I HATE endgames. I don't think I've ever won an endgame in my life. I've read Dvoretsky Endgame Manual cover-to-cover about 7 times, but it hasn't helped one bit. I always play aggressively to go for a quick knockout in the opening or middlegame, because if a game ever reaches the endgame, it's practically a guarantee I'll lose. I was doing well and even winning until the endgame, like always:

 

Endgame Manual is for advanced players. You should work through something like Practical Chess Endings by Keres. Also, you cannot just read a chess book like a novel and get much out of it......you have to really study it closely.

Did you get the book out during your games and refer to it to try to make a plan?  As Reb says reading a chess book like a novel doesn't really help as it won't sink in unless you have a practical example.  I rarely could motivate myself to study endings by themselves, but as part of a game yes.  My OTB chess was 99% allegro finishes so endings were not thought out. 

whats wrong with that game?seems to me like white had a slight advantage in the end game with his 2 pawn islands.it wasnt that black made lots of bad moves but white just made some good ones.if you kept you rook on the g4 i think maybe white couldnt have gone and taken the pawn on g7.are those online ratings or real life?

 

Darthstapler8> I've read Dvoretsky Endgame Manual cover-to-cover about 7 times, but it hasn't helped one bit.

 

Studying Dvoretsky cover-to-cover takes many people 1-2 years. I doubt you've done that seven times... it's more likely you went through it too quickly. When I do an endgame study, first I try to solve it on my own and write out my analysis. Then I compare my analysis to the author's. And if I get it wrong, I try to solve similar but slightly different problems until I've completely mastered and can quickly solve that class of position.

 

Once you succeed in mastering one or more endings, it's simply a matter of doing enough review. The good news is, more complex endings often help you review simpler ones, and your games help you review the most common ones. But you will still have to do some review to retain your knowledge. If you find you can't retain everything, at least retain pawn endings and rook endings as those tend to be the most useful in tournaments.

skeptikill> whats wrong with that game?

 

For example, 62...Kxd6 63.Rxf4 Ke7 is a simple theoretical draw, but Black lost.

Well I didn't know that was a "simple theoretical draw", I thought white would be able to win. I haven't memorized all of these endgame positions (even though I've tried).

cos u dont know the ways of the chicken!!!

 muaaaaahhhh

Darthstapler8> Well I didn't know that was a "simple theoretical draw"

It is a theoretical draw... simple if you know the theory, hard if you don't.

 

Dathstapler8> I haven't memorized all of these endgame positions

It helps to focus on the most important ones first: Q vs K, R vs K, K+P vs K, and K+R+P vs K+R. Those are the ones that most commonly occur (or threaten to occur) in games, and you can't master more complex endings without at least a strong knowledge of these.

Well I think I know the first 3 pretty well.

 As for Reb's comment, isn't that Keres book pretty old? I don't like old chess books since they are usually obsolete in regards to current theory.

Darthstapler8 wrote:

Well I think I know the first 3 pretty well.

 As for Reb's comment, isn't that Keres book pretty old? I don't like old chess books since they are usually obsolete in regards to current theory.

---

A lot of great chess books are "pretty old". What the Keres book teaches is still valid/relevant. The "theory" on endings do not fluctuate and change with "fashion" like openings do.

Darthstapler8 wrote:

Well I think I know the first 3 pretty well.

 As for Reb's comment, isn't that Keres book pretty old? I don't like old chess books since they are usually obsolete in regards to current theory.

---

Wow. You're missing out on some of the greatest books ever written and because of claims which have no hold in reality.

 

Old OPENING theory books are obsolete (and even that is only if you really are looking for perfection and always for the advantage with white).

 (the upshot is that there aren't many old opening theory books...)

Endgame theory has not gone through almost any changes at all at any level. And practically none at all at the level of endings you're having trouble with - still basic.

 

What was written about rook and pawn endgames 50 (or 60... or 70...) years ago is still true today. 

You will still be able to say the same when you reach much more complicated endgames. New knowledge is being learned and added slowly. But the knowledge about what was already known, and the basics (and endgames like the one you've posted here are considered as some of the most basic endgames there are) hardly ever budges.

 

 

Interesting game. White played a nice endgame (I think both sides missed things).

I have a couple of comments on your play in the earlier stages of the game: 

> 11. QC2 I think white could have won a piece with Qa6, so I was lucky  

Nope. If anything, unlucky. had white played 11.Qa6, black would have the very interesting 11...Nxd4! - Now, cxd4 is impossible because of the pin, Nxd4 fails to Bxc3+, and both cxb4 and axb4 run into the cute Nc2# :)

 White would have to make sure Nc2 is not a mate. And after Bd2 Nc2+, white is not feeling that well in my opinion.

 

Also, I think17...Na5 missed an immediate knockout. Threatening both Nc4 and Nb3. (so if black takes the bishop, Nc4 wins the e3 bishop, and the game because of the attack, and if white moves the knight away so that his bishop controls c4, Nb3 wins on material).

 

 

 

 

As to your problems: 

> I've read Dvoretsky Endgame Manual cover-to-cover about 7 times, but it hasn't helped one bit.

Of course it hasn't. You're still missing a lot in the most basic endgames. Not much sense in going over more advanced books before that. It will just be more confusing than anything else. Dvoretsky's endgame manual is considered quite advanced.

