Why are endgame studies important?
Sort:
dannyhume wrote:
Okay, how does one study endgames? What is the order? How do you know when you have learned enough from one endgame and can move on to another?
"... I'm convinced that 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. He writes in a clear and casual style, and time and again has shown the ability to reach those who feel intimidated by the lofty approach that a grandmaster will often take. ... Silman ... defines what he thinks is necessary to know at specific rating levels. For example, the beginner or unrated player needs to know ... Silman's idea is to wait until you climb in strength before you worry about more advanced material. Then, as a Class 'E' player (that's 1000-1199), one must learn ... Silman's book emphasizes to the student that the important thing is to master the strictly limited material at hand, rather than get confused by endings that won't help your results at that level. Perhaps even more importantly, Silman is able to use his teaching experience and talk to his readers in a way that they can handle, in a friendly manner and without condescension. ... I'll also repeat the point that David Ellinger in ChessCafe makes: '[This ...] demonstrates who this book will truly serve best: anybody who coaches chess. For me, as a perpetually near-2000 player who does part-time coaching, I’ve got in my hands a great resource that will have something for every student, no matter the rating.' ..." - IM John Watson (2007)
http://theweekinchess.com/john-watson-reviews/theres-an-end-to-it-all
[COMMENT DELETED]
Is it appropriate to have an overall binary mode of thought? Is there really only doing something right or wrong? Studying endgames or not? Studying chess seriously or not? Expecting much or not? Having any benefits or not? Tough training or not? Being eager or not? Aren't these sorts of things a matter of degree? For endgame study, for example, must one choose between nothing and Dvoretsky or are there plenty of intermediate options?
May 24, 2018
0
#46
DeirdreSkye wrote:
kindaspongey wrote:
Is it appropriate to have an overall binary mode of thought? Is there really only doing something right or wrong? Studying endgames or not? Studying chess seriously or not? Expecting much or not? Having any benefits or not? Tough training or not? Being eager or not? Aren't these sorts of things a matter of degree? For endgame stuudy, for example, must one choose between nothing and Dvoretsky or are there plenty of intermediate options?
You seem to have a problem when one informs people about the best. Being below medicore all your life has made you hate anyone that will try to be something above mediocre.
I just inform people what is considered the best by some great players and trainers.Why you have such a big problem with that?. In these forums people suggest nonsense all the time and you never object. Is it because these nonsense help you sell useless books like Pete Tamburo's book?
Chess is about decisions in every aspect of the game. From the way you study to the way you play.People will decide if they will completely ignore me and they will decide if they want the "intermediate options".
I am just giving a different perspective(which happens not to be mine). Some might be interested and some might not. Fine by me. What exactly is your problem? Should we all try to learn chess from Pete Tamburo? It hurts you so much if some study Keres , Smyslov or Averbakh?
If nothing else you should try to be a positive influence for the kids that might be reading all these and you are anything but that.Hopefully they will already know that you are just an employee that promotes specific interests.
welll... you kind of reek of dogmatism. chess is for better or worse forgiving of that.
May 24, 2018
0
#47
DeirdreSkye wrote:
darkunorthodox88 wrote:
DeirdreSkye wrote:
kindaspongey wrote:
Is it appropriate to have an overall binary mode of thought? Is there really only doing something right or wrong? Studying endgames or not? Studying chess seriously or not? Expecting much or not? Having any benefits or not? Tough training or not? Being eager or not? Aren't these sorts of things a matter of degree? For endgame stuudy, for example, must one choose between nothing and Dvoretsky or are there plenty of intermediate options?
You seem to have a problem when one informs people about the best. Being below medicore all your life has made you hate anyone that will try to be something above mediocre.
I just inform people what is considered the best by some great players and trainers.Why you have such a big problem with that?. In these forums people suggest nonsense all the time and you never object. Is it because these nonsense help you sell useless books like Pete Tamburo's book?
Chess is about decisions in every aspect of the game. From the way you study to the way you play.People will decide if they will completely ignore me and they will decide if they want the "intermediate options".
I am just giving a different perspective(which happens not to be mine). Some might be interested and some might not. Fine by me. What exactly is your problem? Should we all try to learn chess from Pete Tamburo? It hurts you so much if some study Keres , Smyslov or Averbakh?
