11480 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
I think for most amatures and perhaps some masters its hard t truly define when one leaves the middlegame into the endgame. Well I think I've come up with a satisfactory definition of when one enters the endgame in general so here it is. Endgame Phase-When for both sides EXCLUDING the king and pawns both are left with only half or less of the army. When I say half I mean (3 pieces each no matter what the pieces are for ex. Q+2R vs. R+B+N OR Q+R vs 2R+B) and when say less I mean anwhere from 0-3. Well of course this needs critisizm s please comment guys.
I very much agree I cant think of a example that disproves it.
Strong and brave king = endgameCoward hide away king = middle game
you can have a hideaway king and it still be a endgame it just means you'll have a bad or very difficult endgame to play most of the time.
is it important to have a good definition?
there is a confusion in definition because of theory
In general when there is reduced material on the board and mating attacks against the king are highly unlikely. postitions with Q+ 2pieces of any type has too many middlegame features where a mating attack can occur and decide the game.
Positions where the primary plan to win is now pawn promotion and NOT a mating attack or an attempt to win material then your likely in an endgame (general rule) 2 rooks can generate powerful attacks so this might confound this definition. the reason this is important is once the king is unlikely to come under an attack by multiple pieces it can start to take a more active role in the game.
I would say that 3 pieces on the board is an endgame WHEN queens are not 1 of the pieces.
Endgames come in two flavors
1) concrete endgames that have a clear outcome with best play by both sides. The position is a win, loss or draw, period no discussion needed
2) almost endgames where the above is almost true but not clear (there is a book by Flear that I really like on this subject, he calls them NQE , not quite endgames. the book really shows the thought process strong players go through when looking at positions that can transpose into endgames where things arent 100% clear,...
positions with Middlegame factors can be included in the "not quite endgame" portion, where mating attacks are also a primary consideration.
How about the piece sum adding up to 6 pieces not including pawns and the king.
Not even slightly.
What would you do about this abuse
by RogerOT a few minutes ago
1. e4-b6 should be banned
by ruben72d 2 minutes ago
How do I beat a 2000+?
by varelse1 8 minutes ago
I Don't See the Point of the Touch-Move Rule
by mrhjornevik 11 minutes ago
Is Aronian overrated
by joelseymour 13 minutes ago
If Fischer would played Karpov for the World Champion, who would win?
by najdorf96 15 minutes ago
8/1/2014 - Cserna-Pogats 1986
by mvallejo70 17 minutes ago
Bumping Old Threads
by Ziggy_Zugzwang 29 minutes ago
by Comrade_Jackal 31 minutes ago
Do you think the Budapest Gambit is better than the Sicilian for club level?
by najdorf96 36 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2014 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!