|
Main
Date: 13 Nov 2007 01:31:00
From: Petrovitch
Subject: Corrseponding Squares
|
I'm having trouble understanding corresponding squares. The orthadox system is similar to Euclidean geometry when dealing with opposition, but there are many instances where the pawn structure warps our understanding of opposition revealing a curviture of space. If a player makes what appears direct, distant, diagonal, or oblique opposiiton the game will be lost; an understand of corresponding square is required to find the correct move. I do not have this understanding. Can anyone recommend further reading on this subject? My only source is a single page from k Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual.
|
|
|
Date: 15 Nov 2007 14:55:45
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Corrseponding Squares
|
On Nov 15, 6:04 am, [email protected] wrote: > Aside from Averbakh's monograph on the subject (which is pretty dense, > even for masters), an excellent treatment, with many practical > examples, is "The Final Countdown" by van Riemsdijk and Hajenius > (Cadogan 1997). Here is a brief snippet from a review by Jeremy Silman: "One day I was relaxing between endless raves and pulled out my copy of The Final Countdown. Serper (who is an extremely talented player) asked what I was looking at. I handed it to him and he glanced at the contents. "Why would anyone want to read this?" he asked. Other grandmasters passed it around and also looked at me as if I was insane." ------ Anyone who is familiar with the typical chess book review on that site will immediately notice that far from any real "review" of the book's contents, when it comes to works on the endgame, these openings-mongers appear to know zip. Not one position was taken and tested for accuracy of its analysis -- an astounding change in methodology from what happens when a given book on the /openings/ is up for review. Thus far, each time I have looked up almost any work on this neglected phase of the game, no substantive knowledge is demonstrated by the FIDE-titled reviewers whatsoever. The commentary is always positive, but no real meat is doled out; I think this reveals something about how the reviewers' time and effort is allocated among the various parts of the game. By comparison, when a work on the opening is reviewed, there might be as many as fifty lines discussed, in which the expert details every conceivable angle: accuracy of analysis, referenced prior works, overall suitability for players of various strengths, etc., etc. One final note: look at the names of the authors of this book on K & p endings, on corresponding squares; do you see the name "Schiller" or "Keene" or "Soltis" or even "Silman" on the cover? Of course not. The very reason names like Nobody-ski and Forgottenius can make it to print is the lack of big-name competition, due to an utter lack of interest on their part. Indeed, the gut reaction "are you insane?" fits perfectly with the facts: chess has largely become a book-monkey battle of openings theory. -- help bot
|
|
Date: 15 Nov 2007 03:04:52
From:
Subject: Re: Corrseponding Squares
|
Petrovitch wrote: > I'm having trouble understanding corresponding squares. The orthadox > system is similar to Euclidean geometry when dealing with opposition, > but there are many instances where the pawn structure warps our > understanding of opposition revealing a curviture of space. If a > player makes what appears direct, distant, diagonal, or oblique > opposiiton the game will be lost; an understand of corresponding > square is required to find the correct move. I do not have this > understanding. Can anyone recommend further reading on this subject? > My only source is a single page from k Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual. Aside from Averbakh's monograph on the subject (which is pretty dense, even for masters), an excellent treatment, with many practical examples, is "The Final Countdown" by van Riemsdijk and Hajenius (Cadogan 1997).
