Knight endgames are really Pawn endgames

Sort:
Radical_Drift
Fiveofswords wrote:

i agree...many losses are meaningless. You jsut werent paying attention forgot a move was legal and know it the moment you see the move. Nothing to learn from that but to rmeember to focus if you dont want to lose. Meanwhiel this game although he won i think shows that he lacked a sense of inherent danger that there was with the queenside. if his opponent had played 19 a3 or 20 b4, he may very well have lost. The mobile queenside majority is something he did not seem to be aware of as a danger. his opponent also didnt seem aware of the opportunity. too bad.

Yes, I did not have a sense of danger with the queenside pawn majority. 

Radical_Drift

achja wrote:

The queenside majority story is something to care about, but it does not guarantee a win.

It can be good in cases where both parties castled short.

There's however more things that can decide the result of a chess game.

For example, take the Ruy Lopez exchange.

I like going through games by Bobby Fischer winning as white with the kingside pawn majority, but if you look at more games and statistics, then you will realize that the bishop pair of black is something to care about as well.

In fact, you need to play careful as white, not to lose against the black bishop pair.

@Fiveofswords

That game example was not a very good one re: the topic.

White got a passed c pawn because black erred several times.

 That's along the lines of what I was originally thinking, but I do admit that my sense of danger was off; I was barely thinking about the queenside pawn majority at all, which is not good! I need to recognize these imbalances.

Radical_Drift
HueyWilliams wrote:

I still say:  if you hang something, by and large that reflects your level of chess understanding (or lack thereof). 

And that doesn't make sense. By that reasoning, Magnus Carlsen needs to work on basic tactics because he hung a piece against Yannick Pelletier in a classic game in 2015:

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1809142

What I'm saying is, it doesn't have anything to do with chess understanding past a very early level because after 1000+ rating, no one needs to be told playing a piece down is stupid (in most cases) as opposed to merely inconvenient; it has to do with awareness, which while connected to chess strength is a separate issue from chess understanding.

Radical_Drift
HueyWilliams wrote:

And how often does Magnus hang a piece? lol  I say it still applies. 

If we're relating it to chess understanding, I think it's silly not to pay attention to whether or not one is giving one's full effort. I'm not going to post a game where I'm watching TV, browsing facebook, and end up making a sacrifice that I knew probably wasn't correct, because at that point, it's like a bullet game. That's how most of my losses are, because I'm barely playing chess at that point. Should I analyze games where I'm drunk? (I don't drink, being underaged, but just in theory! Smile) Should I analyze blitz games where we end up playing, "outside of the box"? The point is, if I can figure out where I went wrong, there's no purpose in me posting it here. However, if things go right and I can't figure out who was better at certain junctures (like this game), there's actual value in posting it. Now, if things go wrong and I have no idea what led to a certain position or how to avoid a certain position, I'll post it here. Now, I'm not responding more on this point, since I want to actually discuss chess, though on account of this annoying discussion, no one probably does. Thanks.