Temposchlucker

. . . There are two area's where both my knowledge and my skills are substandard: middlegame and endgame. There are two approaches to fix these omissions. The logical approach is to start with endgame play and to work your way backwards to the middlegame. Because you can only steer the middlegame towards a favourable ending if you know which ending is favourable and which is not. But there is a downside to this logical approach. Knowledge of theorethical endings bears much similarity with an encyclopedia. Nobody has ever mastered the knowledge in an encyclopedia by starting to read it from letter A to Z. Unless you are an idiot savant, maybe. The acquiring of knowledge without immediate application is experienced as dull and is prone to forgetting. If you know which endgame is favourable but you don't know how to steer the middlegame towards such endgame, your knowledge is impotent. So for psychological reasons, it is better to start with the middlegame. In order to overcome t

. . . I realize quite well that my previous post is hard to read since my thoughts are still brewing. I hope somebody will take the effort to formulate some answer to the question at the end of the post though. The idea of a closer study of the parameters that decide the game is very tempting. But take a look at the following three positions: diagram 1 =/= . . White to move: draw Black to move: draw diagram 2 +/= . . White to move: wins for white Black to move: draw diagram 3 =/- . . White to move: draw Black to move: forced loss for black This all looks rather esotherical. Nunn wrote a book of 320 pages solely devoted to the KRp vs KR ending. His book makes it seem as if there are 3 levels of endgame knowledge: The totally ignorant patzer, among which I reackon myself The one-eyed king, who wins drawn endings against ignorant patzers The endgame tablebase assisted computer which draws lost games and wins clear draws If I am going to study the parameters by working my way through Nunn

. . Let's have a closer look at the endgame we studied lately . We found quite a few topics that need further investigation: With no pieces, the remaining pawnending was a win. With pieces, be it minor or heavy, the ending was drawn. On advice of Ed I have tested KNppp+KBpp on a wing in stead of the center, but that doesn't alter the outcome. Ed casted doubt on the accuracy of the computer which calculates the ending notouriously faulthy. He is right about that in the sense that I cannot say that the outcome is 100% proven. But different engines have calculated the position 30 ply deep with over 100 million tablebase hits. I am convinced. But I must admit I'm somewhat biassed since the outcome of the computer is according to my reasoning. Both Ed and Likesforests feel that white has great winning chances in practical play with N vs B. Are they one-eyed kings in the land where only patzers screw up this drawn ending? Both felt that R vs R was a clear draw. Why do patzers pla

This post is some time overdue since I actually waited for a post of Phaedrus to throw this into the discussion. But since he needs more time I decided to make room in my head. Quality and frequency. I already told you about two important parameters of pattern recognition: quality and frequency. Quality is about how decisive the recognition of the pattern is for the result of the game. Frequency is about how often you encounter the pattern in a game. Area. There is a third parameter though: area . Chess is divided in different area's like tactics, strategy, endgame and a lot where we have no name for. I'm pretty familiar with the most frequent patterns in the tactical area, but I used to be quite ignorant in other area's of the game. Until lately I started to show some lapses in my ignorance due to study. Yesterday I played a game against an opponent who is known for his tactical tricks. He had the following approach: he tried to lure me in a trick, and if that wouldn'

I'm quite happy with the input of Ed and Likesforests, who force me to look deeper into matters. I'm investigating the general laws of the endgame and the parameters that play a role. That bears a suspect similarity with creating a few rules of thumb in order to get rid of some serious endgame study. But belief me, that's not what I'm after. So please don't be afraid that I shut down my mind while following ridgid rules. You have to know the rules first before you can break them I (the computer, that is) analyzed the following endgames with the aid of the Nalimov endgame tablebases. Only the first diagram has a forced win. All the other diagrams are drawn. White to move in all diagrams. diagram 1 Forced win for white diagram 2 draw diagram 3 draw diagram 4 draw diagram 5 draw diagram 6 draw diagram 7 draw If you think away all the pieces and the kings, it is a simple promotion. If you add the kings it is a not so easy forced win. If you add the kings and two minor p

I'm experimenting a bit with templates since blogger keeps messing up my texts. Let's see if we can find some reasoning behind trading towards an endgame. For reasons of convenience I start with the most common trades. That are the trades of pieces of equal value. B x B B x K K x B K x K R x R Q x Q Underlying pawnending is a win. Since the value of the pieces is equal, there must be something else that determines if a trade is beneficial. That beneficiallity is based on the underlying pawn ending. You have to ask yourself first "is this position won if there were no pieces on the board". I said a few things about that here and here some time ago. If the pawnending is won, you have a sustainable advantage and you can start to trade pieces until there are no pieces left. Underlying pawnending is a draw. If the pawnending isn't won but a draw, there are other matters that play a role to determine if a trade is beneficial: activity of the pieces. does the trade alt

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I consider the metaphor of crenels and merlons to be busted. There are two problems with it. The first thing is that you can't permit to use your pieces to do defensive work only. Like supporting the walls and keep an eye on the holes. If you keep your pieces behind your pawns, you leave the no man's land between the pawns to your enemy pieces. Which gives them the possibility to threat you without any risk. That's not good. Secondly, when you keep pushing your pawns forward, your position becomes inevitably overstretched, sooner or later. I'm always happy when I can formulate a verdict. . I'm experimenting with a new method now. I focus on double purpose moves. I try to find moves that have both an attacking and a defending function. The idea behind it is that when you make a double purpose move while your opponent doesn't, you have effectively gained a tempo. Besides that I'm busy to map out which trades are beneficial and w

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . I subscribed for a few tournaments: OSBO PK, Groningen and Corus. Time to boil the oil!

What a relief! A new system with most of my beloved gadgets and tools installed. Now I can catch up since I have thought alot about chess lately. Maybe you wonder why I speak about battlements while I actually am studying the endgame. The reason is that I get a sense of what the endgame is all about. So I can't help to think about the middlegame and how it influences the endgame. And from there I start to think about the opening. I was never known for the habit of limiting my view:) General scheme. I use the metaphor of the siege as a guide to move. Sofar I encountered 3 idea's in practice. The first idea is: Keep the intruders from the crenels. Take the following diagram after 1. f4 e5 2. fxe5 d6 3. Nf3 dxe5 4. e4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Bc5 6. Bc4 O-O 7. d3 Ng4 the following position arose: diagram 1 White to move. Black plays opportunistic and tries to invade without preparation. If you can protect your invasionsquares well enough then there will come a moment that you can drive your e