"... What a chess master does not need to know.
(1) All the basic endgames. ..." - NM Peter Kurzdorfer (2015)
Knowing 99% of basic endgames is not knowing all basic endgames 
so this isn't a very strong statement.
And what people say and do are, sadly, often different. I bet this guy knows a lot of endgame ideas and themes even if he's never read an endgame book.
"A search through my endgames has revealed an epidemic of poor play ..." - NM Peter Kurzdorfer (2015)
"[Of the endings in 100 Endgames You Must Know, 23 are] enough until the moment one reaches, say, a FIDE rating of around 1900-2000." - GM Jesus de la Villa (2008)
"I was unsure whether [chekmating with bishop and knight] should be included in [Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual], because the mating technique with a bishop and a knight against a lone king is explained in every tutorial for beginners." - Mark Dvoretsky
"... I'm convinced that [Jeremy Silman's Silman’s Complete Endgame Course] will take its place in history as one of the most popular endgame books ever. It has already caught on with the average player in a big way, confirming Silman's status as the king of instructional writers. ..." - IM John Watson (2007)
Again, what they say and do can be totally different... if only because of the context. If Kurzdorfer aspires to a 2300 or 2400 rating (or considers these people his peers), then if his endgames are only 2100 level he's going to consider his endgames completely terrible. "I know nothing about endgames" he might say... but at the same time he knows more than 99% of players. This is misleading to beginners.
I've heard multiple players make such evaluations about themselves, and be totally wrong. So I don't trust quotes like this at all.
---
As for the other quotes, I don't really have an opinion that's contrary to that stuff. Beginners don't need to learn 100 endgames of course. And when it does come time to learn, IMO it's not necessary to know every technical variation. It's enough to know a few usual patterns and the correct evaluations while still under 2000 IMO. That will put you on par with most of your peers.
Again, what they say and do can be totally different... if only because of the context. If Kurzdorfer aspires to a 2300 or 2400 rating (or considers these people his peers), ...
You might want to look at the book for yourself sometime and judge whether he was trying to write for his peers or for people like us - whether he was writing about aspirations to become 2300 or 2400 or what it had taken to become an NM. ("... What a chess master does not need to know ...")
Also: "I am living proof that the NM level can be reached without focusing more on endings than the other 2 phases of the game . I have focused the bulk of my chess study time on middlegames and openings with the least amount of time going to endings and this has resulted in the ending being my weakness when compared to the other two phases , most of my wins come in the middlegame and I try to play my games in such a way that a crisis is reached in the middlegame because at my age I no longer have the stamina/energy to play long drawn out endings anyway." - NM Reb (~3 weeks ago)
... As for the other quotes, I don't really have an opinion that's contrary to that stuff. ... It's enough to know a few usual patterns and the correct evaluations while still under 2000 IMO. That will put you on par with most of your peers.
We certainly don't disagree on that.
0110001101101000 wrote:
"Again, what they say and do can be totally different... if only because of the context. If Kurzdorfer aspires to a 2300 or 2400 rating (or considers these people his peers), ..."
You might want to look at the book for yourself sometime and judge whether he was trying to write for his peers or for people like us - whether he was writing about aspirations to become 2300 or 2400 or what it had taken to become an NM. ("... What a chess master does not need to know ...")
Also: "I am living proof that the NM level can be reached without focusing more on endings than the other 2 phases of the game . I have focused the bulk of my chess study time on middlegames and openings with the least amount of time going to endings and this has resulted in the ending being my weakness when compared to the other two phases , most of my wins come in the middlegame and I try to play my games in such a way that a crisis is reached in the middlegame because at my age I no longer have the stamina/energy to play long drawn out endings anyway." - NM Reb (~3 weeks ago)
0110001101101000 wrote:
"... As for the other quotes, I don't really have an opinion that's contrary to that stuff. ... It's enough to know a few usual patterns and the correct evaluations while still under 2000 IMO. That will put you on par with most of your peers."
We certainly don't disagree on that.
I'm not saying who he wrote the book for, I'm saying that his self evaluation is coming from a different context than what beginners expect.
