Mistakes get smaller and winning margins subtler as skill level increases between equal opponents, and a good game not infrequently extends to the endgame.
It seems you disagree but many (most?) serious players find the endgame intriguing. Deep and beautiful at times, and yes perhaps it takes a chess education to appreciate it. Not always though, and some just like endgames from day 1.
the endgame is an artform itself.whoever doesn't comprehend it and appreciate it,is only hurting their chess game.
A win is a win however you get it certainly. But if its deep into the end game, my gut feeling is I've blown it somehow, but at least I can try to salvage it. I personally would never put a game of mine in the Showcase that I didn't win in the middle game. Maybe the end game is sort of like one-on-one basketball or 2 man beach volleyball. Its surprising a variant of chess didn't gain popularity that started with just say a couple of pawns a minor piece and a king on each side, if people like the end game so much. But if you start with 16 per player and most of them disappear, they were essentially cannon fodder, imo. This is just a very subjective entrenched opinion of mine.
You probably don't like the endgame because you don't know it.
Are you implying my beginning and middle game skills may be comparable to yours? Thanks. I mean I do like the beginning and middle game. Does that imply I do know them? Coming from a 1900 player I'll take that as a complement.
A win is a win however you get it certainly. But if its deep into the end game, my gut feeling is I've blown it somehow, but at least I can try to salvage it. I personally would never put a game of mine in the Showcase that I didn't win in the middle game. Maybe the end game is sort of like one-on-one basketball or 2 man beach volleyball. Its surprising a variant of chess didn't gain popularity that started with just say a couple of pawns a minor piece and a king on each side, if people like the end game so much. But if you start with 16 per player and most of them disappear, they were essentially cannon fodder, imo. This is just a very subjective entrenched opinion of mine.
Why so entrenched? And are you open to changing it at all?
I enjoy the endgame. I visit frequently as often as possible
#7
Why so entrenched? And are you open to changing it at all?
All this talk about loving the end game makes me think of Dr StrangeLove:
Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
But is my aversion to the end game dysfunctional? Yes probably, I already admitted as much. Aversion is probably to strong a word - I just don't get the emotional satisfaction from it as I do a surprise devastating mate in the middle game that seems to come from nowhere. Why can't you accept me as I am?
Some people like to move their queen out early as possible every game. It makes them happy.
But if its deep into the end game, my gut feeling is I've blown it somehow, but at least I can try to salvage it. I personally would never put a game of mine in the Showcase that I didn't win in the middle game.
If a game is won in the middle game, it's usually because SOMEone HAS blown it. Stunning tactical shots and flashy sacrifices only work when someone developed incorrectly, failed to defend properly, or made a mistake.
As goldendog said, "Mistakes get smaller and winning margins subtler as skill level increases between equal opponents...." There can be a great deal of satisfaction beating an opponent who played well, but couldn't overcome the loss of the single pawn so brilliantly won in the middle game. Such wins often come about because the small difference in material, faced with continued good play on the part of the opponent, requires that forces be pared down to magnify the discrepancy. Just jockeying for position, looking for a swashbuckling finish will often either lead to a draw or loss. The difference must be nurtured, and the end is often a slow, but satisfying grind.
To oversimplify, suppose you have a rook, knight, bishop and five pawns; your opponent the same, only one pawn less. In the system of assigning points to piece value, you have 16 to his 15, a 6.7% material advantage. Force the trade of knights and bishops, and it's 10 to 9. The advantage is 11%. Get it down to three pawns vs. two, and it's 50%. Slowly and methodically you have built to a probably decisive advantage and improved your own security in the process.
We all like the flashy wins, but they happen less frequently among more skilled players, as the potential "victims" know what to guard against. An appreciation for and understanding of even some endgame theory will teach one what to do with that small middle game advantage. I like to win. An endgame triumph against a tough opponent is more satisfying than punishing a weaker player's mistake.
It's nice to play against people who hate the endgame. You can go into positions where the best move for them would be to trade queens, and they'll always choose something inferior.
Quote: "Then you flip to the end position and its total of 5 pieces on the board and the winner had an extra pawn or minor piece so that's why they won.
Sort of renders all that preceded it kind of pointless. Obviously neither opponent was able to exercise any decisive tactic or strategy earlier, or at least none that wasn't neutralized or marginalized."
Seems to me that the opponent was able to exercise a decisive tactic or strategy earlier - the one that won the pawn or minor piece!
