Finally the endgame!
When I adjusted my openings due to my tournament in December, little did I expect that that would result in more endgames. I made two adjustments. With black I adopted the simple opening system for beginners by GM Ludvig Hammer, and with white I added the "cheesecake" to my repertoire while dropping the London and the Barry attack. Both new openings are quite solid, with enough bite to walk over a higher rated player every now and then. What is more, both openings with black and white lead to similar positions. And the endgames they lead to are equal or better.
I haven't decided what kind of player I am. Or want to be. In life I'm avoiding risks at all costs. But my chess history is a bit different. I played solely gambits for 7 years, just to get the hang of it. And I used to train 6 queen sacrifices before breakfast each day for years. So when I see something that should be done on the chessboard, I do it without hesitation or fear.
My mentality is more easy going and laid back, followed by a sudden explosive strike. So far I haven't bothered about that, but now my play is so changing, I can't help to think about it.
I now have the openings that my opponents feel comfortable with. Where they previously postponed to castle, they now do so early on because they are unaware of the danger.
My task the coming half year is cut out for me: do chapter 1 through 6 of Silman. The method: fiddle with the tablebase until it is absorbed. Currently I'm working my way through chapter 3.
That is only meant to fix the blundering of half points I used to spill every endgame. But I noticed a few things about the endgame. People lack context for the endgame (I guess that I'm not the only one). Especially attacking players. You must be able to see the patterns on an empty board. That takes a special kind of exercise. The kind of exercise that is not so attractive as other exercises for most players. Like opening study and tactics. I guess my study method can make the difference here.
I expect to plug the holes in my endgame bucket within a half year. But I can clearly see now how endgames can be a weapon. So I guess that over half a year I'm again in dubio: hone my preparation of the invasion or make the endgame into a real weapon. It is too early to worry about that now.
Today I have been fiddling for a few hours with K+P against K. That might sound a bit over the top, but I had the feeling that not all details came automatically. Now I feel much more confident. I tried all possible weird moves that the lone king can throw at me. That is the level of fiddling that I want to reach. Until I feel confident. There is still some time before Christmas.
ReplyDeleteA Trébuchet? REALLY?!? LOL!
ReplyDeleteI did exactly "fiddling around" when I studied the trébuchet; for all intents and purposes, I got very "anal retentive" about SEEing every possible variation of that formation. I can now SEE the contours of it several moves in advance and can exploit it without really thinking about it (using System 1).
I think you will find that invasion and endgames are not mutually exclusive.
As for K+P vs K, I made conceptual progress when I stopped thinking in terms of "opposition" and started thinking in terms of Zugzwang. Opposition is just a one-word term for Zugzwang. (Zugzwang is a much broader term than opposition, and useful throughout the game.) In your previous Silman example, the simple term describing the process is "outflanking." I think of it as advancing to a position that is a knight's move away from the lone king. (That “knight’s distance” idea, BTW, occurs in many and varied positions.)
Another very important shortcut (for System 1) is to KNOW how to SEE distant opposition, even when the two kings are not aligned along a line (horizontally, vertically or diagonally). There are at least three different methods of determining distant opposition; Silman has his own method.
I have done the first 5 chapters of Silman before. My method back then, was to learn the rules by heart and then to calculate the solution. I was content when I was able to do just that.
ReplyDeleteBut I overtime, I forgot the rules. Calculation is a bad idea anyway. You need to replace calculation with seeing patterns wherever you can. Because calculation during a game is limited by your ability to visualize future positions. And that visualization is determined by the patterns you can see without thinking.
I played with K+P vs K on the g-file this morning. And I noticed that I still miss some subtleties.
I finished chapter 4. I decided to first repeat these chapters by fiddling around until I get the hang of it. I don't start with chapter 5 until I have totally absorbed the first 4 chapters. Until I can solve them without calculation, no matter the changes in position.
ReplyDeleteA big part of the reason why endgame study feels awkward, is that the studies seem to have little connection. What is useful for rooks is useless for knights or bishops, and vice versa, That gives the feeling that you are making no progress. I need a base first.
PART I:
DeleteTemposchlucker commented:
“A big part of the reason why endgame study feels awkward, is that the studies seem to have little connection. What is useful for rooks is useless for knights or bishops, and vice versa, That gives the feeling that you are making no progress. I need a base first.”
The sets of patterns are different; the thinking process remains the same regardless of the concrete position.
HOW COULD THAT POSSIBLY BE TRUE?!?
I assert (without proof) that everyone uses the same thinking process, from novice to Grandmaster, from Grandmaster to Grandmaster. If that is true, why is there such wide divergence in the results of that putatively “same” thinking process?
While studying the Capyblanca program (Linhares), I began to understand the commonality of the thinking process. If we use “pieces-on-squares” as the basis for the thinking process, then (obviously) novices and Grandmasters appear to use totally different processes. Novices do not “SEE” deeper than the surface level (pieces-on-squares); Grandmasters do. So the question becomes: what does the Grandmaster “SEE” that the novice CANNOT see? Doesn’t that confirm that they are using two totally different thinking processes?
