tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post7941457915200059552..comments2024-03-28T01:17:43.262+01:00Comments on Temposchlucker: Seeing the obviousTemposchluckerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07977208394417444785noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-84119172374240506552007-07-06T11:07:00.000+02:002007-07-06T11:07:00.000+02:00An interesting thought. Will following your global...An interesting thought. Will following your global rules on endgame play tend to lead to known winning positions? Can these global rules be derived from practicing these winning positions ?takchesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12700106696079445533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-43133385581462434802007-07-06T01:53:00.000+02:002007-07-06T01:53:00.000+02:00Tempo: these are very cool ideas, helping me see w...Tempo: these are very cool ideas, helping me see what I wasn't articulating while studying the typical endgame books that teach you "technique": how to go from middle game to the point where it is just "technique". Most say it is a matter of steering, just as takchess says. But that is sort of a cop-out. When it is crazy complicated, what makes them think to steer it one way rather than another.<BR/><BR/>Also your insight that this is when the strategic stuff REALLY starts to matter is great. By the time the endgame hits, if it ain't about advancing pawns, it's about piece activity.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-79796689966280835172007-07-06T01:00:00.000+02:002007-07-06T01:00:00.000+02:00HDK,I like my statements strong. If even Dvoretsky...HDK,<BR/>I like my statements strong. If even Dvoretsky says he has only a global idea about the theoretical endings, why would I try to improve on that?:)<BR/><BR/>But seriously, the focus on theoretical endings is in no proportion to their importancy. Which is something different than to say that they are not important.<BR/><BR/>"queen a pawn" how improbable it might seem, the obvious wasn't seen by me. To be more exact: I didn't appreciate the consequences of that statement. Now I do.Temposchluckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07977208394417444785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-43941563934749850622007-07-05T21:25:00.000+02:002007-07-05T21:25:00.000+02:00"When you ENTER the practical ending, just after t..."When you ENTER the practical ending, just after the transition from the middlegame, you will and cannot have any idea to which theoretical ending it will lead. Theoretical endings play no role AT ALL at this stage."<BR/><BR/>I think that’s too strong. For example, after a few opening moves, you could very possible have a reasonable idea of the coming pawn structures. Similarly, when you first start to enter the endgame, you can very possibly have some ideas of the theoretical endgame that are coming (and you can aim for those that you can win). I would say that it is a lack of understanding of theoretical endgames, the prevents correct play in the practical endgame. The endgame books that I’ve used and recommend, Alburt, Dvoretsky, Muller and Lamprecht, and Fine are all good. But it’s laborious to go through endgame books, and so, recently, my endgame play has benefited most from the PCT endgame modules.<BR/><BR/>"queen a pawn!" <BR/><BR/>Uhh, yes, that’s important ;) But it made me think of an important middle game precept: when you’re up a piece, trade pieces not *pawns*. How come? Undoubtedly, it’s due to the pawn into queen idea. <BR/><BR/>All the best in your tournament.HardDaysKnighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17667299526072374735noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-58470176482118856802007-07-05T17:04:00.000+02:002007-07-05T17:04:00.000+02:00Tak,The goal is to steer the game to the favorable...Tak,<BR/><I>The goal is to steer the game to the favorable side of these known endgames.<BR/><BR/></I>Be careful, or you miss the main point. You talk about the transition of the practical endgame into the theoretical endgame. When you ENTER the practical ending, just after the transition from the middlegame, you will and cannot have any idea to which theoretical ending it will lead. Theoretical endings play no role AT ALL at this stage. But there are new laws that govern this area. Knowledge of these laws and how to apply them is paramount.<BR/><BR/>Go to the nearest person in your neighbourhood who is commonly known as an "endgame specialist". If you ask him how he became so good in endings I bet he will say something like the following: "I don't know, it's just that I gain the most points in the ending. I know very little about theoretical endings". It's just that these guys know what practical endings are about. They just stumbled upon these laws by accident.Temposchluckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07977208394417444785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-45342798028499957592007-07-05T16:38:00.000+02:002007-07-05T16:38:00.000+02:00Sounds like you are on an interesting track. GM-Ra...Sounds like you are on an interesting track. GM-Ram lists 100 endgames positions one should throughly know.(the 95%) Of these 100, approx 5 are pawn and king against king. The goal is to steer the game to the favorable side of these known endgames. In entering into an endgame plan, we begin with an end in mind. <BR/><BR/>I look forward to reading your posts during the next few weeks. good luck in your tournament.takchesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12700106696079445533noreply@blogger.com