🚀 go-pugleaf

Zero wrote:

> I don't understand why I should study endgames.

There are two different aspects of studying endgames.

The first has simply something to do with learning the game. In the
endgame the concpets of chess can be seen in a clear way, as there are
only few pieces on the board. So you can learn much better than on a
crowded board how to make plans and how to calculate variations. You
get some first ideas of the strengths and weaknesses of the different
pieces, how they work together. In order to achieve this, it is not
necessary to work through a huge book of endings. It is enough to start
with the basic endings, but it is important not just to memorize them,
but to understand each move and the idea behind it.

Secondly the endgame is important for practical reasons. A very basic
reason goes like this. Imagine you have won some material. Alas, your
opponent doesn't resign and you are also not able to mate or to
increase the material advantage. So, pieces leave one by one the board
and at some point you reached the endgame. Now you have to know how to
win this game. Many weak players when playing against each other just
resign much too early. I have seen it now so often, that weak players
are simply not able to realize their advantage. The other way round, if
you are down material you might be able to defend more successfully.

If you are stronger you should keep the endgame in your mind during the
middle game. So you know, that an isolated free pawn on the a-line
might be weak during the middlegame, but can become a threat when
entering the endgame. You might avoid pawn structures which are bad for
endgames if possible. If you are a pawn behind you might try to
exchange pieces in a way that bishops on different colours remain, and
so on. There are two different principal goals for the middlegame:
mating the opponent or getting an advantage which is huge enough to win
the endgame - and then mate the opponent. If you concentrate too much
on the first, you are limited. Most games are actually not decided by a
mate.

There is no need to reach expert level in endgames while you are weak
in the other parts of the game. So you might start with some basic
endings and return later to deepen the knowledge. But you should not
completely abondon the endgames.

And last not least somehow the pure logic of endgames can just be
enjoyable. It's sometimes simply amazing how complicated seemingly
simple positions with only a few pawns left can be. And yet the
solution can be presented in a crystal clear way.

Greetings,
Ralf

>I was beaten by a master this weekend.  He told that in order to
> improve chess players should study endgames.
>
> I don't understand why I should study endgames.  If I can't get through
> the middlegame or the opening or am I supposed to get to a endgame?
> Also I bought a endgame studies book and I don't see the point in going
> over these studies.  None of these positions are ever going to happen
> in any of my real games.

They'll happen, just not very often.

Most people emphasize endgames to justify their laziness in the opening.


--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
>From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918

> [... And a relevant one restored -- ANW.]
>
>>Zero <talltree0@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> I don't understand why I should study endgames.  If I can't get
>>> through the middlegame or the opening or am I supposed to get to a
>>> endgame?
>
> If you cannot often reach an ending, then the basic reason
> is that you do not yet understand well enough the nuts and bolts
> of how the pieces move and combine.

I guess this explains why Adams never reached the endgame against Hydra.


--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
>From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918

Basically, the situation is this.

If you lose most of your games because the opponent wins a piece for
nothing for some point by a two-move combination, then it is true that
you don't need to study the endgame too much at that point (though of
course you should know elementary mates, the opposition, etc.). But
there's little point of deeply studying openings at that point, either,
since you wouldn't have any idea what makes one opening position better
or worse for one of the sides anyway. You should, in that case,
practice basic tactics.

If, however, you reach the point that most of your games reach the
endgame with more or less even material instead of being a piece down,
knowing endgames is what makes the difference between winning and
losing.

It is true that openings come first in the game, but studying openings
in depth is usually a waste of time for a non-master for three obvious
reasons: (a) if your opponent deviates from the "best" line--and he
will in 99% of the cases--you wouldn't know how to take advantage of
his deviation, and (b) you are not going to remember the variations you
studies over-the-board in any case.

You're going to look pretty stupid if you cant win a K+R vs K
endgame.

"Zero" <talltree0@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1147187292.775277.11350@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| I was beaten by a master this weekend.  He told that in order to
| improve chess players should study endgames.
|
| I don't understand why I should study endgames.  If I can't get through
| the middlegame or the opening or am I supposed to get to a endgame?
| Also I bought a endgame studies book and I don't see the point in going
| over these studies.  None of these positions are ever going to happen
| in any of my real games.
|

[Crosspost trimmed.]

Zero <talltree0@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I was beaten by a master this weekend.  He told that in order to
> improve chess players should study endgames.
>
> I don't understand why I should study endgames.  If I can't get
> through the middlegame or the opening or am I supposed to get to a
> endgame?

Is it really true that you can't get through the middlegame or
opening?  If you're playing the opening and middlegame really badly,
you should probably do a bit of work on those, first.  If, on the
other hand, you're doing OK in the opening and middlegame (compared to
other players you meet of about the same rating) then learning
something about the endgame would be a good idea.


> Also I bought a endgame studies book and I don't see the point in
> going over these studies.  None of these positions are ever going to
> happen in any of my real games.

Studies can teach you a lot about how the endgame works and give you
ideas that you might be able to exploit in your own games.  That said,
I'd prefer trying to learn from a more practical book, rather than a
series of studies.


Dave.

--
David Richerby                          Poetic Dictator (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/     totalitarian leader but it's in verse!

In article <M9E*j0cgr@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
David Richerby  <davidr@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>[Crosspost trimmed.]
	[... And a relevant one restored -- ANW.]

>Zero <talltree0@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I don't understand why I should study endgames.  If I can't get
>> through the middlegame or the opening or am I supposed to get to a
>> endgame?

	If you cannot often reach an ending, then the basic reason
is that you do not yet understand well enough the nuts and bolts
of how the pieces move and combine.  Studying endings will help
you towards that understanding in a very stark way -- an ending
is almost all about how a small number of pieces co-operate with
or oppose each other.

	When you do understand the nuts and bolts well enough to
reach endgames regularly, that knowledge will be invaluable -- you
will rescue any number of games that you should have lost, and win
any number that you should only have drawn.  But also, long before
you reach the ending, you will have been using your knowledge to
steer you through the middlegame [and sometimes even the opening],
and you will be able to play the middlegame [and opening] with more
confidence in how pieces combine.

>Is it really true that you can't get through the middlegame or
>opening?  If you're playing the opening and middlegame really badly,
>you should probably do a bit of work on those, first. [...]

	"First" is only a half-truth.  Decent books for beginners
spiral round and round.  "How the pieces move" -- "elementary mates"
-- "simple tactics" -- "simplest openings" -- then round to some
slightly harder endgames, then middlegames, then some of the most
important openings -- then back round to more advanced endgames,
middlegames and deeper openings, and probably some complete games
-- then round again, and perhaps again, probably throwing in some
chess history.

>> Also I bought a endgame studies book and I don't see the point in
>> going over these studies.  None of these positions are ever going to
>> happen in any of my real games.

	Probably not.  OTOH, seeing some of the most extreme examples
of how apparently outrageously lost positions can be won, or how a
knight can utterly outplay a queen, or how a mate can suddenly be
conjured up from nowhere, and so on, can give you ideas that sometimes
are of use in real games.  In addition, there are, broadly, two quite
different genres of study -- those of didactic value, and those of
artistic value.  If you bought an "artistic" book expecting to be
taught something, then you may be disappointed.  But it would be a
sad world if everything had to have utilitarian value, and many chess
players also [or instead] appreciate things for their beauty.

