26 Dec 11
Originally posted by PhySiQI think this would be more true if the only way to win a game was via an ending, but that isn't the case.
Mr. Leggett,
Reducing an entire idea down to one single phrase is a tad bit bastardizing don't you think? The message is that opening and middle-game play by players of varying strengths is predominately based on endgame understanding.
How could a player with no training in pawn endings play for a pawns advantage? Control of the d file in a material ...[text shortened]... ding than any other phase of the game - because there is naught any separation without it!
Q
Extra material and control of salient positional features such as open files can equally lead to tactical solutions where any potential endgames are moot.
The ending is certainly an important facet of evaluating a position, but many games never make it that far.
It is not by accident that, when candidates prepare for matches, opening prep constitutes the greatest amount of work. It is the only part of the game guaranteed to take place.
"Assessment of possible endings" is a subheading under "strategic considerations", and when other GMs face a World Champion, I think most people fear other aspects of his game more, and would be happy to know they would survive into an ending.
To be honest, I'm not even sure I would categorically say that strategic considerations were the separating characteristic between regular and super GMs, even when endings are recognized as a portion of strategic considerations, but it does strike me as getting closer to the truth.
I enjoy endgames, and GP even gives me friendly jabs about it, but I would never suggest endgame play is what uniquely or especially separates the World Champion wheat from the regular GM chaff, unless we were talking about specific players such as Capablanca or Smyslov. There are simply too many other important aspect of the game to make that claim.
In the case of Kasparov, his opening prep was feared most, and rightly so. His work at home was superb, and he crushed people with it when he showed up at the tournament. That's a feather in his cap in my book, not a pejorative statement of his ability or legacy.
As usual, I reserve the right to be completely off about this, so no harm taken if anyone wants to claim just that! This is starting to take on semantic aspects, and that usually indicates that progress on the idea is drawing to a close.
I was once told to me by quite a strong player, 2200+ that the endgame is where the
game really begins and i have to agree, its at least as exciting, if not more so than the
opening and middle game, its sudden death, one false move and we are walking the
plank! the problem is overcoming an apathy for endgame's, this is the greatest barrier
at least to me anyway, yet a study of it can be beneficial to all other aspects of ones
game, anyhow, here is a problem, see if you can solve it, i didn't, but perhaps you
guys can, white to move 🙂
afterwards perhaps we could list the themes that this little problem contained, just to
demonstrate the potency of end game studies. clue, it begins with the tactical
theme of interference!
26 Dec 11
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe hint is almost cheating here robbie. The promotion for check on the long diagonal gives it away.
I was once told to me by quite a strong player, 2200+ that the endgame is where the
game really begins and i have to agree, its at least as exciting, if not more so than the
opening and middle game, its sudden death, one false move and we are walking the
plank! the problem is overcoming an apathy for endgame's, this is the greatest barrier
a e the potency of end game studies. clue, it begins with the tactical
theme of interference!
Bf6 black must capture or black stops the promotion...e7xf6
Nd4 black must capture or Nc2+ forks the newly promoted queen...Kxd4
d8=Q....a1=Q and Qxf6+ winning the queen
Q
26 Dec 11
Just a quick counterpoint to consider in the discussion about endgame play and its role in overall chess strength:
First you have to separate out the intrinsic ability from the learned. Many of the top players historically didn't necessarily sit down and study endgames. They just had a talent for finding the right path. Jose Raul Capablanca and Akiba Rubinstein were two good examples from the old days.
Second, at least one very strong endgame specialist never became World Champion. I've already mentioned his name.
26 Dec 11
Originally posted by joesheppeRubenstein didn't study endgames? Balderdash. They both studied. Rubenstein has a few puzzles in his name that are maddening. He is the non-champion...who should have been champion. Unfortunately it didn't work out for him. Capablanca not study? This could be argued - he went over many games of his contemporaries and played through many games. Did he go through endgame puzzles? We don't know. He was however familiar with endgame tactics from his perusals.
Just a quick counterpoint to consider in the discussion about endgame play and its role in overall chess strength:
First you have to separate out the intrinsic ability from the learned. Many of the top players historically didn't necessarily sit down and study endgames. They just had a talent for finding the right path. Jose Raul Capablanca and Akiba Ru ...[text shortened]... e very strong endgame specialist never became World Champion. I've already mentioned his name.
