| |
Main
Date: 09 May 2006 08:08:27
From: Zero
Subject: Why should I study endgames??
|
I was beaten by a master this weekend. He told that in order to
improve chess players should study endgames.
I don't understand why I should study endgames. If I can't get through
the middlegame or the opening or am I supposed to get to a endgame?
Also I bought a endgame studies book and I don't see the point in going
over these studies. None of these positions are ever going to happen
in any of my real games
|
|
| |
Date: 11 May 2006 06:21:55
From: Martin S
Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames??
|
Zero wrote:
> I was beaten by a master this weekend. He told that in order to
> improve chess players should study endgames.
Because all decisions you make during the opening and middle game influence
the endgame. Would you permitt doubled pawns? Why - why not? etc etc
tin S
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------- >>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
|
| | |
Date: 11 May 2006 05:03:29
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames??
|
> What about those not-so-elementary endgames? I'd bet that an
> accurately played R+P endgame is a rarity in class A.
Even in class "GM" that could be said too.
|
| | |
Date: 11 May 2006 05:36:36
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames??
|
In article <[email protected] >,
"David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Now if you are saying that endgame study has poor returns
> vs. other things that could be studied, you might be right. But
> it seems that there would be very few chessplayers who
> wouldn't benefit from playing endings better.
FWIW, my personal experience is quite the opposite.
Learning how to play, say, rook endings has won me countless games, and
saved many others.
I just looked at my last 20 standard games on FICS. 10 of them reached
an endgame.
Of those ten, five were rook endings (two of which became pawn endings).
One was a rook+minors ending. Three others were minor piece endings, and
one was a R+Q ending. (All of these situations occured when the game was
still in doubt. If a quick trade into a pawn ending forced the win, I'm
not counting that as a pawn ending).
FWIW, my style is somewhat sacrificial and attacking. I don't consider
myself a technical player and I generally don't seek out an endgame
unless I consider it to be highly favorable. In other words, I'm not a
highly technical player and I doubt I reach an unusually low number of
endings.
Let's say I study general endgame principles - the kind of stuff Soltis
covers in the first 115 pages or so of "GM Secrets: Endings." I'm
learning stuff that affects my thinking in fully half my games.
Or I get more specific. I study rook endings. Now we're talking about
something which occurs in nearly a quarter of my games. (And this is
only the games where it actually occurs - to say nothing of the games
where I have the option of going into a rook ending and don't because I
don't like that rook ending).
Is it possible to study openings in a way that affects a quarter of your
games? I mean, I could work on my Ruy Lopez defense. I end up defending
against 1.e4 in about a quarter of my games. But, of course, while the
Ruy is one of the most popular openings I see, I see nearly as many
Scotch's and Two Knights' games, so really we're talking about something
that shows up in maybe a tenth of my games.
(And that's just branching on move three!)
-Ron
|
| | | |
Date: 11 May 2006 05:07:51
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames??
|
> Learning how to play, say, rook endings has won me countless games, and
> saved many others.
Games which would never have reached the ending (in that state) if you had
studied more openings.
> Let's say I study general endgame principles - the kind of stuff Soltis
> covers in the first 115 pages or so of "GM Secrets: Endings." I'm
> learning stuff that affects my thinking in fully half my games.
General principles are one thing. How about you study an entire tablebase
against say an entire volume of ECO?
> Or I get more specific. I study rook endings. Now we're talking about
> something which occurs in nearly a quarter of my games. (And this is
> only the games where it actually occurs - to say nothing of the games
> where I have the option of going into a rook ending and don't because I
> don't like that rook ending).
And most rook endings one gets into are going to be won or lost (or drawn)
in a way that doesn't require in-depth study.
>
> Is it possible to study openings in a way that affects a quarter of your
> games?
A quarter? Try 100 percent, since all chess games have an opening.
>I mean, I could work on my Ruy Lopez defense. I end up defending
> against 1.e4 in about a quarter of my games. But, of course, while the
> Ruy is one of the most popular openings I see, I see nearly as many
> Scotch's and Two Knights' games, so really we're talking about something
> that shows up in maybe a tenth of my games.
But you know the EXACT POSITION that will show up in that 10 percent of the
games. By contrast, you just know that you'll be in a "rook ending" X
percent of the time.
What are the numbers if we hold you to naming the SPECIFIC rook ending
position you'll be in?
> (And that's just branching on move three!)
If one uses a formation-based approach to the opening, this severely cuts
down on the work required to memorize variations.
--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918
|
| | | | |
Date: 11 May 2006 16:13:25
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames??
|
In article <[email protected] >,
"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote:
> > Learning how to play, say, rook endings has won me countless games, and
> > saved many others.
>
> Games which would never have reached the ending (in that state) if you had
> studied more openings.
This is simply not true.
> > Let's say I study general endgame principles - the kind of stuff Soltis
> > covers in the first 115 pages or so of "GM Secrets: Endings." I'm
> > learning stuff that affects my thinking in fully half my games.
>
> General principles are one thing. How about you study an entire tablebase
> against say an entire volume of ECO?
Except that when you study endings, you don't study tablebases. Only a
small amount of endgame study is about memorization. Yes, there are some
theoretical positions which you must know, that's actually a very small
component of endgame study.
If your idea of endgame study was to memorize tablebases, then I
understand why you'd think it's useless.
> And most rook endings one gets into are going to be won or lost (or drawn)
> in a way that doesn't require in-depth study.
I disagree. Time spent studying endgames pays a lot of dividends it
terms of how to play these highly complex positions.
> A quarter? Try 100 percent, since all chess games have an opening.
Thanks for missing the point.
