The logical and the psychological approach
.
.
.
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 the lack of knowledge which endgame is favourable and which not, I have to postulate some premises.
For the time being I will have to work with presumptions about what a won endgame looks like in stead of the real thing.
There is another problem that I should mention. When studying positions, my computer tells me which ending is won or drawn. But the one-eyed kings of this world get other results. Because they play against humans and not against computers. So I need some statistical information about how often certain endgames are won or drawn in practice. Is there a source where I can obtain such information?
Chessbase will give you access to any endgame statistic your heart desires, or SCID if you need it free. Mueller's Fundamental Chess Endings and Flear's Practical Chess Endings also begin with tables of useful statistics that I sometimes turn to--for common endings it's quicker than researching them.
ReplyDelete"Nobody has ever mastered the knowledge in an encyclopedia by starting to read it from letter A to Z... So for psychological reasons, it is better to start with the middlegame."
To me, this implies we should begin with a simple endgame book rather than an encyclopedia. Silman, Pandolfini, or Seirawan instead of Dvoretsky or Mueller, and certainly those before Nunn!
"For the time being I will have to work with presumptions about what a won endgame looks like in stead of the real thing."
Good luck. :)
lf.
LF,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the idea's for finding statistics, I will make use of them.
I have started with simple endings, I spend more than a year with Pandolfini, Silman and Seirawan, but for some reason that didn't work out for me. I have no natural intuition for the endgame. So I have to find a workaround that get me there.
Somehow I always must have a feeling how things relate to the whole game of chess, before I can absorb any details.
a word for motivation: the more painfully tedious a certain type of training is, like endgame, the less likely your average peer has it down cold. and hence great rewards can be reaped, with relatively little training effort.
ReplyDeleteHello,
ReplyDeleteI find that endgame training is a must.
The basic skills any reasonable chess player (1800++) has is:
Opposition
Triangulation
Unconnected passed pawns
Connected passed pawns
Philidor positions
Lucena position
Short side defence
Back rank defence
Rook endings are a lot difficult to muster and Flear's book is definitely the one to get.
I disagree with you in that you do not have intuition for the endgame. In the same manner in which one approaches the openings, one also learns the endgame by rote as well (understanding not just how to move but also why the move is necessary). All it takes is constant training, familiarising and getting yourself accustomed to the myriads of different endgame positions and scenarios.
Keep in mind that general endgame principles tend to be correct and it's only the exceptions that one needs to be aware of. So don't be overtly troubled by it. Intuition will come with increased practice.
cheers
WW,
ReplyDeletethat certainly has a point of truth in it. The most tedious work is to flush obsolete advice down the toilet since I first have to check if it's obsolete indeed. What remains is valuable. Only now I start to see what's essential and what not.
Tanc,
ReplyDeleteI disagree with you in that you do not have intuition for the endgame
Of course you must be right. If I compare the amount of hours I have spend on openings to my hours spend on endings it is 100:1 or so.
The point is that the amount of material is overwhelming and it took me more than 1.5 years to get an idea where to start. If you study an opening, you can be pretty sure to have it on the board the next tournament, so it immediately pays off. For an endgame you must first steer your way thru the middlegame well. Which doubles the task, not only must you master the endgame, but you must steer the game too. That makes that it costs more time before it pays off.
OTOH my score against lower rated players has improved dramatically over the last year. Which is quite due to more strategical and endgame knowledge.
The basic skills any reasonable chess player (1800++) has is:
Since I have become an 1800+ player without those basic skills there must be a lot to gain for me:)