In a word, NO.
Rather than engage in another useless word-salad dissertation, let’s use a concrete example, a recent puzzle from lichess.org.
FEN = 2r2rk1/6pp/8/1p2p3/5B2/bP2P1P1/K4P1P/3R3R b - - 0 1
The crucial point is that each player (regardless of skill level) approaches “solving” this position in the same way: he tries to “SEE” the salient aspects. What distinguishes the skill level is what can be seen (System 1) based on chunks, patterns, whatever you want to call it. In short, the lesser skilled, the fewer available “patterns” in the repertoire that can be brought to bear on deciphering the position’s critical aspects.
Suppose that the Black player has a rudimentary understanding of material and the importance (NOT NECESSITY!) of avoiding material loss—and not much more than that. I’m fairly sure he might be somewhat concerned to be down a pawn.
He would likely (NOT NECESSARILY!) begin his examination of the position by either looking at the tete-a-tete between WKa2—BBa3 (if he is more concerned with defense than attack, similar to Petrosian) or between WBf4—e5 (if he is more concerned with attack than defense, like Tal). The crucial distinction is that the Grandmaster (or other more skilled player) MAY subconsciously start with that same elementary consideration (IE, using the same thinking process) but does not stop after having seen that one aspect.
Perhaps our “hero” has read or heard that he should “Always check; it might be mate.” Patzer sees a check; patzer gives a check. He looks at available checks and finds the BRc8 can check on c2. Another potential move without the necessity for considering anything else. Or, perhaps (if he is a little more advanced), he sees that if the WBf4 captures on e5, he then has a check WITH CAPTURE on f2. Oh goody, a combination! The more skilled player may “SEE” the same thing, but again, he will not stop at that point.
Now we have several aspects that seem to demand attention. Is there any way we can combine the aspects?
PART II:
DeleteLet’s examine the WBf4-e5 component. White can capture on e5 because it is unprotected. While considering this, we MAY look at just moving the WBf4 away. At that point we MAY become aware that it doesn’t have a safe retreat—another aspect to consider. If it goes to g5, then Black can attack it again with h7-h6. It cannot go to e7 because the BBa3 controls that square. With those considerations, capturing the pesky e5-pawn seems like a better idea. The BBa3 will still be under attack, so make the move!
About this point, Black may consider protecting the e5-pawn with his BBq3. Serendipity! If the Bishop goes to d6, it accomplishes 3 things: (1) It removes the BBa3 from attack, (2) it protects the e5-pawn, and (3) it still “protects” e7. Good golly, Miss Molly! A move that does all that good stuff has to be the right move! Except for the “fly-in-the-ointment”: WRd1 “protects” the d6 square. BUMMER!
At each increment, the player burrows deeper into the overall position, moving along salient lines from the surface to the essence.
Is there a possibility of maintaining the threat against the WBf4? Yes, by simply defending the e5-pawn with one of the Black Rooks. The “problem” with that is that White can simply capture BBa3. Black can then capture WBf4, but after e3xf4, White still has his one-pawn material advantage.
Is there a way to “prot4ect” the BBa3 AND maintain the attack against the WBf4? Not directly. Well, what about INDIRECTLY? To “SEE” this possibility, one must connect the different areas. Suppose that Black protects the BBa3 with BRc8-a8. The WBf4 would still be under attack with no way to escape! But then there’s that pesky capture on e5.
Oh wait a second! BRa8 sets up a potential discovered CHECK! If WBf4xe5, then BBd6+ (even though that square is controlled by White) attacks the WBe5 and gains a piece.
And at this point, Black has “solved” the puzzle of what to play. It involves more than just one move, and more than just one aspect, and multiple patterns and the relationships between the patterns.
Following that verbiage, it should be apparent that the “thinking process” is similar regardless of the skill level. At each proposed alternative, there may be constraints that falsify the current hypothesis. The crucial difference is that the less skilled player will either NOT “SEE” some of those patterns (conditions) or not “SEE” the interrelationships between those different patterns, stopping his move selection process due to PREMATURE EVALUATION!
That thinking process is not a step-by-step checklist but instead follows the idea of the Recognition-Primed Decision model (Klein), as well as the idea embodied in the Capyblanca program (Linhares). The order of consideration for any individual aspect is not important. Some players may intuitively “jump” some of those steps; others may use a different order. Regardless, it is still the same thinking process. Some are just better at it than others.
I submit that this kind of thinking process is applicable to (and within) all phases of the game. It is NOT trial and error.
Correction:
Delete"About this point, Black may consider protecting the e5-pawn with his BBq3."
should be:
"About this point, Black may consider protecting the e5-pawn with his BBa3."
Correction:
Delete"Is there a way to “prot4ect” the BBa3 AND maintain the attack against the WBf4?"
should be:
"Is there a way to “protect” the BBa3 AND maintain the attack against the WBf4?"
Sorry about that: I did run spelling checker twice before posting the comments.