If nothing else you should try to be a positive influence for the kids that might be reading all these and you are anything but that.Hopefully they will already know that you are just an employee that promotes specific interests.
welll... you kind of reek of dogmatism. chess is for better or worse forgiving of that.
I reek of dogmatism? Nothing I say is mine but I really don't mind being called dogmatic.
Is it possible though that you don't want to admit that you have done things wrong?
You have announced yourself "objectively strong positional player" and you think you have done everything right while you call me dogmatic because I pointed possible mistakes. Do you see the irony in this?
Is there the slightest possibility that you are wrong? Or you are undogmatically certain that you are absolutely right?
im absolutely certain you dont need endgame study to be a chess expert. w.e wrong i have done it was enough to get me to NM without a coach which also means i believe "one need not a coach or trainer to reach master.
my statements are far less presumptuous, for they are the negations of an absolute statement. i only need one concrete instance of Not X to be right.
what "mistakes"? all that chess endgame knowledge i "lacked" that should have been learned at the class level i mostly learned in my jump from 2100-2200 and honestly, while having said knowledge gave me a certain feeling of security in certain positions, even from the expert to master jump, the endgame knowledge wasnt "essential" below the 2400 level very few things in chess are ABSOLUTELY necessary and indispensable to know.
DeirdreSkye wrote:
I have said in other threads that chess is a difficult game.We all know that but very few of us understand what it really means.
It means doing one thing right and everything else wrong won't be any good.
The decision must not be if you will study endgames or not. The decision must be if you will study chess seriously or not.One who decides to study seriously must implement "seriousness" in all the aspects of his chess life. Don't expect much if you study 2 hours endgames and then you play another 2 hours bullet. Don't expect much if you don't play long time tough games. Don't expect much if you never analyse your games and you never learn a thing from them. Chess study is like a chessgame. One perfectly placed piece and all the others badly placed can never give you a good position. You need all your pieces not only well placed but also well cooperating.
Before you "lose your time" with endgames make an honest disussion with yourself and decide if you can do it.If you hate endgames , if you can't appreciate them , focus your energy in something else.You can't have any benefits if the training becomes a torture but you can't have many benefits either if it is all fun and nothing else. You have to walk that thin line that goes in the middle. Chess training must be tough but it must not be obligatory. If you are not eager to sit in front of the board and study one more position , turn one more page and understand one more tiny little thing , then don't do it.
kindaspongey wrote: "Is it appropriate to have an overall binary mode of thought? Is there really only doing something right or wrong? Studying endgames or not? Studying chess seriously or not? Expecting much or not? Having any benefits or not? Tough training or not? Being eager or not? Aren't these sorts of things a matter of degree? For endgame stuudy, for example, must one choose between nothing and Dvoretsky or are there plenty of intermediate options? Is it appropriate to have an overall binary mode of thought? Is there really only doing something right or wrong? Studying endgames or not? Studying chess seriously or not? Expecting much or not? Having any benefits or not? Tough training or not? Being eager or not? Aren't these sorts of things a matter of degree? For endgame stuudy, for example, must one choose between nothing and Dvoretsky or are there plenty of intermediate options?"
DeirdreSkye wrote: "... I just inform people what is considered the best by some great players and trainers. ..."
Do you write sentences like this?
"The decision must be if you will study chess seriously or not."
Is there really any reason that players must think about whether or not they meet the DeirdreSkye concept of serious?
DeirdreSkye wrote:
... In these forums people suggest nonsense all the time and you never object. ...
About a day ago, someone wrote: "... I have seen discussion about learning end games first ... However, whats the point of knowing that if you never make it to the end game. What about if you don't know much about opening theory and you always get #ed in 10 moves? ..."
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-equipment/chess-book-help-1?page=2
My reaction: "In another thread, about three days ago, IM pfren made some comments that sounded sensible to me:
'... I suggest starting from the endgame, because:
1. What you learn is forever.
2. You will learn to calculate accurately- miscalculations are not allowed in the endgame.
3. The fewer the pieces, the easier to form a good stategy. ...'
It sounds very plausible to me that endgames are a good way to start the training of one's mind for chess-style thinking. Also, even if one does little more than blunder around for most of the game, the blundering may sometimes go your way and it can be pretty annoying if one reaches a king-and-rook against king ending without knowing how to finish off the opponent. A fair number of introductory books discuss some endings near the beginning.
