I suppose it depends on where the pawn is and where the kings are. Did you win that game?
Drew the game where my opponent had KBBvK, and won the game where it was KBK+P v K+R because my opponent lost his rook to a bishop pin.
nah, white has a pawn blocking his escape route. BKN mate is ONLY bkn v k
If he said that, it wasn't true. Openings certainly need to be studied in relation to middle games but it makes sense to be able to get to an ending before you need to study it.
What part is not true? Is it not true that endings can be studied of their own? Is it not true that knowing certain endings can serve as a guide in the middle game and even the opening?
The Nimzo-Indian Defense, for example, aims to give White an unpleasant middle game with bad bishops and a weak ending with isolated and doubled pawns. IQP positions in the Queen’s Gambit are played with an understanding that the player with the isolani should not rush to exchange pieces. The pawn ending favors the other player.
Read what comes after the "but" for enlightenment! No point in studying endings, before you're capable of reaching a meaningful one.
I had a conversation a few years back with a stronger player in regards to endgames, and the statement was made that he been able to draw/win many games by knowing when to trade down into an endgame advantageously.
If someone hasn't studied endgames, they are likely throwing points away, at least on occasion.
If he said that, it wasn't true. Openings certainly need to be studied in relation to middle games but it makes sense to be able to get to an ending before you need to study it.
What part is not true? Is it not true that endings can be studied of their own? Is it not true that knowing certain endings can serve as a guide in the middle game and even the opening?
The Nimzo-Indian Defense, for example, aims to give White an unpleasant middle game with bad bishops and a weak ending with isolated and doubled pawns. IQP positions in the Queen’s Gambit are played with an understanding that the player with the isolani should not rush to exchange pieces. The pawn ending favors the other player.
Read what comes after the "but" for enlightenment! No point in studying endings, before you're capable of reaching a meaningful one.
I had a conversation a few years back with a stringer player in regards to endgames, and the statement was made that he been able to draw/win many games by knowing when to trade down into an endgame advantageously.
If someone hasn't studied endgames, they are likely throwing points away, at least on occasion.
this is particularly relevant concerning KP v K. 🙂
That makes sense. I have a bad habit of mindlessly going for trades when I’m up in material, even if it’s only 1 or 2 pawns, hoping to get a winning endgame. While usually trading down when up in material is good, trading down into a drawn endgame does happen sometimes, and I can’t tell the difference.
lol maybe the world champion Capa simply meant that one should focus on endgames above all else.
In the same way a world number one golfer might say one should focus on putting above all else.
Either way, it's pretty ridiculous
"In order to improve your game, you must study the endgame before everything else, for whereas the endings can be studied and mastered by themselves, the middlegame and the opening must be studied in relation to the endgame."
~Jose Raul Capablanca
Well that's a far, far different quote than the one described earlier, isn't it?
This quote seems much more reasonable. You have to admit, the original quote didn't seem very believable it's so unrealistic.
many new players launch into playing games without so much as the foggiest idea on how to end one properly, as evidenced by the high number of stalemates from completely won positions frequently seen at the lower levels:
regardless whether the quote was falsified, inaccurately attributed or facetiously intended, the general idea is a good one;
newer players should study how to plan for their pieces to work together harmoniously, rather than engaging in endless flailing haymaker exchanges because they don't know any better.
Make the bishop ride horseback in OTB play
Deletang's method is the easiest to understand.
Not really needed in the above game though, as white's king is close to the right corner, with no chances to escape.
Great point!
You can get the most recent printer drivers and software from the ij.start.cannon portal. Depending on your demands, it offers a choice of printers, including PIXMA, SELPHY, MAXIFY, and others. There are a few things to think about while choosing an inkjet printer. To get started with ij.start canon setup, you can use wireless, Ethernet, or USB connections. For more info visit: https://ijstarttcannon.com/ij-start-canon/
Once you find yourself reaching equal or better endings and losing them, that means that you've improved to the extent that you can hold your own in the earlier part of the game, to the extent that you're now playing better players, who can beat you in the endings. As soon as that happens, that's the time to study endings intensively. Before that point, you'd be wasting your time to learn anything more than very basic endings.
I've watched hundreds of beginners dominate their opponents through the opening and middle game and have no idea how to finish because they do not know basic checkmates. That's why I start students there, just as Jose Capablanca recommended.
