#87
"Nobody explains how to reach the starting position in the first place."
++ It is easy: centralise your king and your knight, then drive the king towards a corner of the same color as your bishop.
The 5 basic checkmates are basic.
Capablanca's "Chess Fundamentals" counts only 60 pages and by his own account contains all you must know.
He treats
KR vs. K on page 1,
KBB vs. K on page 2,
KQ vs. K on page 2,
KNN vs. KP on page 16,
KBN vs. K on page 20.
He also explains why exercising the checkmate is important:
"The student will do well to exercise himself methodically in this ending, as it
gives a very good idea of the actual power of the pieces, and it requires foresight in order to accomplish the mate within the fifty moves which are granted by the rules"
On another occasion he summed this up more concisely in his boutade:
"A beginner should not be allowed to play a game of chess until he can checkmate KBN vs. K."
This is just an extension of KQ vs. K.
what would you do if you only have bishop and knight?
#87
"Nobody explains how to reach the starting position in the first place."
++ It is easy: centralise your king and your knight, then drive the king towards a corner of the same color as your bishop.
Doesn't sound like a good way to reach the starting position. The black king's not in the same quadrant as either corner square of the same colour as your bishop.
I know the endgame's easy when you know how, but if you know how you wouldn't be learning Delétang triangles. It's obviously not easy OTB when you don't know how, otherwise you wouldn't find vey strong grandmasters failing to manage it.
I doubt if your description of your method would be of much help to anyone who doesn't know how. (Also not a method that Nalimov or I would use very often.)
The 5 basic checkmates are basic.
I think we can agree on that.
Doesn't mean they're all easy.
I don't think anyone can play many of the black wins in KNN vs. KP. The engines certainly can't. What does Capablanca have to say about those on page 16?
Capablanca's "Chess Fundamentals" counts only 60 pages and by his own account contains all you must know.
He treats
KR vs. K on page 1,
KBB vs. K on page 2,
KQ vs. K on page 2,
KNN vs. KP on page 16,
KBN vs. K on page 20.
He also explains why exercising the checkmate is important:
"The student will do well to exercise himself methodically in this ending, as it
gives a very good idea of the actual power of the pieces, and it requires foresight in order to accomplish the mate within the fifty moves which are granted by the rules"
On another occasion he summed this up more concisely in his boutade:
"A beginner should not be allowed to play a game of chess until he can checkmate KBN vs. K."
I thought we'd come to the conclusion you were just making that last bit up.
This is just an extension of KQ vs. K.
So is the starting position in that case.
#96
"The black king's not in the same quadrant as either corner square of the same colour as your bishop."
++ By occupying the central squares with king + knight you force his king out of the center. Then you can confine his king to a triangle that includes a corner of the same color as the bishop. Then you can shrink the triangle.
"It's obviously not easy OTB when you don't know how, otherwise you wouldn't find vey strong grandmasters failing to manage it."
++ Any strong grandmaster checkmates this in a few seconds. They do it in bullet.
"not a method that Nalimov or I would use very often."
++ Checkmate takes only 32 moves, so there is some room for nonoptimal moves, especially at the beginning.
"Doesn't mean they're all easy."
++ KQ vs. K is easy, KR vs. K less easy, KBB vs K harder, KBN vs. K hard, KNN vs. KP very hard.
"What does Capablanca have to say about those on page 16?"
++ He presents an example and notes the pawn allows to checkmate.
"I thought we'd come to the conclusion you were just making that last bit up."
++ I did not make that up, I requote. I was not yet born when he said so.
Consider the following 5 possible statements:
a)"A beginner should not be allowed to play a game of chess until he can checkmate KQ vs. K."
b)"A beginner should not be allowed to play a game of chess until he can checkmate KR vs. K."
c)"A beginner should not be allowed to play a game of chess until he can checkmate KBB vs. K."
d)"A beginner should not be allowed to play a game of chess until he can checkmate KBN vs. K."
e)A beginner should not be allowed to play a game of chess until he can checkmate KNN vs. KP."
Would you find a), or b) or c) plausible?
d) is what he said.
It is also consistent with his advice that
"The student will do well to exercise himself methodically in this ending".
