20 Jul 07
Originally posted by Mephisto2From the tone of your post, I got the impression that I had the right idea (establish and maintain opposition), but that I misssed something along the way. Would you mind elaborating please?
You guys need to study basic endgames. Not only K+Q vs K + p (c- or f-file in this case) as fatlady pointed out, but also, and more importantly, about opposition. Black has two reasonable attempts to survive on his first move, and white's first and second move are excatly doing that: ensuring opposition, and from that the simple evolution towards the Q vs. pawn endgame. Nothing counter-intuitive about that.
20 Jul 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Mephisto2Ke7 seems intuitive, since it ensures opposition on Black's next move AND makes progress toward Black's pawn AND makes progress toward White's pawns. So a move that does not do that is counterintuitive. Now, if you are better at grasping this position, you have refined your intuition so that the correct move not counterintuitive, and incorrect moves such as Ke7 are not intuitive. But for a beginner (as in the thread title), a move that doesn't seem to accomplish the "intuitive" objectives that Ke7 seems to seek could reasonably be called "counterintuitive."
Nothing counter-intuitive about that.
20 Jul 07
Originally posted by HolyTKe7 may take the opposition, but loses an important tempo when black decides to go for the c-pawn. The white king stands in the way of his own e-pawn.
Ke7 seems intuitive, since it ensures opposition on Black's next move AND makes progress toward Black's pawn AND makes progress toward White's pawns. So a move that does not do that is counterintuitive. Now, if you are better at grasping this position, you have refined your intuition so that the correct move not counterintuitive, and incorrect moves such as ...[text shortened]... uitive" objectives that Ke7 seems to seek could reasonably be called "counterintuitive."
Pawn endings should not be judged too much on 'intuition', rather on calculation and sound principles. That alone already makes 'counter-intuitive' a questionable adjective in these endgames.
20 Jul 07
Originally posted by Mephisto2Perhaps you have me on ignore, I don't know. I looked up the position in a tablebase and found the answer to my question. My solution was correct, but I'm sure I would not have found it without someone posting that the correct move was counter-intuitive.
Ke7 may take the opposition, but loses an important tempo when black decides to go for the c-pawn. The white king stands in the way of his own e-pawn.
Pawn endings should not be judged too much on 'intuition', rather on calculation and sound principles. That alone already makes 'counter-intuitive' a questionable adjective in these endgames.
20 Jul 07
Originally posted by BLReidWhy would I have you on ignore? I have no reason for that. What I understand from you all confirms my idea that people spend too much time on openings, some on tactics and far too little on endgames. A real pitty, because endgame theory is the most stable of the three, hence the best time investment in the long run.
Perhaps you have me on ignore, I don't know. I looked up the position in a tablebase and found the answer to my question. My solution was correct, but I'm sure I would not have found it without someone posting that the correct move was counter-intuitive.
20 Jul 07
Originally posted by Mephisto2Well he posted the right answer didn't he?
Why would I have you on ignore? I have no reason for that. What I understand from you all confirms my idea that people spend too much time on openings, some on tactics and far too little on endgames. A real pity, because endgame theory is the most stable of the three, hence the best time investment in the long run.
20 Jul 07
Originally posted by Mephisto2Why you would have me on ignore, I could not say. I was merely speculating because you had not replied to my earlier question to you. I posted a proposed line which turned out to be the correct plan for the position, and you subsequently said that we all needed to study endgames, without any comment on what was wrong with my analysis. Based on that, I concluded that you found something wrong with my suggestion, but didn't care to tell me what it was. Didn't mean to be overly presumptuous. Back to the point, my solution was correct, but apparently I missed something based on your replies. Can you please let me know what that was?
Why would I have you on ignore? I have no reason for that. What I understand from you all confirms my idea that people spend too much time on openings, some on tactics and far too little on endgames. A real pitty, because endgame theory is the most stable of the three, hence the best time investment in the long run.
20 Jul 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Mephisto2I'm not advocating judging any chess problem on intuition. But the adjective "counterintuitive" accurately describes the correct move from the perspective of most beginners. At least 3 people have said or implied that the solution was counterintuitive to them, so it seems to be a pretty good description.
Pawn endings should not be judged too much on 'intuition', rather on calculation and sound principles. That alone already makes 'counter-intuitive' a questionable adjective in these endgames.
But I agree entirely that (a) we should all be encouraged to study the endgame more, and (b) because our intuition is not a good judge of these things (more support for the use of the word "counterintuitive" ), we should not rely on it, but rather use a studied, technical approach. The point of this thread is for people like you help relative beginners to understand how to apply correct principles to analyze this scenario correctly.
