studying Endgame first, or Openings.

troy7915

To 350: That’s the point of studying opening schemes: to not just push pieces around. Before doing that on the middlegame, one must not be a wood pusher in the opening, or else there won’t be a middlegame attack.

troy7915

Reducing the complexity by exchanging queens and such shouldn’t be the goal in one’s quest for mastery. At least not as a solution for every position.

zborg

If, you want to learn to play quickly and efficiently, (and have fun, at any speed).  The recipe is above.  Ignore it by choice, and continue to type mindlessly.  You're welcome.

The "Quest for Mastery" is just another lame mantra, and crutch for wood pusher.

Sorry to inform.

zborg
troy7915 wrote:

Reducing the complexity by exchanging queens and such shouldn’t be the goal in one’s quest for mastery. At least not as a solution for every position.

 

You have absolutely no record of playing any games on this site??

What up with that silliness??

troy7915

That label is your interpretation of what ‘not silliness’ means, nothing else.

kindaspongey

"... we can see from the above that players who are happy as White to play for a small edge in a queenless middlegame have a number of lines where they can achieve the sort of position they want. Even in other variations, the willingness to settle for a near-equal endgame, rather than trying to obtain an objective opening advantage, makes one's whole job of opening repertoire management very much easier. ... With his superb intuition and depth of positional understanding, [Petrosian] was accustomed to treating the opening relatively flippantly, and did not normally strive very hard to gain a theoretical advantage. ... it seems to me that for many players below master level, having a repertoire where there is minimal need to prepare could in fact be quite attractive. It must be remembered that, despite its shortcomings, Petrosian's approach proved good enough to wrest the world title out of the hands of Botvinnik, one of the best-prepared players ever. ..." - FM Steve Giddins (2003)

troy7915

Some players will be lazy and avoid the hard work of studying openings in great detail, no doubt. They will never be the greatest.

robbie_1969

lazy good for nuthin chess players that wont learn opening katas

troy7915

Not to be confused with mechanical memorization.



 

WalangAlam

If one believes that there is such a thing as Chess skills then he is better served by studying the endgame. In endgame study one learns key concepts that are applicable or needed in every phase of the game namely: planning, exploitation of weaknesses especially in the pawn structure, activity wether king or pieces and most of all calculation.

I share these observations but they are not largely mine, they are in fact recommended by the masters like Capablanca, Lasker, Kasparov and a whole lot of grandmasters. In practice they usually work, there is no greater frustration, than having a piece up right on the opening but only to find trouble in the middlegame and even worse lose on an endgame with drawing chances.

troy7915

If one is a piece up with no obvious compensation for the opponent and still lose, then other skills are needed, like knowing the strategy for playing when a piece up, when a rook up and so on. But this is easy to digest, general principles.

 The hardest part remains the opening. As for Kasparov, he was much weaker in the endgame. Probably because he didn’t get to play as many as other players who did not master the opening the same way.

WalangAlam

Exactly skills that are sharpened by endgame practice.Why? Because endgame practice forces one to be precise, if you don't calculate precisely in the endgame then you would be punished swiftly. One would be punished swiftly too in an opening mistake, however, it would be hard to know where exactly you did wrong, while in the endgame it would be quite clear where you did wrong because of the few pieces on the board. This is true especially with king, pawn and minor pieces endgame. As the saying goes, "you have to learn how to walk before you can learn how to run".

troy7915

That was the point, that openings are harder to understand. What to study first depends on how capable is the brain.

kindaspongey

Perhaps, for a good many brains, understanding harder stuff is a more realistic goal after first studying the easier stuff. From Averbakh's Chess Endings Essential Knowledge: "... the study of the simplest endings should precede the analysis of the openings and the middlegame."

WalangAlam

Well I might be wrong to assume but I thought studying an opening is studying "the opening system" . One cannot master an opening if you only study the opening phase and its variations, you have to include the middlegame plans and the resulting pawn structures going to the endgame. Master's plan their middlegames with the backup plan of having a better endgame, although for complex middlgames this is harder to achieve.

You are ofcourse free to study the opening if that suites you fine regardless of the resulting endgame. The point is there are so many openings, so many branches, that GM's themselves are specialist in certain openings. Their opening study includes the middlegame plans and resulting pawn structures and pieces most likely to remain in tandem with the endgame advantage. So if a player is not solid on the endgame or at least proficient to a degree in the endgame then he is going to have trouble on that phase of the game.

On hindsight, with the advent of powerful engines, that is precisely what is happening now even among GM play. There is more focus on opening preparation but modest improvement on the endgame play as opined by some prominent GM's.

So I guess you're line of thinking is prevalent nowadays.

kindaspongey
XXXXX