hicetnunc wrote:
For those interested :
You are corrected, not an easy solution. I learn this from Siliman's Endgame book.
Are tactics really the way to go?
Sort:
I see the trick now. But it can be confusing only then you faced it the first time. But anyway it's easy approach to keep the king on g7 or h7 and move rook up and down on the a file and if white king goes to his pawn than check it with the rook behind. I agree it should be learned in advance in order not to fall for such tricks. And i agree that endings shouldn't be underestimated.
Omega_Doom wrote:
I see the trick now. But it can be confusing only then you faced it the first time. But anyway it's easy approach to keep the king on g7 or h7 and move rook up and down on the a file and if white king goes to his pawn than check it with the rook behind. I agree it should be learned in advance in order not to fall for such tricks. And i agree tha endings shouldn't be underestemated.
that method also loses, you are a very slow person
somebody who blindly checks on the a-b files are going to lose
Tactics are just too basic not to look at in detail. Mathematically it's really simple. If you can lose a game in which you played 40 good, thoughtful moves, because you simply missed one simple tactic that loses a piece, tactics are pretty good at controlling your results (because imagine all the times where you don't play 40 good moves, then it's even worse). Know the opening principles and such, know that king safety is important, etc, but anything beyond that is not going to be as useful as tactics, especially for players below 1800 but even in the 1800-2000 category it's still very important. I'm not saying strategic principles won't be useful, but they are much less of a priority than tactics.
And yes I have many times been a victim of playing a really good strategy and blowing it in one move because I didn't care to really work on my tactics and making them consistent.
The case of course is included in any decent "useless" endgame manual.
pfren: You don't seem to be listening to the arguments here or providing substantive response. Let's try again.
A 2160 player is in the 98th percentile of American tournament players. It's a substantial accomplishment. Such a person is an Expert, close to a Master.
If a player can reach the high Expert level without knowing standard rook and pawn endgames as explained in decent endgame manuals, I must conclude that endgame knowledge is not essential to average players for their improvement.
Such knowledge is not useless, but it is not essential for average players.
I would guess, though, that endgame knowlege is essential for going much farther than 2200.
Omega_Doom wrote:
I see the trick now. But it can be confusing only then you faced it the first time. But anyway it's easy approach to keep the king on g7 or h7 and move rook up and down on the a file and if white king goes to his pawn than check it with the rook behind. I agree it should be learned in advance in order not to fall for such tricks. And i agree that endings shouldn't be underestimated.
You need to set up the Vancura which involves attacking the pawn from the side and checking the king when it's near the pawn.
1...Ra5 2.Kf2,Re5 3.Kf3,Re6 4.Ra7+,Kg6 5.Kf4,Rb6 6.Ke5,Rc6 7.Kd5,Rf6 8.Ke5,Rb6 9.Kd5,Rf6 10.Kc5,Rf5+ 11.Kb6,Rf6+ 12.Kb5,Rf5+ 13.Kc4,Rf6 14.Kb5,Rf5+ you understand.
Cookiemonster if that's really true then you are the strongest chess player of all time.
KirbyCake wrote:
you are a very slow person
Am i? Why?
TheGreatOogieBoogie wrote:
You need to set up the Vancura which involves attacking the pawn from the side
Thanks, although i've found this solution.
Then how do you explain GM blunders and miscalculations that happen in every tournament? Who is preaching? I'm just wondering how you don't miss tactics when GMs do?
You're pretty confident in yourself for such a low rating, I've seen quotes from world champions admitting to missing more than you will admit lol. I think it was Botvinnik after a tournament saying he needed to drill more 2 move tactics so as to be sure not to miss any.
I also think you underestimate chess. It's not so simple. You may make master, IM, GM, etc, but eventually you'll have to fill in the holes if you want to keep improving. I guess have fun now while it's easy for you though heh.
If Vancura is so easy post here, why did FIDE master blunder in this endgame and now it is only a draw..
If FIDE Master can make a blunder like this but he is still a master. How did he reach such a covet title with a lack endgame knowledge. Must be those tactics and attacking ability that everyone is saying is not that important, but everyone here is saying to study the endgame first to become a strong player.
I lost this difficult endgame to master who is rated 2300 uscf, this the endgame.
When I lost this endgame I ask a very strong master who was at one time 2500 uscf (senior master 2400 uscf and up.) and he could not show me how through analysis. But said you must keep your king on g7, not very helpful.
I know now how to mate with a knight and bishop against a lone king, I seen YouTube GM who is a woman and rated over 2500 Elo who drew against her opponent. There is more to endgame knowledge that make a strong player.
When my 2160 uscf friend get together to play blitz with my other expert friend , 2160 expert breaks opening principle and move his pieces twice and grab poison pawn, he wins his game through tactics and because he is strong attacker.
