FREE - In Google Play
FREE - in Win Phone Store
Let's say I have 10 hours a day to spend on chess. what is the optimal amount of time I should be spending just on playing? How should I allocate the other time, to be still productive in terms of improvement? I am currently 1920 fide and 1884 uscf and 80% of my games otb lead to endgames and I think this is not normal. Any ideas on how to work on all this? I need to start preparing for the Chicago Open which is coming up next month.
In order to attempt a competent answer to your question, please tell me what section of the Chicago Open do you plan to play in?
Sounds to me like you're overthinking this a bit. Also, I don't think that having a high percentage of endgames is in any way abnormal.
Normally I would want to play a section up for "free lessons (not really)", but since the chicago open is a big money tournament and i would be near the top of my section in the u1900, so i preregistered for that.
Also are you sure about that Andy? one of my friends is around the same rating as I am and he hardly ever gets into an endgame( unless he is playing me lol).
In any case how should I allocate my time if I have 10hours a day for chess?
Sure I'm sure. Look at all the endgames GM get themselves into...
And I think you should spend most of that time playing. Btw how did you get a FIDE rating?
I don't think it much matters what everybody else is doing. As ciljettu suggests, the real question to determine is: are you winning most of these endings? If so, then it sounds like a good feature of your game.
Way back when I used to get a lot of endings because I would flee the complications of the middlegame to get to a phase of the game I was more comfortable with, thus giving quite a few of my games an odd "truncated" look. If that's the case with you, then perhaps indeed you should learn to become more comfortable with the complications of attacking play, and not squeamish about king safety (which was another bugaboo of mine early on).
It's not that I don't like attacking play, it's just the openings I play don't usually give me those types of positions. I do win many of these endgames, but there is also this paranoia that you couldn't get anything in the opening/middle game vs lower rated players and that you have to rely on endgame. A common scenario I get is when i have the black pieces and white plays solid and unambitious and I equalize easily, but the position I get is not dynamic enough where I can just push for a win. I can post an example if you want.
Andy: I got a fide rating by playing in an invitational nine round round-robbin over thanksgiving last year. Also a few other tournaments i've been to have been dual rated (fide+uscf).
Here is an example of a simplification that is not dynamic enough. Basically with black I get something like this and its hard to expect to win unless white blunders severely lol.
It seems to be pretty much any opening has dry patches in its variations, where the winning chances are rather sparse. But I don't think having to "rely on the endgame" is a weakness...after all, it's what an awful lot of GMs do.