What are we looking for ??

"Shakespeare also was a terrorist : "words, words, words...he said."

It's just about some considerations, nothing purely technical:

• About my nickname : An article about Fischer on the web touched me deeply in 06, the title was : "a pathetic endgame". One year later, Fischer died in Iceland, the place where he knew a short (global) glory. A living legend began there, as he never more defended his title. The enormous pressure of media and cold war killed his mind, slowly but surely.  As Korchnoï or Tal, he was more an artist than a computer. At some moment (against Taïmanov : 6-0, against Larsen : 6-0), he WAS chess. Nobody can play the game Itself. 
• The rematch against Spassky was also an endgame : staying always out of the political rules. As he hated rules, he also re-invented the random chess game, which looks like chaos. This caused  him also more than one year in japanese jails....no visa...anti-social against U.S. government...didn't want to pay any tax...out of the rules....
• The difference between a clubplayer and a GM is namely the ammount of thousand hours of training, games, and accumulating experience. A monastic life dedicated to chess. There is no obligation. A brilliant club chessplayer can be satisfied with local victories. But an expert told me once : "You can be excellent in openings and even middle game. But the real explanation begins with the final, which is no often exciting, except technically.
  
• When I was 18, I read a book by the king of finals (for me) : Yuri Averbach. The book looked so heavy, slow like a long final, that I gave up. I felt there that I would never be a champion. Why being so weak and depressed ? As a matter of fact, I never passed 1850 in live chess "on the board" and never above 1740 in online chess. Too much weaknesses, blindness at the worst moment, etc....and unsufficient knowledge and experience in finals. 
• Some experts told me : you resist a long time, but whithout finals, you stay a the stage of an "experienced beginner". Time goes by and I see I applied this behaviour everywhere in life : fear of winning. if a win happens, always the same question : why ?
• There is no endgame: it's opening on the next game, and hope for improvement, hope for an amazing position with unbelievable sacrifices...why ? Because in life, that opportunity does not occur  often, to be the hero of one's own tragic-comedy...
• Endgame for Federer ? I say that in 2009, he'll be back at the first plan. Question of experience. Alone as a king during a long time is damageable. Agassi was rated 133rd player when he came back to rank one in two years. Common point with chess : two players, strategy, changing the plan, no mercy during the game, etc.
• Everybody wants to be in the endgame or the final, with thousand people and amateurs looking at the game as if you were God himself : feeling of control, feeling of not being afraid of death and destiny. Many hopes were destroyed in a final : the idea you have about yourself, the most important thing for a chessplayer, or an artist, or a high level sportsman. Do I play or do I work ? What if I am not the young Magnus ? Between Self and Ego, there is a little place for nice combinations and, in some exceptional cases, a nice but pathetic endgame.