For example when Svidler was playing banter blitz (you can watch on youtube) he is playing for an amateur audience. During it he says (paraphrase) "I know nothing about this opening anymore, I studied it in my youth, but that was so long ago" (it was a french defense by the way). Then about TWENTY moves later, he says it's still theory and he explains what the usual ideas are (and goes on to crush his GM opponent). What he means when he says he knows nothing is in comparison to top professional preparation. Compared to players like you and me he's a leading authority even in openings where he knows "nothing."
---
I'm not saying endgames are the most important or that they're my favorite. I have talked to NMs though. I asked a few of the young ones for tips on improvement. What I heard mainly was tactics. One NM in particular told me he'd never read an endgame book... then later that day I watch him analyze a game, and his evaluations and plans in the endgame are much faster and better than mine. A few weeks later we play some blitz and his endgame is not weak at all.
Now, maybe compared to some 2200-2300 players he considers himself not knowledgeable, which is fine, but it's misleading to say he doesn't know anything. He knows a lot. He didn't read a book, but obviously through coaching, analysis, and playing he's learned plenty.
By the way, later he's watching one of my endgames where I agree to a draw with my opponent in a drawn position. He tells me after the game one of his favorite things to do is play for a win in drawn endgames, and I should have kept playing if only because my opponent was low on time... sounds like someone who only does tactics right? lol, no.
---
So Reb can talk all he wants. Let me play some tournament games with him and do some analysis with him and I'll judge for myself whether or not he's as clueless in endgames as he says he is.
Chess improvement comes from the incremental growth of basic chess knowledge coupled with a honing of analytic skill.
. . .
Studying endgames . . . has to do with learning how to think.
Agreed, this has been my personal experience in both cases. During a game analysis is the main tool, and having a well rounded knowledge is more than the sum of its parts.
I totally disagree that the Lucena position is a good exercise to teach beginners how the rook works. While it's not a particularly complicated concept, for a beginner, it's unnecessarily abstruse and not relevant to their actual play, as they will NEVER encounter a Lucena or lucenalike position for a long, long time if they're a true <1200 player with 'normal' talent.
I have seen basic Lucena positions in children's tournaments between players with ratings 700-1100. Some of them--usually my students--have known what to do. The others have settled for a draw.
Jesus Christ! jengalas you are smart. You honour you masters who have gone before you and you shall surely succeed if not already done so.
I don't study anymore,I abandoned chess many years ago.
But when I was kid my only true improvement was when a good teacher guided me with endgames.I lost 4 years listening to ignorant jerks about "balanced study" and "study openings because every part of the game is equally important" .
These are the greatest nonsense in chess.
One of my favorite quotes:
A mistake in the opening you can recover from. A mistake in the middlegame will hurt you. A mistake in the endgame will kill you.
As usual, Capablanca is right.
I read Silman's How to Reassess Your Chess as a USCF C Class player. It did not hurt me. Tactics practice and endgame study helped me more.
Capablanca's Chess Fundamentals should be everyone's first chess book.
... This is the advertising trick that all these self-assigned teachers have used to lure naive.
"Pachman is too strong , read Heisman", "Dvoretsky is not for beginners , read Silman".
All these are urban myths.
ANYONE CAN READ PACHMAN.
ANYONE CAN READ DVORETSKY'S ENDGAME MANUAL.
Any level , from total beginners to grandmasters.
When a book that deals with the basic concepts of strategy or endgame is good , it is good FOR ANYONE. ...
... Kurzdorfer tries to sell books.As always , the best way to sell books to the vast majority of students is:
"Condemn endgames" ...
Here is what I quoted from NM Peter Kurzdorfer:
"... What a chess master does not need to know.
(1) All the basic endgames. ... A search through my endgames has revealed an epidemic of poor play ..."
Does that look like condemning endgames to anyone? Now, I grant that, in some sense, it might be claimed that the Kurzdorfer writing does not support Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual being good for beginners, but is it at all plausible to suppose that that is part of an effort to sell books by condemning endgames? In fact, Kurzdorfer devoted a chapter of his book to "a guide to a few practical endgames", including examples of the effect of serious endgame mistakes.
... As for NM Reb.I have nothing than respect for his achievement(and indeed is an achievement to be a NM although he started late and he had practically no help).
I have the feeling he could go higher with endgame understanding.
