Main Date: 09 May 2006 08:08:12 From: Zero Subject: Why should I study endgames?? I was beaten by a master this weekend. He told that in order to improve chess players should study endgames. I don't understand why I should study endgames. If I can't get through the middlegame or the opening or am I supposed to get to a endgame? Also I bought a endgame studies book and I don't see the point in going over these studies. None of these positions are ever going to happen in any of my real games.   Date: 05 Jun 2006 10:06:52 From: Thomas T. Veldhouse Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? In rec.games.chess.analysis Zero <[email protected] > wrote: > I was beaten by a master this weekend. He told that in order to > improve chess players should study endgames. > > I don't understand why I should study endgames. If I can't get through > the middlegame or the opening or am I supposed to get to a endgame? > Also I bought a endgame studies book and I don't see the point in going > over these studies. None of these positions are ever going to happen > in any of my real games. > You need to know where you are going before you can plan to get there. Most people that don't know endgames (I am no expert myself), are often scared to simplify their middle game to an endgame because they are often beaten. If you know how to steer your middlegame to a winnable endgame, you are spades over your opponents that do not. If you can recognize a winable game, you will win. Endgame studies are good for building simple tactical skills as well. Do you use Fritz or any chessbase engines that come with the Fritz 8 interface or newer? If so, consider this. http://www.chesscentral.com/software/chess-endgames.htm -- Thomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1     Date: 05 Jun 2006 21:12:46 From: Terry Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > In rec.games.chess.analysis Zero <[email protected]> wrote: >> I was beaten by a master this weekend. He told that in order to >> improve chess players should study endgames. >> >> I don't understand why I should study endgames. If I can't get through >> the middlegame or the opening or am I supposed to get to a endgame? >> Also I bought a endgame studies book and I don't see the point in going >> over these studies. None of these positions are ever going to happen >> in any of my real games. >> > > You need to know where you are going before you can plan to get there. This simple statement says it all. Regards   Date: 30 May 2006 18:37:18 From: Louis Blair Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? Zero wrote (9 May 2006 08:08:12 -0700): > Why should I study endgames?? _ Some other Zero questions: _ Which is faster: The Enterprise or the Millenium Falcon Why should I play chess??? Can you please recommend which [Sicilian variation] is strongest one to learn ? How come people who play chess act so weird and strange? Why does [Capablanca] say to start first with endgames when the opening comes first ? I played in some tournaments over the weekend. The TD told me that he submitted them online and the USCF took his money. But the USCF has not rated them yet. Why is that the case? Is Ray Gordon a secret identity for Bobby Fischer Is there a chart that I can get which tells me the number of minimum players required in a tournament that would prevent any pairing conflicts. can you recommend a good book to buy about Spassky's best games? are you the Don of chess ? Do you think that Kamsky is playing chess again because Kasparov retired from chess? why is Kamsky not playing any of the main lines like he used to play in the mid 90s. These days he is playing a lot of sidelines in the Sicilian. I was wondering ... why the super GMs don't play the standard dxc4 slav .... Instead, they are opting to play the Semi-Slav ... and the a6 Slav _ _ Is this person for real? Does he ever thank people after they try to help him?   Date: 25 May 2006 14:07:26 From: Skeptic Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? >>Not in the mood to analyze it, I'm not surprised, as this game is a a typical example of why Ray's "method of training" is nonsense. According to Fritz, 2. b4 is the "last book move" (which, unsurprisingly, is where Ray Gordon's comments about the game stop...), after which both sides are "out of book". So if white was "booked" and black was not, this happened for one move-- 2. b4. According to Ray, white should now win more or less by force, because of his superior (one-ply) book knowledge. Of course this is nonsense. While black's move isn't "book", the position is still equal--for the next few moves, Fritz gives the position ca. a +0-+0.5 or so evaluation. So black suffered not at all from not being in "book", and white's "book advantage" counted for nothing in this game. Why, then, did black lose the game? Again, according to Fritz, 10. ... exd4 is a huge blunder (10. ... Bf5 was necessary) allowing 11. Nd6+, in effect the winning move. Then, however, white had blundered back most of the advantage with 13. Ne5+, which is indeed tempting, but 13. Nxd4 would win outright (even if it doesn't give check...); but then, black blunders back with 14. ... Kc7, allowing 14. Nb5+, and then Ne8 allows a mate in three. Obviously, none of these tactical blunders have anything to do with the opening--we are out of "book" for *eight moves* when white gets an advantage, and then he gets it due to black's tactical error, not due to any "book knowledge" whatever. This is not said to criticize the players, but simply to show that--as in 95%+ of amateur games--opening knowledge (beyond basic principles, of course) means very little, if anything, any it is tactics that determines almost everything.     Date: 06 Jun 2006 16:24:19 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? >>>Not in the mood to analyze it, > > I'm not surprised, as this game is a a typical example of why Ray's > "method of training" is nonsense. So because I don't feel like analyzing someone else's game, this affects MY training? LOL > According to Fritz, 2. b4 is the "last book move" (which, > unsurprisingly, is where Ray Gordon's comments about the game > stop...), after which both sides are "out of book". The wing gambit runs many more moves than two. > So if white was "booked" and black was not, this happened for one > move-- 2. b4. According to Ray, white should now win more or less by > force, because of his superior (one-ply) book knowledge. Straw man: the Wing Gambit has lots of theory. > Of course this is nonsense. While black's move isn't "book", the > position is still equal--for the next few moves, Fritz gives the > position ca. a +0-+0.5 or so evaluation. So black suffered not at all > from not being in "book", and white's "book advantage" counted for > nothing in this game. Black declined the gambit, which is not wise. > > Why, then, did black lose the game? See above. > Again, according to Fritz, 10. ... exd4 is a huge blunder (10. ... Bf5 > was necessary) allowing 11. Nd6+, in effect the winning move. Then, > however, white had blundered back most of the advantage with 13. Ne5+, > which is indeed tempting, but 13. Nxd4 would win outright (even if it > doesn't give check...); but then, black blunders back with 14. ... Kc7, > allowing 14. Nb5+, and then Ne8 allows a mate in three. Semantics. People don't blunder in openings they know. > Obviously, none of these tactical blunders have anything to do with the > opening--we are out of "book" for *eight moves* when white gets an > advantage, and then he gets it due to black's tactical error, not due > to any "book knowledge" whatever. Which has nothing to do with what wins at top level chess. > This is not said to criticize the players, but simply to show that--as > in 95%+ of amateur games--opening knowledge (beyond basic principles, > of course) means very little, if anything, any it is tactics that > determines almost everything. Those who learn openings properly do not remain amateurs. -- "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern District of PA Judge From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918     Date: 25 May 2006 23:35:19 From: Antonio Torrecillas Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? En/na Skeptic ha escrit: > Why, then, did black lose the game? > > Again, according to Fritz, 10. ... exd4 is a huge blunder (10. ... Bf5 > was necessary) allowing 11. Nd6+, in effect the winning move. Then, > however, white had blundered back most of the advantage with 13. Ne5+, > which is indeed tempting, but 13. Nxd4 would win outright (even if it > doesn't give check...); but then, black blunders back with 14. ... Kc7, > allowing 14. Nb5+, and then Ne8 allows a mate in three. Here I would like to add that computers need to be handled carefully. My computer also "think" 13.Ne5 to be a mistake but if you allow it more time you will discover that that move also wins. Here a human player would recognize that a king in the center with the center open and many white pieces around has a black future and can help the computer to evaluate correctly the position advancing the possible future moves. I would write that white in 13th move had another wins some of them maybe faster but after 11.Nd6 the game is allways completely won. And that mean that 14...Kc7 was not a blunder because other moves also lead to defeat, maybe it was not the move which made white task harder but not a blunder.. I remember the game [Event "FICS Game"] [Site "FICS"] [Date "2006.05.24"] [White "likesforests"] [Black "human-victim"] [Result "1-0"] [WhiteElo "0P"] [BlackElo "1155"] 1. e4 c5 2. b4 e5 3. bxc5 Bxc5 4. Ba3 Bd4 5. c3 Bb6 6. d4 Nc6 7. Nf3 Nf6 8. Qd3 d5 9. Nbd2 dxe4 10. Nxe4 exd4 11. Nd6+ Kd7 12. Be2 Ba5 13. Ne5+ Nxe5 14. Qf5+ Kc7 15. Nb5+ Kc6 16. Qxe5 Ne8 17. Qc5+ Kd7 18. Bg4+ f5 19. Bxf5# 1-0 > Obviously, none of these tactical blunders have anything to do with the > opening--we are out of "book" for *eight moves* when white gets an > advantage, and then he gets it due to black's tactical error, not due > to any "book knowledge" whatever. > This is not said to criticize the players, but simply to show that--as > in 95%+ of amateur games--opening knowledge (beyond basic principles, > of course) means very little, if anything, any it is tactics that > determines almost everything. I think all intelligent people knows that ;-) Regards Antonio       Date: 25 May 2006 23:40:25 From: Antonio Torrecillas Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? En/na Antonio Torrecillas ha escrit: > My computer also "think" 13.Ne5 to be a mistake but if you allow it more > time you will discover that that move also wins. Here a human player > would recognize that a king in the center with the center open and many > white pieces around has a black future and can help the computer to > evaluate correctly the position advancing the possible future moves. Curioulsy, after a few minuts (11 ply) my computer claim that "best" moves are in this order: 13.Qf5 13.Nd4 13.Ne5 13.Kf1 13.0-0 13.0-0-0 All those move being evaluated as clearly win for white ... but sure any human player would play here 13.Kf1 Antonio > [Event "FICS Game"] > [Site "FICS"] > [Date "2006.05.24"] > [White "likesforests"] > [Black "human-victim"] > [Result "1-0"] > [WhiteElo "0P"] > [BlackElo "1155"] > > 1. e4 c5 2. b4 e5 3. bxc5 Bxc5 4. Ba3 Bd4 5. c3 Bb6 6. d4 Nc6 7. Nf3 > Nf6 8. Qd3 d5 9. Nbd2 dxe4 10. Nxe4 exd4 11. Nd6+ Kd7 12. Be2 Ba5 13. > Ne5+ Nxe5 14. Qf5+ Kc7 15. Nb5+ Kc6 16. Qxe5 Ne8 17. Qc5+ Kd7 18. Bg4+ > f5 19. Bxf5# 1-0   Date: 24 May 2006 14:46:40 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? I'm setting aside one day per week for openings. After I learn the mainlines, I go back and learn how to come out a little ahead whenever they deviate from those, mostly by watching master games but also by using computer analysis. It's a slow process. My tactical intuition is getting lethal. I used to win by taking all my opponents' pieces, but my last three games were decided on moves 6, 11, and 19. I'll have to play stronger opponents to see whether my endgame training has helped any. [Event "FICS Game"] [Site "FICS"] [Date "2006.05.24"] [White "likesforests"] [Black "human-victim"] [Result "1-0"] [WhiteElo "0P"] [BlackElo "1155"] 1. e4 c5 2. b4 e5 3. bxc5 Bxc5 4. Ba3 Bd4 5. c3 Bb6 6. d4 Nc6 7. Nf3 Nf6 8. Qd3 d5 9. Nbd2 dxe4 10. Nxe4 exd4 11. Nd6+ Kd7 12. Be2 Ba5 13. Ne5+ Nxe5 14. Qf5+ Kc7 15. Nb5+ Kc6 16. Qxe5 Ne8 17. Qc5+ Kd7 18. Bg4+ f5 19. Bxf5# 1-0     Date: 24 May 2006 18:28:44 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? > I'm setting aside one day per week for openings. After I learn the > mainlines, I go back and learn how to come out a little ahead whenever > they deviate from those, mostly by watching master games but also by > using computer analysis. It's a slow process. Yet you are better off immediately as well as in the long term for having done it. > My tactical intuition is getting lethal. I used to win by taking all my > opponents' pieces, but my last three games were decided on moves 6, 11, > and 19. I'll have to play stronger opponents to see whether my endgame > training has helped any. > > [Event "FICS Game"] > [Site "FICS"] > [Date "2006.05.24"] > [White "likesforests"] > [Black "human-victim"] > [Result "1-0"] > [WhiteElo "0P"] > [BlackElo "1155"] > > 1. e4 c5 2. b4 Wing gambit. Probably equality for White, and very tricky if you like that sort of thing. >2...e5 3. bxc5 Bxc5 4. Ba3 Bd4 5. c3 Bb6 6. d4 Nc6 7. Nf3 > Nf6 8. Qd3 d5 9. Nbd2 dxe4 10. Nxe4 exd4 11. Nd6+ Kd7 12. Be2 Ba5 13. > Ne5+ Nxe5 14. Qf5+ Kc7 15. Nb5+ Kc6 16. Qxe5 Ne8 17. Qc5+ Kd7 18. Bg4+ > f5 19. Bxf5# 1-0 Not in the mood to analyze it, but if Black didn't prepare for your opening, it's not shocking you'd score a miniature. -- "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern District of PA Judge From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918   Date: 20 May 2006 04:02:09 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? > Maybe if you explain that 8.f4 seems not a sacrifice because white have > 8.f4 exf4 9.Bf3 intending Bxc6 + Qf3 (xd4 xf4) and also Re1 ... all > players will understand better that 8.f4. > Curiously the "positional move" here is that 8...Nd5! followed in some > moment by Bb4, direct to make use of the weak square c3. > Black played wrong in move 13..b6? and a big mistake in next move > 14...Nxe5 because white won a piece with the moves played in the game. > likesforests, my advice is forget openings and study tactics for now. Thanks, Antonio. I played through all the move sequences you mentioned and I can see how they change the game. It's obvious at my level, tactics are crucial. I'm using three tactical training programs for variety. Soon I'll see most of the simple combos.     