It is not because it happens that frequently: it does not. He gives the reason:
"as it gives a very good idea of the actual power of the pieces, and it requires foresight"
e) would be excessive
Those who dislike the Capablanca quote are probably too stupid or too lazy to checkmate KBN vs. K. It is like "I play chess games, I cannot checkmate KBN vs. K, so he cannot have said that."
In 1910 Capablanca went to Columbia University to study chemical engineering, but instead he studied chess endings and he dropped out of college to become a professional chess player.
d) is what he said.
People claiming to have read Capa's books say that the quote does not exist. If you're going to continue insisting he said this it would be good to give a source.
“Those who dislike the Capablanca quote are probably too stupid or too lazy to checkmate KBN vs. K.”
nah, I think it’s pompous and arrogant to say that a beginner shouldn't be able to play a game because they don’t know an advanced technique
it’s like saying a baby shouldn’t be able to be alive until they can walk
#96
"The black king's not in the same quadrant as either corner square of the same colour as your bishop."
++ By occupying the central squares with king + knight you force his king out of the center.
If his king's already in the centre you can't occupy the centre with your own king. If you occupy a central square with the knight it does nothing to force him out of the centre because from the centre it attacks no central squares. Apart from that you're spot on.
Then you can confine his king to a triangle that includes a corner of the same color as the bishop. Then you can shrink the triangle.
Which guarantees you don't arrive at the starting position I referred to ( Delétang's first net) which is what you claimed it easily did.
"It's obviously not easy OTB when you don't know how, otherwise you wouldn't find vey strong grandmasters failing to manage it."
++ Any strong grandmaster checkmates this in a few seconds. They do it in bullet.
I can do it in bullet. Not all grandmasters can. Chessgames.com used to have a collection of recorded games finishing in the endgame. All players 2500+ and two draws from winning positions out of sixteen games. That didn't include women's world champion Ushenina's famous fail.
"not a method that Nalimov or I would use very often."
++ Checkmate takes only 32 moves, so there is some room for nonoptimal moves, especially at the beginning.
Actually can take 33. There is plenty of room for non optimal moves even under competition rules. Not a strong argument for making them.
"Doesn't mean they're all easy."
++ KQ vs. K is easy, KR vs. K less easy, KBB vs K harder, KBN vs. K hard, KNN vs. KP very hard.
"What does Capablanca have to say about those on page 16?"
++ He presents an example and notes the pawn allows to checkmate.
Well you don't need to be Capablanca to do that much. Doesn't sound like a very complete analysis.
I would still say that you'd be hard pressed to find many things on the planet that play chess that could achieve many of those mates against a tablebase unless they had access to a tablebase themselves.
"I thought we'd come to the conclusion you were just making that last bit up."
++ I did not make that up, I requote. I was not yet born when he said so.
Consider the following 5 possible statements:
a)"A beginner should not be allowed to play a game of chess until he can checkmate KQ vs. K."
b)"A beginner should not be allowed to play a game of chess until he can checkmate KR vs. K."
c)"A beginner should not be allowed to play a game of chess until he can checkmate KBB vs. K."
d)"A beginner should not be allowed to play a game of chess until he can checkmate KBN vs. K."
e)A beginner should not be allowed to play a game of chess until he can checkmate KNN vs. KP."
Would you find a), or b) or c) plausible?
No, he should be left to work it out over the board. That is possible in all those cases.
d) is what he said.
But did he really or are you just making it up? Where did he say that?
It is also consistent with his advice that
"The student will do well to exercise himself methodically in this ending".
It is not because it happens that frequently: it does not. He gives the reason:
"as it gives a very good idea of the actual power of the pieces, and it requires foresight"
e) would be excessive
Those who dislike the Capablanca quote are probably too stupid or too lazy to checkmate KBN vs. K. It is like "I play chess games, I cannot checkmate KBN vs. K, so he cannot have said that."
Nothing to do with it. I'm very proficient at KBN vs. K but I still think the quote you attribute to Capablanca (I won't say "the Capablanca quote") is ridiculous.
In 1910 Capablanca went to Columbia University to study chemical engineering, but instead he studied chess endings and he dropped out of college to become a professional chess player.