	In the same vein, there are chess players around who like to
study "problems", or chess history/lore/literature/administration.
There is room for all of us ....

>Studies can teach you a lot about how the endgame works and give you
>ideas that you might be able to exploit in your own games.  That said,
>I'd prefer trying to learn from a more practical book, rather than a
>series of studies.

	Absolutely.

--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
anw@maths.nott.ac.uk

>> In what sense did game 4 not reach the endgame?  There were
>> 36 moves of ending, inc 18 in a "pure" R&P ending.  Game 5 also
>> reached a R&P ending, but beyond the hope of rescue [though a strong
>> player as Black might expect to hold the position at move 40 against
>> a "club" player].
>
> Furthermore, it's worth pointing out that Hyrdra is much, much stronger
> tactically than Adams.

You mean like Tal was "much, much stronger tactically" than Botvinnik or
Fischer when he won the title?


> I'm not sure how much relevance results between players of vastly
> different tactical ability have for average players looking to improve.
> Ray's approach might make a small bit of sense against an opponent like
> Hydra (eg, "avoid an unknown position where your opponent might outplay
> you") the standard advice to most players is to learn how to be the guy
> who outplays his opponents in unknown positions.
>
> And that means studying tactics, endgames, and strategy.

Actually, my basic theory for playing is that if you outbook your opponent,
you'll win many games by being in book when the opponent is not.

When both players are out of book (unknown position), that's another battle
of course, and one's intuition comes into play.


--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
>From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918

In article <1147187292.775277.11350@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
 "Zero" <talltree0@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I don't understand why I should study endgames.  If I can't get through
> the middlegame or the opening or am I supposed to get to a endgame?
> Also I bought a endgame studies book and I don't see the point in going
> over these studies.  None of these positions are ever going to happen
> in any of my real games.

Your ability to play endgames will improve your middlegame.

When you learn to evaluate endings properly, you'll have another
"weapon" in your middlegame arsenal: the threat to trade into a
favorable endgame. You'll be able to employ more sophisticated attacks
and sacrifices (because you won't need to win overwhelming material in
order to win) and you'll be a better defender.

Studying endgames will also help you improve your handling of the pieces
in a middlegame. Learning how to use two pieces well together - which
you have to do when you only have two pieces left! - will carry over
into your middlegame, and you'll find yourself co-ordinating your pieces
more effectively when you have more of them. Studying endgames will also
probably improve your visualization and calculation.

Now, obviously, studying endgames isn't going to save you if you're
hanging material to a much stronger player on move 12.

Please recognize that Ray Gordon is (to put it nicely) a maverick when
he talks about focusing on openings. In fact, the most common advice
given to players who wish to improve - advice given by World Champions
like Capablanca, Lasker and Botvinnik, as well as respected teaching
professionals like Pandolfini, Reinfeld, and Silman - is to focus on
tactics and endgames if you want to improve rapidly.

Endgame studies aren't everyone's cup of tea. Instead, I'd recommend a
pair of books on more practical endgame play:

Silman's "Essential Chess Endings" which contains the must-know
theoretical knowledge you're going to need, and Soltis' "Grandmaster
Secrets: Endings" - which is a great primer of practical endgame play.

-Ron

In article <b9KdnTFMasBeUf3ZRVn-ug@pghconnect.com>,
Ray Gordon <Ray@cybersheet.com> wrote:
>> If you cannot often reach an ending, then the basic reason
>> is that you do not yet understand well enough the nuts and bolts
>> of how the pieces move and combine.
>I guess this explains why Adams never reached the endgame against Hydra.

	In what sense did game 4 not reach the endgame?  There were
36 moves of ending, inc 18 in a "pure" R&P ending.  Game 5 also
reached a R&P ending, but beyond the hope of rescue [though a strong
player as Black might expect to hold the position at move 40 against
a "club" player].

--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
anw@maths.nott.ac.uk

On 9 May 2006 08:08:12 -0700, "Zero" <talltree0@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Also I bought a endgame studies book and I don't see the point in going
>over these studies.  None of these positions are ever going to happen
>in any of my real games.

Which book did you get?  (It sounds like you have have gotten a book
of problem-type positions.)
---
Replace you know what by j to email

In article <e3qmv2$drt$1@oyez.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk>,
 anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A. N. Walker) wrote:

> 	In what sense did game 4 not reach the endgame?  There were
> 36 moves of ending, inc 18 in a "pure" R&P ending.  Game 5 also
> reached a R&P ending, but beyond the hope of rescue [though a strong
> player as Black might expect to hold the position at move 40 against
> a "club" player].

Furthermore, it's worth pointing out that Hyrdra is much, much stronger
tactically than Adams.

I'm not sure how much relevance results between players of vastly
different tactical ability have for average players looking to improve.
Ray's approach might make a small bit of sense against an opponent like
Hydra (eg, "avoid an unknown position where your opponent might outplay
you") the standard advice to most players is to learn how to be the guy
who outplays his opponents in unknown positions.

And that means studying tactics, endgames, and strategy.

-Ron

We first need to ascertain your general playing strength. Have you ever
studied endgames before?


"Zero" <talltree0@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1147187292.775277.11350@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I was beaten by a master this weekend.  He told that in order to
> improve chess players should study endgames.
>
> I don't understand why I should study endgames.  If I can't get through
> the middlegame or the opening or am I supposed to get to a endgame?
> Also I bought a endgame studies book and I don't see the point in going
> over these studies.  None of these positions are ever going to happen
> in any of my real games.
>

Zero wrote:

> I was beaten by a master this weekend.  He told that in order to
> improve chess players should study endgames.
>
> I don't understand why I should study endgames.

This is an excellent advice. Study endgames. Yes.
You need to trust Capablanca and many experienced
and outstanding players **blindly**. Indeed, this advice
is deep. After most people believe mathematics or the
realtivity theory blindly even with their life.

There are two reasons for studying the endgame:

 -- a good reason is that it will help you, especially
at the elementary level, to learn about the WHOLE
chess, including the opinings and the middle-game
more than studying extensive opening monographies.

 -- a more important reason is that of the entire chess
only the endgames have the universal educational value;
in ches only the endgame shapes your brain well, changes
your brain to your advantage juz like like some physical
exercises may change your muscles and even bones to
your advantage (while other exercises may actually
harm you).

On the other hand, if someone plays exclusively
blitz (up to 7m per game) then one damages
his/her brain.


> Also I bought a endgame studies book and
> I don't see the point in going over these studies.
>  None of these positions are ever going to happen
> in any of my real games.

Do it anyway, it's good for your chess, it's
good for your brain.

The point is not in memorization, which is
important only marginally and casually; and
the point is not that you will encounter
exactly the positions discussed in the
book (well, actually you will, once your games
get so advanced that you will be likely
to meet the cjallenge of the well balanced
endings) -- the point is to learn the geometry
of the chess board,. the combinations,
the coordination of pieces, the role of
center, and how it varries depending on the
pieces (not much when only rooks are
left on the board; otherwise it rather does),
the role of tempo, ... Endgame is the lab
for the whole chess.

***

Wlod

PS. This thread belongs properly to rgcm only,
hence that's where my response appears (and
nowhere else).