Date: From: Subject:   Date: 20 May 2006 03:34:18 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? Hi Ray, I didn't expect the analysis, but it's appreciated. >> 1. Nf3 d5 >> 2. b3 Nc6 > Anti-positional as it blocks your c-pawn for no good reason. White wanted to control the dark-colored squares and my strategy was to frustrate him. Chess databases show the position after move 4 as favorable to Black--Anna-ia Botsari and Tartakower both won from it. >>3. Bb2 Bg4 4. d3 Bxf3 5. exf3 Nf6 6. Be2 e5 > Pathetic play by White: 4. h3 was probably better, > inviting you to give up the Bishop pair or gaining a tempo if you decline. > White has let you build a big center unopposed, which means you are > effectively now playing WHITE here, and therefore are already more likely to > win. > All this by move six. Sheesh. 4. h3 would have put this out of business. How would 4. h3 have put me out of business? I traded away my bishop pair willingly, so I don't see how 4. h3 could have improved the immediate situation for white. 4. d4, on the other hand, would have effectively limited me to e6 instead of e5. h3 would have radically changed my mating attack at the end. >7. O-O d4 > I don't like this, as you have a beautiful center built and should just > consolidate your spatial advantage while preparing to castle. > Right now my #1 goal in your position would be to get every piece into the > game and bolstering the center, at which point a crushing attack should > occur naturally. > 7...Bd6 is natural, noncommital, and strengthens your center the most. 7...Bc5 Thanks! Although Crafty recommends Bd6, it doesn't explain its rationale as you have. Now I have a plan for the next time I encounter this type of position.     Date: 20 May 2006 09:23:15 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? > Hi Ray, > > I didn't expect the analysis, but it's appreciated. Isn't that what 2000 (peak) rated players are for? To spend our days analyzing and playing with those less fortunate in the ratings? (you should have seen the guy on 40th and Locust who kept me in a game while I was up a queen on skates, standing, in not warm weather, then asked for a rematch). >>> 1. Nf3 d5 >>> 2. b3 Nc6 > >> Anti-positional as it blocks your c-pawn for no good reason. > > White wanted to control the dark-colored squares and my strategy was to > frustrate him. Chess databases show the position after move 4 as > favorable to Black--Anna-ia Botsari and Tartakower both won from it. That's move four; this is move two. There is little reason to make such a move when you can get a big center unopposed. If you ever play Anand, you might notice the difference. Below that level, it probably doesn't matter. >>>3. Bb2 Bg4 4. d3 Bxf3 5. exf3 Nf6 6. Be2 e5 > >> Pathetic play by White: 4. h3 was probably better, >> inviting you to give up the Bishop pair or gaining a tempo if you >> decline. > >> White has let you build a big center unopposed, which means you are >> effectively now playing WHITE here, and therefore are already more likely >> to >> win. > >> All this by move six. Sheesh. 4. h3 would have put this out of >> business. > > How would 4. h3 have put me out of business? I traded away my bishop > pair willingly, so I don't see how 4. h3 could have improved the > immediate situation for white. 4. d4, on the other hand, would have > effectively limited me to e6 instead of e5. It would have relieved the central tension and helped Black free up his pieces and position, with some badly needed development of his bishop that also erased your developed knight. (I'm not looking at a board right now). > h3 would have radically changed my mating attack at the end. A lot of other things would have happened differently. >>7. O-O d4 > >> I don't like this, as you have a beautiful center built and should just >> consolidate your spatial advantage while preparing to castle. > >> Right now my #1 goal in your position would be to get every piece into >> the >> game and bolstering the center, at which point a crushing attack should >> occur naturally. > >> 7...Bd6 is natural, noncommital, and strengthens your center the most. >> 7...Bc5 > > Thanks! Although Crafty recommends Bd6, it doesn't explain its > rationale as you have. Now I have a plan for the next time I encounter > this type of position. There's a general principle of opening play not to move any piece twice until you've moved every piece once. One lesson I show to beginners is asking them to make nine moves, and if they do it right, they'll have a big center with all their major artillery developed, and the king neatly tucked away, castled. Pawns are generally stronger on the same rank. You only want to fix the pawn structure when doing so will give you a permanent advantage or support an outpost for an invasion. Restraint is generally a good idea when you carve out a spatial advantage. As in war, you don't want to overextend your army, but instead consolidate the land you've already won. Anytime you can support your center with natural developing moves, you should be able to mobilize your army before he does, and use your extra space to get a "fast break" attack where you have one or two extra pieces involved in the action. -- "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern District of PA Judge From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918   Date: 20 May 2006 02:42:49 From: help bot Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? "So, when the Bishop is challenged by a3 it retreats to a5. Khalifman and [St P.] Ivanov are good analysts of it, but it doesn't appear in BCO. -- Phil Innes "You mean after 1. e4 e5 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bb4 4. a3?" -- Ray Gordon My friend, Fritz-bot, says you need to book up; i.e., after 1.e4 e5 2.d4 (not good) ...d5 (worse) 3.e5 ("incomprehensible!" -- Fritz-bot; "daring" -- Chessmaster; "abysmal" -- Ray Keene) ...Bb4 (senseless "development", by rote) 4.a3, and now both sides stand worse. For god sakes man, forget about the endgame and get help fast on the openings, or you may never even make it to an endgame! -- help bot   Date: 19 May 2006 16:43:04 From: Nick Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? Ray Gordon wrote: (The context was completely snipped by Ray Gordon.) > > Nick wrote: > >> My quick look at ChessBase (not comparing the average > >> ratings of the White and Black players) shows that Black > >> has won the clear majority of the games. > > tin Brown wrote: > > Thanks for that Nick. Although fashions do change with time so it > > is by no means certain that current beliefs about this position will > > hold forever. > > Not only that, but odds are that 9. O-O-O will not be played, > nor will the other moves leading up to it. > > When I did play this position as White, I found it annoying, but never felt > "lost" in it. I won some, lost some, but as a rule, most people will play > better with two rooks against a queen. The only way to really win that for > White is to tie the rooks together where they can't attack, and then push > the pawns to force the rooks to split, at which point you can usually pick > one up with a fork or a pin, or a threat to promote. Contrary to what Ray Gordon implies, after 15...Kf8 in the position discussed by tin Brown and me (Ray Gordon completely snipped the context), White has the two rooks and Black has the queen. > I never trust any opening analysis, even my own. Indeed, Ray Gordon's opening analysis should *not* be trusted. > > For instance Ruy Lopez originally believed that 3. Bb5 was weak. > > I'm beginning to think he was right. It's a premature thrust into enemy > territory that is actually antipositional, because Black will pick up time > when he repels the pressure on his center. 3. Bc4 and 3. d4 have elements > of many of the Queen Pawn and English openings, and don't appear to be any > worse for White than 3. Bb5, and may even hold a slight advantage for much > longer than the temporary one White gets out of the Ruy. > > >> I did find a game from the 2000 Vietnam Women's > >> Championship in which White won after Black's blunder. > > > > Yes. I noticed there were a couple of points where black also has to > > play accurately, but there are more such pinch points for white. > > White has to know how to play with a Queen against two minor pieces, > which is never easy. In the position (after 15...Kxf8) discussed by tin Brown and me, *White does not have a queen*. So Ray Gordon's statement is irrelevant, if not nonsensical. > Obviously if it's a forced draw, and your rating is under 2600, the > super-GMs won't be thrilled giving it to you. I like lines that lead to > forced draws for just this reason, and it's another reason GMs like to avoid > them. > > >> The highest level game with this opening (after move 15) > >> is Smyslov-Gufeld in the 1960 USSR Championship. > >> Smyslov, who recently had been the world champion, > >> was able to draw against Gufeld, a GM who considered > >> himself an expert on the Sicilian Dragon. > >> > >> Here are the further moves of Smyslov-Gufeld (1960): > >> > >> 16 Rd2 Qb8 17 Bb5 h5 18 Rhd1 Bxb2+ 19 Kxb2 Qxb5+ > >> 20 Ka1 Qc4 21 Bd4 Be6 22 c3 a5 23 Rc2 f6 24 f4 Bf5 > >> 25 Rb2 Qc7 26 g3 h4 27 Re1 hxg3 28 hxg3 g5 > >> 29 fxg5 e5 30 Be3 Qxc3 31 Bd2 Qxg3 32 Rb6 Qd3 > >> 33 Bxa5 Qd4+ 34 Rb2 fxg5 35 Rc1 g4 36 Bc3 Qe3 > >> 37 Bd2 Qd4 38 Bc3 Qe3 1/2 - 1/2 > > > > Interesting that he gets a draw by letting go of the b-pawn. > > Not an uncommon theme in a Q v. Minor Piece game. Ray Gordon's delusion warrants no further comment. > >> In a 1960 correspondence game, GM Estrin was > >> only able to draw as Black after this opening. > >> > >> So it's not necessarily true that a GM must > >> be able to win as Black after this opening. > >> But the database statistics look quite > >> unpromising for White. > > > > I was curious as to whether the position was genuinely weak for white > > or has simply had a bad press. I played through the game you quoted > > against Hiarcs10. There are moves here that I do not understand. It > > seems that the obvious continuations and variations are: > > > > 16. Rd2 Qb8 17. Bb5 h5 (I don't understand why this is better than > > immediate Bxb2) > > (and not playing h5 would avoid the temptation of h4 later) > > > > 18. Rhd1 Bxb2 > > 23. Rb2 (I don't see the point of this tempting ... Bf5) > > > > It seems to me that 26. ... e5 27. Be3 Qxc3 maybe better for black than > > 26. ... h4 > > > > 28. ... g5 gets a warning from coach is watching as refuted by 29. Rb5 > > 31. ...Qd4 also looks playable for black > > 32. Rb6 (I don't understand why not simplify with gxf6 here) > > 33. ... Qd4+ (immediate fxg5 pawn grab looks stronger but higher risk) > > 35. Rc1? after 35. ... Kf7 black seems to be winning > > 35. Rf1 looks more likely to hold a draw. > > Are we still in book here? :-) > > > I may well have made mistakes in this analysis so I look forward to > > comments and any further enlightenment. > > > > Any chance of someone posting a win by black from the root position > > that was not a direct result of a blunder by white? > > I couldn't find one, and my computer loves White in this position, > though with the material imbalance that is easily subject to change. Isn't Ray Gordon's computer supposed to be the world champion? > Practically speaking, Black will generally win more games, but that > doesn't matter if White knows how to use his Queen in this situation. Again, after 15...Kxf8 in the position discussed by tin Brown and me, *White does not have a queen*. Ray Gordon's statement is nonsense. --Nick > If you think this is bad, you should see the other queen sacs in my > repertoire. This one is tame by comparison.     