But we will never know. ...
What reason is there to believe that Kurzdorfer was doing anything other than honestly describe an NM/endgame experience somewhat similar to that of NM Reb?
... Hawkins was 1700 FIDE at the age of 18.He is grandmaster today at the age of 32.He says that:
"a careful study of the endgame sparked the biggest leap forward in my own game" ...
It might be worthwhile to look at some of what Jonathan Hawkins wrote immediately after that in Amateur to IM: "Can it really be that the endgame is more important than other phases of the game? I would say that it is more a question of balance than of one phase being more worthy of study time than another. ... it is no great task to build up a high-level opening repertoire. Time consuming perhaps, but the path to take is not a difficult one. ... knowledge of standard schemes in the middlegame ... is relatively easy to attain, by playing through master games in the relevant openings ... All of this is perfectly reasonable, and I encourage the reader to spend time doing exactly these things. We have, however, a clear motivation here for focusing (at least some) of our chess energy on the endgame ..."
... For anyone interested about serious discussion for the benefits of endgame study here are 2 links.
https://chessbookreviews.wordpress.com/2013/01/16/amateur-to-im-part-i/
https://chessbookreviews.wordpress.com/2013/01/16/amateur-to-im-part-ii/
I will highlight the most important part in the review:
The secret of Hawkins’ book is that it’s not really about endgames at all. Neither, that matter, was Dvoretsky’s! What we learn from Hawkins is how to do the work that leads to improvement. Chess improvement comes from the incremental growth of basic chess knowledge coupled with a honing of analytic skill. If we sit down and put in the time with Hawkins’ book, we not only sharpen our knowledge and board vision, but we also begin to learn how to learn on our own. That’s where real improvement becomes possible,
...
Here is what Yusupov says in the preface of Dvoretsky's book"Endgame Manual":
"I also believe in the interactive effect of endgame study. It makes it easier to judge and use the potential of the pieces and to understand their interaction. So not only our endgame technique, but also our intuition and positional understanding are refined. In the endgame, plans must be found all the time - so it sharpens our strategic eye as well."
"I am sure that those who study this work carefully will not only play the endgame better, but overall, their play will improve. One of the secrets of the Russian chess school is now before you, dear reader!"
Jacob Aagard for the same book says:
"Since the book was released (and I wrote my review) I have worked with it, in both my own training and my work with juniors, and I have come to the following conclusion: Going through this book will certainly improve your endgame knowledge, but just as important, it will also greatly improve your ability to calculate variations. In particular, the section on pawn endings has convinced me that solving studies and pawn endings should be an important part of my pre-tournament training (and when am I not preparing for the next tournament?). So the book is practical indeed,more so than any other book in my extensive library."
Does anyone see any of these writers as saying that Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual is good for beginners? The chessbookreviews stuff was written by John Hartmann. One can actually see him specifically take up (in 2015) the subject of beginner endgame study in connection with a review of Chess Endgames for Kids by Karsten Müller: "Beginners would do probably do better with Winning Chess Endings by Seirawan or Silman’s Complete Endgame Course, and younger novices might best served by starting with Ten Ways to Succeed in the Endgame by Onions and Regis."
To me, it sounds as though Mark Dvoretsky himself was thinking in terms of readers at first going through at least some sort of "tutorial for beginners" before tackling Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual: "I was unsure whether [chekmating with bishop and knight] should be included in [Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual], because the mating technique with a bishop and a knight against a lone king is explained in every tutorial for beginners."
"... What a chess master does not need to know.
(1) All the basic endgames. ..." - NM Peter Kurzdorfer (2015)
... Knowing 99% of basic endgames is not knowing all basic endgames so this isn't a very strong statement.
And what people say and do are, sadly, often different. I bet this guy knows a lot of endgame ideas and themes even if he's never read an endgame book.
"A search through my endgames has revealed an epidemic of poor play ..." - NM Peter Kurzdorfer (2015)
Again, what they say and do can be totally different... if only because of the context. If Kurzdorfer aspires to a 2300 or 2400 rating (or considers these people his peers), then if his endgames are only 2100 level he's going to consider his endgames completely terrible. "I know nothing about endgames" he might say... but at the same time he knows more than 99% of players. This is misleading to beginners.
