talking about theory. Not at all. I mean that we should pay far more attention to WHO we are playing, their likes/dislikes/strengths/weaknesses (and our own of course) and plan our openings around this.
Openings are a hugely imporatant part of the game, simply because we will always have one! In the same way, tactics are hugely important because they are ever-present regardless of which stage of the game we are in - including endgames : )
Take the following scenarios:
Scenario 1) Joe Bloggs is due to play John Doe in the final of the club championship. Both players are around 1600-strength. Joe decides that in preparation (they both have 2 hours the night before to prepare) he will look through Capablanca's Best Endings.
The following night the game begins thus: 1.e4 e5. Joe decides to play 2.Nf3 and reckons he will play the Exchange Variation of the Ruy Lopez. He has been studying the middlegames/endings with this pawn structure quite a lot, and knows that if he can trade pieces without giving anything else away, he can create a passed pawn on the k-side whereas his opponent's majority on the q-side is impotent.
John Doe replies 2...f5, creates a tactical mess, wins a piece on move 15 and forces mate on move 22.
Joe trudges home deflated and throws Capa's book into the furthest regions of the darkest cupboard.
Scenario 2) Joe Bloggs is due to play John Doe in the final of the club championship. Both players are around 1600-strength. Joe decides that in preparation (they both have 2 hours the night before to prepare) he will look at his opponent's most recent games from the Congress they played in recently and which have been made available for download on the national website.
He spots that John Doe has been playing the Latvian Gambit against 1.e4 whenever possible. He also notices that against 1.d4 he prefers to play the Budapest Gambit (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5). In fact he notices that all his games are gambit lines with both colours.
The following night he opens with 1.d4 and after 1...Nf6 he replies 2.Nf3. A few minutes later his opponent plays 2...c5 whereupon he whips out 3.e3. He follows up with a standard Colle/Stonewall development with b3, Bb2, Bd3, 0-0, Nbd2, Ne5 and f4.
His opponent takes ages on each move, gets frustrated at move 15, lunges with a pawn to g5, drops an exchange then walks into a forced mate in his attempt to win back the material.
Joe skips all the way home, sits down to celebrate with a beer and is grateful that Capa's book is keeping the otherwise wobbly table leg steady
So that is what happened to User 425510.
Hi SF plugged your book today in my round 5 report of the Olympiad.
I think Carey was getting fed up with me slagging her London system.
She played Bg5!
Originally posted by streetfighterAh yes,when you say 'openings' I do envision someone sitting at the table with an opening manual such as: 'win with...' 'play the...' '...secrets revealed'.Sheer horror!Preparing for a specific opponent makes sense to me.
Good post Katastroof. But I still disagree entirely on the idea that if you have to neglect an area of your game (due to time constraints/whatever) that it should be the openings rather than the endgame.
I have the feeling that when 'openings' is mentioned, people automatically think I'm talking about theory. Not at all. I mean that we should pay fa ...[text shortened]... er and is grateful that Capa's book is keeping the otherwise wobbly table leg steady[/b]
Like so many I fell into the opening books trap 😳
But now I know better 🙂
Should sell all my opening books 😕
Opening books have their place but too many players use them
as a crutch and get their heads stuck right up their ass.
Opening books sell more than any other type of chess book.
So people trying to make a quick buck churn them out.
SF would have sold 1000's more copies of his book if he had called it.
'Street Fighting Chess Openings' and me with Rampant Chess Openings.
Hmmmmm.....idea!..... SF how about Rampant Street Fighting Chess Openings?
(sneaking plugs into posts is an art form - I think I'm getting good at it).
I started by doing loads of tactics, and it really makes or breaks your game as a beginner. and I still think if you have limited time (well we all know it's really about energy, we could always make the time, right?), the endgame drops off first.
but I'll have to also admit that I'm slowly becoming a kind of convert, as studying endgame has really opened chess up for me. especially the "impractical" stuff you're supposedly never gonna need in a real game. I don't think various endgame techniques matter because of that specific technique, but instead the main payoff is the understanding of piece coordination and pawn structure. which are the things the big boys rudely bang against your face if you can match them tactically. that's why they're the big boys and we're the brats, and why their games look so beautiful and elegant and our's look like a plate of spaghetti after a hurricane (even when we win).
and while endgames probably won't do anything to your rating at lower levels, you really can't avoid learning it eventually. so if there comes a time when you actually FEEL like doing it, you should. most people won't ever bother, because it really is a drudgery. but it won't go to waste, and you'll understand much more about the master games. you'll be a better player for it, even if it'll take some years for the rest of your game to reach the necessary level for the endgame knowledge to kick in.
sure I'm still a one-trick tactical pony, but I'm learning new tricks: the oldest ones in the book.
I will opine that if you are between 800 and 1400 (places I have been) and want to improve, you should study
Prerequisites:
1. Know opening principles
2. Know basic endgames, including philidor / Lucena, 2B mate, but not B+N.
3. Know the first 4 moves of your openings if they are quiet, 8-10 if they aren't + the main middlegame ideas.
i.e. French 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 or 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e5 Nd7 or 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nd7.
Main ideas: pressure the center, first with c5 then with f6. Nc6, Qb6, Ng-e7-f5 are good supporting piece plays.
4. Know what pins, skewers, forks, and revealed checks are. Attempt to use them.
Then allocate your study time (I have about 2 hours/week)
Maximum Priority: Post-mortem on any serious games you have played (first by yourself, then if possible w/ a human, and last w/ a computer). This is the only study I do now. Any game longer than 15 minutes gets analyzed first by me then w/ Hiarcs10. The really interesting ones, I take a scoresheet to club with me.
Remaining time:
50% tactics - CTS, CT-ART, Reinfeld... your choice, just do them.
25% Guess the move - play through your favorite GMs games, trying to anticipate their moves. A computer can be helpful understanding why moves were played, but working them out on your own is better. This helps you learn the *whole* game.
25% endgames - If your favorite player is Capablanca, you could probably just play guess the move.
I personally believe that with more time, this study plan would take me further, but I have kids now and my spare time is too precious for study.