Having a hard time
In every endgame book you will
find the same positions over and over again. Especially the studies of Grigoriev are very popular. That is actually very weird.
Since Gregoriev was always looking for unique positions, the one in a 100,000 kind of stuff. A study book is supposed to treat the common idea's, not the exceptions only.
Take for instance this position of Grigoriev about triangulation.
White to move and win.
I have posted about this position earlier here.
The idea how to play it is clear, I can win it from any chess engine. So that is not the problem. But for me both the keysquares as the corresponding squares are coming out of the blue. I can't formulate a systematic reasoning how you can always construct the right keysquares, corresponding squares and moves. For instance, when the following is played 1.Kc2 Kf4 2.Kb2 Kf5 then the best move is 3.Kc1! I can't stand it that I can't find a sytematic reasoning that even my mother would understand.
I guess that the biggest problem is that in order to work with corresponding squares you have to gather a lot of beercaps, so that your head is not quite clear before you start to think:)
find the same positions over and over again. Especially the studies of Grigoriev are very popular. That is actually very weird.
Since Gregoriev was always looking for unique positions, the one in a 100,000 kind of stuff. A study book is supposed to treat the common idea's, not the exceptions only.
Take for instance this position of Grigoriev about triangulation.
White to move and win.
I have posted about this position earlier here.
The idea how to play it is clear, I can win it from any chess engine. So that is not the problem. But for me both the keysquares as the corresponding squares are coming out of the blue. I can't formulate a systematic reasoning how you can always construct the right keysquares, corresponding squares and moves. For instance, when the following is played 1.Kc2 Kf4 2.Kb2 Kf5 then the best move is 3.Kc1! I can't stand it that I can't find a sytematic reasoning that even my mother would understand.
I guess that the biggest problem is that in order to work with corresponding squares you have to gather a lot of beercaps, so that your head is not quite clear before you start to think:)
exactly as you say, the same again and again. if you read the bibliography over averbakh, he uses fine. then keres uses fine and speelman uses THEM. seirawan uses them all.
ReplyDeletethat is one of the reasons (not about endgames, but tactics generally) Emms's book, The Ultimate Chess Puzzle books follows so well after the two 1001 Reinfeld books: he takes from relatively unknown games.
now we have mueller, then dvoretsky.
in the end, we really do have enough to go by, and it is looking at THOSE carefully, as you are, that we will establish the foundation of basic endgame knowledge.
for it might be better to know 100 or 200 endgames well, rather than 500 quickly, or 941 GM games (et. al. my posts last year, and private email between us today) rather than 2 or 3,000 GM games.
rather than view another 1,059 GM games (=2,000), i plan to dig deep into about 338 of them...
(odd number has to do with how the various books add up--i.e. 62 from chernevs most instructive games of chess every played, 50 stohl instructive modern chess masterpieces, 24 timman art of chess analysis).
at a certain point, we dont need more books, more games, more endings, but more time quietly with a board or a viewer WITHOUT a chess engine, to start, in the end, we need more time looking and thinking.
and no book can substitute for that.
warmest from Seattle, USA, and you again, to say, your work is excellent.
PS I did say again and again last year, that endgame strategy was a most important book, and probably can add to that, soltis pawn structure in tandem, and this is the real chess love juice.