I believe once I improve my tactics and attacking abilties, I reach master level and that is a fact.
dpnorman wrote:
I think studying endgames is overrated. I have spent minimal time studying endgames as my rating has increased from U1000 to 1800ish in the last two years. It's probably useful, and I know Philidor and Lucena and some pawn breakthrough stuff, but otherwise it doesn't come up a whole lot in practical play IMO.
Out of your games, how many you could have won or draw if you have a better endgame knowlegde? How many from your games where you will not transpose from middle game to a bad endgame if only you knew such endgame is bad? Endgame study is not overrated as it improves logical thinking and calculation too.
Endgame knowledge advantage is not only about reaching that exact endgame. Endgame knowledge gives you the advantage of confidence. As a result you are less pressured and might move faster. For example if you are in middlge position and you know that what ever happen with the trades you know the position is draw, it could give you the advantage of moving faster.
Seems to me people agree.
Those who say endgames aren't important also say they studied them...
ipcress12 wrote:
For a developing player I think the essential endgame knowledge are opposition, Queen vs a pawn queening,rook behind passed pawns, basic lucena and philidor position. Bishop and pawn where the queening square is opposite the color of the bishop is a draw.
jambyvedar: Essential? I would say "nice to know."
How often do developing players lose points or half-points because they didn't possess these nuggets of endgame wisdom compared to missing tactics or playing positionally bad moves?
I rarely reach endgames where I am grateful I know the opposition. I've never encountered the Lucena or Philidor positions. I'm glad I know these endgames but so far it hasn't made much difference.
I'm not proud of this. It means I play at a level where I or my opponent make too many significant errors or outright blunders that we don't reach the endgame or it is so imbalanced that a patzer could win.
I expect this to change as I get to 1800+. Since I'm ambitious and curious I am studying the endgame now. But for the majority of tournament players, I just don't see how endgame knowledge is the essential missing piece that would make all the difference in their play.
I never told that knowledge of these endgame will put someone into stardom level. I just told that these endgames are not hard at all and won't make that much time to study. My point is, study these endgames as they will not take lots of time. You will not lose anything by studying them.These endgame knowledge are usefull from time to time. Yeah developing players are blunder fest and has many positional erros. The fact that it's blunder fest and has many positional erros makes the probablity of a game reaching these kind endgames is high. For example a developing player might be a piece up, but at their level it is not guaranteed he will win. He could blunder back the piece. And as a result of these blunders they reached an endgame. Endgame are easier to play than middlegames(less tactical error) A developing player that has a better endgame knowledge has more chance.
CookieMonster wrote:
Elubas wrote:
Tactics are just too basic not to look at in detail. Mathematically it's really simple. If you can lose a game in which you played 40 good, thoughtful moves, because you simply missed one simple tactic that loses a piece, tactics are pretty good at controlling your results (because imagine all the times where you don't play 40 good moves, then it's even worse). Know the opening principles and such, know that king safety is important, etc, but anything beyond that is not going to be as useful as tactics, especially for players below 1800 but even in the 1800-2000 category it's still very important. I'm not saying strategic principles won't be useful, but they are much less of a priority than tactics.
And yes I have many times been a victim of playing a really good strategy and blowing it in one move because I didn't care to really work on my tactics and making them consistent.
Want to know a secret? Tactics are apart of principles. And the fact that you separate them means you misunderstand them.
If you took principles seriously you would not miss a tactical opportunity unless you didn't experience the tactic.
This has been proven very true in the last year for me. But wanna know another secret? The more people don't understand basic chess the easier for me it will be to reach master. Personally I would rather it be harder, but I can't control others improvement so I don't care. I really like how some of us look at chess. Like Leif or I_am_second. Makes me feel warm fuzzies to see them post. :-)
As an expert, no, what you say is not a secret to me. Of course they blend. That is to say, there are advanced aspects of chess that aren't crucial to learn, and less advanced aspects that are good to start with. What a revelation. I disagree pretty strongly actually that principles are all you need to find a tactic. Principles are way, way too general to be reliable for that. Advice like "if the king is weak try to mate him" is way too general. That could involve pins, forks, sacrifices... unless you have lots of patterns built up of these sorts of things, you will have a tough time taking advantage of an "exposed king" even though you know it's generally a good idea to take advantage of it somehow.
Yeah, pretty much, learning lots of simple forks and pins will give you lots of cheap ways to win, and make it harder for your opponents to use these ways against you. I certainly would agree that it's good to try to learn the reason why the tactics work, e.g., patterns like, two pieces one square away from each other are vulnerable to a pawn fork, or, if the rook and queen are on the same file, pins are possible, etc, but, yeah, these cruder ideas account for a huge amount of results.
When you get to a higher level you'll need more than that. But tactics are so important that some players really do just get away with knowing tons of them and not much else. I'm not saying I recommend that (I don't), but tactics have to be pretty important if that's even remotely possible for a human. On the other hand, the opposite, knowing light tactics and deep strategy just won't cut it; the probability of messing up your whole position with a blunder is way too high because it only takes one. It's true that a good position makes it easier to find tactics but if you're struggling with patterns on a basic level to the point where you even occasionally miss them it won't do you much good.