>> When both players are out of book (unknown position), that's another
>> battle of course, and one's intuition comes into play.
>
> Intuition - but also knowledge. It is possible to train tactics to study
> strategic ideas, and of course one can learn endgames.

It is also useful to first select the best possible opening repertoire, as
early as possible, in order to know which specific middlegames and endgames
you are likely to reach most often.

Poisoning one's game early in the opening actually weakens their middlegame
and endgame practice, since you don't get positions which result from
logical play, whereas some players book up to the point where they reach a
clear-cut endgame while still in book.  It obviously would pay much more to
study that specific endgame than any "general principles."

--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
>From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918

09.05.2006 22:16, Ron:

>
> Furthermore, it's worth pointing out that Hyrdra is much, much stronger
> tactically than Adams.

And it might also be worth mentioning, that the programmers of Hydra
took a step contrary to what Ray might expect: they trimmed the opening
book, so that Hydra is much earlier on itself.

Greetings,
Ralf

09.05.2006 23:09, Ray Gordon:

> When both players are out of book (unknown position), that's another battle
> of course, and one's intuition comes into play.

Intuition - but also knowledge. It is possible to train tactics to study
strategic ideas, and of course one can learn endgames.

Greetings,
Ralf

> In "Nigel Short teaches chess" he says exactly the same thing as the
> master - study endgames.

Short LOST the world championship.

Hell, I could have done that.


--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
>From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918

>> Poisoning one's game early in the opening actually weakens their
>> middlegame and endgame practice, since you don't get positions which
>> result from logical play,
>
> If someone plays off the book it doesn't mean he stopped playing
> logically. That's the big difference to blitz and bullet: in a >
> tournament game he is able to develop his own sound ideas.

I used to think there were differences in venue, but not really.  Mistakes
are mistakes no matter where they are made.  Add time to one player's clock
and you're also adding it to the other's, etc.

If "off the book" moves are "logical" they become "book" moves by
definition, so what you're talking about, when applicable, is a solid
novelty, and a very wise strategy.

The question is, can a 1700 player really rewrite theory at move five?


>> whereas some players book up to the point where they reach a clear-cut
>> endgame while still in book.
>
> In practical games this is a neglectible case.

For someone who isn't booked up to move 30, it would be.  For someone who
is, however, the opposite is true.

I have several openings that I've worked out to forced draws or even forced
wins for one side, and where avoiding them causes the other side to lose.

Another thing about tournament games is that your practice costs a fortune,
whereas the engines and the servers do not.


>>  It obviously would pay much more to study that specific endgame than any
>> "general principles."
>
> No, you are simply more flexible. If you know a lot about middlegame and
> endgame knowgledge, you are not so confined to the books as somebody who
> has to rely on preparations.

If you don't know the book moves you won't make it to the middlegame in very
good shape, if you are playing someone who is truly GM strength in the
opening.

I get many wins, even against strong players, that are straight out of my
book, just as I'm sure you get many wins against strong players with your
style of play.

Our ratings are within a few hundred points of each other for now, and would
probably be even closer if I chose to spend the time competing.

--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
>From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918

>> No, you are simply more flexible. If you know a lot about middlegame and
>> endgame knowgledge, you are not so confined to the books as somebody who
>> has to rely on preparations.
>
> This is the real crux - Ray play bullet (almost?) exclusively. He has to
> do as much as his thinking ahead of time because there's no time for it
> in the game.

That's a good skill to have in slow chess as well, however.  In fact, when I
play at slower time controls, players who aren't trained in bullet often get
into very bad time trouble because they think they have forever to play, and
don't.

The reason I play only bullet online, aside from getting maximum tests of my
opening repertoire, is that it's the one time control that it's very
difficult to cheat at, and with the time controls getting shorter, whenever
I do hit my peak, I can slow down to whatever is the fashion at the time,
and that could be G/5 or G/3 if ESPN ever turns their cameras on us.

Now if you want to talk about how to play lost positions, in one-minute
chess the game doesn't really begin until something hangs.  I get lots of
practice in rescuing lost positions, and a few times have even found drawn
endings in GM games because they are known endgame traps among bullet
players.  There was one game from the US championship where both sides had
rooks and advanced pawns, and they thought White was winning, but it was
obvious Black could save it.  No one watching the game, including GMs and
IMs, found it, but a few "lowly" one-minute players did.


> Nobody finds brilliant sacrifices or tricky defenses in 1 minute, so why
> bother learning those skills. Nobody plays out an even-material rook
> ending with any accuracy in those games, so, again, why bother with the
> technique?

What makes you think one-minute games aren't accurate?


> In bullet, memorizing responses to your opponent's most plausible errors
> may actually be a productive way to spend you time. In a game where you
> expect to have to think, it's almost certainly more productive to put
> your study time into master games, typical tactics, and endgames.

One-minute is what you make of it.  In the opening especially, the time
control does not matter much, and many people do play with surprisingly
efficient technique for the fast time control.  If anything, one-minute
exposes your weaknesses, because whenever you hit one, you'll lose on time.

Given the American attention span, one-minute chess may one day become the
wave of the future and what gets chess onto television.  Every other pro
sport is played at high speed, and so should chess.  Speed is a legitimate
part of the measure of one's intellect.

--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
>From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918

Ray Gordon schrieb:

> > In "Nigel Short teaches chess" he says exactly the same thing as the
> > master - study endgames.
>
> Short LOST the world championship.

And we know, that just any patzer can reach a world championship final

> Hell, I could have done that.

You think you would have been able to beat Gelfand, Timmermann and
Kasparov in order to get there?

Short was at the end of the eighties, begin of the nineties one of the
strongest players in the world. He still could wipe the floor with you
in tournament chess. So, I think just to wave away his opinion shows
quite an attitude. He was not dreaming in his room in front of his
computer becoming a GM - he is one.

Greetings,
Ralf

In article <e3s3tc$m87$1@online.de>,
 Ralf Callenberg <ralf.callenberg@web.de> wrote:

> No, you are simply more flexible. If you know a lot about middlegame and
> endgame knowgledge, you are not so confined to the books as somebody who
> has to rely on preparations.

This is the real crux - Ray play bullet (almost?) exclusively. He has to
do as much as his thinking ahead of time because there's no time for it
in the game.

Nobody finds brilliant sacrifices or tricky defenses in 1 minute, so why
bother learning those skills. Nobody plays out an even-material rook
ending with any accuracy in those games, so, again, why bother with the
technique?

In bullet, memorizing responses to your opponent's most plausible errors
may actually be a productive way to spend you time. In a game where you
expect to have to think, it's almost certainly more productive to put
your study time into master games, typical tactics, and endgames.

-Ron

Ray Gordon wrote:

> He hung a rook not long ago in a tournament game.

And? A lot of world class players made grave mistakes in their games.
It's ridiculous how you want to belittle a world class player's ability
to play chess, just because he has reached what you will never achieve
and he has a different opinion about the basics of chess from you.

Greetings,
Ralf

Ray Gordon schrieb:

> If "off the book" moves are "logical" they become "book" moves by
> definition, so what you're talking about, when applicable, is a solid
> novelty, and a very wise strategy.