#10
You seem to be implying earlier that above a certain level a long end game is the norm. It would be great if there were statistics that demonstrated that. If there were any GM that was known for quick strikes and shorter games, I would be studying them now.
It would seem to some degree a matter of mere philosophy would be involved - safe vs. decisive. In World War II for example I have a vague understanding that the Battle of the Bulge was Eisenhower's strategy - a long drawn out affair involving many more casualities than Patton's plan, which although daring and audacious was deemed to risky and was thus rejected.
...which although daring and audacious was deemed to risky and was thus rejected.
The German plan for that battle was "daring and audacious." It failed.
Bur Oak:
To oversimplify, suppose you have a rook, knight, bishop and five pawns; your opponent the same, only one pawn less. In the system of assigning points to piece value, you have 16 to his 15, a 6.7% material advantage. Force the trade of knights and bishops, and it's 10 to 9. The advantage is 11%. Get it down to three pawns vs. two, and it's 50%. Slowly and methodically you have built to a probably decisive advantage and improved your own security in the process.
I do as a matter of fact understand the principle of trying to force trades when already up substantial material. And to Scarblac - I have no problem trading queens. The cut off point for me is at least 4 pieces (major or minor). I'll try very hard to avoid getting below four pieces unless I'm already up substantial material.
If I can't win this argument quickly and decisively I may just have to concede.
I'll try very hard to avoid getting below four pieces unless I'm already up substantial material.
Depending on where the pawns and kings are, "substantial material" can be a single pawn. Get those pieces off the board and let the real chess begin!
The endgame many times is the most exciting part. It's probably the hardest part because its the most critical. To think that a game should be won quickly and decisively is playing fool's mate chess. It's also not very satisfying to win because of an opponents horrific blunder.
In most countries,the first thing they teach beginners is to study endgames
a lot of famous players have agreed on that "the best spent time for a player to strdy...is the endgame"
Look through some well annotated Capablanca games and then try to say that all he did in the middlegame was "pointless".
Here is the truth straight down the line: You are simply too low rated to appreciate what the Endgame has to offer.
In most countries,the first thing they teach beginners is to study endgames
a lot of famous players have agreed on that "the best spent time for a player to strdy...is the endgame"
The end game study that will repay your efforts most are rook endings imo. Why ? Two reasons : 1 they occur the most frequently AND they are the most difficult with even GMs often misplaying them. However, I dont recommend beginners studying rook endings, except for the lucena and philidor positions. I prefer middlegames myself but dont hate endings. I do spend much less time on endings than middlegames/tactics though. I much prefer my decisive games to end in the middlegames, win or lose, for practical reasons. I am much less depressed and drained after a 2 hour game in which me or my opponent wins in a sharp middlegame than when the game takes 4 to 5 hours and then you have no time between rounds to recover or get a bite to eat...... as I age this becomes more true than ever.
This has probably been said before, but-
A lot of times someone will showcase a game they played and you'll start flipping through the moves and think, "Well I'd better check how many moves this is." and it turns out its like 50 or 60 or something. Then you flip to the end position and its total of 5 pieces on the board and the winner had an extra pawn or minor piece so that's why they won.
Sort of renders all that preceded it kind of pointless. Obviously neither opponent was able to exercise any decisive tactic or strategy earlier, or at least none that wasn't neutralized or marginalized. It was essentially a war of attrition where no side was able to get the upper hand.
Imagine some battle from the Civil War or World War I possibly, and there is unbelievable carnage on both sides but the opposing generals obstinately fight on eventually killing 85% of battlefield contestants. Eventually one side retreats, leaving a few staggering shell-shocked survivors on the other side as the "victors". In the history books they won't be talking about the brilliance of either general. They'll be talking about the battle as an example of the Evils of War.
I personally dislike the end game so much I'll often impulsively initiate some drastic or ill-advised sacrifice or strategem to open up the board and bring the game to a conclusion. I have at times essentially handed my opponent the win just to avoid the end game.
I don't want to see a couple of opponents just blindly trade all their pieces off the board, and get into a stupid interminable dance involving maybe a king a pawn and a piece on either side. A real chess game is one where most of the pieces are still on the board. If you were unable to navigate the complexities of that scenario and come up with a win, why bother showcasing it.
The only time an end game is worth watching is if one opponent was down very substantial material earlier and fought on to win. OTOH, I don't think its good form to get down a huge amount of material very early through stupidity and then simply stop moving, so your opponent becomes disengaged through boredom, and maybe eventually loses himself.
Like I said this is just a rant. Someone undoubtedly could make a valid opposing argument.