Date: 19 May 2006 19:51:06 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? >> White has to know how to play with a Queen against two minor pieces, >> which is never easy. > > In the position (after 15...Kxf8) discussed by tin Brown and me, > *White does not have a queen*. So Ray Gordon's statement is > irrelevant, if not nonsensical. Practice favors the queen? Maybe it does. I don't play the line for either side now so it's not a major concern for me. >> > Interesting that he gets a draw by letting go of the b-pawn. >> >> Not an uncommon theme in a Q v. Minor Piece game. > > Ray Gordon's delusion warrants no further comment. Wow, ad-hominem! Nothing worse than an angry coward. >> I couldn't find one, and my computer loves White in this position, >> though with the material imbalance that is easily subject to change. > > Isn't Ray Gordon's computer supposed to be the world champion? It's a good starting point for any analysis. Very efficient tool. It has beaten Kasparov, so it's a decent engine, plus it has my book in it which often overrides its "natural" evaluation. >> Practically speaking, Black will generally win more games, but that >> doesn't matter if White knows how to use his Queen in this situation. > > Again, after 15...Kxf8 in the position discussed by tin Brown and > me, *White does not have a queen*. Ray Gordon's statement is nonsense. If you substitute "two rooks" it's not. -- "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern District of PA Judge From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918   Date: 19 May 2006 15:38:10 From: chasmad Subject: Re: Flip side Ray Gordon wrote: > > Have you ever seen Asa Hoffman after someone beat him out of $12.50? > "I can't believe I drew with that booked-up fish!!" Charles     Date: 19 May 2006 19:55:03 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Flip side >> Have you ever seen Asa Hoffman after someone beat him out of $12.50? >> > "I can't believe I drew with that booked-up fish!!" His language was Wittier, and the look of disbelief on his face when he drew an 1871 or whatever I was at the time was, as they say, priceless. This, however, was nothing compared to when all I needed for a class prize was for Maurice Ashley to defeat a 1900 fish from my area. Everything's going fine, until this YELL comes out of the back room, and the A player emerged as if he had just slam dunked over Shaq, costing me the $50.00. -- "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern District of PA Judge From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918   Date: 19 May 2006 13:35:59 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? Ray Gordon wrote: > > understanding to play what GM Speelman calls "+= chess," where you > > maintain a nagging pressure over many moves. In typical games between > > non-IMs/GMs, the games are not decided by a logical capitalization on > > an opening advantage, but by positional or tactical blunders in the > > middlegame or endgame errors. > > A few flaws in this argument: > > 1. Players who are "non IM/GM" but who learn how to play the opening (not > just booking up but actually knowing why the moves are in the books) tend to > become IMs and GMs. It's like saying "serve is only important in tennis if > you are on the pro tour" without recognizing that club players who develope > a "professional" level serve tend not to remain "club" players for very > long. You wouldn't tell a 600-rated player not to learn how to avoid > hanging pawns because most games at his level are decided by hanging pieces; > why tell a 2000-rated player the equivalent for his rating? Obviously, a > 600 player who stops hanging pieces and pawns won't remain 600 for very > long. Hi Ray, I'm practicing tactics because at my level that wins or loses the most games. In the below I defend against the Reti/English for the first time, but I certainly don't suffer for not being booked up. I played some strong tactics in moves 24-32 to secure the win, using the theme of back-rank weakness. [Event "FICS Game"] [Date "2006.05.19"] [White "human-victim"] [Black "likesforests"] 1. Nf3 d5 2. b3 Nc6 3. Bb2 Bg4 4. d3 Bxf3 5. exf3 Nf6 6. Be2 e5 7. O-O d4 8. Nd2 Nd5 9. Qc1 Nc3 10. Re1 Bc5 11. f4 O-O 12. Ne4 Nxe2+ 13. Rxe2 b6 14. fxe5 Nxe5 15. Nxc5 Re8 16. Nb7 Qd5 17. c4 Qxb7 18. Bxd4 Nf3+ 19. Kf1 Nxd4 20. Rxe8+ Rxe8 21. Qf4 Nc2 22. Rc1 Nb4 23. Rd1 Nxa2 24. d4 Qa6 25. Ra1 Qa5 26. Qxc7 Qc3 27. g3 Qxa1+ 28. Kg2 Qxd4 29. Qxa7 Nc3 30. h4 Ne4 31. Qa4 Qxf2+ 32. Kh3 Qxg3# 0-1 Take Rugema vs Grassi, expert players. Rugema plays 1. e4 d5 2. Bd3?!, but you would be hard-pressed to prove that's where black wins. Grassi seems to win because he spots an overworked Queen on move 20, and afterwards maintains the initiative and calculates better tactical moves. [Event "36th Olympiad"] [Site "Calvia ESP"] [Date "2004.10.17"] [Round "3.57"] [White "Ngarambe Rugema"] [Black "Enrico Grassi"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "B01"] [BlackElo "2104"] [EventDate "2004.10.15"] 1. e4 d5 2. Bd3 dxe4 3. Bxe4 Nf6 4. Bf3 c6 5. d4 Bf5 6. Nc3 e6 7. Nge2 Be7 8. O-O h6 9. Ng3 Bg6 10. Bf4 Nbd7 11. b3 O-O 12. Re1 Bb4 13. Re3 Nb6 14. Nce2 Nbd5 15. Bxd5 Nxd5 16. Rf3 Bd6 17. a3 Nxf4 18. Nxf4 Bxf4 19. Rxf4 Qc7 20. Qd2 Bxc2 21. Nh5 Bg6 22. Ng3 Rad8 23. Qe3 Rd5 24. Re1 Rfd8 25. h4 Qb6 26. Ne2 e5 27. dxe5 Qxe3 28. fxe3 Rxe5 29. Kf2 Rd3 30. Nd4 c5 31. Nf3 Re7 32. b4 Rxa3 33. bxc5 Rc3 34. Ra4 a6 35. Ra5 Be4 36. g4 Rc7 37. Nd2 Rc2 38. Ke2 Rd7 39. Rd1 Bd3+ 40. Kf3 Bb5 41. Kf4 Rcxd2 42. Rxd2 Rxd2 43. Ke5 Rg2 44. Kf4 Rc2 45. Ke5 Rxc5+ 46. Kd4 Rc4+ 47. Kd5 Rxg4 48. Kd6 Rxh4 49. Kc7 Ra4 50. Rxa4 Bxa4 0-1     Date: 19 May 2006 18:50:32 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? >> A few flaws in this argument: >> >> 1. Players who are "non IM/GM" but who learn how to play the opening >> (not >> just booking up but actually knowing why the moves are in the books) tend >> to >> become IMs and GMs. It's like saying "serve is only important in tennis >> if >> you are on the pro tour" without recognizing that club players who >> develope >> a "professional" level serve tend not to remain "club" players for very >> long. You wouldn't tell a 600-rated player not to learn how to avoid >> hanging pawns because most games at his level are decided by hanging >> pieces; >> why tell a 2000-rated player the equivalent for his rating? Obviously, a >> 600 player who stops hanging pieces and pawns won't remain 600 for very >> long. > > Hi Ray, > > I'm practicing tactics because at my level that wins or loses the most > games. In the below I defend against the Reti/English for the first > time, but I certainly don't suffer for not being booked up. I played > some strong tactics in moves 24-32 to secure the win, using the theme > of back-rank weakness. I believe everyone suffers for not being booked up. You're "booked up" to at least move 1 or 2. I bet if you played other stuff than you play now there, your rating would go down. Tactics and positional play are inherent in the opening IF you don't avoid that which you don't understand. Take the isolani: if you don't know what to do with it, and avoid openings that require you to play with one, your entire repertoire will suffer because you'll be playing weaker moves than it demands. Same for gambits and sacrifices: if you don't know how to sacrifice your queen, you might not be able to play a line that requires it, yet if you do know how to play without it, you have another weapon at your disposal. My repertoire requires knowledge of just about every other area of chess. I force myself to learn these things rather than change my moves, because if the move is objectively strong, it's my job as a chessplayer to figure out why and to use that move. What you say about back-rank mates is also relevant, because White often has to decide whether or not to play Kh1 to protect the king, or h3 to give him a flight square. Keep in mind further that my "book" lines often extend well into the middlegame. Oh, we have an actual game! > [Event "FICS Game"] > [Date "2006.05.19"] > [White "human-victim"] > [Black "likesforests"] > > 1. Nf3 d5 If you play 1...d5 here, does it set up for transposition into the other lines you play? That gives you economy of study if you set your repertoire up that way. >2. b3 Nc6 Anti-positional as it blocks your c-pawn for no good reason. If you want to "punish" 2. b3, 2...Bg4 is a direct approach, and a bit of a favorable Tromposki (my computer says -0.09 already). Then there is 2...f6 3. Ba3 e5 4. Bxf8 Kxf8, which the silicon says is -0.03 (I like big centers). >3. Bb2 Bg4 4. d3 Pathetic play by White: 4. h3 was probably better, inviting you to give up the Bishop pair or gaining a tempo if you decline. >4...Bxf3 5. exf3 Nf6 6. Be2 e5 White has let you build a big center unopposed, which means you are effectively now playing WHITE here, and therefore are already more likely to win. All this by move six. Sheesh. 4. h3 would have put this out of business. >7. O-O d4 I don't like this, as you have a beautiful center built and should just consolidate your spatial advantage while preparing to castle. 7...Bd6 is natural, noncommital, and strengthens your center the most. 7...Bc5 develops the Bishop more aggressively but could result in some blowback. Right now my #1 goal in your position would be to get every piece into the game and bolstering the center, at which point a crushing attack should occur naturally. White's Bishop pair won't matter if you launch a full-scale invasion, and may even be a handicap. Hell, it worked for Morphy when he did it. >8. Nd2 My computer says you have problems after 8. f4 (direct attack on an overextended center). How do you solve them? >8...Nd5 I'd have developed with Be7 or Qd7 here. >9. Qc1 Nc3 10. Re1 10. Bxc3 leaves Black hurting here. >10...Bc5 The pawn at c5 won't do much here. >11. f4 O-O 12. Ne4 Nxe2+ 13. Rxe2 b6 14. fxe5? >14...Nxe5 15. Nxc5 Re8 16. Nb7 Qd5 17. c4 17. Qf4 (+2.45) wins a piece. >17...Qxb7 18. Bxd4 18. Qe1 (2.90) wins a piece. Instead, you now have a win. >18...Nf3+ 19. Kf1 Nxd4 20. Rxe8+ Rxe8 >21. Qf4 Nc2 22. Rc1 Nb4 23. Rd1 Nxa2 >24. d4 Qa6 > 25. Ra1 Qa5 26. Qxc7 Qc3 27. g3 Qxa1+ 28. Kg2 Qxd4 29. Qxa7 Nc3 30. h4 > Ne4 31. Qa4 Qxf2+ 32. Kh3 Qxg3# 0-1 > > Take Rugema vs Grassi, expert players. Rugema plays 1. e4 d5 2. Bd3?!, > but you would be hard-pressed to prove that's where black wins. Black only has to draw in top competition to "win" the tournament or match. Equality at move two is not a good strategy for White. In your game, your opponent had you smashed several times in the opening. I'd only need you to make one of the several mistakes I saw to finish the game within twenty-five moves. -- "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern District of PA Judge From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918       Date: 20 May 2006 01:49:30 From: Antonio Torrecillas Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? Hi Ray, I concentrate specially in your coments to moves 16-18 to show your advice was less than unuseful. Antonio En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit: >>Hi Ray, >> >>I'm practicing tactics because at my level that wins or loses the most >>games. In the below I defend against the Reti/English for the first >>time, but I certainly don't suffer for not being booked up. I played >>some strong tactics in moves 24-32 to secure the win, using the theme >>of back-rank weakness. > >>[Event "FICS Game"] >>[Date "2006.05.19"] >>[White "human-victim"] >>[Black "likesforests"] >> >>1. Nf3 d5 >>2. b3 Nc6 > > Anti-positional as it blocks your c-pawn for no good reason. If you want to > "punish" 2. b3, 2...Bg4 is a direct approach, and a bit of a favorable > Tromposki (my computer says -0.09 already). > > Then there is 2...f6 3. Ba3 e5 4. Bxf8 Kxf8, which the silicon says is -0.03 > (I like big centers). Some GM played this 2... Nc6 "anti-positional" move. The reason given by Ray can be applied to 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 (Anti-positional as it blocks your f-pawn for no good reason). It has no sense here I think Ray does not understand what does "positional" mean. > >>3. Bb2 Bg4 4. d3 > > Pathetic play by White: 4. h3 was probably better, inviting you to give up > the Bishop pair or gaining a tempo if you decline. > just a joke: "Pathetic comment, any other comment was probably better". I think it is needed any explanation about why h3 is preferable to d3 in the resulting position. Can you do it? > >>4...Bxf3 5. exf3 Nf6 6. Be2 e5 >>7. O-O d4 8. Nd2 > > My computer says you have problems after 8. f4 (direct attack on an > overextended center). How do you solve them? > Maybe if you explain that 8.f4 seems not a sacrifice because white have 8.f4 exf4 9.Bf3 intending Bxc6 + Qf3 (xd4 xf4) and also Re1 ... all players will understand better that 8.f4. Maybe the problem is that you do