08 Aug 09
2 edits
Originally posted by Nowakowskinowakowski, I had that approach like 1&2 years ago. that did help me, I studied basic king&pawn endings.
I strongly disagree.
(However, the annotated games portion I STRONGLY agree with)
I must agree more with petrovitch's approach.
The principles that guide each area of the game, are learned from this
one beautiful point in the game. A man who fears endings, simply fears
his own demise. Learn them, practice them, work through them. In garded as one of the strongest endgame players ever.
An interesting correlation.
-GIN
I've quit that approach, and I still totally suck at endgames. I really don't know anything beyond being able to tell if a p+K against K is winning or drawing.
however, I've made it above 1900 recently, and I'm still convinced that tactical oversights almost completely rule the game at that level. of course there will be many counter examples, I've drawn winning positions because I hadn't (still haven't) mastered the philidor position, I've won games because my opponents messed up in drawn K&P endings, but in the long run, these have been negligible for my level.
I'm planning to make a serious change in my chess study once I reach 2000. I will change my opening repertoire (which will probably be very, very painful for me because I haven't played anything other than 1.c4 in the past few years), and I'll take up studying endgames.
but until then, chesstempo all the way.
08 Aug 09
Originally posted by philidor positionI can't disagree with studying tactics, it certainly helps attack the very
nowakowski, I had that approach like 1&2 years ago. that did help me, I studied basic king&pawn endings.
I've quit that approach, and I still totally suck at endgames. I really don't know anything beyond being able to tell if a p+K against K is winning or drawing.
however, I've made it above 1900 recently, and I'm still convinced that tacti ...[text shortened]... ars), and I'll take up studying endgames.
but until then, chesstempo all the way.
fundamentals of the game, I just personally believe that the fastest
way to get better is to study the ending.
Studying the ending, will strengthen tactics, knowledge and all of your
basic, fundamental portions of the game. Studying tactics helps in
the fluency, that is taking action in games. If you were to view chess
as a language, you'd know that first, to have debates of any real
interest, you'd have to become fluent by study of the words. However,
to strengthen this fluency, the fastest, best mode would be to study
the languages most pure form; the alphabet.
In Chess, the alphabet, is its ending.
-GIN
08 Aug 09
3 edits
Originally posted by NowakowskiI'm sorry, but that looks too metaphorical to me. However, you won't succeed in trying to turn me into the guy who argues not to study endgames 🙂
I can't disagree with studying tactics, it certainly helps attack the very
fundamentals of the game, I just personally believe that the fastest
way to get better is to study the ending.
Studying the ending, will strengthen tactics, knowledge and all of your
basic, fundamental portions of the game. Studying tactics helps in
the fluency, that is tak the languages most pure form; the alphabet.
In Chess, the alphabet, is its ending.
-GIN
I agree they are important.
09 Aug 09
Originally posted by orion25Well, at some levels of play there are some aspects that are more important. If you're three pieces up you dont need to be Capablanca to win that ending. In other words at some levels of play, especially lower levels, tactical knowledge is the most important. Most of my games are decided in that fashion. Hopefully not for long😀
I think all this ranking of aspects is nonsense, everything in chess is just as important: chess strategy and tactics and endgames are just as important. If you fail at one, you fail at them all. Your chess ability is ultimately defined by your worst aspect.
09 Aug 09
Originally posted by Goshenhow are you getting on with making a 'tactical inventory', in your play?
Well, at some levels of play there are some aspects that are more important. If you're three pieces up you dont need to be Capablanca to win that ending. In other words at some levels of play, especially lower levels, tactical knowledge is the most important. Most of my games are decided in that fashion. Hopefully not for long😀
09 Aug 09
Originally posted by Gosheni don't agree, if you play sound strategical moves you won't find yourself as quickly in terrible positions where you will loose due to a tactic. I'm not saying tactics arn't important, they shure are, but you will loose anyway if you don't know were to place your pieces. Strategy will bring you into the positions were you can aply tactics, if you have bad strategy its your opponent who can aply his tactics.