I've heard multiple players make such evaluations about themselves, and be totally wrong. So I don't trust quotes like this at all. ...
You might want to look at the book for yourself sometime and judge whether he was trying to write for his peers or for people like us - whether he was writing about aspirations to become 2300 or 2400 or what it had taken to become an NM. ("... What a chess master does not need to know ...")
Also: "I am living proof that the NM level can be reached without focusing more on endings than the other 2 phases of the game . I have focused the bulk of my chess study time on middlegames and openings with the least amount of time going to endings and this has resulted in the ending being my weakness when compared to the other two phases , most of my wins come in the middlegame and I try to play my games in such a way that a crisis is reached in the middlegame because at my age I no longer have the stamina/energy to play long drawn out endings anyway." - NM Reb (~3 weeks ago)
I'm not saying who he wrote the book for, I'm saying that his self evaluation is coming from a different context than what beginners expect.
For example when Svidler was playing banter blitz (you can watch on youtube) he is playing for an amateur audience. During it he says (paraphrase) "I know nothing about this opening anymore, I studied it in my youth, but that was so long ago" (it was a french defense by the way). Then about TWENTY moves later, he says it's still theory and he explains what the usual ideas are (and goes on to crush his GM opponent). What he means when he says he knows nothing is in comparison to top professional preparation. Compared to players like you and me he's a leading authority even in openings where he knows "nothing."
Kurzdorfer was not making an offhand comment in a video. He was writing a book that would be likely to be subject to some sort of editorial review. It seems to me to be probable that there would have been some sort of attempt to avoid misunderstood statements. The book purported to tell NON-masters what a master does not need to do and what a master needs to do.
I'm not saying endgames are the most important or that they're my favorite. I have talked to NMs though. I asked a few of the young ones for tips on improvement. What I heard mainly was tactics. One NM in particular told me he'd never read an endgame book... then later that day I watch him analyze a game, and his evaluations and plans in the endgame are much faster and better than mine. A few weeks later we play some blitz and his endgame is not weak at all.
Now, maybe compared to some 2200-2300 players he considers himself not knowledgeable, which is fine, but it's misleading to say he doesn't know anything. He knows a lot. He didn't read a book, but obviously through coaching, analysis, and playing he's learned plenty.
I do not see any record of Kurzdorfer writing that he doesn't know anything. Here is some more of the sort of thing that he did write: "Look through Chapter 4 and you will get a good idea of how sloppy your endgame play can be. ... do national masters come into their own here? Can we claim to be strong players in the endgame at least? Alas, the answer is a resounding no! ..."
Does it sound to you as though his play reflects extensive knowledge of the contents of Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual?
... So Reb can talk all he wants. Let me play some tournament games with him and do some analysis with him and I'll judge for myself whether or not he's as clueless in endgames as he says he is.
Again, you seem to be reacting to something that was not actually stated.
How to improve (at your level):
First, understand that ANY BOOK can help you, but maybe not as much or as quickly.
Your problems:
Blundering pieces
Failing tactics
No positional understanding
Bad opening
Bad endgames
So, here is what I reccomend you to do:
You will make 1500 easy if you follow this study plan.
@In Detention Thanks for the good advises, I already have someone coaching me, and I am also reading Logical Chess Move by Move. I got already the book you mentioned. I have been studying tactics here in chess.com, and I will also make some training in endgames. About the blitz games, I think you are completely right, I stopped to play short time (I used to play 3 min. games), and will keep on longer games (3 days, let's say). Best wishes for you, and thanks again.
@In Detention Thanks for the good advises, I already have someone coaching me, and I am also reading Logical Chess Move by Move. I got already the book you mentioned. I have been studying tactics here in chess.com, and I will also make some training in endgames. About the blitz games, I think you are completely right, I stopped to play short time (I used to play 3 min. games), and will keep on longer games (3 days, let's say). Best wishes for you, and thanks again.
Logical Chess, Move by Move (Chernev) is a great book for your level.
After that, another outstanding book, written in a similarly instructive style (only this time with games from more modern masters, like Kasparov and Polgar), is Chess: The Art of Logical Thinking, by Neil McDonald.