If you're searching for a World Champion who didn't study the endgame - you will not find him. The end of the game is a mandatory study just as tactics, simple-mates, and attacking the castled king, are all mandatory studies.
Q
26 Dec 11
3 edits
Originally posted by PhySiQtoo easy for you dude, but never the less, in that single end game problem, we see,
The hint is almost cheating here robbie. The promotion for check on the long diagonal gives it away.
[hidden]Bf6 black must capture or black stops the promotion...e7xf6[/hidden]
[hidden]Nd4 black must capture or Nc2+ forks the newly promoted queen...Kxd4[/hidden]
[hidden]d8=Q....a1=Q and Qxf6+ winning the queen[/hidden]
Q
tactical themes of interference, sacrifice for position, forks, skewer, co-ordination of
pieces, its just too good. But not hard enough eh, check this bad boy out! white to
play, find the best move!
27 Dec 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
too easy for you dude, but never the less, in that single end game problem, we see,
tactical themes of interference, sacrifice for position, forks, skewer, co-ordination of
pieces, its just too good. But not hard enough eh, check this bad boy out! white to
play, find the best move!
[fen]k1b5/8/N1Pb4/pQ1p4/K2P4/4qp2/8/8 w - - 0 1[/fen]
1.Nc7+ Bxc7 2.Qa6+ Kb8 3.Qa7+ Kxa7 and its stalemate
27 Dec 11
Originally posted by PhySiQI fully agree. capa endings are like 101 of endgame theory, it's clear that he not only studied endgames thoroughly, but actually based his whole style on that very knowledge.
Rubenstein didn't study endgames? Balderdash. They both studied. ...
any and all stories about ANYONE not studying a skill, any skill, thoroughly before getting good at it, is utter and absolute rubbish. believing such stories is exactly as silly as believing in telepathy or magic. such stories are no truer than stories of DPRK's kim jong-il's heroic and amazing past. such stories have one sole purpose, to create a myth.
27 Dec 11
Originally posted by PhySiQFirst off, elite players aren't studying engames - they mastered those skills with trainers in their teen years. What they do is play through twic every week looking for interesting ideas. Meanwhile they have their seconds grinding through opening analysis looking to create "interesting" positions. At the elite level by and large opening and middle game are practical the same thing unless caught unprepared.
Poppycock. Chess still has all kinds of wiggle-room! The more daring youngsters are beginning to prove that you simply cannot memorize enough cooked up box nonsense to save you from late game complexities. The only way to remain an elite player is through study and understanding of chess.
The greats were all endgame masters. Every single one of them. ...[text shortened]... is high level kibitzing. Once the game is on - then its on! May the best student win!
Q
The Carlsen approach is certainly the sporting way to play- but I am certain he is still extremely well prepared.
Shirov once said his best phase of the game was ending because his calculation skills were most effective there. Kasparov is an excellent endgame player and probably even better at the NQE's where his massive experience and study would be an advantage. All that being said, I doubt he was ever better than top 10-15 in his era at the phase of the game.
27 Dec 11
Originally posted by PhySiQFirst off, elite players aren't studying engames - they mastered those skills with trainers in their teen years. What they do is play through twic every week looking for interesting ideas. Meanwhile they have their seconds grinding through opening analysis looking to create "interesting" positions. At the elite level by and large opening and middle game are practical the same thing unless caught unprepared.
Poppycock. Chess still has all kinds of wiggle-room! The more daring youngsters are beginning to prove that you simply cannot memorize enough cooked up box nonsense to save you from late game complexities. The only way to remain an elite player is through study and understanding of chess.
The greats were all endgame masters. Every single one of them. ...[text shortened]... is high level kibitzing. Once the game is on - then its on! May the best student win!
Q
The Carlsen approach is certainly the sporting way to play- but I am certain he is still extremely well prepared.
Shirov once said his best phase of the game was ending because his calculation skills were most effective there. Kasparov is an excellent endgame player and probably even better at the NQE's where his massive experience and study would be an advantage. All that being said, I doubt he was ever better than top 10-15 in his era at the phase of the game.