Well, at some levels of play there are some aspects that are more important. If you're three pieces up you dont need to be Capablanca to win that ending. In other words at some levels of play, especially lower levels, tactical knowledge is the most important. Most of my games are decided in that fashion. Hopefully not for long😀
studying chess strategy will make you a better chess player, studying tactics will make you win more games. Its just as important.
I for instance loose my games because I wander into bad positions, and eventually sucumb to some tactic. Games are lost long before you loose material, that is my opinion anyhow.
09 Aug 09
3 edits
Originally posted by orion25Maybe you're right but chess strategy is much harder to learn than tactics.
[s. Its just as important.
I for instance loose my games because I wander into bad positions, and eventually sucumb to some tactic. Games are lost long before you loose material, that is my opinion anyhow.[/b]
Hey robbie you won't imagine how the piece en prise theme keeps repeating itself in my games. I just won a piece with a double attack! LOL. Chess at this level is crazy.
09 Aug 09
Originally posted by GoshenI couldn't disagree more. I think chess strategy is way much easier than tactics.
Maybe you're right but chess strategy is much harder to learn than tactics.
you can't have enough of tactics for life, whereas general chess strategy could be learned within hours, when you read the first 20 or so pages of silman's how to reassess your chess workbook.
if you're talking about key ideas in different openings or endgame knowledge, that's a different story though.
09 Aug 09
Originally posted by philidor positionI think you are exagerating a little there, you can't learn strategy in an our, but it is much easier to learn than tactics, as we are talking about general rules and principals, that can be aplyed in any position. To really master it though I think it needs loads and loads of study ours, and experience
I couldn't disagree more. I think chess strategy is way much easier than tactics.
you can't have enough of tactics for life, whereas general chess strategy could be learned within hours, when you read the first 20 or so pages of silman's how to reassess your chess workbook.
if you're talking about key ideas in different openings or endgame knowledge, that's a different story though.
09 Aug 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Goshenhappy days Goshen, i was the same as you my friend, i was totally surprised when i also did this, i could not believe how many pieces that i was leaving unguarded and prone to a tactic, or my opponent was also leaving unguarded and prone.
Maybe you're right but chess strategy is much harder to learn than tactics.
Hey robbie you won't imagine how the piece en prise theme keeps repeating itself in my games. I just won a piece with a double attack! LOL. Chess at this level is crazy.
it is true that it is almost methodical and somewhat banal, but the point is, that we have a process that we are able to utilise to determine if there is a tactic or not, this is really important, for if our thoughts are not anchored on some goal or target or the creation of such, then they dissipate into nothingness, like a kind of smoke ring of the mind, and we make aimless moves.
09 Aug 09
Originally posted by philidor positionWell maybe we just different. But look , tactics are categorized into different motifs e.g back rank, overloaded piece, fork, etc. which makes it really easy for me to absorb. And the goals are acheived in usually less than 5 moves and are immediately visible. however positional play is extremely subtle especially for the beginning player. which i am. took up chess 5months ago. right know i can do intermediate tactics 100% and even some diffcult ones with enough time. But getting to the positions is something entirely...perhaps thats where your positional play comes in.
I couldn't disagree more. I think chess strategy is way much easier than tactics.
you can't have enough of tactics for life, whereas general chess strategy could be learned within hours, when you read the first 20 or so pages of silman's how to reassess your chess workbook.
if you're talking about key ideas in different openings or endgame knowledge, that's a different story though.
09 Aug 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieCan't agree more. Gone are the days of planless unambitious moves for me. a bad plan is better than no plan.
happy days Goshen, i was the same as you my friend, i was totally surprised when i also did this, i could not believe how many pieces that i was leaving unguarded and prone to a tactic, or my opponent was also leaving unguarded and prone.
it is true that it is almost methodical and somewhat banal, but the point is, that we have a process that we ...[text shortened]... ey dissipate into nothingness, like a kind of smoke ring of the mind, and we make aimless moves.