Ahem, if this is found over the board at this very moment it is played,
it is not in the books.

> The question is, can a 1700 player really rewrite theory at move five?

No. And it is not necessary. If he deviates from theory a GM might be
able to refute this move, but not necessarly another 1700 player. And
if his move was not in the books the other player is now on his own to
find the right answer. So, let's say, there is somebody with otherwise
the stength of 2000 but with the opening knowledge of a GM. Now his
opponent, let's say a 2200 player comes up with an idea which simply is
not in the books, not as main nor as side line. If the 2200 player was
on the hight of his playing the 2000 player now is on his own. Even if
the move resulted in a slight objective disadvantage for the 2200
player, all the knowledge is not so important any more and with each
move its importance fades away.

> >> whereas some players book up to the point where they reach a clear-cut
> >> endgame while still in book.
> >
> > In practical games this is a neglectible case.
>
> For someone who isn't booked up to move 30, it would be.

This would mean that both sides play to the book until move 30. That
the one who is not in the book will follow so long is extremely
unlikely. Und if both are in the books, the one getting a lost endgame
would be stupid to follow such a variation. So again: it's not relevant
for practical games.

> I have several openings that I've worked out to forced draws or even forced
> wins for one side, and where avoiding them causes the other side to lose.

Which means the other side has to enter this opening variation the
first place.

> > No, you are simply more flexible. If you know a lot about middlegame and
> > endgame knowgledge, you are not so confined to the books as somebody who
> > has to rely on preparations.
>
> If you don't know the book moves you won't make it to the middlegame in very
> good shape, if you are playing someone who is truly GM strength in the
> opening.

Not necessarly. Not every deviation from the theory leads automatically
to a bad position - at least not one easily exploitable by a non GM.

> I get many wins, even against strong players, that are straight out of my
> book, just as I'm sure you get many wins against strong players with your
> style of play.

How many players beyond 2100 did you beat the last 5 years if we keep
bullet and blitz out of the counting? And a not so unimportant point
might be the remark, that I didn't have to spend 60 hours a week to go
where I am now.

> Our ratings are within a few hundred points of each other for now, and would
> probably be even closer if I chose to spend the time competing.

That you can reach my rating I do not doubt, even that you could go
beyond. But I don't think much beyond. Somewhere around 2200, 2300
should be the end. Your misconcept is, that mainly the difference
between a GM or very strong players in general and an amateur is the
opening.

Greetings,
Ralf

In "Nigel Short teaches chess" he says exactly the same thing as the
master - study endgames. He also adds that in Russia, chess is taugh
backwards, ie endgames first then middlegames then openings.
I'm sure he also said the following, though I can't find it in the book..
words to the effect that...

If you become stronger at endgames, that will give you more confindence in
the middlegame, because you will be able to steer towards what you have
learnt is a won endgame.





"Zero" <talltree0@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1147187292.775277.11350@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I was beaten by a master this weekend.  He told that in order to
> improve chess players should study endgames.
>
> I don't understand why I should study endgames.  If I can't get through
> the middlegame or the opening or am I supposed to get to a endgame?
> Also I bought a endgame studies book and I don't see the point in going
> over these studies.  None of these positions are ever going to happen
> in any of my real games.
>

10.05.2006 07:52, Ray Gordon:

> Poisoning one's game early in the opening actually weakens their middlegame
> and endgame practice, since you don't get positions which result from
> logical play,

If someone plays off the book it doesn't mean he stopped playing
logically. That's the big difference to blitz and bullet: in a
tournament game he is able to develop his own sound ideas.

> whereas some players book up to the point where they reach a
> clear-cut endgame while still in book.

In practical games this is a neglectible case.

>  It obviously would pay much more to
> study that specific endgame than any "general principles."

No, you are simply more flexible. If you know a lot about middlegame and
endgame knowgledge, you are not so confined to the books as somebody who
has to rely on preparations.

Greetings,
Ralf

>> Hell, I could have done that.
>
> You think you would have been able to beat Gelfand, Timmermann and
> Kasparov in order to get there?
>
> Short was at the end of the eighties, begin of the nineties one of the
> strongest players in the world. He still could wipe the floor with you
> in tournament chess.

He hung a rook not long ago in a tournament game.


--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
>From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918

>> If "off the book" moves are "logical" they become "book" moves by
>> definition, so what you're talking about, when applicable, is a solid
>> novelty, and a very wise strategy.
>
> Ahem, if this is found over the board at this very moment it is played,
> it is not in the books.

And if a tree falls in a forest with no one there to hear it, it does not
make a noise.


>> The question is, can a 1700 player really rewrite theory at move five?
>
> No. And it is not necessary. If he deviates from theory a GM might be
> able to refute this move, but not necessarly another 1700 player. And
> if his move was not in the books the other player is now on his own to
> find the right answer.

Aided by whatever positional factors caused the move not to be in the books.


> So, let's say, there is somebody with otherwise
> the stength of 2000 but with the opening knowledge of a GM. Now his
> opponent, let's say a 2200 player comes up with an idea which simply is
> not in the books, not as main nor as side line. If the 2200 player was
> on the hight of his playing the 2000 player now is on his own. Even if
> the move resulted in a slight objective disadvantage for the 2200
> player, all the knowledge is not so important any more and with each
> move its importance fades away.

You're talking about taking a weak player out of book with an inferior line
in order to take him out of his strength.

If the weak player is really booked up, however, even your "novelties" will
still be in his book.

Of course, he won't be 2000 for very long, as his rating is just a pit stop
on the way to 2600, since his opening repertoire won't restrict his rating
advancement.


--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
>From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918

>> That you can reach my rating I do not doubt, even that you could go
>> beyond. But I don't think much beyond. Somewhere around 2200, 2300
>> should be the end. Your misconcept is, that mainly the difference
>> between a GM or very strong players in general and an amateur is the
>> opening.
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Ralf
>
> I think you are too optimistic. Ray will be a player down to 2000 all his
> life.

With my age, it's always possible I'll stop improving.  I'm the first to
admit that.


--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
>From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918

I should add that I have in fact studied a great deal of endings by most
people's standards, as "Basic Chess Endings" was one of the first three
chess books I ever bought (the other two were MCO and "500 Master Games Of
Chess" to cover the opening and middlegame).

I've studied books on endgame theory, even specialized ones like "Queen and
Pawn endings" (very important as many pawn endings turn into Queen and pawn
endings) or "Rook Endings" or "Bishop v. Minor Piece Endings," etc, as well
as 'Tactical Chess Endings" by Nunn, "Encyclopedia of Chess Endings" "1234
Modern Endgame studies," and my all-time favorite: "Domination is 2,545
Endgame Studies." (that books is great for learning how to trap pieces).

Despite having studied ALL of the above books, and having a good working
knowledge of endgame theory, I still find it to be rather useless in terms
of rating improvement.  I do not ignore the endgame, and loaded up on all
those specialty books so I would have a reference library for any position I
got over the board (back in the pre-computer era).


--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
>From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918

John J. wrote:
(rgcp group, & what a 'biggie', resnipped)
>
> We first need to ascertain your general playing strength. Have you ever
> studied endgames before?

Well have you? - Don't answer if you don't want to, just curious..