not understand that computer suggestion? But to see all that sequence is not easy for a beginner. I suppose good advice do not need to menction it. > >>8...Nd5 > > I'd have developed with Be7 or Qd7 here. > Of course, because you are a fish. Curiously the "positional move" here is that 8...Nd5! followed in some moment by Bb4, direct to make use of the weak square c3. > >>9. Qc1 Nc3 10. Re1 >>10...Bc5 I would have said that 9...Nc3 was premature but this is also not easy for a beginner. >>11. f4 O-O 12. Ne4 Nxe2+ 13. Rxe2 b6 14. fxe5? >>14...Nxe5 15. Nxc5 Re8 16. Nb7 Qd5 17. c4 > > 17. Qf4 (+2.45) wins a piece. > Here we have the main moment of your "analysis": Your words seem a typical comment of a "fish" with no idea, helped by a computer. Black played wrong in move 13..b6? and a big mistake in next move 14...Nxe5 because white won a piece with the moves played in the game. That's familiar to me: "simple tactics", the first thing to learn. Any experienced player would suggest 16.Ne4! f5 17.Ng3 and white is simply a piece up. The move 16.Nb7 is a typical computer move whish lead to unnecesary complications the Silicon monster can calculate, but human people play simple wins when there is one avaiable. > >>17...Qxb7 18. Bxd4 > > 18. Qe1 (2.90) wins a piece. Instead, you now have a win. > ok, 18.Qe1 wins a piece but all that was unnecesary. First white played a knight to a no escape square (16.Nb7) when a simple win was avaiable with 16.Ne4. Then white did not see the tactical resources white had no matter having played that ugly move in the preceding turn (like 17.Qf4, 17.Qe1). Then black did not see the computer suggestion 17....Qc6!! to defend e8 some moves before taking in b7, ... but that was too complicated to see included for a 2400 player. And finally there exist 18.Qe1, but I think those moves are refinements which can be avoided when we have an easy win, ... and if a move also wins but with tactics needed the player had not saw, I think that move is a "mistake" no matter the computer evaluates it as good move. I hope to have explained that well, ... I do not admit a +2.90 argument! Apart of 18.Qe1, there are many moves which lead to advantage for white and 18.Bxd4?? is a big mistake which lead to a lost position. Thats TACTICS!! > >>18...Nf3+ 19. Kf1 Nxd4 20. Rxe8+ Rxe8 >>21. Qf4 Nc2 22. Rc1 Nb4 23. Rd1 Nxa2 24. d4 Qa6 >>25. Ra1 Qa5 26. Qxc7 Qc3 27. g3 Qxa1+ 28. Kg2 Qxd4 29. Qxa7 Nc3 30. h4 >>Ne4 31. Qa4 Qxf2+ 32. Kh3 Qxg3# 0-1 >> > In your game, your opponent had you smashed several times in the opening. > I'd only need you to make one of the several mistakes I saw to finish the > game within twenty-five moves. Ray, shut up! likesforests, my advice is forget openings and study tactics for now. In most games you will have several mistakes for both players and the evaluation would change from won to lost many times, don't worry! AT         Date: 20 May 2006 01:13:34 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? > I concentrate specially in your coments Because he's obsessed with me? Or maybe he's here to help people and devote large amounts of his time to doing it for free. The original poster cani refer all other questions to his "new teacher." -- "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern District of PA Judge From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918   Date: 17 May 2006 14:37:48 From: Nick Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? Nick wrote: > Ron wrote: > > In article <[email protected]>, > > "Terry" <[email protected]> wrote (to Angelo DePalma): > > > What are you doing playing sharp openings like the Evans. > > > You should be playing quiet openings with the aim of reaching > > > a playable middlegame. > > > > Whoa, whoa, whoa! > > > > The canonical advice is to avoid highly theoretical openings, > > not to avoid sharp ones. > > > > In fact, stuff like the Evans is highly recommended for > > developing players. > > Would Angelo DePalma still consider himself a 'developing player'? > According to the USCF website, Angelo DePalma's rated 1902 USCF > and he's played in 109 USCF-rated events since 1998. > > > The truth is that white gets a "playable" middlegame from the > > Evans pretty consistently. There isn't that much theory. > > "There isn't that much theory" compared to what? > > Tim Harding and Bernard Cafferty wrote a 1997 book, > "Play the Evans Gambit" with 176 pages. That does > not seem to be a trivial amount of opening theory for > a 'developing player' to absorb. > > > The principles the opening emphasizes (development, > > open lines, attacking play) are exactly the sort of thing > > most class players need to be working on. > > > > The Evans is, IMO, a great choice because even in many > > of the positions where black gets "equality," the practical > > chances favor white in amateur play (where a pawn in a > > wide-open middlegame isn't that much to be down, > > compared to active piece play.) > > Many club players lack the endgame technique > to be able to win with the extra pawn. > > > It can be messy, sure, but you need to learn how > > not to be afraid of messy positions. > > According to ChessBase, the Evans Gambit has been > played as White by Morozevich, Bacrot, Mamedyarov, > Short, Vallejo Pons, Karjakin, Gashimov, Nielsen, > Jobava, Sutovsky, Felgaer, Ganguly, and other GMs. The most famous recent Evans Gambit game (1-0) was played by Kasparov against Anand at Riga in 1995. --Nick   Date: 17 May 2006 14:31:44 From: Nick Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? Ron wrote: > In article <[email protected]>, > "Terry" <[email protected]> wrote (to Angelo DePalma): > > What are you doing playing sharp openings like the Evans. > > You should be playing quiet openings with the aim of reaching > > a playable middlegame. > > Whoa, whoa, whoa! > > The canonical advice is to avoid highly theoretical openings, > not to avoid sharp ones. > > In fact, stuff like the Evans is highly recommended for > developing players. Would Angelo DePalma still consider himself a 'developing player'? According to the USCF website, Angelo DePalma's rated 1902 USCF and he's played in 109 USCF-rated events since 1998. > The truth is that white gets a "playable" middlegame from the > Evans pretty consistently. There isn't that much theory. "There isn't that much theory" compared to what? Tim Harding and Bernard Cafferty wrote a 1997 book, "Play the Evans Gambit" with 176 pages. That does not seem to be a trivial amount of opening theory for a 'developing player' to absorb. > The principles the opening emphasizes (development, > open lines, attacking play) are exactly the sort of thing > most class players need to be working on. > > The Evans is, IMO, a great choice because even in many > of the positions where black gets "equality," the practical > chances favor white in amateur play (where a pawn in a > wide-open middlegame isn't that much to be down, > compared to active piece play.) Many club players lack the endgame technique to be able to win with the extra pawn. > It can be messy, sure, but you need to learn how > not to be afraid of messy positions. According to ChessBase, the Evans Gambit has been played as White by Morozevich, Bacrot, Mamedyarov, Short, Vallejo Pons, Karjakin, Gashimov, Nielsen, Jobava, Sutovsky, Felgaer, Ganguly, and other GMs. --Nick     Date: 17 May 2006 23:39:05 From: Ron Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? In article <[email protected] >, "Nick" <[email protected] > wrote: > Tim Harding and Bernard Cafferty wrote a 1997 book, > "Play the Evans Gambit" with 176 pages. That does > not seem to be a trivial amount of opening theory for > a 'developing player' to absorb. I have Harding's 1996 book, "Evans Gambit and a System Against the Two Knights Defense. It has something like 135 pages on the Evans. But it's not particularly dense going - it's all in the annotated-games format, and it's only something like 14 complete games. There may well be more to know, but I think most players would be pretty confident with it after going through those games. -Ron   Date: 16 May 2006 13:19:35 From: Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? I wrote (15 May 2006 16:46:25 -0700): > I am just a lowly 1600 player (perhaps less), but I > have found endgame knowledge to be helpful from > time to time. Two examples: >_ > - - - - - - - - > - - - - - - - - > - - - - - - - - > - p - - - - - - > - P k - - K - - > - - - - - - - - > P - - - - - - - > - - - - - - - - >_ > I was down to maybe thirty seconds on > my clock and my brain was screaming > at me to play a3. It looked like that move > lost, but what else could I do except play > it and hope that I had miscalculated? > Then a bit of standard basic endgame > knowledge came to me and I realized > that I could achieve a draw easily. _ David Richerby wrote (16 May 2006 10:15:58 +0100 (BST)): > A little knowledge is a dangerous thing! :-) > 1.a3 loses _ I agree. There may be a misunderstanding here. Under time pressure, my first instinct was that 1 a3 was the only plausible move, and that I was lost because 1 a3 would not work. I was going to play 1 a3 anyway and hope that I had somehow miscalculated, but then (as I wrote), I noticed that I actually had an easy draw. I deliberately left it unclear as to whether or not the easy draw involved 1 a3 because I thought some people might like to have the fun of working it out for themselves.     Date: 17 May 2006 09:34:21 From: David Richerby Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? Louis Blair <[email protected] > wrote: > David Richerby wrote: >> Louis Blair wrote: >>> It looked like [1.a3] lost, but what else could I do except play it >>> and hope that I had miscalculated? Then a bit of standard basic >>> endgame knowledge came to me and I realized that I could achieve a >>> draw easily. >> >> A little knowledge is a dangerous thing! :-) 1.a3 loses > > I agree. There may be a misunderstanding here. Yes. I hadn't realised you didn't necessarily mean that the easy draw involved 1.a3. Dave. -- David Richerby Solar-Powered Gigantic Windows (TM): www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a graphical user interface but it's huge and it doesn't work in the dark!   Date: 15 May 2006 16:46:25 From: Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? Zero wrote (9 May 2006 08:08:12 -0700): > I was beaten by a master this weekend. He > told that in order to improve chess players > should study endgames. >_ > I don't understand why I should study endgames. > If I can't get through the middlegame or the > opening or am I supposed to get to a endgame? _ I am just a lowly 1600 player (perhaps less), but I have found endgame knowledge to be helpful from time to time. Two examples: _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - p - - - - - - - P k - - K - - - - - - - - - - P - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ I was down to maybe thirty seconds on my clock and my brain was screaming at me to play a3. It looked like that move lost, but what else could I do except play it and hope that I had miscalculated? Then a bit of standard basic endgame knowledge came to me and I realized that I could achieve a draw easily. _ Another example: _ - - - - - - - - - p - - - k - - - K - - - - - - - - - - P - - - p - - - - - B - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ My opponent thought that his pawns could keep both my king and bishop occupied and force me to give up my own pawn. Again, I had only a small amount of time, but I knew better. _ In both positions, I did not do anything very sophisticated, and yet, somehow, on both occasions there was a crowd around my board muttering that I must be an endgame wizard as I walked away from the board after the game was over. (I did my best to act the part, but it was hard not to laugh.) _ There are, I think, several points to be made. _ (1) A player does not have to know very much about endgames in order to know more than many tournament players. _ (2) Even if you are a horrible player like me, the Swiss system is such that, sooner or later, a player has a fair chance of being paired against someone just as horrible and an endgame is not an unrealistic possibility. _ (3) Even a little bit of knowledge can turn out to be useful from time to time. (Especially if you are the sort who tends to get into time trouble.) _ Someone who rarely gets to the endgame will understandably want to concentrate on tactics, openings, whatever, but I would say that it is worth devoting some portion of one's study time to try to work through some beginner-level endgame book. _ I have not read any of these, but USCF sells: _ Chess Endgame Training by Rosen _ http://uscfsales.com/item.asp?cID=5&PID=1056 _ http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review434.pdf _ http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_reviews_jd/jd_chess_endgm_trng.html _ http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_reviews_jw/jw_7_endgame_books.html _ Chess Endings Made Simple by Snape _ http://uscfsales.com/item.asp?cID=5&PID=390 _ http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review430.pdf _ http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_reviews_rb/rb_chess_end_simple.html _ http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_reviews_jd/jd_4_new_bks_gambit.html _ http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_reviews_jw/jw_7_endgame_books.html _ http://www.chessville.com/reviews/ChessEndingsMadeSimple.htm _ Pandolfini's Endgame Course by what's-his-name _ http://uscfsales.com/item.asp?cID=5&PID=314 _ http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_reviews_jw/jw_pandolfini_endgame_cour.html _ http://www.chessville.com/reviews/reviews_endgamebooks.htm _ Winning Chess Endings by Seirawan _ http://uscfsales.com/item.asp?cID=5&PID=417 _ http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_reviews_jw/jw_7_endgame_books.html     Date: 19 May 2006 16:53:24 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? > Someone who rarely gets to the endgame > will understandably want to concentrate > on tactics, openings, whatever, but I > would say that it is worth devoting some > portion of one's study time to try to work > through some beginner-level endgame > book. I've studied very advanced endgames (spent a full summer on them in 1988 in fact), and had all kinds of advanced titles, like "Queen and Pawn Endings" or "Bishop v. Knight" endings or "Rook v. Minor Piece" endings, plus ECE, plus Nunn's "Tactical Chess Endings" plus "Pandolfini's Endgame Course" and so forth. My conclusion after all that study was that the theory is worth being aware of, and worth mastering, but the same amount of time spent on one's opening repertoire will yield a far greater rating gain, for any level of strength. One thing that makes opening study so much more fruitful is its uncertainty. Even with computers, you can never really know if you are seeing everything in an opening position, whereas most theoretical endgames lead to an easily proven (and defended) win or draw. -- "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern District of PA Judge From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918     Date: 16 May 2006 10:15:58 From: David Richerby Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? [Followup-To: rgc.analysis.] <[email protected] > wrote: > I am just a lowly 1600 player (perhaps less), but I > have found endgame knowledge to be helpful from > time to time. Two examples: > _ > - - - - - - - - > - - - - - - - - > - - - - - - - - > - p - - - - - - > - P k - - K - - > - - - - - - - - > P - - - - - - - > - - - - - - - - FEN: 8/8/8/1p6/1Pk2K2/8/P7/8 w - - 0 1 > I was down to maybe thirty seconds on my clock and my brain was > screaming at me to play a3. It looked like that move lost, but what > else could I do except play it and hope that I had miscalculated? > Then a bit of standard basic endgame knowledge came to me and I > realized that I could achieve a draw easily. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing! :-) 1.a3 loses: 1.a3? Kb3! 2.Ke4 Kxa3! 3.Kd3 Kxb4 4.Kd2 Kb3 5.Kd1 b4 6.Kc1 Ka2-+ and the pawn promotes. The correct way to draw is to make any king move except to the g-file. For example, 1.Ke4 Kxb4 (1... Kc3 2.Kd5!? Kxb4! 3.Kd4 transposes) 2.Kd4 Ka3 3.Kc3 b4 4.Kc4!=. Black can't take the white pawn without losing his own. You can check this with the endgame tablebase server at http://www.lokasoft.nl/tbweb.htm > - - - - - - - - > - p - - - k - - > - K - - - - - - > - - - - P - - - > p - - - - - B - > - - - - - - - - > - - - - - - - - > - - - - - - - - FEN: 8/1p3k2/1K6/4P3/p5B1/8/8/8 w - - 0 1 You don't say whose move it is but I'll assume White, since 1... a3 is trivially winning for Black. > My opponent thought that his pawns could keep both my king and > bishop occupied and force me to give up my own pawn. Again, I had > only a small amount of time, but I knew better. This is won but White has to be *very* careful. 1.Kc5! (any attempt to get the Bishop onto the a2-g8 diagonal immediately is met by Kf7-e6xe5; 1.Kxb7? a3! 2.Be2 Ke6=; 1.Kc7? Ke7 2.Be1 Ke6=) 1... Ke7 2.Be2 b6+!? 3.Kd5 a3 4.Bc4+-. White now keeps the bishop on a2/b3/c4 to stop the pawns and wins by treating the rest of the pieces as a KPvK endgame where he can move the bishop to lose a tempo. Dave. -- David Richerby Miniature Chainsaw (TM): it's like a www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ lethal weapon but you can hold in it your hand!       Date: 19 May 2006 17:05:53 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? >> I was down to maybe thirty seconds on my clock and my brain was >> screaming at me to play a3. It looked like that move lost, but what >> else could I do except play it and hope that I had miscalculated? >> Then a bit of standard basic endgame knowledge came to me and I >> realized that I could achieve a draw easily. > > A little knowledge is a dangerous thing! :-) 1.a3 loses: 1.a3? Kb3! > 2.Ke4 Kxa3! 3.Kd3 Kxb4 4.Kd2 Kb3 5.Kd1 b4 6.Kc1 Ka2-+ and the pawn > promotes. The correct way to draw is to make any king move except to > the g-file. For example, 1.Ke4 Kxb4 (1... Kc3 2.Kd5!? Kxb4! 3.Kd4 > transposes) 2.Kd4 Ka3 3.Kc3 b4 4.Kc4!=. Black can't take the white > pawn without losing his own. 3. Kc5 also draws. This is the rough equivalent of learning how to play 3. Bb5 in the Ruy Lopez as "opening theory." The basic equation is for White to give up the two pawns and prevent Black from queening. 1. a3 only plays into Black's hands by helping his king to usher in the pawn and losing a vital tempo for the king. How does this compare to say knowing the White side of the Poisoned Pawn? -- "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern District of PA Judge From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918         Date: 30 May 2006 11:57:26 From: David Richerby Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? In article <[email protected] >, Ray Gordon <[email protected] > wrote: >> FEN: 8/8/8/1p6/1Pk2K2/8/P7/8 w - - 0 1 >> The correct way to draw is to make any king move except to the >> g-file. For example, 1.Ke4 Kxb4 (1... Kc3 2.Kd5!? Kxb4! 3.Kd4 >> transposes) 2.Kd4 Ka3 3.Kc3 b4 4.Kc4!=. > > 3. Kc5 also draws. As does 3.Kd5. I was using the Nunn Convention (i.e., ! indicates an only move), though I didn't say so. > This is the rough equivalent of learning how to play 3. Bb5 in the > Ruy Lopez as "opening theory." I do not understand this rek. > How does this compare to say knowing the White side of the Poisoned > Pawn? `Chalk and cheese.' Knowing how to play pawn endings is potentially useful in any game; knowing the White side of the Poisoned Pawn is useful only if your opponent co-operates as far as 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Qb6 8.Qd2 Qxb2, which doesn't happen all that often. Dave. -- David Richerby Portable Confusing Newspaper (TM): www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a daily broadsheet but you can't understand it and you can take it anywhere!           Date: 06 Jun 2006 16:29:29 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? >> How does this compare to say knowing the White side of the Poisoned >> Pawn? > > `Chalk and cheese.' Knowing how to play pawn endings is potentially > useful in any game; knowing the White side of the Poisoned Pawn is > useful only if your opponent co-operates as far as 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 > 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Qb6 8.Qd2 Qxb2, which > doesn't happen all that often. The idea is to be booked up in *every* "potential" opening, not just your favorites. -- "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern District of PA Judge From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918       Date: 19 May 2006 16:57:43 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? >> I was down to maybe thirty seconds on my clock and my brain was >> screaming at me to play a3. It looked like that move lost, but what >> else could I do except play it and hope that I had miscalculated? >> Then a bit of standard basic endgame knowledge came to me and I >> realized that I could achieve a draw easily. > > A little knowledge is a dangerous thing! :-) 1.a3 loses: 1.a3? Kb3! > 2.Ke4 Kxa3! 3.Kd3 Kxb4 4.Kd2 Kb3 5.Kd1 b4 6.Kc1 Ka2-+ and the pawn > promotes. The correct way to draw is to make any king move except to > the g-file. For example, 1.Ke4 Kxb4 (1... Kc3 2.Kd5!? Kxb4! 3.Kd4 > transposes) 2.Kd4 Ka3 3.Kc3 b4 4.Kc4!=. Black can't take the white > pawn without losing his own. You forgot, however, that your move only works on THURSDAYS. Didn't you get the new bulletin? I now expect about fifty more posts refuting and unrefuting this one endgame position which *might* happen at some point in my career, and where I could probably find the right continuation over the board anyway. > You can check this with the endgame tablebase server at How do we know the tablebases are correct again? >> My opponent thought that his pawns could keep both my king and >> bishop occupied and force me to give up my own pawn. Again, I had >> only a small amount of time, but I knew better. > > This is won but White has to be *very* careful. 1.Kc5! (any attempt > to get the Bishop onto the a2-g8 diagonal immediately is met by > Kf7-e6xe5; 1.Kxb7? a3! 2.Be2 Ke6=; 1.Kc7? Ke7 2.Be1 Ke6=) 1... Ke7 > 2.Be2 b6+!? 3.Kd5 a3 4.Bc4+-. White now keeps the bishop on a2/b3/c4 > to stop the pawns and wins by treating the rest of the pieces as a > KPvK endgame where he can move the bishop to lose a tempo. Unless of course you've missed something, in which case the result might turn out differently, or maybe someone in the year 2074 will find a refutation to it. -- "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern District of PA Judge From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918         Date: 30 May 2006 11:48:13 From: David Richerby Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? Ray Gordon <[email protected] > wrote: > David Richerby wrote: >> You can check this with the endgame tablebase server at > > How do we know the tablebases are correct again? Do you have any evidence that they're not? >> This is won but White has to be *very* careful. 1.Kc5! (any attempt >> to get the Bishop onto the a2-g8 diagonal immediately is met by >> Kf7-e6xe5; 1.Kxb7? a3! 2.Be2 Ke6=; 1.Kc7? Ke7 2.Be1 Ke6=) 1... Ke7 >> 2.Be2 b6+!? 3.Kd5 a3 4.Bc4+-. White now keeps the bishop on a2/b3/c4 >> to stop the pawns and wins by treating the rest of the pieces as a >> KPvK endgame where he can move the bishop to lose a tempo. > > Unless of course you've missed something, in which case the result > might turn out differently, or maybe someone in the year 2074 will > find a refutation to it. If I haven't missed anything, what I said was correct and, therefore, irrefutable. Dave. -- David Richerby Frozen Carnivorous Book (TM): it's www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a romantic novel but it eats flesh and it's frozen in a block of ice!   Date: From: Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames??     Date: 19 May 2006 18:16:53 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? >> My quick look at ChessBase (not comparing the average >> ratings of the White and Black players) shows that Black >> has won the clear majority of the games. > > Thanks for that Nick. Although fashions do change with time so it is by > no means certain that current beliefs about this position will hold > forever. Not only that, but odds are that 9. O-O-O will not be played, nor will the other moves leading up to it. When I did play this position as White, I found it annoying, but never felt "lost" in it. I won some, lost some, but as a rule, most people will play better with two rooks against a queen. The only way to really win that for White is to tie the rooks together where they can't attack, and then push the pawns to force the rooks to split, at which point you can usually pick one up with a fork or a pin, or a threat to promote. I never trust any opening analysis, even my own. > For instance Ruy Lopez originally believed that 3. Bb5 was weak. I'm beginning to think he was right. It's a premature thrust into enemy territory that is actually antipositional, because Black will pick up time when he repels the pressure on his center. 