Improving my play

Sort:
Diakonia
jengaias wrote:
hhnngg1 wrote:

I adore endgame study, but I do think it's vastly overrated for players under 1700. 

THe vast majority of my games as a sub1700 are decided well before the late endgame. Late middlegame is where most of the decisive action occurs - it's actually frustrating for me to see how little I get to use my endgame knowledge at my level.

 

For sure though, at the stronger levels, the games are more equal with less positional (or tactical) blunders, and then the endgame rises in importance. 

This is a mistake many do.You don't study endgames to win endgames.

Endgames increase your ability to calculate and plan and helps you understand the properties of the pieces.

This is what most do not understand.

Lack  of serious and systematic endgame study is what prevents most from improving and playing good chess.

Very well said!

hhnngg1
Diakonia wrote:
jengaias wrote:
hhnngg1 wrote:

I adore endgame study, but I do think it's vastly overrated for players under 1700. 

THe vast majority of my games as a sub1700 are decided well before the late endgame. Late middlegame is where most of the decisive action occurs - it's actually frustrating for me to see how little I get to use my endgame knowledge at my level.

 

For sure though, at the stronger levels, the games are more equal with less positional (or tactical) blunders, and then the endgame rises in importance. 

This is a mistake many do.You don't study endgames to win endgames.

Endgames increase your ability to calculate and plan and helps you understand the properties of the pieces.

This is what most do not understand.

Lack  of serious and systematic endgame study is what prevents most from improving and playing good chess.

Very well said!

I wish this was true, but I have found this at least at my level to absolutely NOT be the case.

 

Studying low-piece count endgames is so far from the middlegame that it's ludicrous to think you'll gain middlegame skills from studying them.

 

I think the fact that there are quite a few 2000+ rated players who are near-beginner level in endgames attests to this reality.

 

If you're studying late-middlegames, that's more like the typical chess we play for most of the game, but those supersimplified endgames, while beautiful, and yes, essential to win in certain situations, don't contribute much to surviving the middlegame.

kindaspongey

Possibly helpful:

Simple Attacking Plans by Fred Wilson (2012)

https://web.archive.org/web/20140708090402/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review874.pdf

Logical Chess: Move by Move by Irving Chernev (1957)

https://web.archive.org/web/20140708104437/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/logichess.pdf

The Most Instructive Games of Chess Ever Played by Irving Chernev

https://chessbookreviews.wordpress.com/tag/most-instructive-games-of-chess-ever-played/

Winning Chess by Irving Chernev and Fred Reinfeld (1949)

https://web.archive.org/web/20140708093415/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review919.pdf

Discovering Chess Openings by GM Johm Emms (2006)

https://web.archive.org/web/20140627114655/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen91.pdf

Openings for Amateurs by Pete Tamburro (2014)

http://kenilworthian.blogspot.com/2014/05/review-of-pete-tamburros-openings-for.html

Chess Endgames for Kids by Karsten Müller (2015)

https://chessbookreviews.wordpress.com/tag/chess-endgames-for-kids/

A Guide to Chess Improvement by Dan Heisman (2010)

https://web.archive.org/web/20140708105628/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review781.pdf

EasternRegent

Thanks for all the advice.

hhnngg1
jengaias wrote:
hhnngg1 wrote:
Diakonia wrote:
jengaias wrote:
hhnngg1 wrote:

I adore endgame study, but I do think it's vastly overrated for players under 1700. 

THe vast majority of my games as a sub1700 are decided well before the late endgame. Late middlegame is where most of the decisive action occurs - it's actually frustrating for me to see how little I get to use my endgame knowledge at my level.

 

For sure though, at the stronger levels, the games are more equal with less positional (or tactical) blunders, and then the endgame rises in importance. 

This is a mistake many do.You don't study endgames to win endgames.

Endgames increase your ability to calculate and plan and helps you understand the properties of the pieces.

This is what most do not understand.

Lack  of serious and systematic endgame study is what prevents most from improving and playing good chess.

Very well said!

I wish this was true, but I have found this at least at my level to absolutely NOT be the case.

 

Studying low-piece count endgames is so far from the middlegame that it's ludicrous to think you'll gain middlegame skills from studying them.

 

I think the fact that there are quite a few 2000+ rated players who are near-beginner level in endgames attests to this reality.

 

If you're studying late-middlegames, that's more like the typical chess we play for most of the game, but those supersimplified endgames, while beautiful, and yes, essential to win in certain situations, don't contribute much to surviving the middlegame.

First , endgame study is not only the over-simplified positions.Endgame study is a very broad subject , the importance of which very few are capable to understand.Many of the middlegame main plans are better understood in the endgame.For example:

 

The above position that is close to endgame is one of the positions that if you analyse it you can learn a lot of the important positional concepts of the specific pawn structure(French defense advance variation).It is  10 times more important to analyse and play that endgame again and again than memorise any number of lines.

Second , most of the 2000+ will never be 2100+ exactly because they lack even the basic endgame understanding.

If your only goal is to be a 2000 player and stay there or if you don't believe there is any chance to go higher and that's the best you can expect , then probably you are right.Endgame study is not for you

For anyone who believes that there is a chance that he has some talent and he can go higher the best he can do is keep his opening study at around 10% of his time and his endgame study in more than 50%.

I know you can classify this as an 'endgame' due to lack of Qs, but for me and most lower class level players, this is more akin to a late middlegame.

EasternRegent

I'm now looking for books on tactics. Which is the best or which would anyone recommend?

hhnngg1

Chesstempo website is better than all books

Jenot

A basic understanding of endgames is certainly useful. Rook endgames are very common, and it's important to know the basic winning and drawing techniques (positions with a "cut-off" king, positions with the Philidor position, etc.) Bishop endgames: the concept to put the pawns onto the "right color" squares is important. Knight endgames can be very tricky (but they are also not so easy to train). Queen endgames do occur, and they can also be very tricky (also not easy to train).

The question is: once you have the "basic" knowledge, is it useful to go for a "deeper" knowledge of the endgames (or to focus on middlegame positions?)?

It may also depend on your playing style.

kindaspongey

"What a chess master does not need to know.

(1) All the basic endgames. ..." - NM Peter Kurzdorfer (2015)

ap_resurrection

yes it will if you play / practice / analyze enough