|
|
Date: 14 Nov 2007 15:23:56
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Corrseponding Squares
|
On Nov 14, 5:50 pm, Kenneth Sloan <[email protected] > wrote: > SBD wrote: > > On Nov 14, 12:41 am, Petrovitch <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I'm the author of the original post. I have won dozens of games with > >> KBN vs K, and KQ vs KR. But the technique in these endings is > >> straight forward. Let's get back to the subject. > > > I would say of course to Q vs R, and unfortunately, say that, unless > > you play an average of say, 30 games a day, the probablility of you > > having "dozens" of BN games is remote. But that is for another > > day.....\\ > > Not so. > > It's common on ICC for opponents to continue to play on in KPPk endings. > My solution is to promote the PP to N and B and then mate. > > I get lots of KBNk endings that way. Are those blitz games, or (heaven forbid) does this take up much valuable time? I doubt I could put up a serious fight in blitz, but then, the time pressure is mainly on my opponent, since he is the one trying to prove he can mate. Also, at ICC, do you have to claim a 50-moves draw, or does the site's interface keep track for you? I've never tried B&N at GetClub, though I have many times underpromoted for various reasons. -- help bot
|
|
Date: 14 Nov 2007 14:50:35
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Corrseponding Squares
|
On Nov 14, 3:25 pm, SBD <[email protected] > wrote: > As always, I think Cheron is the best book for this. If there is a > book on corresponding squares, it sounds like something Grondijs or > another author may have done as a work of love. > > Cheron has 30 detailed pages on this subject, an outgrowth of an > article he wrote in 1944. Most Americans don't know Cheron, probably > why they can't play endgames. :) Actually, most chess players from that era are now either dead or else they no longer need to study such things. More recently (read: in the modern era), American (and perhaps British) writers have simply "lifted" work from others and translated it into English, taking the credit themselves. I would be very much surprised if, for example, Bruce Pandolfini has not covered this somewhere, in books written mainly for kids. The finest book I have ever read on the endgame was written by GM Averbakh; it was targeted at stronger club players, did not overwhelm with fluff, and had no analytical errors as far as I could see. But far more popular at the time was the work by GM Fine -- a massive compilation of what I must assume were other people's analysis, since he made so very many errors. This error-riddled work was widely promoted for decades, and was supposedly the (fool's)gold standard until fairly recently. By comparison, multi-volume works by authors like Cherov and Averbakh were either difficult to find in English, or else prohibitively expensive -- if not both. One should also consider the fact that it is of little use to be a master of the endgame, if every endgame reached is dead lost due to a weakness in the opening and/or middle game. It has been my experience that Americans have a decided tendency for overkill in the opening phase (relatively speaking), are somewhat weak at tactics, but truly horrible only in the endgame. But as I wrote before, it is usually sufficient to know "opposition" and be able to calculate accurately, as even world-class players can err in these endings. While some may leap at the opportunity to ad hominize me, they would no doubt be embarrassed were I to post an example of their favorite GM botching this stuff in a famous game. : >D -- help bot
|
|
Date: 14 Nov 2007 20:25:40
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Corrseponding Squares
|
On Nov 14, 12:41 am, Petrovitch <[email protected] > wrote: > I'm the author of the original post. I have won dozens of games with > KBN vs K, and KQ vs KR. But the technique in these endings is > straight forward. Let's get back to the subject. I would say of course to Q vs R, and unfortunately, say that, unless you play an average of say, 30 games a day, the probablility of you having "dozens" of BN games is remote. But that is for another day..... > Can anyone suggest any book or articles on the subject? As always, I think Cheron is the best book for this. If there is a book on corresponding squares, it sounds like something Grondijs or another author may have done as a work of love. Cheron has 30 detailed pages on this subject, an outgrowth of an article he wrote in 1944. Most Americans don't know Cheron, probably why they can't play endgames. :) Why not write GM Benko and ask him if he might be interested in covering this topic in CL?