3. Bc4 and 3. d4 have elements of many of the Queen Pawn and English openings, and don't appear to be any worse for White than 3. Bb5, and may even hold a slight advantage for much longer than the temporary one White gets out of the Ruy. >> I did find a game from the 2000 Vietnam Women's >> Championship in which White won after Black's blunder. > > Yes. I noticed there were a couple of points where black also has to > play accurately, but there are more such pinch points for white. White has to know how to play with a Queen against two minor pieces, which is never easy. Obviously if it's a forced draw, and your rating is under 2600, the super-GMs won't be thrilled giving it to you. I like lines that lead to forced draws for just this reason, and it's another reason GMs like to avoid them. >> The highest level game with this opening (after move 15) >> is Smyslov-Gufeld in the 1960 USSR Championship. >> Smyslov, who recently had been the world champion, >> was able to draw against Gufeld, a GM who considered >> himself an expert on the Sicilian Dragon. >> >> Here are the further moves of Smyslov-Gufeld (1960): >> >> 16 Rd2 Qb8 17 Bb5 h5 18 Rhd1 Bxb2+ 19 Kxb2 Qxb5+ >> 20 Ka1 Qc4 21 Bd4 Be6 22 c3 a5 23 Rc2 f6 24 f4 Bf5 >> 25 Rb2 Qc7 26 g3 h4 27 Re1 hxg3 28 hxg3 g5 >> 29 fxg5 e5 30 Be3 Qxc3 31 Bd2 Qxg3 32 Rb6 Qd3 >> 33 Bxa5 Qd4+ 34 Rb2 fxg5 35 Rc1 g4 36 Bc3 Qe3 >> 37 Bd2 Qd4 38 Bc3 Qe3 1/2 - 1/2 > > Interesting that he gets a draw by letting go of the b-pawn. Not an uncommon theme in a Q v. Minor Piece game. >> In a 1960 correspondence game, GM Estrin was >> only able to draw as Black after this opening. >> >> So it's not necessarily true that a GM must >> be able to win as Black after this opening. >> But the database statistics look quite >> unpromising for White. > > I was curious as to whether the position was genuinely weak for white > or has simply had a bad press. I played through the game you quoted > against Hiarcs10. There are moves here that I do not understand. It > seems that the obvious continuations and variations are: > > 16. Rd2 Qb8 17. Bb5 h5 (I don't understand why this is better than > immediate Bxb2) > (and not playing h5 would avoid the temptation of h4 later) > > 18. Rhd1 Bxb2 > 23. Rb2 (I don't see the point of this tempting ... Bf5) > > It seems to me that 26. ... e5 27. Be3 Qxc3 maybe better for black than > 26. ... h4 > > 28. ... g5 gets a warning from coach is watching as refuted by 29. Rb5 > 31. ...Qd4 also looks playable for black > 32. Rb6 (I don't understand why not simplify with gxf6 here) > 33. ... Qd4+ (immediate fxg5 pawn grab looks stronger but higher risk) > 35. Rc1? after 35. ... Kf7 black seems to be winning > 35. Rf1 looks more likely to hold a draw. Are we still in book here? :-) > I may well have made mistakes in this analysis so I look forward to > comments and any further enlightenment. > > Any chance of someone posting a win by black from the root position > that was not a direct result of a blunder by white? I couldn't find one, and my computer loves White in this position, though with the material imbalance that is easily subject to change. Practically speaking, Black will generally win more games, but that doesn't matter if White knows how to use his Queen in this situation. If you think this is bad, you should see the other queen sacs in my repertoire. This one is tame by comparison. -- "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern District of PA Judge From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918   Date: 13 May 2006 23:14:41 From: Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? I've played maybe 100 to 150 slow time control OTB games against masters. I can count on one hand the games that were decided in the opening. None of my games against GMs or IMs were decided in the opening. And my knowledge of opening theory has always been fairly superficial. The problem I have with the suggestion it makes more sense to focus on opening knowledge than other aspects of the game is this: much of opening theory is devoted to the differences between +=, =, and =+. These differences are actually not that big, and are not likely to make a critical difference in any game between players who are below, say, solid IM strength. You need a large amount of technique and chess understanding to play what GM Speelman calls "+= chess," where you maintain a nagging pressure over many moves. In typical games between non-IMs/GMs, the games are not decided by a logical capitalization on an opening advantage, but by positional or tactical blunders in the middlegame or endgame errors. I agree with Mr. Callenberg's comment, but only to a certain extent. I agree that to become a strong master, you would need to know some opening theory and have some knowledge of typical middlegame ideas in the openings you play. You need to know enough opening theory to survive the opening with a playable middlegame. And you need to know enough about middlegame ideas to give you some sense of direction. But I think the amount of actually knowledge or study needed to be a strong master is relatively little, particularly if you choose solid openings rather than sharp, highly theoretical ones. If you play solid openings with White and Black, then you need to know relatively little theory to survive the opening with a playable middlegame, and relatively little specialized middlegame knowledge. Maybe a few weeks of studying a few hours a night with some introductory books like "Starting Out: the Caro-Kann" and "Starting Out:: the Slav" would give you enough theory to survive the opening and sufficient examples of typical endgame ideas to get playable middlegames against anyone below IM level. You might end up with a slight disadvantage out of the opening when you play against a "booked" player, but it won't be that significant. Also, if you play 1.d4 or 1.c4 as White in a solid style, you can go far just playing natural, solid moves. Also, I think deeper opening knowledge is something best built over time and through experience (if you get a bad position out of the opening in a game, you can go to ChessBase, see how strong masters played the same position, and next time you will play better), while endgame theory is something where organized study can be very beneficial. Assuming that a player has the minimal knowledge of opening theory and typical middlegame ideas, I will stand by my original statement. I think that anyone who went through a book like Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual and mastered it fully would be a strong master (by strong master I am meaning around 2400 to 2450 FIDE). I think mastering those endings would not just benefit your endgame play, but also it would have a lot of trickle down benefits for your middlegame play. I think you would find yourself winning won endgames, winning drawn endgames, and drawing lost endgames against players less skilled in the endgame. I think you would start looking at a lot of middlegame positions with the endgame in mind. Of course, I am not claiming it would be a simple task to master all the endings in Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual or some similar book. It could take a year, or more, to do this for a motivated student. But I am guessing that well before the task is over, the benefits of the work would already become evident. Although perhaps reasonable minds can differ, I think that a player of 2000 elo (plus or minus 50 elo) can learn all of the opening theory in the ECOs, the Informants and the NIC Yearbooks in the world, and he will probably be no more than a 2200 elo player. He will tend to do well in the openings, but even a player of my relatively modest strength would probably beat such a player in a match without much difficulty, simply by outplaying him/her in the middlegame and (particularly) the endgame. So I have to disagree with Mr. Gordon about the importance of opening theory. Memorizing vast amounts of opening theory is unlikely to significantly improve the level of play of a player who does not have the strength and technique to exploit relatively modest advantages. There is a very limited amount of base minimum theory you need to know to survive the opening. But beyond that, you are tweaking between += and =+, a difference which is almost meaningless if you are not very strong in the middlegame and endings. And I think perhaps Mr. Callenberg underestimates the benefits of a really deep understanding of a large number of theoretical endgame positions, and of the process of learning those positions, on a player's middlegame play. My two bits. - Geof Strayer     Date: 19 May 2006 06:51:03 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? > understanding to play what GM Speelman calls "+= chess," where you > maintain a nagging pressure over many moves. In typical games between > non-IMs/GMs, the games are not decided by a logical capitalization on > an opening advantage, but by positional or tactical blunders in the > middlegame or endgame errors. A few flaws in this argument: 1. Players who are "non IM/GM" but who learn how to play the opening (not just booking up but actually knowing why the moves are in the books) tend to become IMs and GMs. It's like saying "serve is only important in tennis if you are on the pro tour" without recognizing that club players who develope a "professional" level serve tend not to remain "club" players for very long. You wouldn't tell a 600-rated player not to learn how to avoid hanging pawns because most games at his level are decided by hanging pieces; why tell a 2000-rated player the equivalent for his rating? Obviously, a 600 player who stops hanging pieces and pawns won't remain 600 for very long. 2. If you are truly prepared for the opening, meaning your repertoire has no holes in it, your rating can't help but go up every time you strengthen it. For example, say I played 10. e5 against the Poisoned Pawn variation rather than the much stronger 10. f5. As soon as I switch to 10. f5, if the rest of my gamie remains equal, my rating *will* go up every time I draw or win a game with 10. f5 that I would have lost or drawn with 10. e5, and so forth. A much higher percentage of my games will be affected than if I study some theoretically drawn ending that can be figured out over the board more often than not. This is not to say endgames are not important. They definitely are. I've chewed up a lot of endgame theory in my time, and it's definitely necessary to know how to play the endging, but any experienced player can learn to "survive" the endgame just as easily as you speak of "surviving" the opening, but he has the benefit of never knowing if his lack of knowledge will come into play, whereas the guy who avoids studying opening is going to be confronted with that ignorance literally at move one. Until they change the rules of chess so that we play backwards, this will remain the case. -- "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern District of PA Judge From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918       Date: 19 May 2006 16:58:06 From: Ron Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? In article <[email protected] >, "Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote: > Players who are "non IM/GM" but who learn how to play the opening (not > just booking up but actually knowing why the moves are in the books) tend to > become IMs and GMs. There is no evidence for this. And, in fact, there is strong evidence against it (like Kasparov's untitled opening trainer). -Ron         Date: 19 May 2006 16:39:01 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? >> Players who are "non IM/GM" but who learn how to play the opening (not >> just booking up but actually knowing why the moves are in the books) tend >> to >> become IMs and GMs. > > There is no evidence for this. And, in fact, there is strong evidence > against it (like Kasparov's untitled opening trainer). An untitled Russian can easily be IM strength, and even if this guy wasn't, he could have gotten to IM a lot faster than a rating peer of his who had an opposite type of game. Now for the rest of the post that he snipped: It's like saying "serve is only important in tennis if you are on the pro tour" without recognizing that club players who develop a "professional" level serve tend not to remain "club" players for very long. You wouldn't tell a 600-rated player not to learn how to avoid hanging pawns because most games at his level are decided by hanging pieces; why tell a 2000-rated player the equivalent for his rating? Obviously, a 600 player who stops hanging pieces and pawns won't remain 600 for very long. 2. If you are truly prepared for the opening, meaning your repertoire has no holes in it, your rating can't help but go up every time you strengthen it. For example, say I played 10. e5 against the Poisoned Pawn variation rather than the much stronger 10. f5. As soon as I switch to 10. f5, if the rest of my gamie remains equal, my rating *will* go up every time I draw or win a game with 10. f5 that I would have lost or drawn with 10. e5, and so forth. A much higher percentage of my games will be affected than if I study some theoretically drawn ending that can be figured out over the board more often than not. This is not to say endgames are not important. They definitely are. I've chewed up a lot of endgame theory in my time, and it's definitely necessary to know how to play the endging, but any experienced player can learn to "survive" the endgame just as easily as you speak of "surviving" the opening, but he has the benefit of never knowing if his lack of knowledge will come into play, whereas the guy who avoids studying opening is going to be confronted with that ignorance literally at move one. Until they change the rules of chess so that we play backwards, this will remain the case. -- "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern District of PA Judge From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918           