I'm lower elo, so forgive me, but it seems it's just a case of counting the squares to work out whether you have king opposition or not and outflanking if you don't. Kf1 gives you the opposition.
How can you 'detect' these type of blunders?
Sort:
This is a case of mutual zugzwang. You want to be able to meet Kf4 with Kf2. By playing Kf2 before he plays Kf4, you allow him to play Kf4 and you have no good moves. Of you play Kf1 instead and he plays Kf4, you can then play Kf2 and he must move his king away (he cannot move the rook or he drops the d3-pawn).
To answer your question on how to see these types of endgame tactics, you need to practice your endgames. A book like "100 Endgames Everyone Must Know" is a good start there.
blueemu wrote:
It isn't really a case of opposition, at least not in the purest sense. This is a case of "mined squares":. https://www.chess.com/blog/Michel2426/mined-squares
" I ran out of good moves and had to play bad ones..."
Be sure to stock up on good moves before every game. Amazon sells a bag of good moves for $9.99 for 100. Well worth it.
PawnTsunami wrote:
blueemu wrote:
It isn't really a case of opposition, at least not in the purest sense. This is a case of "mined squares":. https://www.chess.com/blog/Michel2426/mined-squares
I can see it more clearly now you've pointed that out. So as a rule of thumb it's a case of avoiding protecting your pawn because the move loses you opposition?
This in isolation?
mockbachess wrote:
I can see it more clearly now you've pointed that out. So as a rule of thumb it's a case of avoiding protecting your pawn because the move loses you opposition?
This in isolation?
It isn't so much opposition. It happens that you get opposition in this particular position, but that isn't the key problem. The problem is zugzwang. When you get to endgames (mostly), it is important to identify the "corresponding squares". These are the squares that you do not want to step on until your opponent steps on its "partner". In this case, f4 and f2 are corresponding squares. Neither player wants to step on their square until the opposing player steps on his, so the dance is about making sure you can always meet Kf4 with Kf2 (assuming you are White), which puts Black into zugzwang (conversely, Black wants to be sure he can meet Kf2 with Kf4 to put White into zugzwang). In short, since none of the other pieces can move, White wants to ensure he is always close enough to the f3-pawn so he can defend it when it is attacked, so he needs to stay 1-square away until it is attacked. If he gets too close, he can be forced away because he cannot move anything but the king (hence the term "mined square" - if you step on it too early, it blows up!).
@PawnTsunami, thanks for the explanation that makes total sense now. The idea of it being a dance makes the visualisation quite profound, as do the explosives!
This is one of the best example of endgame themes called Opposition. Watch this video to learn what it is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoZPZdnYYk8
thiccpwn wrote:
We played a very balanced game and i made a mistake in the end. A blunder more precisely, but it never looked like a blunder to me (while playing)
But I ran out of good moves and had to play bad ones in the end and lost the game. How can one detect these type of blunders? How do you higher ranked players do that in your games? What are the signs of one of these is coming? Any rule of thumb?
The engine says you were losing at that point (-4 to -5 on my PC), so it doesn't matter what you played... the chess.com analysis is confusing you, causing you to focus on moments that aren't instructive.
But to answer your general question, it usually involves calculating the best moves for your opponent. You can't find the best defense until you understand how the opponent can attack... but working hard to find good plans for your opponent is relatively advanced. First you should work on the ability to find good plans for yourself, and before that's possible you have to work on the ability to not make basic blunders.
thanks for everyone who spared time and replying. Mined squares & Oppositions, i'll check these a little. This also showed me that i needed more and better endgame understanding. thanks for the heads-up.
ps: @aoidaiki I was even up a pawn but his passed pawn had more value. Comp showed -1.8 in that position, not 4-5 btw. And being down doesn't necessarily mean you gonna lose, since you are playing against human beings, mistakes are always a thing. thats why i played till the end..
Notice how easily it might have been a stalemate on the move 58 (if i had a tempo and he promoted carelessly f1=Q)
you allow opposition.
thiccpwn wrote:
ps: @aoidaiki I was even up a pawn but his passed pawn had more value. Comp showed -1.8 in that position, not 4-5 btw.
No, it showed -4 to -5 because I used a real engine, not the website BS. The position is lost for black no matter what you do, so it's not useful to pay attention to the "blunder" designation.
Yes practical play is different, but I was just letting you know since website engines use low depth and sometimes give unhelpful analysis.
that's right
aoidaiki wrote:
thiccpwn wrote:
ps: @aoidaiki I was even up a pawn but his passed pawn had more value. Comp showed -1.8 in that position, not 4-5 btw.
No, it showed -4 to -5 because I used a real engine, not the website BS. The position is lost for black no matter what you do, so it's not useful to pay attention to the "blunder" designation.
Yes practical play is different, but I was just letting you know since website engines use low depth and sometimes give unhelpful analysis.
I see. What do you use? Chessbase + fritz?
We played a very balanced game and i made a mistake in the end. A blunder more precisely, but it never looked like a blunder to me (while playing)
But I ran out of good moves and had to play bad ones in the end and lost the game. How can one detect these type of blunders? How do you higher ranked players do that in your games? What are the signs of one of these is coming? Any rule of thumb?