Fiveofswords wrote:
everyone is capable of miscalulating stuff and ruining a good position from tactics. the problem usually isnt tactics but simple laziness
A person who is not good at tactics will drop pieces even when they are not under pressure. The pattern just won't register in their head often enough. We're not talking about unclear positions where it's easy to get overwhelmed. But even to consistently find the patterns in fairly simple easy going positions isn't easy if you just don't know how to do it in the first place. And that basic thing can take surprisingly long to learn. It's not good enough to just occasionally see a tactical opportunity; you have to pretty much eliminate the possibility that you'll miss it (else people who understand chess less than you will easily take advantage of it, and will have a higher rating than you). Chess is extremely cruel.
I never told that knowledge of these endgame will put someone into stardom level.
jambyvedar: No one here has said that.
The persistent claim made by you and others is that endgame study is essential for developing players.
If players can make it to 2160 without basic endgame knowledge, it's just not essential for advancing as a class player.
Endgame knowledge is useful, of course, just as knowing an opening line is useful if you find yourself in that position or one similar.
But in any case, your progress as a player is not crippled. You'll just do what you do ordinarily in an unfamiliar chess position -- play as well as you can and that may be good enough. One commenter here claimed that he discovered the solution to the Lucena Position over the board.
It's essential to know algebra before you study calculus. It's not essential to know the Lucena Position before you reach Master.
Fiveofswords wrote:
Elubas wrote:
Fiveofswords wrote:
everyone is capable of miscalulating stuff and ruining a good position from tactics. the problem usually isnt tactics but simple laziness
A person who is not good at tactics will drop pieces even when they are not under pressure. The pattern just won't register in their head often enough. We're not talking about unclear positions where it's easy to get overwhelmed. But even to consistently find the patterns in fairly simple easy going positions isn't easy if you just don't know how to do it in the first place. And that basic thing can take surprisingly long to learn. It's not good enough to just occasionally see a tactical opportunity; you have to pretty much eliminate the possibility that you'll miss it (else people who understand chess less than you will easily take advantage of it, and will have a higher rating than you). Chess is extremely cruel.
But i still dont really agree. you are assuming that some such tactic even exists and usually no such tactic exists. Obviously its possible to just hang pieces out of nowhere but thats a very novice thing. If one person plays logical chess and another doesnt not you usually wind up just resolving in some simple won endgame where the illogical guy never had any real chance at counterplay. That seems like the thing like 80% of the time.
im not terrible at tactics but i totally will just overlook simple things if i just lose interest in the game :P tactics isnt the sort of thing you jsut learn and then always have its something you have to continue doing during the game constantly.
Well no I'm not assuming a tactic always exists in any given position. However, I am, actually, assuming that a large amount of tactics will appear in almost any decent amount of moves. It could be just about anywhere. It might be you made some really grand plan, taking tons of things into account, you play c4-c5, only to forget after ...b6, b4, ...a5, your a3 runs into ...axb4, when axb4 doesn't work because then the rook on a1 hangs to the rook on a8; "superficially" forgetting about your rook on a1 ruins your whole plan. These tactics come from just about anywhere. Even if things were going well for a while, just some random oversight like that is so likely to provide an opportunity to your opponent, which is why it's so important to be good at finding them.
I understand the example you describe. But I still think you're taking for granted the tactical basis that allows you to resolve your "logically winning" endgames without trouble. It's the littlest things, keeping your pawns protected, looking for pawn tricks by the opponent, making sure a check your opponent might do doesn't change the situation, and all of this stuff you have to be thinking about on almost every move, even in good positions. It's true of course that the opponent might not see the opportunities you might give him. But, if he did, it would allow him to get away with many strategic problems in his game. At your level these things may not be a problem for you when your position is great. But that's because of your pattern recognition.
I guess secondly, while the "logical win" is common enough, I wouldn't say it dominates the other possibilities. I mean ideally yeah I'd like to think every time I beat an 1800 it was just meant to be or something, and my "superior understanding" by magic leads me into just the right position. Sometimes that just doesn't happen. Sometimes I fail to create things and I have to try to grind things out from a position that is no better than my opponent's. Usually they'll make a bigger mistake before I do but just because I have a high chance of winning against an 1800 doesn't mean it will be in a "smooth" nature. Sometimes, yeah, ideally; other times, not really.
ipcress12 wrote:
yureesystem: Good post. I'm confused, though, on which parts are quotes and which are your responses.
My comments with green writing and below are mine and above the green writing is The Great Oogie Boogie. I read your comments will I agree tactics essential, endgame study is really doesn't help a low rated player. Many profess to study the endgame, but did you not the strong player did not give a solution to a simple rook and pawn endgame, didn't they say theyu are good in the endgame. I made my point.