Scottrf wrote:
Try K&Q vs K&R
Yes, I know that one tends to be a pain, so much so that Silman doesn't even cover it! I could get to it afterwards, though. Baby steps :)
I've fallen into the trap Lasker warned about...
Sort:
chessman1504 wrote:
I love endgames. I love them not too wisely, but all too well. Lasker had a quote that went:
"Do not permit yourself to fall in love with the end-game play to the exclusion of entire games. It is well to have the whole story of how it happened; the complete play, not the denouement only. Do not embrace the rag-time and vaudeville of chess."
However, after purchasing Silman's Complete Endgame course and reading everything through part seven, the USCF expert section, I just can't get enough of them! Yes, I know there are more important things to study at my level, like tactics, but I don't really intend on being a serious chess player, so I can have a little "fun.
Consider a hypothetical, though: What if I kept studying endgames exhaustively, until my brain literally "catches on fire." What kind of strength player would I be? After all, excellence in endgame play requires many of the chess basics that enable success in all chess positions, like calculation, evaluation, piece harmony/coordination, tactical vision.
Thanks for any responses!
chessman
Keep on doing what youre doing. if you truley enjoy studying end games then carry on! As you said, you dont plan on being a serious chess player. End games are also my favorite part of chess, and spending my time studying almost nothing but end games has gotten me to 1800+
A great quote about chess, i wish i could remember who said it.
"A mistake in the opening you can recover from, a mistake in the middle game can hurt you, a mistake in the end game will kill you"
I_Am_Second wrote:
A great quote about chess, i wish i could remember who said it.
"A mistake in the opening you can recover from, a mistake in the middle game can hurt you, a mistake in the end game will kill you"
Yes, exactly! The precision required in a so-called "simple" technical ending is often more than one could imagine! I think this appeals to my mathematical inclinations. That is my chosen field, after all.
Edward or Emanuel. Big difference.
*(Fixed typo above).
zborg wrote:
Edward or Emmanuel. Big difference.
Neither! Emanuel 
batgirl wrote:
More importantly, who's this Lasker person?
It is indeed Emanuel Lasker, second world champion 
batgirl wrote:
Manny the physicist?
??? To my knowledge, he was a mathematician, receiving his doctorate after working under David Hilbert in abstract algebra. I know, however, that he commented on Einstein's relativity theory, considering it somewhat dubious. And this thread is going off track really fast... My fault!
Anyways, I think endgames are cool. I've been studying them somewhat exclusively this past month, and I think I'm gaining a decent grasp of previously incomprehensible positions as a result.
Jul 11, 2014
0
#33
batgirl wrote:
More importantly, who's this Lasker person?
First you hook them.
Then you play with them to tire them out.
Then you reel them in and cook them for dinner.
JamieDelarosa wrote:
batgirl wrote:
More importantly, who's this Lasker person?
First you hook them.
Then you play with them to tire them out.
Then you reel them in and cook them for dinner.
Okay, I'm really not following one bit. I think I missed a step?
Hey, Edward Lasker was (at least) a FIDE International Master.
He wrote many, many, books starting around 1959.
http://www.amazon.com/Chess-Strategy-Dover-Edward-Lasker/dp/0486205282/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1405118451&sr=1-1&keywords=edward+lasker+chess
Jul 11, 2014
0
#38
Eddie also invented a mechanical breat pump and had a long term affair affair with Mona May Karff.
Jul 11, 2014
0
#39
kleelof wrote:
've been listening to Scott Joplin since you posted that.
I've been listening to Janis Joplin.
Take another little piece of my heart.
Try K&Q vs K&R