No evidence has been produced to support the claim that he said one should learn the most difficult elementary checkmate before commencing play. Moreover, he begins Chess Fundamentals with only very simple checkmates with rooks and queens. After discussing middle games and some opening principles and pawn endings, he returns to more difficult elementary checkmates.
There he states, as have many other GMs after him, that endgames can be studied on their own and that knowing them can serve as a guide to understanding middle games and openings.
Sure. Some players never get an endgame because they never get out of the opening. In my limited experience teaching about 1000 beginners the rudiments of the game, I have observed this failure has nothing to do with opening theory, but rather elementary tactics--basic contacts. I created 150 exercises for beginners to address this weakness. Bruce Pandolfini, Beginning Chess is another excellent resource and was the inspiration behind my 150 exercises with ten or fewer pieces.
Deletang's method is the easiest to understand.
But, as usually explained, it's far from complete and not optimal.
Explanations usually start from this position (Delétang's first net)
The diagram is mate in 19 with White to move or mate in 18 with Black to move (but not as usually explained in either case).
All positions arising in the analyses have mate depth at most 19, but the average mate depth in KBNK is about 27 and the maximum 33.
Nobody explains how to reach the starting position in the first place. From the above it would need at least 14 perfectly accurate moves and probably more from some positions.
The best way is to work out your own method and practice it against an engine (preferably with a tablebase, but SF is almost perfectly accurate without).
Like a lot of beginners I learned the W thing. Practiced it. Didn't really understand it. And forget it soon after.
Maybe a year later was my 2nd time to learn it. The process went faster and was less confusing. I didn't need as much practice, but then of course I forgot it later.
After the 3rd time learning it I felt like I finally understood it... but without any practice, years later I struggled to do the mate.
Memorization and technical positions are not understanding. W maneuver should not be in any book aimed at beginners... IMO.
I don't understand how can anyone forget it. The W thing is not named W for some weird reason, but exactly because the knight writes a W on the chessboard. Compared to that, the triangles are really esoteric and confusing and very-very hard.
@magipi
But the W thing is even less of a complete solution than the triangles. It's a method of forcing the lone king from a wrong corner into mate in an adjacent corner. Nothing more.
Black's best bet is not to go into the wrong corner in the first place (see this post).
The explanation usually starts from a position similar to this
The diagram is mate in 20 with White to move or mate in 19 with Black to move. No position after the first has mate depth more than 19 so all the things I said about Delétang's triangles in this post also apply to the W thing.
If it's to be optimal it should also be a wonky W thing. (See this post.)
Delétang's triangles and the W thing together don't constitute a complete KBNK solution. They cover only a minority of positions with mate depth 13 less than the maximum depth for the ending and 7 less than the average.
Like a lot of beginners I learned the W thing. Practiced it. Didn't really understand it. And forget it soon after.
Maybe a year later was my 2nd time to learn it. The process went faster and was less confusing. I didn't need as much practice, but then of course I forgot it later.
After the 3rd time learning it I felt like I finally understood it... but without any practice, years later I struggled to do the mate.
Memorization and technical positions are not understanding. W maneuver should not be in any book aimed at beginners... IMO.
I don't understand how can anyone forget it. The W thing is not named W for some weird reason, but exactly because the knight writes a W on the chessboard. Compared to that, the triangles are really esoteric and confusing and very-very hard.
If the weak side's king doesn't try to escape then the W maneuver is easy. When it tries to make things difficult you have to be a little accurate.
Of course to me now, it's all very easy... but as a beginner it was very hard for me to play the correct variations.
The idea that a bishop and knight, when placed on the same color squares, combine to zone out the enemy king is the most important idea of the endgame. The W method completely fails to teach this. "Look how the knight moves in a W, that will help you remember it" is a pathetic excuse for teaching anything.
Well it's Philidor's method and he did explicitly stress both points in his book.
lol maybe the world champion Capa simply meant that one should focus on endgames above all else.
In the same way a world number one golfer might say one should focus on putting above all else.
Either way, it's pretty ridiculous
"In order to improve your game, you must study the endgame before everything else, for whereas the endings can be studied and mastered by themselves, the middlegame and the opening must be studied in relation to the endgame."
~Jose Raul Capablanca
Well that's a far, far different quote than the one described earlier, isn't it?
This quote seems much more reasonable. You have to admit, the original quote didn't seem very believable it's so unrealistic.