 |
| diagram 1. White to move |
2R5/3P1pkp/5bp1/1q2N3/p7/6BP/5PPK/8 w - - 1 1
[solution]
Friday, September 14, 2018
Determining the targets
The initiative is a mighty pair of pruning shears for the tree of analysis. But it isn't right to start with the initiative. The initiative works forward. We have proven in this blog time and again, that we need to think backwards first. Aox remembered us to that with his description of his ideal approach to a problem, in his comment on the previous post. We need to start with the targets. Otherwise we will not get anywhere. What questions should we ask to get the right targets and the right attacking square from this position?
2R5/3P1pkp/5bp1/1q2N3/p7/6BP/5PPK/8 w - - 1 1
[solution]
2R5/3P1pkp/5bp1/1q2N3/p7/6BP/5PPK/8 w - - 1 1
[solution]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Endgame puzzles are different to midlegame puzzles, while in middlegame puzzles only a few pieces are weak, in endgame puzzles usually almost all pieces are weak. On the other hand at endgame puzzles often the king is not weak, here the king is weak. ( usually when the king is weak it makes sense to look for all potential checks, even if they are a litte "absurd" )
ReplyDeleteI have doubts that there is one single method to solve every type of puzzle. Endgame puzzles need some extra endgame knowledge and deeper calculation. I misjudged the strength of the pa4 ( or did i even forgot it? ).
I think its not very helpful to look for the targets of the attack, they often change in the lines of calculation. It helps more to look at a problems in terms of tactical weaknesses and methods to make use of these weaknesses.
Here the present! weaknesses are Pd7(-Pd8) attacked,kg7, pa4(-pa1) and Ne5 2x attacked and only 1x defended.
To start calculations with 1.Nc6 ( or Pa8 ?) seems to be logical , what you have to see then during the calculations is: the exchange of the Pd8 vs bf6 dont win!!!
Then the second logical move 1.Pa8 ( Nc6? ) is quick sorted out too...
So we need to remove the bishop from the diagonal..
Here the "target" is the promotion of the Pd7 without exchange with the bishop, not very suprising ;) but! with the use of the weakness kg7 resulting in the win of the queen
http://chessendgames.com/EndgameOfTheDay.aspx
@ Aox: I've posted the following position here (with discussion) a couple of times previously (2015 and 2016).
DeleteFEN: k7/8/P1N5/8/2K5/6p1/5bB1/8 w - - 0 65
Given the endgame you provided and this position (from Lingnau-Orso, Budapest 1992), what is the common "pattern" to be recognized?
Both positions have the Black King almost in the "box" or actually in the "box." One of the strongest "signals" of the direction to "look" for candidate moves is toward a King which cannot move. In general, this is just Lasker's encircling motif - superior force on a given target AND immobility of the target. Counting can be used to easily identify the relative tempi available, determining whether Black can promote a Pawn or not in time to save his bacon.
@ LinuxGuy: Sometimes there is a common "idea" which requires different moves. The essence of pattern recognition is to "see" the commonalities, not the differences. Most often, this is an abstraction rather than a concrete series of moves. The number of motifs, in the Lasker sense, is strictly limited. The number of tactical themes/devices is strictly limited. Unfortunately for our System 2, the number of "ideas" (combinations of those motifs and themes/device) is virtually limitless (except in a purely mathematical sense).
Even with studies, when it looks there must be a million moves, it's usually the most obvious move, unless there is a trick, or hard to find idea involved (the point of the study). So, that sort of procedure would seem to defy a method of solving, per se.
ReplyDelete