Date: 19 May 2006 21:15:05 From: Ron Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? In article <[email protected] >, "Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote: > It's like saying "serve is only important in tennis if you are on the pro > tour" without recognizing that club players who develop a "professional" > level serve tend not to remain "club" players for very long. You're very fond of this analogy, but it, in fact, doesn't support your argument. If you look at the development of tennis players - by, say, I dunno, talking to a bunch of teaching professionals - you'll notice how they emphasize groundstrokes. If you watch amateur tournaments (I had a friend who was a very strong amateur, so I've been to my fair share) you see that the difference between the winners and the losers isn't blowing people away on the serve - rather, it's the people who hit the better groundstokes, control the court better, approach the net at the right times, and so on. And then if you watch professional tennis, you'll notice that very few people blow their opponents away with their serve. Yeah, sure, there are a few grasscourt specialists who do so, but even in today's game, which is dominated by power, you see a player like Federer dominating NOT because of his serve, but because of his ability to make shots from anywhere on the court. There are plenty of active players out there with a better serve than Federer - and none of them have as many titles as he does. So I can't help but wonder, as you return to this analogy time and time again ... do you actually know anything about tennis? -Ron             Date: 19 May 2006 18:22:46 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? >> It's like saying "serve is only important in tennis if you are on the pro >> tour" without recognizing that club players who develop a "professional" >> level serve tend not to remain "club" players for very long. > > You're very fond of this analogy, but it, in fact, doesn't support your > argument. Sure it does: all else equal, the player with the better serve will have a higher ranking. > If you look at the development of tennis players - by, say, I dunno, > talking to a bunch of teaching professionals - you'll notice how they > emphasize groundstrokes. If you watch amateur tournaments (I had a > friend who was a very strong amateur, so I've been to my fair share) you > see that the difference between the winners and the losers isn't blowing > people away on the serve - rather, it's the people who hit the better > groundstokes, control the court better, approach the net at the right > times, and so on. I'm talking about winning Grand Slams, not club tournaments. You can do anything you want at the club level. > And then if you watch professional tennis, you'll notice that very few > people blow their opponents away with their serve. Yeah, sure, there are > a few grasscourt specialists who do so, but even in today's game, which > is dominated by power, you see a player like Federer dominating NOT > because of his serve, but because of his ability to make shots from > anywhere on the court. There are plenty of active players out there with > a better serve than Federer - and none of them have as many titles as he > does. Yet if Federer had their serve, where would he be? I also doubt his serve is that much weaker than his peers. > So I can't help but wonder, as you return to this analogy time and time > again ... do you actually know anything about tennis? I know enough to know that an accurate, 140 mph serve is a good way to start a point! Now for more snippage: "You wouldn't tell a 600-rated player not to learn how to avoid hanging pawns because most games at his level are decided by hanging pieces; why tell a 2000-rated player the equivalent for his rating? Obviously, a 600 player who stops hanging pieces and pawns won't remain 600 for very long." 2. If you are truly prepared for the opening, meaning your repertoire has no holes in it, your rating can't help but go up every time you strengthen it. For example, say I played 10. e5 against the Poisoned Pawn variation rather than the much stronger 10. f5. As soon as I switch to 10. f5, if the rest of my game remains equal, my rating *will* go up every time I draw or win a game with 10. f5 that I would have lost or drawn with 10. e5, and so forth. A much higher percentage of my games will be affected than if I study some theoretically drawn ending that can be figured out over the board more often than not. This is not to say endgames are not important. They definitely are. I've chewed up a lot of endgame theory in my time, and it's definitely necessary to know how to play the endging, but any experienced player can learn to "survive" the endgame just as easily as you speak of "surviving" the opening, but he has the benefit of never knowing if his lack of knowledge will come into play, whereas the guy who avoids studying opening is going to be confronted with that ignorance literally at move one. Until they change the rules of chess so that we play backwards, this will remain the case. -- "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern District of PA Judge From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918               Date: 20 May 2006 20:25:40 From: Ron Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? In article <[email protected] >, "Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote: > Sure it does: all else equal, the player with the better serve will have a > higher ranking. Sure. But all else isn't equal. People have limited studying time. Time spent memorizing openings is time not spent studying endings, tactics, and strategy. I think eveyrone agrees that if you add study time, you'll improve. The question is if studying openings will yield more improvement than studying other aspects of the game. Saying "all else being equal" is a complete cop-out. > > I'm talking about winning Grand Slams, not club tournaments. You can do > anything you want at the club level. Well, see the example below. > > > And then if you watch professional tennis, you'll notice that very few > > people blow their opponents away with their serve. Yeah, sure, there are > > a few grasscourt specialists who do so, but even in today's game, which > > is dominated by power, you see a player like Federer dominating NOT > > because of his serve, but because of his ability to make shots from > > anywhere on the court. There are plenty of active players out there with > > a better serve than Federer - and none of them have as many titles as he > > does. > > Yet if Federer had their serve, where would he be? > > I also doubt his serve is that much weaker than his peers. There are people who have serves which are much better than Federers. Not a lot, mind you, but he is not an unusually strong server. As to the question "where would he be?" it's sort of moot. Nobody would ever look at Federer and say that he hasn't accomplished enough. His run over the last couple of years is as dominant as anyone has ever been. And he got there with an about-average (for a top professional) serve. In other words: the analogy completely breaks down. You don't need to be a top server to win at the top level - it you're better than everyone else at the rest of your game. > > > So I can't help but wonder, as you return to this analogy time and time > > again ... do you actually know anything about tennis? > > I know enough to know that an accurate, 140 mph serve is a good way to start > a point! And yet history seems to show that when a person with a great serve and a medicore rest of his game goes up against someone with a great game but mediocre serve, the second player wins (except on grass.) > Now for more snippage: > > "You wouldn't tell a 600-rated player not to learn how to avoid hanging > pawns because most games at his level are decided by hanging pieces; why > tell a 2000-rated player the equivalent for his rating? Obviously, a 600 > player who stops hanging pieces and pawns won't remain 600 for very long." Since you're going to keep respoting this until I respond, ok. While it's true that a 2000-rated player probably needs more specific opening knowledge than a 1500-rated one, again, I simply point you to the work of top teaching professionals: people like Dvoretsky, who have strong records of taking young masters and seeing their strength improve greatly. And you know what? Dvoretsky doesn't acheive those results by focusing on openings. In any event, you're a great test case. You've been advocating intense opening study for over a year on r.g.c.*; how's your rating done over that period? > 2. If you are truly prepared for the opening, meaning your repertoire has > no holes in it, your rating can't help but go up every time you strengthen > it. For example, say I played 10. e5 against the Poisoned Pawn variation > rather than the much stronger 10. f5. As soon as I switch to 10. f5, if the > rest of my game remains equal, my rating *will* go up every time I draw or > win a game with 10. f5 that I would have lost or drawn with 10. e5, and so > forth. A much higher percentage of my games will be affected than if I > study some theoretically drawn ending that can be figured out over the board > more often than not. This presumes that there is a "correct" move for every position, which I do not agree with. While there are in some positions, in many there are not. I don't know enough about the Poisoned Pawn variation to know if white's tenth is really one of those positions. But let's say it is. The question is if it's possible to memorize enough chess to get you to a strong position every time. I would argue that it isn't. As for those "theoretically drawn endings that can be figured out over the board" - well, why don't you study some grandmaster games, and notice how often GM's fail to play the best move in endings. The notion that you can probably figure this stuff out over the board without studying is absurd. But the majority of ending play is, of course, not in theoretically drawn positions. Studying the endgame isn't about memorizing positions, any more than studying the middlegame is. -Ron                 Date: 21 May 2006 02:03:12 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? >> Sure it does: all else equal, the player with the better serve will have >> a >> higher ranking. > > Sure. > > But all else isn't equal. People have limited studying time. Time spent > memorizing openings is time not spent studying endings, tactics, and > strategy. Which is why I prefer to study that which I know is going to occur in literally every game I play. > > I think eveyrone agrees that if you add study time, you'll improve. The > question is if studying openings will yield more improvement than > studying other aspects of the game. Saying "all else being equal" is a > complete cop-out. See above. >> I'm talking about winning Grand Slams, not club tournaments. You can do >> anything you want at the club level. > > Well, see the example below. When I get there. >> > And then if you watch professional tennis, you'll notice that very few >> > people blow their opponents away with their serve. Yeah, sure, there >> > are >> > a few grasscourt specialists who do so, but even in today's game, which >> > is dominated by power, you see a player like Federer dominating NOT >> > because of his serve, but because of his ability to make shots from >> > anywhere on the court. There are plenty of active players out there >> > with >> > a better serve than Federer - and none of them have as many titles as >> > he >> > does. >> >> Yet if Federer had their serve, where would he be? >> >> I also doubt his serve is that much weaker than his peers. > > There are people who have serves which are much better than Federers. > Not a lot, mind you, but he is not an unusually strong server. And if he were, he'd win by a ton more than he already does. Maybe he doesn't want to strain his body when he doesn't have to? Kind of like a GM who is so strong he can get away with 1. c3. > As to the question "where would he be?" it's sort of moot. Nobody would > ever look at Federer and say that he hasn't accomplished enough. His run > over the last couple of years is as dominant as anyone has ever been. If one wants to measure the importance of serve, they could project his ability if he served better than others. He also doesn't seem to have to. > And he got there with an about-average (for a top professional) serve. Which is still decent and which still requires a great deal of practice. He'd have been vulnerable to an Agassi in his prime, and his run at the top will likely be shortened by this "weakness." > In other words: the analogy completely breaks down. All because of one player? Really. >You don't need to > be a top server to win at the top level - it you're better than everyone > else at the rest of your game. That doesn't mean the "everything else" is more important, only that he has his edge there. One would also have to do a top-level analysis of his serve and just how much he's giving away with it. I doubt it's that much. >> > So I can't help but wonder, as you return to this analogy time and time >> > again ... do you actually know anything about tennis? >> >> I know enough to know that an accurate, 140 mph serve is a good way to >> start >> a point! > > And yet history seems to show that when a person with a great serve and > a medicore rest of his game goes up against someone with a great game > but mediocre serve, the second player wins (except on grass.) So he wins except when he doesn't. >> Now for more snippage: >> >> "You wouldn't tell a 600-rated player not to learn how to avoid hanging >> pawns because most games at his level are decided by hanging pieces; why >> tell a 2000-rated player the equivalent for his rating? Obviously, a 600 >> player who stops hanging pieces and pawns won't remain 600 for very >> long." > > Since you're going to keep respoting this until I respond, ok. > > While it's true that a 2000-rated player probably needs more specific > opening knowledge than a 1500-rated one, again, I simply point you to > the work of top teaching professionals: people like Dvoretsky, who have > strong records of taking young masters and seeing their strength improve > greatly. I am talking about a level of play higher than even that: 2800+ Elo territory. To get there, one has to start out with a world-class repertoire and then polish his game from there. Kasparov-Karpov I was a good example, as they debated a fascinating main line of the Gruenfeld many times over. They didn't play Larsen's crap. > And you know what? Dvoretsky doesn't acheive those results by focusing > on openings. I'm not looking for his level of results. I'm looking for Fischer's or Morphy's. Or Hydra's. > In any event, you're a great test case. You've been advocating intense > opening study for over a year on r.g.c.