That said, a person may well have already started chess study and I see no reason to believe that it was a fatal mistake if one started with something else. No matter what, a lot is likely to go wrong in one's early games. Another thing about beginner books is that many of them try to explain a little bit of everything. If one already has Silman's Complete Endgame Course, it would make sense to do some reading from it in the near future. On the other hand, Silman himself indicated that one need not undertake to read the whole thing right away.
'... if you have just learned to play, all you need to study is the section designed for beginners (Part One). After mastering the material there, put [Silman's Complete Endgame Course] away and spend your time studying tactics and a few strategic concepts, ...' - IM Jeremy Silmam (2007)"
DeirdreSkye wrote:
... Is it because these nonsense help you sell useless books like ...
I am not selling anything.
DeirdreSkye wrote:
... People will decide if they will completely ignore me and they will decide if they want the "intermediate options".
I am just giving a different perspective(which happens not to be mine). Some might be interested and some might not. Fine by me. What exactly is your problem? Should we all try to learn chess from Pete Tamburo? ...
Never wrote that, but it does seem to me to be appropriate, for example, to call attention to alternatives to the DeirdreSkye concept of serious.
DeirdreSkye wrote:
... It hurts you so much if some study Keres , Smyslov or Averbakh? ...
Do you have a quote of me disapproving of some players studying Keres, Smyslov, or Averbakh?
DeirdreSkye wrote:
... If nothing else you should try to be a positive influence for the kids that might be reading all these and you are anything but that. ...
It strikes me as positive to try to make people aware of alternatives to the behavior associated with seeking to be a titled player.
DeirdreSkye wrote:
darkunorthodox88 wrote:
... welll... you kind of reek of dogmatism. chess is for better or worse forgiving of that.
... you think you have done everything right ...
Where and when was that indicated?
A friend of mine told me he studied ECO book of endgames...anyone know this book?
"The Chess Informant crew has been busy putting out new products the last few years, and now they've turned their attention to the endgame - or rather, returned to it. They released the first edition of volume 1 of the Encyclopedia of Chess Endings back in 1982, so what we have now, 30 years along, is a revision. ... If you're looking for an explicitly instructional book, I'd recommend Mueller and Lamprecht's Secrets of Pawn Endings; but if you want a work for reference and training practice, the book under review is worth your while. ..."
"... The publishers of the Šahovski Informator have revised and republished two volumes in the Encyclopedia of Chess Endings series, and the second of those, on pure rook endings, is under consideration in this review. ... Because the book is without explanatory prose, this is not an ideal book for the beginner who wants to learn about rook endings. ... If you’re interested in rook endgames and looking for study material, it’s hard to think of a better buy than ECE II. ..."
https://chessbookreviews.wordpress.com/tag/encyclopedia-of-chess-endings/
May 24, 2018
0
#58
If spongy, and deirdre ever got a reality show, it would be another reason not to own a TV.
DeirdreSkye wrote:
Before you "lose your time" with endgames make an honest disussion with yourself and decide if you can do it.If you hate endgames , if you can't appreciate them , focus your energy in something else.You can't have any benefits if the training becomes a torture but you can't have many benefits either if it is all fun and nothing else. You have to walk that thin line that goes in the middle. Chess training must be tough but it must not be obligatory. If you are not eager to sit in front of the board and study one more position , turn one more page and understand one more tiny little thing , then don't do it.
In my case, I do love endgames and tactics... concrete answers/analysis. I am not much into blitz and not at all into bullet (I didn't start playing chess to work on my arm speed). My enemy is time... I am simply unable to do more than 30 minutes most days of the week. Going to a weekend tournament all day Saturday and Sunday when you have children who have to be shuttled places?... Forget about it. Nonetheless, I do believe that a little systematic effort towards studying/learning chess in a logical step-by-step manner, simpler to more complex incrementally, ought to reap some dividends over a decade or two, even if one doesn't play much, simply because of the mathematics of chess, in particular endgames and tactics ... so I surmise and hope. As Tarrasch says ... learn a number of things about chess, and then start playing!
Okay, how does one study endgames? What is the order? How do you know when you have learned enough from one endgame and can move on to another?
I start my students off with a K vs. K position. It helps illustrate the power of Opposition. Then we will go on to KP vs. K for starters, and advance from there.