The idea that one should "only" study endings is a carry over from Bobby
Fischer, who said as much. I believe Capablanca was the first great player
to emphasize endings over openings. Another notable was Reshevsky.

I've played about 400 rated games. I estimate that I've won maybe 15 games
directly because of my endgame knowledge. I don't count "indirect" or very
basic knowledge of endings because everybody above 1500 knows that doubled
pawns suck, backward pawns are liabilities, and that if you grab the
opposition you can often win. Of course there are other games where such
deep concepts as "put a rook on the 7th" led to endgame advantages, but all
that knowledge can probably be distilled into about 20 bullet points.

The vast majority of games played at my level (1600-2100) are decided in the
opening and middle game, or by outright blunders.

It's easy to say, "study the endings" because knowledge sufficient to win
95% of all endings can be learned by no more than 30-40 examples. It's a
pain to lose or draw when elementary endgame technique would have brought in
a full point, but as I said those situations are rare.

The advice to study endings is usually given by players who are already
quite strong. It's like the advice to "follow your heart" in choice of
careers. That's easy advice to give when you've devoted your life to bottle
cap collecting and due to a stroke of luck have been successful.



"Zero" <talltree0@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1147187292.775277.11350@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I was beaten by a master this weekend.  He told that in order to
> improve chess players should study endgames.
>
> I don't understand why I should study endgames.  If I can't get through
> the middlegame or the opening or am I supposed to get to a endgame?
> Also I bought a endgame studies book and I don't see the point in going
> over these studies.  None of these positions are ever going to happen
> in any of my real games.
>

"Ange1o DePa1ma" <angelodpnospam@nospam.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:oJicnTIuKeANE__ZUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>
> The idea that one should "only" study endings is a carry over from Bobby
> Fischer, who said as much. I believe Capablanca was the first great player
> to emphasize endings over openings. Another notable was Reshevsky.
>
> I've played about 400 rated games. I estimate that I've won maybe 15 games
> directly because of my endgame knowledge. I don't count "indirect" or very
> basic knowledge of endings because everybody above 1500 knows that doubled
> pawns suck, backward pawns are liabilities, and that if you grab the
> opposition you can often win. Of course there are other games where such
> deep concepts as "put a rook on the 7th" led to endgame advantages, but
all
> that knowledge can probably be distilled into about 20 bullet points.
>

Gee, can't middlegames be summarized in one bullet point? "Analyze deeply
and accurately".

But seriously, I wonder about your counting here. It seems to me
the proper measure of the importance of endgames is how often
the result is, or could be, affected by moves played in that portion
of a game. My sense is that at the class level, chess games have a
lot of of back and forth in endings.


> The vast majority of games played at my level (1600-2100) are decided in
the
> opening and middle game, or by outright blunders.
>
> It's easy to say, "study the endings" because knowledge sufficient to win
> 95% of all endings can be learned by no more than 30-40 examples. It's a
> pain to lose or draw when elementary endgame technique would have brought
in
> a full point, but as I said those situations are rare.

What about those not-so-elementary endgames? I'd bet that an
accurately played R+P endgame is a rarity in class A.

Now if you are saying that endgame study has poor returns
vs. other things that could be studied, you might be right. But
it seems that there would be very few chessplayers who
wouldn't benefit from playing endings better.

> The advice to study endings is usually given by players who are already
> quite strong. It's like the advice to "follow your heart" in choice of
> careers. That's easy advice to give when you've devoted your life to
bottle
> cap collecting and due to a stroke of luck have been successful.
>
>

> The vast majority of games played at my level (1600-2100) are decided in
> the opening and middle game, or by outright blunders.
>
> It's easy to say, "study the endings" because knowledge sufficient to win
> 95% of all endings can be learned by no more than 30-40 examples. It's a
> pain to lose or draw when elementary endgame technique would have brought
> in a full point, but as I said those situations are rare.

This is true.

In fact, I did have one very good test of my "1/x rule" when I coached a
high-school team of a 1400-rated player and four beginners, two of whom
barely knew the rules, three hours a day, five days a week, on nothing but
openings and opening principles.  I did this primarily because I didn't feel
there was time to make them competitive any other way.

This school, which had an 0-3 record when I got there, finished the season
5-2, winning its last two matches against the same school by a 9-1 score,
and the wins were all miniatures.

Eighteen months prior to this, I had defeated the same coach's "prized
pupil" in twenty-three moves with Black, and got to hear the same "study
endgames, not openings" lecture from the coach several times.  It was bad
enough I'd beaten his prodigy, but when the kids I was coaching did it to
his kids five times over, it showed why: we threw punches from move one,
playing to win early, while they played merely to "survive," and didn't.

Endgames are definitely necessary to study, but they are not the holy grail
of chess, since only a fraction of chessgames even make it that far.  Triple
overtime is not the main focus of basketball, and you don't see coaches
saving players for OT in regulation, do you?  Of course not: they go all-out
for the win in regulation then do the best they can in OT if they are still
tied.

Back in the 1980s, when computer tools weren't around, one had to buy about
a dozen endgame books at a cost of about $300 or so to cover just about
everything he'd need to know, and to have a reference for those times when
he wound up in a confusing endgame situation.


--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
>From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918


--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
>From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918

En/na ralf.callenberg@web.de ha escrit:
> Ray Gordon schrieb:
>
>>Our ratings are within a few hundred points of each other for now, and would
>>probably be even closer if I chose to spend the time competing.
>
> That you can reach my rating I do not doubt, even that you could go
> beyond. But I don't think much beyond. Somewhere around 2200, 2300
> should be the end. Your misconcept is, that mainly the difference
> between a GM or very strong players in general and an amateur is the
> opening.
>
> Greetings,
> Ralf

I think you are too optimistic. Ray will be a player down to 2000 all
his life.

Ray spend many time here proposing a plan study He might not follow (He
maybe has not time enough! ... I spend here in RGCA a few minutes each
day and I have no much time to study chess, if He spend in RGCA hours
each day and there are not more than 24 hours each day ...).

And his study plan is completely wrong and lead to no improvement, ...
Here I'm open to change my words if He actually proves He has reached
any rating +2000 but I am not interested in reading more "lessons" from
him whereas that improvement is not proved.

Antonio

>> If the weak player is really booked up, however, even your "novelties"
>> will
>> still be in his book.
>
> So what?
>
> Give a master a -/= position against a 1700 rated player, and the master
> will still win most of the time.

How is this an excuse for getting a weaker position in the first place?

> Give him an even position (a successful opening for black!) and he'll
> win even more.

How is this an excuse for getting a weaker position in the first place?


> I've used the following well-known trap to illustrate this principle
> before:
>
>
> 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 Bg7 7. f3 O-O
> 8. Qd2 Nc6 9. O-O-O d5 10. exd5 Nxd5 11. Nxc6 bxc6 12. Nxd5 cxd5 13.
> Qxd5 Qc7 14. Qxa8 Bf5 15. Qxf8+ Kxf8 *

Is that a trap?  My engine has White over a pawn to the good.


> Of for those who prefer FEN:
>
> 5k2/p1q1ppbp/6p1/5b2/8/4BP2/PPP3PP/2KR1B1R w - - 0 16

I was able to visualize it without a board.


