hi, dear friends, your concern for my mental welfare is truly touching, but as our American friends say, ' everything is good under da hood'.
being a mere 1500 player i thought that no one would care, and why should they? but its untrue, all have contributed in some way or other to my understanding and the advice is always well intentioned.
there is in chess by its very nature, a duality, 'no kidding you say', but its evident even in subtitles, we are told that doubled pawns are bad, but not always, especially if they are protected and influence the centre etc etc, some endgames scenarios very rarely if ever come over the board, it is true, as in the case of two bishops and a king v a lone king, even here there is a duality in that it may teach us to handle the bishop pair in a more concerted fashion should this arise over the board, strategic principles and concepts are as beautiful as finely executed tactical combinations, the product of creativity, but very rarely win us games outright, yet are we to disregard them? embrace everything my friends, let it penetrate into a kaleidoscopic vision of infinite beauty and understanding and set the controls to the heart of the sun!😀
Originally posted by greenpawn34if you're not being sarcastic, I'd like to say that by endgame, I only think of pawn, piece, rook, queen endings etc. And in their essence, the piece endings are pawn endings, and queen endings carry very similar concepts with rook endings, so it "almost" comes down to pawn and rook endings.
Good Post petrovitch
You don't by chance have the score of blitz game in question. Post it.
Robbie Robbie Robbie what are we to do with you?
I have never had to mate with the two Bishops.
I have never had to mate with a Knight and Bishop.
What you are looking at a complete waste of time and effort.
Toss the endgame book into the cat litter ...[text shortened]... d store as many two
move trick 'n' traps as you can. (it's more fun studying this as well).
I'm planning to begin intense endgame training when I hit 1800 (hopefully at least in half a year), and I don't have the slightest intention to study any of those B+ N vs K or Q vs R mates.
The fact that these are really a waste of time doesn't mean anyone should throw away their endgame books. Endgames are different from those, and actually, I tend to think that those mates should count as a part of middlegame, because of their almost pure tactical nature.
actually, by now, I can manage to convert some very easy pawn endings without much trouble, but when it comes to mating with a rook vs a lone king, it really gives me trouble! and I find that pretty normal.
Originally posted by diskamylI had B+N+k vs. K three times so far ! I drew three times 😲
if you're not being sarcastic, I'd like to say that by endgame, I only think of pawn, piece, rook, queen endings etc. And in their essence, the piece endings are pawn endings, and queen endings carry very similar concepts with rook endings, so it "almost" comes down to pawn and rook endings.
I'm planning to begin intense endgame training when I hit 1800 ...[text shortened]... g with a rook vs a lone king, it really gives me trouble! and I find that pretty normal.
Originally posted by petrovitchI was gonna say something smart and wise, as in sarcastic, but you beat me to the punch with cold reason and clear analysis.
Modern chess strategy has Philidor's research, Morphy's games (an unwritten law), Steinitz's principles, Lasker's preperation, Capablanca's simplicity, Nizwowitsch's rules, Alekhine's complexity, Botvinnik's creatioin of the chess school, and then I must add evaluation techniques developed by programmers around the world that could prove all of this (stra ...[text shortened]...
To answer your question I would say, "Steinitz," if "who" must be singular.
Originally posted by diskamylI was being a wee bitty sarcastic.
but when it comes to mating with a rook vs a lone king,
it really gives me trouble! and I find that pretty normal.
But mate with K & R v K should not be giving you touble - it is
essential knowledge. Don't wait till you reach 1800 to crack it.
It is the most common ending you will face,
you should be able to do it in your sleep.
Rook Tip No.27
No matter where on a clear board you place a Rook it will always
cover 14 squares. No more and no less.
No other chess piece has this quality. Most lose a lot of their
square control if placed in the corner. Not the Rook.
Originally posted by ericmittensI thought about that too, but the style of Leko and Kramnik proves otherwise, or at least your comment about Kasparov could easily be made about Karpov too.
I would say Kasparov has probably had the most recent large influence on supergrandmaster chess. The ideas of computer-backed dynamic play and the "if it works, do it" positional approach so common in high level chess these days.
except Topalov and Morozevich, I cannot name super GMs that play very much like Kasparov. Most of them just have a universal style.
Originally posted by greenpawn34By "having trouble", of course I don't mean I can't do it, I mean it takes probably 2x more moves than the shortest mate, and I'm not too bothered by it, since I don't play blitz very often.
I was being a wee bitty sarcastic.
But mate with K & R v K should not be giving you touble - it is
essential knowledge. Don't wait till you reach 1800 to crack it.
It is the most common ending you will face,
you should be able to do it in your sleep.
[b]Rook Tip No.27
No matter where on a clear board you place a Rook it will always
cover ...[text shortened]... f their
square control if placed in the corner. Not the Rook.
[fen]8/8/8/8/4R3/8/8/7R[/fen][/b]