|
| |
Date: 14 Nov 2007 16:50:37
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: Corrseponding Squares
|
SBD wrote: > On Nov 14, 12:41 am, Petrovitch <[email protected]> wrote: >> I'm the author of the original post. I have won dozens of games with >> KBN vs K, and KQ vs KR. But the technique in these endings is >> straight forward. Let's get back to the subject. > > I would say of course to Q vs R, and unfortunately, say that, unless > you play an average of say, 30 games a day, the probablility of you > having "dozens" of BN games is remote. But that is for another > day.....\\ Not so. It's common on ICC for opponents to continue to play on in KPPk endings. My solution is to promote the PP to N and B and then mate. I get lots of KBNk endings that way. -- Kenneth Sloan [email protected] Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213 University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473 Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/
|
|
Date: 14 Nov 2007 11:29:44
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Corrseponding Squares
|
On Nov 14, 1:41 am, Petrovitch <[email protected] > wrote: > I'm the author of the original post. I have won dozens of games with > KBN vs K, and KQ vs KR. But the technique in these endings is > straight forward. Riiiight. Just stay there and I will be right back with Fritz, to test you in Q vs. R. : >D > Let's get back to the subject. > > I'm beginning to understand how opposition is meaningless on some > lines, how this status is transfered to a major line, and once my > opponent leaves the major line outflanking can occur following the > standard algorithm used for orthadox opposition. The best position I > can think of that illustrates the problem that I do not understand is > found in a game Gulko vs Short, Riga, 1995. > > FEN 5k2/8/5p2/7p/8/4PK2/8/8 > > Elementary knowledge suggests taking distant opposition with Kf4 or > Kf2, but according to the theory of corresponding squares the only > correct move is Kg2! I just don't get it. If you "don't get it", then how do you know that the correct move is supposed to be K-g2? > Too, som GM call this > hexadox opposition. I can't find this term anywhere on the net or in > any other text by anyone othe then Max Euwe. One problem is the way most endgame books are organized; they divide matters up by which men remain on the board, and leave nothing for concepts like corresponding squares, preferring instead to give typical examples from grandmaster play, then show where the loser went wrong. > Can anyone suggest any book or articles on the subject? I went to the biggest chess book review site on the Web and did a search for "corresponding squares"; it went numb, froze, then gave me a blank stare. But when I search for say, Sicilian Dragon Bodarevsky Yugoslav hyper-attack gambit with a lemon twist, I get on the order of two thousand hits! Go figure. -- help bot
|
|
Date: 14 Nov 2007 06:41:39
From: Petrovitch
Subject: Re: Corrseponding Squares
|
I'm the author of the original post. I have won dozens of games with KBN vs K, and KQ vs KR. But the technique in these endings is straight forward. Let's get back to the subject. I'm beginning to understand how opposition is meaningless on some lines, how this status is transfered to a major line, and once my opponent leaves the major line outflanking can occur following the standard algorithm used for orthadox opposition. The best position I can think of that illustrates the problem that I do not understand is found in a game Gulko vs Short, Riga, 1995. FEN 5k2/8/5p2/7p/8/4PK2/8/8 Elementary knowledge suggests taking distant opposition with Kf4 or Kf2, but according to the theory of corresponding squares the only correct move is Kg2! I just don't get it. Too, som GM call this hexadox opposition. I can't find this term anywhere on the net or in any other text by anyone othe then Max Euwe. Can anyone suggest any book or articles on the subject?
|
|
Date: 13 Nov 2007 14:02:12
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Corrseponding Squares
|
On Nov 13, 4:09 pm, SBD <[email protected] > wrote: > Seriously, I've only ever seen one B+N versus king (never played one), > but as I noted, I've used corresponding squares quite a bit - maybe > every 30 or 40 games. Many players carefully avoid the possibility, fearing an embarrassing post-mortem where some patzer comes over to show how "easy" it is. It has occurred in some of my games, and I have even had the ending of KBB vs. KNN on deck, though my opponent somehow rejected that edge in favor of something with *zero* winning prospects. As for the corresponding squares theory, I cannot say how often it may have come up, but not once have I ever been shown after a game that I could have won or drawn, if only I have moved to this key square; perhaps this is because nobody else has studied the idea either? OTOH, *countless times* I have been shown that I made a boo boo in the opening or middle game -- even by players I would expect to beat at Knight odds. And in my computer analysis of completed games, I find the same thing to hold true -- no matter who the players were, or of what strength. > I thought maybe you had used Chess Query Language in Fritz or one of > the big databases to show this. I am not familiar with CQL in Fritz, but that may be because I have Fritz 5.32, not the more recent versions. As far as I can determine, the chess programs I have used do not "know" corresponding squares theory, but instead they try to calculate -- just like me. But they are familiar with (to put it nicely) the theory of direct opposition. One of these days, I need to install some tablebases... . -- help bot
|
|
Date: 13 Nov 2007 21:09:42
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Corrseponding Squares
|
On Nov 13, 2:20 pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote: > > That strikes me as incredibly implausible, do you have any proof? > > Yes. I proved this as my doctoral thesis at Harvard, > in 1952. Before then, it was mistakenly assumed > that corresponding squares were the way to world > peace -- but I showed that it was, in reality, the mate > with Bishop and Knight that would end disease and > poverty once and for all. Of course, now that Al Gore > has a Nobel Peace prize too, I no longer brag of mine. OK, so much for the wit parade...... Seriously, I've only ever seen one B+N versus king (never played one), but as I noted, I've used corresponding squares quite a bit - maybe every 30 or 40 games. I thought maybe you had used Chess Query Language in Fritz or one of the big databases to show this.