> This is a well known idea in the 9.0-0-0 Yugoslav attack. It is, in
> fact, given as the reason why white can't accept the pawn sacrifice.
>
> White has a pawn and two rooks for the queen, but no GM would be willing
> to play this as white. Black's attack is considered too strong. Almost
> all opening analysis ends here.

I've played this as White and not done poorly with it.  I don't play 9.
O-O-O anymore, however, so I wouldn't get into this line.

Unless Black has a forced win here, I'd take white in a heartbeat.


> But give the white side to a player who's 400 points stronger than
> black, and it'll be black who's struggling for the draw.

Or if someone knows how to play without his Queen.


> This is the folly of studying openings.

Evel Kenevil would be proud of this jump.

>Imagine you're black here.
> You're up against a strong player and he plays into a prepared trap.

My engine says White is comfortable, and my eyes agree.


>You
> feel great! But despite black "winning" the opening he's a long way from
> winning the game - and, in fact, black can easily lose from the
> resulting position.

My computer says Black *should* lose from the resulting position.

16. Rd2 looks pretty damn strong for White.

I don't see how we can prove that studying openings is meaningless from
this.


> Or something simpler:
>
> 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.d3
>
> Nobody in his right mind would call that a good move.

This move is played a lot, actually.  It's not that bad.


>There are now so
> many plausible choices for each side that memorization is almost absurd.

Why?  If one is formation-driven, then they won't be thrown by the many
variations.


> Black may no longer be worse, but white's got plenty of room to outplay
> him the rest of the way.

He has that in the main lines too, even more so, in fact.


--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
>From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918

In article <ufqdnZKgyYR98f_ZRVn-og@pghconnect.com>,
 "Ray Gordon" <Ray@cybersheet.com> wrote:

> If the weak player is really booked up, however, even your "novelties" will
> still be in his book.

So what?

Give a master a -/= position against a 1700 rated player, and the master
will still win most of the time.

Give him an even position (a successful opening for black!) and he'll
win even more.

I've used the following well-known trap to illustrate this principle
before:


1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 Bg7 7. f3 O-O
8. Qd2 Nc6 9. O-O-O d5 10. exd5 Nxd5 11. Nxc6 bxc6 12. Nxd5 cxd5 13.
Qxd5 Qc7 14. Qxa8 Bf5 15. Qxf8+ Kxf8 *

Of for those who prefer FEN:

5k2/p1q1ppbp/6p1/5b2/8/4BP2/PPP3PP/2KR1B1R w - - 0 16

This is a well known idea in the 9.0-0-0 Yugoslav attack. It is, in
fact, given as the reason why white can't accept the pawn sacrifice.

White has a pawn and two rooks for the queen, but no GM would be willing
to play this as white. Black's attack is considered too strong. Almost
all opening analysis ends here.

But give the white side to a player who's 400 points stronger than
black, and it'll be black who's struggling for the draw.

This is the folly of studying openings. Imagine you're black here.
You're up against a strong player and he plays into a prepared trap. You
feel great! But despite black "winning" the opening he's a long way from
winning the game - and, in fact, black can easily lose from the
resulting position.

Or something simpler:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.d3

Nobody in his right mind would call that a good move. There are now so
many plausible choices for each side that memorization is almost absurd.
Black may no longer be worse, but white's got plenty of room to outplay
him the rest of the way.

In article <y_-dnb56hIs9LP_ZnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@pghconnect.com>,
 "Ray Gordon" <Ray@cybersheet.com> wrote:

> >> If the weak player is really booked up, however, even your "novelties"
> >> will
> >> still be in his book.
> >
> > So what?
> >
> > Give a master a -/= position against a 1700 rated player, and the master
> > will still win most of the time.
>
> How is this an excuse for getting a weaker position in the first place?
>
> > Give him an even position (a successful opening for black!) and he'll
> > win even more.
>
> How is this an excuse for getting a weaker position in the first place?

You've missed the point.

This example disproves your claim that the first mistake is the crucial
one. It disproves the notion that outplaying your opponent in the
opening is sufficient.

>
> > I've used the following well-known trap to illustrate this principle
> > before:
> >
> >
> > 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 Bg7 7. f3 O-O
> > 8. Qd2 Nc6 9. O-O-O d5 10. exd5 Nxd5 11. Nxc6 bxc6 12. Nxd5 cxd5 13.
> > Qxd5 Qc7 14. Qxa8 Bf5 15. Qxf8+ Kxf8 *
>
> Is that a trap?  My engine has White over a pawn to the good.
>
>
> > Of for those who prefer FEN:
> >
> > 5k2/p1q1ppbp/6p1/5b2/8/4BP2/PPP3PP/2KR1B1R w - - 0 16
>
> I was able to visualize it without a board.

 Really? Was your chess engine, too? Because it looks to me like you put
it in your computer to get an evaluation.

 Computers do rate this position as about +1 for white. They're wrong.

> I've played this as White and not done poorly with it.  I don't play 9.
> O-O-O anymore, however, so I wouldn't get into this line.
>
> Unless Black has a forced win here, I'd take white in a heartbeat.

> >Imagine you're black here.
> > You're up against a strong player and he plays into a prepared trap.
>
> My engine says White is comfortable, and my eyes agree.

You're wrong.

> My computer says Black *should* lose from the resulting position.

Your computer is wrong.

> 16. Rd2 looks pretty damn strong for White.

Try it against a strong player some time, when your computer is turned
off.

-Ron

>> >> If the weak player is really booked up, however, even your "novelties"
>> >> will
>> >> still be in his book.
>> >
>> > So what?
>> >
>> > Give a master a -/= position against a 1700 rated player, and the
>> > master
>> > will still win most of the time.
>>
>> How is this an excuse for getting a weaker position in the first place?
>>
>> > Give him an even position (a successful opening for black!) and he'll
>> > win even more.
>>
>> How is this an excuse for getting a weaker position in the first place?
>
> You've missed the point.

The point that a stronger player can get away with a weak line against a
weaker player and come back to win isn't much of a "point."


> This example disproves your claim that the first mistake is the crucial
> one.

As long as you throw in the qualifier "if the guy making the first mistake
is 400 points stronger or more."


>It disproves the notion that outplaying your opponent in the
> opening is sufficient.

"DisPROVES?"  Not exactly.  There's also the issue of what happens when you
don't have a strength imbalance.


>> > I've used the following well-known trap to illustrate this principle
>> > before:
>> >
>> >
>> > 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 Bg7 7. f3
>> > O-O
>> > 8. Qd2 Nc6 9. O-O-O d5 10. exd5 Nxd5 11. Nxc6 bxc6 12. Nxd5 cxd5 13.
>> > Qxd5 Qc7 14. Qxa8 Bf5 15. Qxf8+ Kxf8 *
>>
>> Is that a trap?  My engine has White over a pawn to the good.
>>
>>
>> > Of for those who prefer FEN:
>> >
>> > 5k2/p1q1ppbp/6p1/5b2/8/4BP2/PPP3PP/2KR1B1R w - - 0 16
>>
>> I was able to visualize it without a board.
>
> Really? Was your chess engine, too? Because it looks to me like you put
> it in your computer to get an evaluation.

Only after visualizing it.  I've played that particular position with White
before, as I used to play 9. O-O-O against the Dragon.


