Road to a Master title

Thanks for sharing. It seems everyone has their own twist to improvement, even titled players. Training to see tactics a lot is probably a good way to improve fast. I'm sure most agree with that part though.

Thanks for the nice comments :) Glad I could help a little.

Follow chess commentaries of Susan Polgar and Lawrence Trent in World Chess Cup of Tromso. You will learn a lot of each game ! 

http://www.chess-and-strategy.com/

I agree that endgames isn't something you should need to study a lot and you'll be fine with the basics. However I've noticed a lot of people doesn't get to what I consider the minimum required (the basics). I think people need to know simple pawn endings, queen vs pawn endings (quite instructive, even if you don't use it often) and some general information about other endgames such as "rooks is usually best behind the pawn", "king activity", "opposite colored bishops endings tend to be drawish" etc. I don't think it's wrong with the "try and fail" method though when you learn these things when analysing your games afterwards (assuming your not just analysing alone or just with an engine).

With that said I think it could be good to take a break from going through grandmaster games sometime and study endgames instead. For example skip studying anything besides endings and some tactics for 1 week/year could be good.

Below are some links with a few endgames I believe any 1300+ chessplayer should know.

King and pawn versus king endgame

Opposition

Queen versus pawn endgame

I would love a titled player to comment on this because I think you're wrong about not needing more endgame knowledge. But then again I'm no master, but neither are you. So it may be safe to say neither one of us knows how to become a master.

omar_kj wrote:

I tried looking at 5 games in the ...cxd4 line of the French Steinitz today. I started with the oldest game between 2600 rated players which turned out to be a game of Korchnoi's. When I start with how Korchnoi won and then move on to later games, I see why people don't play the older move anymore. I think this process works really well in that respect. When you take the top 50 or so games you get to see the evolution of the theory through the years. You get to see why certain moves phased out. 

Another benefit is I get to see the endgame played by the elite players. People keep harping on the fact that the endgame needs attention. Well I disagree. There are two types of endgame mastery: one is endgame knowledge and the other endgame technique. I must stress that, other than a mastery of the basics in endgames, no other concrete knowledge is needed to become a low level master. It is far more beneficial to study the endgame by playing through endgames. When you analyze a game, take it to its conclusion. If you really must study the endgame, then I recommend Shereshevsky's book Endgame Strategy. That is the best one out there and will really open your eyes to how endgames are played rather than concrete, boring, useless, endgame knowledge.

You guys don't make a distinction of playing style when talking about endgames. But there is a huge diffrence if someone is an attacking tactial player or a positional player, on how beneficial endgame study is.

I know this from my own OTB games, when i was playing agressive things like king's gambit or pushing the f-pawn alot in the grand-prix-attack or bird, the game hardly ever ended in an endgame. Usually my attack got through or i got crushed, and the game ended in a mate or resign due to major material loss.

When i started to play more positional things, calm openings, caring about pawn structure, searching for weaknesses etc., quite a lot of games ended up in a endgame with sometimes little advantages (better pawn positions etc.) and here endgame strategy and technique is crucial. Here i suffered a lot from not knowing endames du to prior attacking opening choice.

I dont't think anyone can become a master without intense endgame training if he plays calm positional chess. And that's not my words: trainers like Mark Dvoretzkij or many Sovjet GMs emphasized endgames a lot because it teaches you positional understanding and when you should go into an endgame or not etc.

So when people are sharp attackers who will break stuff up, accepting pawn weaknesses, just to get some tactical positions, then endgame study might be not so important. But one can't dismiss endgame study in general without making that distinction.

I think Vo1d3mort comes with some very valid points. I think people should individually be able to judge weather they suffer from lack of endgame knowledge or if studying it is a waste of time. It depends weather you misplay a lot of games in the endgame (which you don't if games end sooner) or suffer a lot from not knowing how to evaluate endings you can simplify to.

When you get to the master level most players are very strong in tactics.  You don't become a master without it.  A majority of games played amongst masters are not decided in the middle game based on a tactic that wins material.  They almost never drop pieces so most of the games will end up reaching an endgame.  This is why studying endgames is important.  Even if you are a strong tactical player, odds are when two masters are playing, he or she will see what you are threatening anyway.  Its amazing how many people completely write off studying the endgame.  You can make sharp moves all game and make threats that are really complicated to see.  But when a master is sitting on the other side, defends all your threats, and an endgame is reached.  If you don't know what you're doing, you will lose every time.

Chess isn't simple enough to just play tactically sound in order to get to a playable endgame. A lot of GM-games end before the endgame. At that level I think the endgame knowledge is more used in the middlegame than the actual endgame (judging possible endgames before they occur).

I'm not saying it is.  Many do end before the endgame.  But the point is most don't.

Still no comments from any titled players.  Maybe this is so because they are insulted by the fact that this thread implies the road to becoming a master is easy.

Especially when the author isn't a master.

No, they wouldn't be, because all you do is keep improving until you get there.

Well, I'm not titled, but very close (35 rating points away ) and of course endgame knowledge is necessary.

This is like a fat person writing about the easy way to lose weight. If you haven't done it, then why should we read your advice?

You haven't even accomplished what you say is EASY to do. LOL

Enough said on this subject.

I have a Dzindzichashvili's videos they are alright they dont explain much he just tells you what or what isnt good in certain lines.

He has almost 1000 points more than you in bullet rating, so you should show some respect, young padavan.

He could have been mores respectful, but his point is valid.

omar, I've been teaching chess for 10+ years. There's a lot more to it then that, but what you wrote there is pretty solid advice for the most part.

Cheers