|
|
Date: 13 Nov 2007 12:20:40
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Corrseponding Squares
|
On Nov 13, 2:01 pm, SBD <[email protected] > wrote: > On Nov 13, 12:59 pm, help bot <[email protected]> wrote: > > > of the opposition and direct calculation will do the job. In > > fact, I believe the mate with BB or with BN comes up more > > often than corresponding squares. > > That strikes me as incredibly implausible, do you have any proof? Yes. I proved this as my doctoral thesis at Harvard, in 1952. Before then, it was mistakenly assumed that corresponding squares were the way to world peace -- but I showed that it was, in reality, the mate with Bishop and Knight that would end disease and poverty once and for all. Of course, now that Al Gore has a Nobel Peace prize too, I no longer brag of mine. -- doc bot
|
|
Date: 13 Nov 2007 19:01:56
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Corrseponding Squares
|
On Nov 13, 12:59 pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote: > of the opposition and direct calculation will do the job. In > fact, I believe the mate with BB or with BN comes up more > often than corresponding squares. That strikes me as incredibly implausible, do you have any proof?
|
|
Date: 13 Nov 2007 10:59:09
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Corrseponding Squares
|
On Nov 13, 11:41 am, SBD <[email protected] > wrote: > However I have won tons of games where my opponent kept telling me it > was a dead draw, and many of them because of sloppy king handling in > the endgame ("doesn't matter if I move to b6 or c6...."). At GetClub, the main problem is that -- as far as I can tell -- the program is still in defensive mode, even if no pieces remain except the two Kings! Most pawn endings do not require any serious knowledge of corresponding squares theory; in most cases, knowledge of the opposition and direct calculation will do the job. In fact, I believe the mate with BB or with BN comes up more often than corresponding squares. -- help bot
|
|
Date: 13 Nov 2007 17:17:03
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Corrseponding Squares
|
On Nov 13, 10:34 am, David Richerby <[email protected] > wrote: > I only said it was `more common' in problems and correspondence. I > mentioned correspondence chess because, there, unlike OTB chess, > you're allowed to make notes. I'm sort of starting to see.... is it a depth of analysis you are referring to?
|
| |
Date: 14 Nov 2007 16:50:23
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Corrseponding Squares
|
SBD <[email protected] > wrote: > David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote: >> I only said it was `more common' in problems and correspondence. I >> mentioned correspondence chess because, there, unlike OTB chess, >> you're allowed to make notes. > > I'm sort of starting to see.... is it a depth of analysis you are > referring to? To some extent, yes. And the fact that corresponding squares, in all but the simplest cases, requires an amount of book-keeping that is hard (though not, of course, impossible) to do in one's head.[1] I certainly don't dispute your claim that you've used corresponding squares in an OTB game, for example. Dave. [1] I'm aware that this argument is close to circular, since there's a great temptation to define the simplest cases as `those that can be done in one's head' -- David Richerby Disgusting Unholy Postman (TM): it's www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a man who delivers the mail but it's also a crime against nature and it'll turn your stomach!
|
|
Date: 13 Nov 2007 16:41:12
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Corrseponding Squares
|
On Nov 13, 10:02 am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote: > I think you may need to work more on tactics; > clearly, by the time you reach the sort of ending > in which this theory is crucial, you ought to be > at least a full pawn ahead, /like me/. ;>D Actually I overemphasize the tactical (if you open 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d5!? you must), but I think that was the point he intended to make - that the need rarely surfaces in his or most OTB games because of the material surplus usually found in most endings, making fine strategy moot. However I have won tons of games where my opponent kept telling me it was a dead draw, and many of them because of sloppy king handling in the endgame ("doesn't matter if I move to b6 or c6....").
