x
Chess - Play & Learn

Chess.com

FREE - In Google Play

FREE - in Win Phone Store

VIEW

Up two pawns, couldn't win

  • #21

    I wish I was as half decent in R&p endings as in the earlier parts of the game. I now see that my supposed win wasn't as easy as I thought. I do think that since most middle games are easier than difficult endings, it's best to use the middle game to win and don't try to rely on converting difficult endings.

  • #22
    Optimissed wrote:

    I wish I was as half decent in R&p endings as in the earlier parts of the game. I now see that my supposed win wasn't as easy as I thought. I do think that since most middle games are easier than difficult endings, it's best to use the middle game to win and don't try to rely on converting difficult endings.

    that's also a good way to lose...trying to force some win that just isn't there in the middlegame. Just learn some endgame.

  • #23
    Vercingetorix75 wrote:
    Optimissed wrote:

    I wish I was as half decent in R&p endings as in the earlier parts of the game. I now see that my supposed win wasn't as easy as I thought. I do think that since most middle games are easier than difficult endings, it's best to use the middle game to win and don't try to rely on converting difficult endings.

    that's also a good way to lose...trying to force some win that just isn't there in the middlegame. Just learn some endgame.>>>

    At my stage of chess development I no longer want to. I know enough about the principles to be able to work out a correctly played endgame when I'm playing well but I find endings generally pretty boring and enjoy the earlier parts of the game more. I think though that if I were good at endings I'd be 100 FIDE stronger than I am. But I don't suppose I'd enjoy the chess so what's the point. Do what you enjoy!

  • #24

    I stick to what I said, in fact. At my level, about 19oo to 1950 FIDE otb slowplay, a lot of players are very lazy in the earlier parts of the game and it really is possible to beat most of them when I'm playing well and have good mental energy. That's much more easily done in the opening and middle-game.

  • #25
    Optimissed wrote:
    Vercingetorix75 wrote:
    Optimissed wrote:

    I wish I was as half decent in R&p endings as in the earlier parts of the game. I now see that my supposed win wasn't as easy as I thought. I do think that since most middle games are easier than difficult endings, it's best to use the middle game to win and don't try to rely on converting difficult endings.

    that's also a good way to lose...trying to force some win that just isn't there in the middlegame. Just learn some endgame.>>>

    At my stage of chess development I no longer want to. I know enough about the principles to be able to work out a correctly played endgame when I'm playing well but I find endings generally pretty boring and enjoy the earlier parts of the game more. I think though that if I were good at endings I'd be 100 FIDE stronger than I am. But I don't suppose I'd enjoy the chess so what's the point. Do what you enjoy!

    lol...well I'm not trying to tell you the meaning of your life. I'm just saying that trying to force a win that is not justified in the middlegame will often backfire. That is still true whether you care or not...I'm not judging

  • #26

    I'm not talking about forcing wins where they don't exist so much as creating positions where the endgame conversion into a win is relatively simple. That is, try to have a clear endgame path before you convert into an ending, since if one outplays the opponent in the opening and middle-game, it doesn't make sense to grab a small advantage and rush into an ending in which the expertise needed is far more than should be necessary, especially if the opponent happens to be a brilliant endgame player. There's such a player on our club team. He's careful with his openings, mediocre in middle-games, and a dominant force in endings. He was an accountant all his working life, which might explain it. So it's more important to develop control over a game such that the nature of the endgame achieved is characterised by simple, winning plans. Perhaps you're relatively strong at endings yourself, I don't know. I'm relatively strong in complex situations that can't easily be calculated and which demand positional insight and also at planning and executing aggressive surprise attacks by masking them as routine moves. I'm pretty crap at endings much of the time, although I have played difficult endings perfectly on my day because I have good calculative ability if I can be bothered. I think it just reflects what we enjoy most in chess.

  • #27

    Any hope for this?

  • #28
    Optimissed wrote:

    I'm not talking about forcing wins where they don't exist so much as creating positions where the endgame conversion into a win is relatively simple. That is, try to have a clear endgame path before you convert into an ending, since if one outplays the opponent in the opening and middle-game, it doesn't make sense to grab a small advantage and rush into an ending in which the expertise needed is far more than should be necessary, especially if the opponent happens to be a brilliant endgame player. There's such a player on our club team. He's careful with his openings, mediocre in middle-games, and a dominant force in endings. He was an accountant all his working life, which might explain it. So it's more important to develop control over a game such that the nature of the endgame achieved is characterised by simple, winning plans. Perhaps you're relatively strong at endings yourself, I don't know. I'm relatively strong in complex situations that can't easily be calculated and which demand positional insight and also at planning and executing aggressive surprise attacks by masking them as routine moves. I'm pretty crap at endings much of the time, although I have played difficult endings perfectly on my day because I have good calculative ability if I can be bothered. I think it just reflects what we enjoy most in chess.

    well ive done my homework on endgames and I think I'm not bad at them...but I am certainly not a 'dominant force' at them heh. But anyway I think each game just kinda takes you wherever you need to go and you don't have much control over it.

     

    Maybe occasionally you find yourself in a position where you see a way to 'cash out' and try winning an endgame where maybe you have some sort of advantage but you aren't sure you can win it against good defense...but you also fell like the opponent is in a bit of a bind and perhaps extending the middlegame could be promising.  I guess that I personally tend to sell out and try the endgame and I assume you would not. But this sort of decision is not terribly common.

     

    What is common is to be in a middlegame that feels pretty much equal..and exchanges are just going to happen...and the only way to avoid exchanges is to start playing illogical moves that just do not fit with the position. I would never choose illogical play in that situation and I think its a good way to lose. Would you?

     

    I think it is just good to be balanced and be able to play all the stages of the game well enough.

Top

Online Now