Finally, you can then move on to another (more advanced) instructive book: Understanding Chess, Move by Move, by John Nunn.
Keep an eye out for books by Bruce Pandolfini, as well. Browse through excerpts of them to see if you'd like them.
Best of luck!
@In Detention Thanks for the good advises, I already have someone coaching me, and I am also reading Logical Chess Move by Move. I got already the book you mentioned. I have been studying tactics here in chess.com, and I will also make some training in endgames. About the blitz games, I think you are completely right, I stopped to play short time (I used to play 3 min. games), and will keep on longer games (3 days, let's say). Best wishes for you, and thanks again.
Logical Chess, Move by Move (Chernev) is a great book for your level.
After that, another outstanding book, written in a similarly instructive style (only this time with games from more modern masters, like Kasparov and Polgar), is Chess: The Art of Logical Thinking, by Neil McDonald.
Finally, you can then move on to another (more advanced) instructive book: Understanding Chess, Move by Move, by John Nunn.
Keep an eye out for books by Bruce Pandolfini, as well. Browse through excerpts of them to see if you'd like them.
Best of luck!
These are indeed good suggestions.
Except Pandolfini which I don't know as I have never read any of his books.
Pandolfini's books offer the bread and butter that all beginners need with their pasta. Errors abound due to lack of effective proofreading. Nonetheless, his books offer a solid foundation. I frequently refer students to Pandolfini's Endgame Course and use both it and Beginning Chess in my work with beginners.
@In Detention Thanks for the good advises, I already have someone coaching me, and I am also reading Logical Chess Move by Move. I got already the book you mentioned. I have been studying tactics here in chess.com, and I will also make some training in endgames. About the blitz games, I think you are completely right, I stopped to play short time (I used to play 3 min. games), and will keep on longer games (3 days, let's say). Best wishes for you, and thanks again.
Logical Chess, Move by Move (Chernev) is a great book for your level.
After that, another outstanding book, written in a similarly instructive style (only this time with games from more modern masters, like Kasparov and Polgar), is Chess: The Art of Logical Thinking, by Neil McDonald.
Finally, you can then move on to another (more advanced) instructive book: Understanding Chess, Move by Move, by John Nunn.
Keep an eye out for books by Bruce Pandolfini, as well. Browse through excerpts of them to see if you'd like them.
Best of luck!
These are indeed good suggestions.
Except Pandolfini which I don't know as I have never read any of his books.
Pandolfini's books offer the bread and butter that all beginners need with their pasta. Errors abound due to lack of effective proofreading. Nonetheless, his books offer a solid foundation. I frequently refer students to Pandolfini's Endgame Course and use both it and Beginning Chess in my work with beginners.
Bread and butter are not really necessary with pasta , at least not with the good recipes of pasta.
That was my point. An unnecessary but popular staple.
I'm reading Dvoretsky.
It would be TERRIBLE advice to have the OP read Dvoretsky. Wayyy to advanced.
It's advanced enough that I'm getting no practical value out of it at my lowly level of play. I'm only studying it because I enjoy it.
There is DEFINITELY a role for appropriate leveled instructional material. If there werent', we'd tell kids across america to learn math and engineering to go straight to the highest-level college textbooks and try and 'absorb' knowledge from that method.
Good luck with that.
In fact, I'd go so far as to say that a large reason why folks who complain that they read chess books seriously but don't improve, is because they're reading books that aren't addressing the key mistakes that have them stuck in their rut. Which for a sub 1200 level player, is NOT because they're missing out on multicombo Silman-style N vs B superiority.
The OP could spend 6 entire months studying Silman, and unless he addresses the fundamental errors in his basic tactics and VERY basic positional play (which he most certainly is doing if he's 1000 rated), he won't improve at all despite all that time looking at Silman. If you can't do basic addition and subtraction, you can't do calculus until you get basic addition and subtraction right, even if you study calculus for months. Has nothing to do with laziness, and everything to do with inappropriately leveled material.
Maybe Dvoretsky is advanced. I know a 2460 IM that is reading Dvoretsky these days.
I think the first steps in teach people about the rook is:
1. What is called.
2. Where it goes at the beginning of a game.
3. How it moves.
4. How to castle.