 

You need more info on rook and pawn(s) endgames, pawn endgames,  and other basic endgames. One book that teaches the "need to know" of those endgames is called "just the facts" (by Lev Alburt and I forgot who else...). There are more comprehensive sources too. 

 

Some basic rook and pawn endgame positions can be found in this link: 

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PDJoseph/masteryinchess.htm

 

The positions in this link don't teach the basic principles of these endgames (that's a huge plus of books and other better learning sources), but they do show you some basic positions that would help you recognize many things, such as the draw you missed in this game:)

 

It is very important that you take your time and make sure you understand the basics very well indeed before you go up a level to dvoretsky's book. You'll only be hurting yourself otherwise.

 

btw, when you DO reach that level where you have a firm grasp of basic endgames, Dvoretsky's manual is REALLY good. Helped me a lot. I'm sure I have much more to learn from it when I go over it again, when I'm a little better.

 

 

 

Well does that Keres book have an algebraic edition?

Also thanks for all of the suggestions

 EDIT: Also, 17...Na5, after looking at it, doesn't replying Nc1 cover both c4 and b3?    

Darthstapler8 wrote:

Well does that Keres book have an algebraic edition?

Also thanks for all of the suggestions

 EDIT: Also, 17...Na5, after looking at it, doesn't replying Nc1 cover both c4 and b3?    

---

 No. it's so horribly passive, blocks white's development and diminish white's defensive resources (The knight is also needed in defense. Now any attack you throw at white would work much more effectively than before Na5 because both the a1 rook and c1 knight cannot really participate in the defense.

I'd play Bc6 (after your suggested Nc1), and expect white to crumble immediately (the threat is Qf6+) 

 

(moving to d5 with the bishop before Na5 leaves white more defensive resources (although he is probably lost there too): 17.Bd5 Nf4. Why allow such an exchange (Bxf4 Bxf4)? Without the knight in the defense, white is crumbling immediately.

After Na5 Nc1, while keeping the knight tied down to c1. The a1 rook can't join in the defense now either. I'd say white is toast after Na5 Nc1 Bc6

 

 Actually, isn't white lost immediately? The threat is Qf6+, and I don't see any way to properly defend it.

 

the threat is: 19...Qf6+ and now 20.Bf4 g5 ends it all. 20.Ke2 Nc4 is the end, 20.Ke1 Qh6! is a cute way to end it, 

 

The attempt to defend with 19.Be2 fails to Qf6 20.Ke1 Qe6... If the bishop on e3 moves, the e2 bishop is pinned, so 21.Nc4 ends it.

 

 

Seing a move as passive as Nc1 by your opponent should give you a lot of pleasure, even if you can't see an immediate knockout.

After 17... Na5 18. Nc1 Bc6 19. Be2 Qf6+ 20. Ke1 Qe6, why can't white just move his king back to f2?

Darthstapler8 wrote: After 17... Na5 18. Nc1 Bc6 19. Be2 Qf6+ 20. Ke1 Qe6, why can't white just move his king back to f2?

---

 21.Kf1 Qh3

A one move killer. h2 collapses.

 

(hoping to get away with just losing the h2 pawn after 22.d5 Qxh2+ 23.Kf1 (Ke1 Nc4! is just another way to lose. One of the bishops will be pinned if the other moves... Either the g1 rook hangs or the e3 one falls) 23...Bd7. It's obviously falling apart.

I have to admit I haven't analyzed all those variations before suggesting the moves. Just checked if white has anything that tries to break free from his horribly passive position (After Nc1). 

 

Even if white could survive temporarily (and now that I look at it, he obviously can't), black should have been winning quite easily anyway. 

(meaning even if black did not see Qh3, and for some obscure and utterly bizzare reasons he marked time with 21...Kh8 (instead of 21...Qh3), he's still winning easily (actually, he probably still breaks through within a few moves. White's position looks THAT bad. He can hardly move a muscle.))

 

Nc1 in the face of such black activity is almost equal to resignation. It creates a "self bind" when white needs his defensive resources the most.

Thanks for the analysis.

 Too bad I was unable to exploit it, though

In the spirit of crawl before you walk, I'm going through Pandolfini's Endgame Course, which is actually a very useful tool. Yes, some of the positions are so simple that they're pointless, and yes it has quite a few (obvious, methinks) typos. But as a beginning endgame text, it is quite good and by the end has covered alot of ground.

 

BTW, I know how you feel. I just went into an endgame last night up a pawn and with a nice passed pawn on the 5th but rooks on both sides and lost. It is unbelievable deflating to go into the endgame up and then lose. 

He missed all sorts of more efficient moves.  Working backwards, 80. Rg6 is much faster than the pattern he chose.  I confess, I found myself sympathizing much more with white's problems and frustrations.  I have always found rooks remarkably difficult pieces which is ironic considering their simplicity of movement.

Rooks belong on open files, behind passed pawns, or on the 7th rank.  Trouble is, these are 3 mutually exclusive and virtually contradictory jobs.  If they get to the 7th rank and do their job (ie take pawns creating passed pawns) they wind up in front of and blocking their own pawns, unable to manuver out and around and behind the pawn while supporting it.  Your rook was in many ways better than his, but you let him go at some point.  Will have to look more later when I have more time.  In many ways, this was a good game to analyse for instruction purposes.