Champion w best Endgame technique?
Sort:
Capablanca
Magnus is, I think, considered to be probably the greatest endgame player of all time.
Dec 10, 2021
0
#5
21th century (so far): Carlsen
Second half of 20th century: Karpov
First half of 20th century: Smyslov - Capablanca and Rubinstein
Dec 10, 2021
0
#6
Thank you all for the response. Sounds like Carlsen is top dog with the endgame so I'll be looking at what he does and hopefully learn something, anything really. I'll look at Karpov, Smyslov, Capa, and Rubi when time permits.
Dec 10, 2021
0
#7
One reason to study the old masters (Capablanca, Rubinstein) is that modern masters tend to resign once they reach an endgame that is clearly lost... and the definition of "clearly lost" has expanded over the years as endgame knowledge has increased.
Therefore, modern masters will resign earlier because endgame technique has improved and both they and their opponent can see the game's inescapable conclusion approaching.
So if you study a Carlsen endgame, you might not be able to see WHY his opponent resigned at just that point... unless you've already studied the older masters and learned exactly why that type of endgame is resignable.
Fischer. He often grabbed a pawn (giving the opponent compensation).
Then, he gradually neutralized their compensation, ¡while keeping the pawn!
And finally, won the endgame with flawless technique.
I think he said: "sometimes, it is worth to suffer for a pawn", or something like that.
Of course, sometimes he just suffered and did not win; but most of the time he did win.
Of the non-champions, Shirov's endgame technique is often ignored. I think he was slightly better than Kasparov at the endgame.
Dec 10, 2021
0
#9
Fischer was the King of the "good Bishop vs bad Knight" endgame. He won that type of endgame so often and so decisively that it was sometimes referred-to as "the Fischer endgame".
blueemu wrote:
One reason to study the old masters (Capablanca, Rubinstein) is that modern masters tend to resign once they reach an endgame that is clearly lost... and the definition of "clearly lost" has expanded over the years as endgame knowledge has increased.
Therefore, modern masters will resign earlier because endgame technique has improved and both they and their opponent can see the game's inescapable conclusion approaching.
So if you study a Carlsen endgame, you might not be able to see WHY his opponent resigned at just that point... unless you've already studied the older masters and learned exactly why that type of endgame is resignable.
Keen observation! That's what you need endgame "books" for. To bridge from the level of ordinary player to the one of super GM with comments and analysis filling in the knowledge gaps.
Btw, from what I've seen, Carlsens endgame technique is indeed awesome.
Good endgame technique is the hallmark of all great champions.
tygxc wrote:
Good endgame technique is the hallmark of all great champions.
And yet some are better than others, hence the question.
blueemu wrote:
Fischer was the King of the "good Bishop vs bad Knight" endgame. He won that type of endgame so often and so decisively that it was sometimes referred-to as "the Fischer endgame".
I have read that several times, ¡but he was also the king of "good knight vs bad bishop"! Often combined with an extra rook for each side. I think he just was the best of assessing the qualities of each piece in every particular position.
Dec 12, 2021
0
#14
blueemu wrote:
One reason to study the old masters (Capablanca, Rubinstein) is that modern masters tend to resign once they reach an endgame that is clearly lost... and the definition of "clearly lost" has expanded over the years as endgame knowledge has increased.
Therefore, modern masters will resign earlier because endgame technique has improved and both they and their opponent can see the game's inescapable conclusion approaching.
So if you study a Carlsen endgame, you might not be able to see WHY his opponent resigned at just that point... unless you've already studied the older masters and learned exactly why that type of endgame is resignable.
that is an interesting comment
Dec 12, 2021
0
#15
Pretty obvious isn't it? Carlsen is known for endgame technique.
Dec 15, 2021
0
#17
blueemu wrote:
One reason to study the old masters (Capablanca, Rubinstein) is that modern masters tend to resign once they reach an endgame that is clearly lost... and the definition of "clearly lost" has expanded over the years as endgame knowledge has increased.
Therefore, modern masters will resign earlier because endgame technique has improved and both they and their opponent can see the game's inescapable conclusion approaching.
So if you study a Carlsen endgame, you might not be able to see WHY his opponent resigned at just that point... unless you've already studied the older masters and learned exactly why that type of endgame is resignable.
This. Studying Capablanca's endgames will be *much* more instructive than studying Carlsen's (which isn't a judgment on their relative talents).
Irving Chernev's "Capablanca's Best Chess Endgames" is a good place to start. Chernev is one of the best at explaining chess concepts for beginning-to-intermediate-level players.
And, for what it's worth, Smyslov, Fischer, Botvinnik, Karpov, and, perhaps surprisingly, Tal were excellent endgame players too. But Capablanca's are the place to start.
Dec 15, 2021
0
#18
It's worth reflecting, by the way, on what exactly it is you want to study. Because when we say "endgame," we really mean a couple of different things. It could be this:
Or this:
Both are endgames, but need to be studied in different ways. The second -- a late endgame -- is the sort you study in books like De La Villa's "100 Endgames You Must Know." For these, there's a definite technique. The first, an early endgame (the famous Capablanca-Tartakower confrontation) won't be found in books like De La Villa's and is better studied through instructive games -- not necessarily by the greatest players, but chosen for their pedagogical value. For this, Chernev's book is helpful. There are no doubt others, not limited to a single player, and there are videos and online articles too.
Both are important to study, and they require somewhat different modes of study.
Jan 5, 2022
0
#19
tlay80 wrote:
It's worth reflecting, by the way, on what exactly it is you want to study. Because when we say "endgame," we really mean a couple of different things. It could be this:
Or this:
Both are endgames, but need to be studied in different ways. The second -- a late endgame -- is the sort you study in books like De La Villa's "100 Endgames You Must Know." For these, there's a definite technique. The first, an early endgame (the famous Capablanca-Tartakower confrontation) won't be found in books like De La Villa's and is better studied through instructive games -- not necessarily by the greatest players, but chosen for their pedagogical value. For this, Chernev's book is helpful. There are no doubt others, not limited to a single player, and there are videos and online articles too.
Both are important to study, and they require somewhat different modes of study.
Thanks for the reply, this is helpful indeed. I've decided to study endgames of all types more before I'm going to study openings. I feel I have already benefited from just the small response I have received here.
I am looking to study the endgame and would like a good place to start. Who in your opinion among the champions had the best Endgame technique?
If you could post a sample game here, I would really appreciate it.
Thank you.