Think of it as a resource that you could use if you wanted to. It'll help put it into perspective. So if you want your king somewhere and the only way to get past his king is by using the opposition (or by not using it) then you do it.
A case where it matters:
A case where it doesn't matter:
Thanks Heister that's helpful
Ya.. i know what book that is in.. but it won't be released for another 3-4 weeks :p
The opposition is a tool to get what you want. It is not a principle in itself. The ultimate goal of the opposition is to get to key squares, infiltrate a position, or prevent the other king from doing so; in fact it is only a special case, since sometimes taking the opposition is the wrong line altogether.
But let's keep it simple. To turn heister's first example on its head, this is another case where opposition matters.
The opposition here is a tool for black to draw - K+P v K is a draw if black has the opposition when white's king is immediately in front of the pawn.
Thanks Remellion-I sometimes use opposition when i don't need to and am not always sure when needed.
Neat Heister let me know when it's out :-)
Remellion's example also shows what Jeremy Silman points out: the opposition is a means to the end of outflanking. In his example, that's how White won the pawn.
The key squares, however, are those that the White king must occupy to assure promotion of the pawn (Dvoretsky's explanation of key squares is far better than Silman's). In Remellion's example those squares are c7, d7, and e7. Because Black captured the opposition after losing the pawn, the White king cannot occupy any of the key squares. Outflanking is no longer possible.
I understand the basics of King opposition , but find it difficult to always understand when it applies and when it doesn't-or when it does and doesn't matter.
I've read Silman's endgame book but wondered if anyone else has found any other books that have explained it particualarly well-for lower rated players (1300'ish)
Thanks Steve