1 edit
Originally posted by streetfighterWhat? If I have a negative opinion about something, I won't use flowery words to describe it. If you think I don't have any 'f###### manners' (oh the irony 🙄 ) it's your problem, not mine.
[b]"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 Kor ting points made in your post-but now I can't be arsed discussing them. Thanks for that.[/b]
I may be harsh at times, but that's just my way of speaking.
Originally posted by streetfighterThe only thing your scenarios show is that tactics are important (they were decisive in both games) - I think we can all agree on that.
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]
However, you are using this as a pseudo-argument to say that endgame study is inferior to opening study. What you fail to say is that in the first game, Joe lost because he was outplayed tactically, not because he chose the wrong opening.
Same thing for the other game - now the other player arguably lost the opening phase, but again: he lost the game due to tactics, as you perfectly describe, not because of the opening.
You conveniently avoid any scenario in which an endgame is reached - this is ofcourse possible with a sample of only two games, but I daresay that in at least 30% of games between Joe and John an endgame would be reached. You also make it seem as if carefully choosing the opening decided the games - this is not the case in the slightest.
Don't you have any actual arguments? Only vague examples?
Originally posted by schakuhrI think you'll find there is a wide range of vocabulary we can use in-between 'flowery' and obnoxious.
What? If I have a negative opinion about something, I won't use flowery words to describe it. If you think I don't have any 'f###### manners' (oh the irony 🙄 ) it's your problem, not mine.
I may be harsh at times, but that's just my way of speaking.
The irony was deliberate - and no, it's not my problem if you are offensive, it's your problem. Lack of social skills perhaps?
Originally posted by schakuhrIn the first game Joe lost because his head was up his own arse - sound like a familiar feeling Schakuhr?
The only thing your scenarios show is that tactics are important (they were decisive in both games) - I think we can all agree on that.
However, you are using this as a pseudo-argument to say that endgame study is inferior to opening study. What you fail to say is that in the first game, Joe lost because he was outplayed tactically, not because he chose ...[text shortened]... is not the case in the slightest.
Don't you have any actual arguments? Only vague examples?
He won the second game because he managed to put his opponent in an uncomfortable (for him) position. End of.
Originally posted by streetfighterI see. Because of a lack of arguments you resort to name-calling. Thanks for your time.
In the first game Joe lost because his head was up his own arse - sound like a familiar feeling Schakuhr?
He won the second game because he managed to put his opponent in an uncomfortable (for him) position. End of.
1 edit
Originally posted by schakuhrNo problem. It's always a pleasure to meet a polite, open-minded fellow chess-player. If you ever feel the need for some lessons (chess/manners/whatever) just drop me a line.
I see. Because of a lack of arguments you resort to name-calling. Thanks for your time.
Andy Burnett
Originally posted by lordgledhillThe top dozen to learn from, in my opinion, are:
Hi everyone,
I'm thinking of getting an endgame book and I know that Silman and Dvoretsky's are both highly rated by a lot of you but which will I, as a beginner, get more out of?
Cheers,
lordgledhill
1) Practical Endgame Lessons by Edmar Mednis,
2) How to Win in the Chess Endings by I.A. Horowitz,
3) On the Endgame in Chess by Fred Reinfeld,
4) How to Play Chess Endings by Evgeny Znovsko-Borovsky,
5) On the Endgame by CJS Purdy,
6) Winning Endgame Technique by Alexander Beliavsky,
7) Endgame Secrets by Chris Lutz,
8) Practical Endgame Play by Neil McDonald,
9) Endgame Strategy by Mikhail Shereshevsky,
10) Basic Chess Endings by Reuben Fine,
11) Capablanca's Best Chess Endings by Irving Chernev
12) Secrets of Chess Endgame Strategy by Lars Bo Hansen
once you're advanced, look at these 4:
-Jacob Aagaard's Excelling at Technical Chess,
-Dvoretsky's Engame Manual,
-Fundamental Chesss Endings by Muller & Lamprecht, &
-Tibor Karolyi's Endgame Virtuoso Anatoly Karpov.
Then enjoy Averbakh's books on the theory of specific endgame piece-play.
1 edit
(sneaking plugs into posts is an art form - I think I'm getting good at it).
Well the first time you did that I bought the book (Streetfighting Chess, Andrew Burnett)- and I'm glad I did too. Worth the cover price for the photo of Tal in the heroes section. Not a beginners book but packed with good stuff.
Originally posted by ShamashHow many endgame books do you need?
The top dozen to learn from, in my opinion, are:
1) Practical Endgame Lessons by Edmar Mednis,
2) How to Win in the Chess Endings by I.A. Horowitz,
3) On the Endgame in Chess by Fred Reinfeld,
4) How to Play Chess Endings by Evgeny Znovsko-Borovsky,
5) On the Endgame by CJS Purdy,
6) Winning Endgame Technique by Alexander Beliav ...[text shortened]... atoly Karpov.
Then enjoy Averbakh's books on the theory of specific endgame piece-play.
One is enough - Essential Knowledge by Keres will do.
This covers all the endings you are likely to face in OTB play.
It reads well, explains well and is, dare I say it, enjoyable.
Re; SF's book. I felt very safe giving it a thumbs up when I reviewed it.
It is a good chess book.