Oddly, the first two moves for White in the endgame tablebase (assuming Black plays its best first move) result in the LOSS of a tempo for White--the White king takes 2 moves to do what it could have done in one move. That's counterintuitive to me! Further explanations from all, please!
21 Jul 07
Originally posted by BLReidI do apologise. I was focusing on other posts (about the counter-ntuitive stuff), and didn't plan to highjack the thread by telling or confirming the solution in a direct way.
Why you would have me on ignore, I could not say. I was merely speculating because you had not replied to my earlier question to you. I posted a proposed line which turned out to be the correct plan for the position, and you subsequently said that we all needed to study endgames, without any comment on what was wrong with my analysis. Based on that, I conclud ...[text shortened]... apparently I missed something based on your replies. Can you please let me know what that was?
21 Jul 07
Originally posted by HolyTThat is what makes pawn endgames often so subtle and difficult: the opposition game (first moves) are about forcing your opponent to move when he would prefer not to (i.e. lose a tempo), and that forced move puts him back again from which point on the race can be won. You will have noticed that black at first does not move in the 'right' direction, i.e. towards the c-pawn, so he is losing race tempi too.
I'm not advocating judging any chess problem on intuition. But the adjective "counterintuitive" accurately describes the correct move from the perspective of most beginners. At least 3 people have said or implied that the solution was counterintuitive to them, so it seems to be a pretty good description.
But I agree entirely that (a) we should all be enco ...[text shortened]... done in one move. That's counterintuitive to me! Further explanations from all, please!
21 Jul 07
2 edits
Originally posted by Mephisto2I can see how to solve it now and why e3 fails. White needs to maintain the opposition whilst not obstructing the advance of his e pawn. Once you realise that it is easy to see the plan.
You guys need to study basic endgames. Not only K+Q vs K + p (c- or f-file in this case) as fatlady pointed out, but also, and more importantly, about opposition. Black has two reasonable attempts to survive on his first move, and white's first and second move are excatly doing that: ensuring opposition, and from that the simple evolution towards the Q vs. pawn endgame. Nothing counter-intuitive about that.
I am afraid I went for e3 being a simple "counter intuitive" move (as opposed to e4 being "intuitive" ) without analysing it out on the basis that this was a problem for "beginners".
This is anything but a beginners problem. Whilst basic once the plan is realised it illustrates how easy it can be to throw away won games in the ending but making a rushed, instinctive and wrong move.
More time needs to be spend on this stage of the game despite the limited moves than on earlier stages with many more pieces but the lines need to be calculated to a far greater depth, preferably to the win. I am as guilty as anyone else on rushing the end game thinking I have an easy win. Strangely I would possibly play this right against a stronger opponent but wrong against a weaker one where, thinking I had an "easy" win I would probably play Ke6, e4 or e3.
21 Jul 07
Originally posted by Restless SoulThis posistion is rather hard because at first the white king has to take a very weird route. The position with white King on f7 and the black king on d5 is surprisingly reciprocal zugzwang.
I thought I'd share some simple endgames that are a little tricky. If you have seen the position before or it is rather easy for you, allow some time before posting your answer so more can have a chance to figure it out.
Here is todays position
[fen]5K2/2p5/8/2k5/8/2P5/4P3/8 w - - 0 1[/fen]
White to move. White is up a pawn, but the black seems to be better placed. Can white win or is this a draw?
1.Kg7!!
1.e4? Kd6 =; 1.e3? Kd5=; 1.Ke7? Kc4! 2.Ke6 Kxc3 3.Kd5 Kb4! 4.e4 c5! =; 1.Kf7 Kd5! 2.Kf6 Kc4! 3.e4 Kxc3 4.e5 c5! 5.e6 c4 6.e7 Kd2!! 7.e8=Q c3 =
...Kd5 2.Kf7 Ke5
2...Kc4 3.e4! Kxc3 4.e5! c5 4.e6 Kd2 6.e7! c4 7.e8=Q c3 8.Qd8+ (The decisive difference from the 1.Kf7? line is the fact the white king is not in the way of his queen.) 8..Kc1 9.Qg5+ Kb1 10.Qb5+ Kc1 11.Ke6 c2 12.Kd5! Kd2 13.Qb2 Kd1 14.Qd4+ 1-0
3.Ke7 Kd5 4.Kd7! Kc4 5.Kc6!
5. e4? Kxc3 6.e5 c5! 7.e6 Kd2 8.e7 c4! 9.e8=Q c3! =
Kxc3 6.Kc5! 1-0
Good job to those who figured it out