> Computers do rate this position as about +1 for white. They're wrong.

Well, glad that's settled!


>> I've played this as White and not done poorly with it.  I don't play 9.
>> O-O-O anymore, however, so I wouldn't get into this line.
>>
>> Unless Black has a forced win here, I'd take white in a heartbeat.

Still waiting for the forced win.



>> >Imagine you're black here.
>> > You're up against a strong player and he plays into a prepared trap.
>>
>> My engine says White is comfortable, and my eyes agree.
>
> You're wrong.

So instead of showing a variation that supports his claim, he says "you're
wrong."


>> My computer says Black *should* lose from the resulting position.
>
> Your computer is wrong.

Again, with no variations to back up his claims, when HE is the one who spit
out the variation in the first place.


>> 16. Rd2 looks pretty damn strong for White.
>
> Try it against a strong player some time, when your computer is turned
> off.

Which proves nothing theoretically.  This line was called a "well known
trap" that White seems to have to avoid.

The guy calling it this offers no analysis to support that claim.

--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
>From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918

> Your basketball analogy doesn't work.
> Chess changes from opening to middlegame to endgame.

If you survive the opening.

>The endgame is a simpler affair in some ways with only a few pieces left on
>the board.

If you get there.

>
> Overtime in basketball is just a continuation of the game and is identical
> to any other period of the game.

If the players get there, and no, it's not "just a continuation of the
game," but a five-minute sudden death period where foul trouble continues.

Here's an example: there is three minutes left in a basketball game, you're
tied, and your star player has five fouls.  Do you bench him to save him for
overtime or put him in to finish the game?


--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
>From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918

> What about those not-so-elementary endgames? I'd bet that an
> accurately played R+P endgame is a rarity in class A.

Even in class "GM" that could be said too.

> Learning how to play, say, rook endings has won me countless games, and
> saved many others.

Games which would never have reached the ending (in that state) if you had
studied more openings.




> Let's say I study general endgame principles - the kind of stuff Soltis
> covers in the first 115 pages or so of "GM Secrets: Endings." I'm
> learning stuff that affects my thinking in fully half my games.

General principles are one thing.  How about you study an entire tablebase
against say an entire volume of ECO?


> Or I get more specific. I study rook endings. Now we're talking about
> something which occurs in nearly a quarter of my games. (And this is
> only the games where it actually occurs - to say nothing of the games
> where I have the option of going into a rook ending and don't because I
> don't like that rook ending).

And most rook endings one gets into are going to be won or lost (or drawn)
in a way that doesn't require in-depth study.


>
> Is it possible to study openings in a way that affects a quarter of your
> games?

A quarter?  Try 100 percent, since all chess games have an opening.


>I mean, I could work on my Ruy Lopez defense. I end up defending
> against 1.e4 in about a quarter of my games. But, of course, while the
> Ruy is one of the most popular openings I see, I see nearly as many
> Scotch's and Two Knights' games, so really we're talking about something
> that shows up in maybe a tenth of my games.

But you know the EXACT POSITION that will show up in that 10 percent of the
games.  By contrast, you just know that you'll be in a "rook ending" X
percent of the time.

What are the numbers if we hold you to naming the SPECIFIC rook ending
position you'll be in?

> (And that's just branching on move three!)

If one uses a formation-based approach to the opening, this severely cuts
down on the work required to memorize variations.


--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
>From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918

In article <c5CdnVaQ3_biI__Z4p2dnA@comcast.com>,
 "David Kane" <davidekane@comcast.net> wrote:

> Now if you are saying that endgame study has poor returns
> vs. other things that could be studied, you might be right. But
> it seems that there would be very few chessplayers who
> wouldn't benefit from playing endings better.

FWIW, my personal experience is quite the opposite.

Learning how to play, say, rook endings has won me countless games, and
saved many others.

I just looked at my last 20 standard games on FICS. 10 of them reached
an endgame.

Of those ten, five were rook endings (two of which became pawn endings).
One was a rook+minors ending. Three others were minor piece endings, and
one was a R+Q ending. (All of these situations occured when the game was
still in doubt. If a quick trade into a pawn ending forced the win, I'm
not counting that as a pawn ending).

FWIW, my style is somewhat sacrificial and attacking. I don't consider
myself a technical player and I generally don't seek out an endgame
unless I consider it to be highly favorable. In other words, I'm not a
highly technical player and I doubt I reach an unusually low number of
endings.

Let's say I study general endgame principles - the kind of stuff Soltis
covers in the first 115 pages or so of "GM Secrets: Endings." I'm
learning stuff that affects my thinking in fully half my games.

Or I get more specific. I study rook endings. Now we're talking about
something which occurs in nearly a quarter of my games. (And this is
only the games where it actually occurs - to say nothing of the games
where I have the option of going into a rook ending and don't because I
don't like that rook ending).

Is it possible to study openings in a way that affects a quarter of your
games? I mean, I could work on my Ruy Lopez defense. I end up defending
against 1.e4 in about a quarter of my games. But, of course, while the
Ruy is one of the most popular openings I see, I see nearly as many
Scotch's and Two Knights' games, so really we're talking about something
that shows up in maybe a tenth of my games.

(And that's just branching on move three!)

-Ron

Your basketball analogy doesn't work.
Chess changes from opening to middlegame to endgame. The endgame is a
simpler affair in some ways with only a few pieces left on the board.

Overtime in basketball is just a continuation of the game and is identical
to any other period of the game.



"Ray Gordon" <Ray@cybersheet.com> wrote in message
news:ouOdncWOdomENf_ZnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@pghconnect.com...
>> The vast majority of games played at my level (1600-2100) are decided in
>> the opening and middle game, or by outright blunders.
>>
>> It's easy to say, "study the endings" because knowledge sufficient to win
>> 95% of all endings can be learned by no more than 30-40 examples. It's a
>> pain to lose or draw when elementary endgame technique would have brought
>> in a full point, but as I said those situations are rare.
>
> This is true.
>
> In fact, I did have one very good test of my "1/x rule" when I coached a
> high-school team of a 1400-rated player and four beginners, two of whom
> barely knew the rules, three hours a day, five days a week, on nothing but
> openings and opening principles.  I did this primarily because I didn't
> feel there was time to make them competitive any other way.
>
> This school, which had an 0-3 record when I got there, finished the season
> 5-2, winning its last two matches against the same school by a 9-1 score,
> and the wins were all miniatures.
>
> Eighteen months prior to this, I had defeated the same coach's "prized
> pupil" in twenty-three moves with Black, and got to hear the same "study
> endgames, not openings" lecture from the coach several times.  It was bad
> enough I'd beaten his prodigy, but when the kids I was coaching did it to
> his kids five times over, it showed why: we threw punches from move one,
> playing to win early, while they played merely to "survive," and didn't.
>
> Endgames are definitely necessary to study, but they are not the holy
> grail of chess, since only a fraction of chessgames even make it that far.
> Triple overtime is not the main focus of basketball, and you don't see
> coaches saving players for OT in regulation, do you?  Of course not: they
> go all-out for the win in regulation then do the best they can in OT if
> they are still tied.
>
> Back in the 1980s, when computer tools weren't around, one had to buy
> about a dozen endgame books at a cost of about $300 or so to cover just
> about everything he'd need to know, and to have a reference for those
> times when he wound up in a confusing endgame situation.
>
>
> --
> "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick,
> Eastern District of PA Judge
> From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918
>
>
> --
> "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick,
> Eastern District of PA Judge
> From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918
>

En/na Ron ha escrit:
> Or something simpler:
>
> 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.d3
>
> Nobody in his right mind would call that a good move. There are now so
> many plausible choices for each side that memorization is almost absurd.