#100
"If his king's already in the centre you can't occupy the centre with your own king." ++ His king is forced to leave the center opposing your king as you can move the knight or bishop.
"Actually can take 33. There is plenty of room for non optimal moves even under competition rules. Not a strong argument for making them." ++ It means the first moves are not crucial.
"Doesn't sound like a very complete analysis." ++ His book has only 60 pages to include 'all you must know'. So he clearly found the 5 basic checkmates worth inclusion, unlike e.g. Silman.
One Example is no complete analysis, but that was not his intent.
"No, he should be left to work it out over the board. That is possible in all those cases."
++ Whenever I teach beginners I always start with the 5 basic checkmates, together with KP vs. K and KR vs. KP. They should work it out over the board before they start playing a game.
#99
"it’s like saying a baby shouldn’t be able to be alive until they can walk"
++ More like: a baby should not run before he can crawl.
#98
"People claiming to have read Capa's books say that the quote does not exist."
++ In the course of his life Capablanca said more than he wrote in his 6 books.
As a world champion he gave interviews and he lectured about chess.
It is a sharp quote. It is in line with what he said elsewhere.
#100
"If his king's already in the centre you can't occupy the centre with your own king." ++ His king is forced to leave the center opposing your king as you can move the knight or bishop.
Well a bishop's now appeared in the picture. That's mainly what I usually use if the lone king is not already trapped behind one of the 7 square diagonals of the bishop's square colour. Long range, so less subject to attack.
But driving the king to the edge of the board can often be done with just your king.
Then you can show techniques of pawn promotion, with a King and one pawn or a king and two vs a king and one.
That lesson wouldn't take more than two hours, would it? ...
Try it against a tablebase and see how long it takes you.
#98
"People claiming to have read Capa's books say that the quote does not exist."
++ In the course of his life Capablanca said more than he wrote in his 6 books.
As a world champion he gave interviews and he lectured about chess.
It is a sharp quote. It is in line with what he said elsewhere.
You have not produced a source because the quote is fake.
I seem to be missing one of Capablanca’s books. I have only:
My Chess Career (1920)
Chess Fundamentals (1921)
World Chess Championship (1921)
A Primer of Chess (1935)
Last Lectures (1966), brought into print by his wife. He completed the radio lectures just before his death.
#106
The 6th is the tournament book "Havanna 1913" in Spanish, but available in English translation.
I only requoted. Capablanca said more in interviews and lectures than in his 6 books.
I did not make up the quote and I believe it to be genuine, as it is in line with other things he wrote.
I mean, I can’t find anything online anywhere or in books to support what you say he’s said. And it’s only you saying he’s said that. So I’m gonna assume it’s fake lol.
d) is what he said.
People claiming to have read Capa's books say that the quote does not exist. If you're going to continue insisting he said this it would be good to give a source.
I rarely agree with you. But this time I have to. I just have a hard time believing an actual grandmaster would say something like that. I can see an overconfident player who just reached 1600 in rating, and who just figured out how to perform that checkmate might say it. But not someone who truly knows chess.
Even worse (in my opinion) is excusing the quote as just his way of implying endgames are important. I can't even think of good analogy (Insertname has a good one though). It might be like saying one should be an expert roofer before being allowed to live in a house.
You have to learn the basics before doing something. Someone saying that you should learn an advanced technique you will rarely use before you even play one game is ridiculous, and doesn’t sound like something a grandmaster would say.
So far i am unable to find that quote came from Capablanca.
is it this?
“You may learn much more from a game you lose than from a game you win. You will have to lose hundreds of games before becoming a good player.”
actually the BN mate is not that difficult with a little practice, it's one of the basic forcing checkmates & it teaches harmonious planning to be successful, so although it should be read tongue-in-cheek it has some valid points. 🙂
#106
The 6th is the tournament book "Havanna 1913" in Spanish, but available in English translation.
I only requoted. Capablanca said more in interviews and lectures than in his 6 books.
I did not make up the quote and I believe it to be genuine, as it is in line with other things he wrote.
Oh yes. Thanks. I have not found an English translation.
oh i would just draw unless i knew how to mate with that