> But you know the EXACT POSITION that will show up in that 10 percent of the
> games. By contrast, you just know that you'll be in a "rook ending" X
> percent of the time.
>
> What are the numbers if we hold you to naming the SPECIFIC rook ending
> position you'll be in?
But that's the thing. I don't have to study the specific rook ending
I'll play to lean something which helps me play it better. When you
memorize openings, you do.
-Ron
|
| | | | | |
Date: 11 May 2006 12:22:55
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames??
|
>> > Learning how to play, say, rook endings has won me countless games, and
>> > saved many others.
>>
>> Games which would never have reached the ending (in that state) if you
>> had
>> studied more openings.
>
> This is simply not true.
You'd have to play better openings to know for sure, but an early
improvement leads to a better ending.
>> > Let's say I study general endgame principles - the kind of stuff Soltis
>> > covers in the first 115 pages or so of "GM Secrets: Endings." I'm
>> > learning stuff that affects my thinking in fully half my games.
>>
>> General principles are one thing. How about you study an entire
>> tablebase
>> against say an entire volume of ECO?
>
> Except that when you study endings, you don't study tablebases. Only a
> small amount of endgame study is about memorization.
That sounds pretty weak as well.
>Yes, there are some
> theoretical positions which you must know, that's actually a very small
> component of endgame study.
Depends on who is doing the studying.
I've done a lot of "general" study of the endgame. I am hardly in the dark
about how to play them. My rating points still come from the opening,
however.
> If your idea of endgame study was to memorize tablebases, then I
> understand why you'd think it's useless.
I listed what I studied, a rather extensive list, in another post, that has
been mysteriously ignored.
>> And most rook endings one gets into are going to be won or lost (or
>> drawn)
>> in a way that doesn't require in-depth study.
>
> I disagree. Time spent studying endgames pays a lot of dividends it
> terms of how to play these highly complex positions.
So most of your games are dead-even rook endings, and not your opponent
going in a pawn or two up or down with a win or a loss?
>> A quarter? Try 100 percent, since all chess games have an opening.
>
> Thanks for missing the point.
Thank yourself next time.
>> But you know the EXACT POSITION that will show up in that 10 percent of
>> the
>> games. By contrast, you just know that you'll be in a "rook ending" X
>> percent of the time.
>>
>> What are the numbers if we hold you to naming the SPECIFIC rook ending
>> position you'll be in?
>
> But that's the thing. I don't have to study the specific rook ending
> I'll play to lean something which helps me play it better. When you
> memorize openings, you do.
One can play the opening on general principle just the same, but
memorization is on another level, as it is in the endgame as well.
The type of endgame study you recommend is something I did many years ago,
and will do again when I stop improving from opening study and middlegame
study. However, since I still get stumped at move 17 or so in most lines, I
have a ways to go before I exhaust those portions of the game.
--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 12 May 2006 12:44:51
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames??
|
Ray Gordon <[email protected] > wrote:
>>> And most rook endings one gets into are going to be won or lost (or
>>> drawn) in a way that doesn't require in-depth study.
>>
>> I disagree. Time spent studying endgames pays a lot of dividends it
>> terms of how to play these highly complex positions.
>
> So most of your games are dead-even rook endings, and not your opponent
> going in a pawn or two up or down with a win or a loss?
Um, an awful lot of rook endings where your opponent goes in a pawn up
or down are drawn with correct play.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Sadistic Atom Bomb (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a weapon of mass destruction but it
wants to hurt you!
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 12 May 2006 00:48:59
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames??
|
In article <[email protected] >,
"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote:
> > Except that when you study endings, you don't study tablebases. Only a
> > small amount of endgame study is about memorization.
>
> That sounds pretty weak as well.
Well, it's the "weak" opinion of Andy Soltis, Mikhail Sherevsky, James
Howell, Alexander Beliavsky, Adrian Mikhalschishin, and, oh, yeah, lest
I forget, k Dvoretsky and Artur Yusupov.
If a group of people like that wants to talk about how to improve at
chess, only a fool would not listen.
-Ron
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 19 May 2006 10:16:22
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames??
|
>> > Except that when you study endings, you don't study tablebases. Only a
>> > small amount of endgame study is about memorization.
>>
>> That sounds pretty weak as well.
>
> Well, it's the "weak" opinion of Andy Soltis, Mikhail Sherevsky, James
> Howell, Alexander Beliavsky, Adrian Mikhalschishin, and, oh, yeah, lest
> I forget, k Dvoretsky and Artur Yusupov.
Players who were very WEAK compared to the best of their day.
> If a group of people like that wants to talk about how to improve at
> chess, only a fool would not listen.
Unless one was listening to those who wiped the board with that group.
Fischer didn't exactly fear Soltis; oh wait, Fischer didn't win because he
was superior in the opening; he won becuase he was born Robert J. Fischer.
--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918
|
| | | | |
Date: 11 May 2006 12:12:18
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames??
|
En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit:
>>Learning how to play, say, rook endings has won me countless games, and
>>saved many others.
>
> Games which would never have reached the ending (in that state) if you had
> studied more openings.
Ray, please be serious!!
Ray is claiming Ches top players in the world and top chess engines in
the world know less opening theory than him???
AT
|
| | | | | |
Date: 11 May 2006 11:27:59
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames??
|
>>>Learning how to play, say, rook endings has won me countless games, and
>>>saved many others.
>>
>> Games which would never have reached the ending (in that state) if you
>> had studied more openings.
>
> Ray, please be serious!!
>
> Ray is claiming Ches top players in the world and top chess engines in the
> world know less opening theory than him???
Less? I don't know. More? Definitely not.
--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918
|
|