Ron, ...

Have you ever read  "Wilt" from Tom Sharpe?
It's a book where a teacher try to teach English literature to unmotived
and rude students aiming to work as "meat sellers".

Or have you ever try a pig/donkey to learn enjoying honey?
(I imagine that maybe that is not a correct expression in English but I
hope his meaning to be understand)

I have sometimes tried to convince Ray (sometimes to help him, other to
avoid people to be confused for his nonsense advice) with zero success.
I see you try the same with logical advice but with same result.

:-(

Antonio

>> The point that a stronger player can get away with a weak line against a
>> weaker player and come back to win isn't much of a "point."
>>
>>>This example disproves your claim that the first mistake is the crucial
>>>one.
>>
>>>It disproves the notion that outplaying your opponent in the
>>>opening is sufficient.
>
> Ray, ... I'm aprox 500 point higher than you and in some of my games I
> have lost won positions and I have win lost positions, ...
> Do you mean that at your level, you have won all the games you obtained an
> avantage in the opening??

Of course not.  My claim is that front-loading one game has the best
LONG-TERM impact on one's chess rating, since it lays the best foundation
for improvement.


> I have seen at my level (and at any level belov mine) many games when the
> evalñuation of the game changes many times. Only as example: I posted here
> a game of a local junior that you commented, and the evaluation changed
> like (all that aproximately and if there are no mistakes in my analysis):

There were some glaring errors in those games, definitely.

> = (after move 2w)
> += (move 2b)
> = (move 4w)
> += (move 4b)
> +/ (move 9b)
> +- (move 15b)
> +/ (move 25w)
> = (move 26w)
> +/ (move 28b)
> += (move 29w)
> -+ (move 30w)
> +/ (move 30b)
> = (move 31w)
> /+ (move 34w)
> -+ (move 35w)
> (I think I miss another mistakes between moves 30-34, ... )

Possibly.

> Impressive, is not it?

I don't know the ratings of the players involved, but if people play slow
chess like that, I'm encouraged.


> I remember Ron advice to study tactics (advice made by many strong players
> too) better than to study openings memoristically (advice only done by Ray
> Gordon, weak player who can not prove Has improved).

USCF can prove my rating evolution; it's in their records I know since I
still get postcards with my rating on them from Goichberg, or did until a
few years ago.

I also have studied tactics and endgames, but only to round out my game.


> In that case the strongly tactical caracter of the game has produced those
> turning points, in more quieter games there are also strategical mistakes
> which produced turning points and in endings it happens a very similar
> sutuation.

But weak openings poison those positions; if you don't have a poisoned
opening, you can count on the position occurring repeatedly, and this will
help your rating more.

> That seem to prove the need to study tactics, strategy (IQP included),
> endings, ...

That doesn't prove anything except how to beat a weak player.  I'm trying to
beat the world's strongest players, not the weak ones.


--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
>From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918

En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit:
(responding to Ron)
> The point that a stronger player can get away with a weak line against a
> weaker player and come back to win isn't much of a "point."
>
>>This example disproves your claim that the first mistake is the crucial
>>one.
>
>>It disproves the notion that outplaying your opponent in the
>>opening is sufficient.

Ray, ... I'm aprox 500 point higher than you and in some of my games I
have lost won positions and I have win lost positions, ...
Do you mean that at your level, you have won all the games you obtained
an avantage in the opening??

I have seen at my level (and at any level belov mine) many games when
the evalñuation of the game changes many times. Only as example: I
posted here a game of a local junior that you commented, and the
evaluation changed like (all that aproximately and if there are no
mistakes in my analysis):

= (after move 2w)
+= (move 2b)
= (move 4w)
+= (move 4b)
+/ (move 9b)
+- (move 15b)
+/ (move 25w)
= (move 26w)
+/ (move 28b)
+= (move 29w)
-+ (move 30w)
+/ (move 30b)
= (move 31w)
/+ (move 34w)
-+ (move 35w)
(I think I miss another mistakes between moves 30-34, ... )

Impressive, is not it?

I remember Ron advice to study tactics (advice made by many strong
players too) better than to study openings memoristically (advice only
done by Ray Gordon, weak player who can not prove Has improved).

In that case the strongly tactical caracter of the game has produced
those turning points, in more quieter games there are also strategical
mistakes which produced turning points and in endings it happens a very
similar sutuation.

That seem to prove the need to study tactics, strategy (IQP included),
endings, ...

Ray, ... please be serious and understand that! Do not confuss people!

Antonio

En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit:

>>Learning how to play, say, rook endings has won me countless games, and
>>saved many others.
>
> Games which would never have reached the ending (in that state) if you had
> studied more openings.

Ray, please be serious!!

Ray is claiming Ches top players in the world and top chess engines in
the world know less opening theory than him???

AT

En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit:

> In fact, I did have one very good test of my "1/x rule" when I coached a
> high-school team of a 1400-rated player and four beginners, two of whom
> barely knew the rules, three hours a day, five days a week, on nothing but
> openings and opening principles.  I did this primarily because I didn't feel
> there was time to make them competitive any other way.
>
> This school, which had an 0-3 record when I got there, finished the season
> 5-2, winning its last two matches against the same school by a 9-1 score,
> and the wins were all miniatures.

I claim Ray lies lies and lies,

please, post here the games of the pupils before your coaching and the
games after it and post the concrete data of those school to prove that.

I think you are lying!!
... and if really you are coaching that high School, I think, as a
educator, I must notify them you are doing a very bad coaching!

AT

Dr A. N. Walker <anw@maths.nott.ac.uk> wrote:
> David Richerby <davidr@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> [Crosspost trimmed.]
>	[... And a relevant one restored -- ANW.]

[My personal opinion was (and still is) that there's no concrete
analysis so this is only marginally on-topic in rgca.  It's not
terribly important, though -- DMR.]

>> Is it really true that you can't get through the middlegame or
>> opening?  If you're playing the opening and middlegame really badly,
>> you should probably do a bit of work on those, first. [...]
>
>	"First" is only a half-truth.  Decent books for beginners
> spiral round and round.  "How the pieces move" -- "elementary mates"
> -- "simple tactics" -- "simplest openings" -- then round to some
> slightly harder endgames, then middlegames, then some of the most
> important openings -- then back round to more advanced endgames,
> middlegames and deeper openings, and probably some complete games
> -- then round again, and perhaps again, probably throwing in some
> chess history.

True but I think we're in agreement, actually.  I'm assuming the OP
knows how the pieces move and the elementary mates so, if h really is
playing the opening and middlegame terribly, what you've described as
`simple tactics' and `simplest openings' are next on the list for
study. :-)


Dave.

--
David Richerby                           Radioactive Bulb (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/      light bulb but it'll make you glow in
                                         the dark!