|
|
Date: 13 Nov 2007 08:02:20
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Corrseponding Squares
|
On Nov 13, 10:14 am, SBD <[email protected] > wrote: > > Sometimes, as you observe, the opposition will allow you to work out > > what the corresponding squares are. But, in general, the only way to > > work it out is to imagine the kings on the relevant squares and > > analyze. As such, the method is more commonly used when solving > > problems and in correspondence play (no pun intended), rather than > > over the board. > > I've certainly used the idea of corresponding squares in OTB games, so > I am not sure relegating it to problems, and for some reason, to > correspondence play, is accurate. I think you may need to work more on tactics; clearly, by the time you reach the sort of ending in which this theory is crucial, you ought to be at least a full pawn ahead, /like me/. ; >D -- help bot
|
|
Date: 13 Nov 2007 15:14:07
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Corrseponding Squares
|
On Nov 13, 6:12 am, David Richerby <[email protected] > wrote: > Sometimes, as you observe, the opposition will allow you to work out > what the corresponding squares are. But, in general, the only way to > work it out is to imagine the kings on the relevant squares and > analyze. As such, the method is more commonly used when solving > problems and in correspondence play (no pun intended), rather than > over the board. I've certainly used the idea of corresponding squares in OTB games, so I am not sure relegating it to problems, and for some reason, to correspondence play, is accurate.
|
| |
Date: 13 Nov 2007 16:34:43
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Corrseponding Squares
|
SBD <[email protected] > wrote: > David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote: >> Sometimes, as you observe, the opposition will allow you to work >> out what the corresponding squares are. But, in general, the only >> way to work it out is to imagine the kings on the relevant squares >> and analyze. As such, the method is more commonly used when >> solving problems and in correspondence play (no pun intended), >> rather than over the board. > > I've certainly used the idea of corresponding squares in OTB games, > so I am not sure relegating it to problems, and for some reason, to > correspondence play, is accurate. I only said it was `more common' in problems and correspondence. I mentioned correspondence chess because, there, unlike OTB chess, you're allowed to make notes. Dave. -- David Richerby Disgusting Salted Widget (TM): it's www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a thingy but it's covered in salt and it'll turn your stomach!
|
|
Date: 13 Nov 2007 12:12:34
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Corrseponding Squares
|
Petrovitch <[email protected] > wrote: > I'm having trouble understanding corresponding squares. To say that two squares `correspond' is to say that `if his king is on that square, my king must be on this square or I lose.' (Or, more generally, `if his king is on that square, my king must be on one of these squares', since the correspondence does not have to be one-to- one.) Sometimes, as you observe, the opposition will allow you to work out what the corresponding squares are. But, in general, the only way to work it out is to imagine the kings on the relevant squares and analyze. As such, the method is more commonly used when solving problems and in correspondence play (no pun intended), rather than over the board. Dave. -- David Richerby Strange Laptop T-Shirt (TM): it's like www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a fashion statement that you can put on your lap but it's totally weird!
|
|
Date: 13 Nov 2007 03:46:31
From: StratPlan
Subject: Re: Corrseponding Squares
|
Chapter 10 in Volume 4 of "Comprehensive Chess Endings"by Y. Averbakh & I. Maizelis discusses several "Theory of Corresponding Squares Systems". "Petrovitch" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > I'm having trouble understanding corresponding squares. The orthadox > system is similar to Euclidean geometry when dealing with opposition, > but there are many instances where the pawn structure warps our > understanding of opposition revealing a curviture of space. If a > player makes what appears direct, distant, diagonal, or oblique > opposiiton the game will be lost; an understand of corresponding > square is required to find the correct move. I do not have this > understanding. Can anyone recommend further reading on this subject? > My only source is a single page from k Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual. >
|
|