*; how's your rating done over > that period? My one-minute peak rating is up about 380 points in a little over two years. My blitz rating is about the equivalent of 2450 USCF, but that's based only on a few games. The only guy to beat me however, was a world-class GM, and as usual, my computer said I outplayed him in the opening. The two guys I beat were maybe FM strength (this was in a cash blitz tournament). At my current rate of improvement I should become a GM around the age of 45, if I keep training, but that's a big if. The improvement is steady and slow, very unspectacular. >> 2. If you are truly prepared for the opening, meaning your repertoire >> has >> no holes in it, your rating can't help but go up every time you >> strengthen >> it. For example, say I played 10. e5 against the Poisoned Pawn variation >> rather than the much stronger 10. f5. As soon as I switch to 10. f5, if >> the >> rest of my game remains equal, my rating *will* go up every time I draw >> or >> win a game with 10. f5 that I would have lost or drawn with 10. e5, and >> so >> forth. A much higher percentage of my games will be affected than if I >> study some theoretically drawn ending that can be figured out over the >> board >> more often than not. > > This presumes that there is a "correct" move for every position, There is. The laws of mathematics ensure that. >which I > do not agree with. While there are in some positions, in many there are > not. If there isn't one, there's a tie. Perfect chess does exist. We just have to find it. >I don't know enough about the Poisoned Pawn variation to know if > white's tenth is really one of those positions. I gave it as an example. Every chessplayer reaches the point in a game where he is no longer making memorized, perfect moves. He may make one or the other after that, but once he's out of his scripting, he becomes several hundred points weaker. > But let's say it is. The question is if it's possible to memorize enough > chess to get you to a strong position every time. I would argue that it > isn't. Every time? Never. Most of the time? Easily. Almost every time? Fischer did it. It's no different than a racehorse who is trained to break quickly out of the gate. He's a threat to go wire to wire every time he plays. That also tends to be very intimidating, even to a GM, who is not used to having the fight taken to him from move one except by champions. > As for those "theoretically drawn endings that can be figured out over > the board" - well, why don't you study some grandmaster games, and > notice how often GM's fail to play the best move in endings. The notion > that you can probably figure this stuff out over the board without > studying is absurd. Capablanca did that many times, but keep in mind that since I play a very deep, narrow opening repertoire, that I tend to get the same types of endgames out of those openings as well. I've studied lots of endgame theory in my youth and am very familiar with many concepts and themes, etc. The problem is that I'm not going to reach many endgames the way I play, and the rating system simply doesn't reward someone for studying them. If one plays a stronger opening, by definition they are going to get a stronger middlegame, and are more likely to get a stronger endgame. One's rating is not going to go down if they expand their repertoire, and if the foundation of that repertoire is sound, then the extensions will be equally sound. > But the majority of ending play is, of course, not in theoretically > drawn positions. Studying the endgame isn't about memorizing positions, > any more than studying the middlegame is. Many endgames are "book" and need to be memorized, and many middlegame themes are as theoretical as any opening variation. At my age, the only way I'm going to beat competition that is half my age is with a different approach that turns out to be superior, and I believe I have one. I might win with it, or maybe some young player will carry on my work. Any player can use my approach to the openings with just about any repertoire, so it's not even restricted to the specific moves I play. -- "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern District of PA Judge From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918 -- "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern District of PA Judge From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918             Date: 19 May 2006 23:23:25 From: Antonio Torrecillas Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? En/na Ron ha escrit: (to Ray) > (...) > So I can't help but wonder, as you return to this analogy time and time > again ... do you actually know anything about tennis? > > -Ron Ron, I think Ray know very little about tennis but that's more than He knows about chess. AT     Date: 19 May 2006 05:39:21 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? > I've played maybe 100 to 150 slow time control OTB games against > masters. I can count on one hand the games that were decided in the > opening. None of my games against GMs or IMs were decided in the > opening. Because most stronger players don't study the opening beyond what they need to survive. That doesn't translate to "the opening is not important." Most pro tennis players could beat you with a 45 mph serve, but that doesn't mean a 145 mph one isn't useful against top competition, or even weak competition. >And my knowledge of opening theory has always been fairly > superficial. Then you can't be sure the openings didn't contribute to your losses. > The problem I have with the suggestion it makes more sense to focus on > opening knowledge than other aspects of the game is this: much of > opening theory is devoted to the differences between +=, =, and =+. The difference between +/= and =/+ is very significant: in each case, each side is one move away from losing. > These differences are actually not that big, and are not likely to make > a critical difference in any game between players who are below, say, > solid IM strength. They reduce the gin for error significantly, which is a very big difference, and usually the first step along the way to getting a winning edge. >You need a large amount of technique and chess > understanding to play what GM Speelman calls "+= chess," where you > maintain a nagging pressure over many moves. Right, to play like a GM, you need to study like one. Duh. >In typical games between > non-IMs/GMs, the games are not decided by a logical capitalization on > an opening advantage, but by positional or tactical blunders in the > middlegame or endgame errors. Which one is more likely to make if they play a weak opening. > I agree with Mr. Callenberg's comment, but only to a certain extent. I > agree that to become a strong master, you would need to know some > opening theory and have some knowledge of typical middlegame ideas in > the openings you play. You need to know enough opening theory to > survive the opening with a playable middlegame. Or enough opening theory to win straight out of the books against all but the top players. >And you need to know > enough about middlegame ideas to give you some sense of direction. What you call "middlegames" is often still in my book. > But I think the amount of actually knowledge or study needed to be a > strong master is relatively little, particularly if you choose solid > openings rather than sharp, highly theoretical ones. A "strong master" is still a very weak player, objectively speaking. >If you play solid > openings with White and Black, then you need to know relatively little > theory to survive the opening with a playable middlegame, and > relatively little specialized middlegame knowledge. If one wants to lose 99 percent of the time to the 2700 players, they can do pretty much whatever they want. >Maybe a few weeks > of studying a few hours a night with some introductory books like > "Starting Out: the Caro-Kann" and "Starting Out:: the Slav" would give > you enough theory to survive the opening and sufficient examples of > typical endgame ideas to get playable middlegames against anyone below > IM level. Which is all but an admission that studying this stuff will generally make one an IM, or put them on their way. >You might end up with a slight disadvantage out of the > opening when you play against a "booked" player, but it won't be that > significant. Yet if one wants to learn to play +/= chess, as you call it, the first step is reliably getting a +/= position. >Also, if you play 1.d4 or 1.c4 as White in a solid style, > you can go far just playing natural, solid moves. As long as your opponent isn't trained to exploit your ignorance, sure. You can win basketball games without shooting free throws too; that doesn't mean free throws are insiginificant. >Also, I think deeper > opening knowledge is something best built over time and through > experience (if you get a bad position out of the opening in a game, you > can go to ChessBase, see how strong masters played the same position, > and next time you will play better), I built my repertoire in the days prior to computers and the internet. On the other hand, I make use of the same tools now. >while endgame theory is something > where organized study can be very beneficial. Just as organized study can be useful in any phase of the game, but again, the opening comes first. > Assuming that a player has the minimal knowledge of opening theory and > typical middlegame ideas, I will stand by my original statement. I > think that anyone who went through a book like Dvoretsky's Endgame > Manual and mastered it fully would be a strong master (by strong master > I am meaning around 2400 to 2450 FIDE). I think mastering those > endings would not just benefit your endgame play, but also it would > have a lot of trickle down benefits for your middlegame play. I think > you would find yourself winning won endgames, winning drawn endgames, > and drawing lost endgames against players less skilled in the endgame. > I think you would start looking at a lot of middlegame positions with > the endgame in mind. I do that already. >Of course, I am not claiming it would be a simple > task to master all the endings in Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual or some > similar book. It could take a year, or more, to do this for a > motivated student. But I am guessing that well before the task is > over, the benefits of the work would already become evident. And a year spent with ECO wouldn't? It's amazing how players get so theoretical in the ending but won't give the same respect to the opening. > Although perhaps reasonable minds can differ, I think that a player of > 2000 elo (plus or minus 50 elo) can learn all of the opening theory in > the ECOs, the Informants and the NIC Yearbooks in the world, and he > will probably be no more than a 2200 elo player. Because they'll fall apart when ahead in almost every game against experts and A players? >He will tend to do > well in the openings, but even a player of my relatively modest > strength would probably beat such a player in a match without much > difficulty, simply by outplaying him/her in the middlegame and > (particularly) the endgame. My coaching and playing experience say otherwise. The high school I coached on nothing but openings, and they were all beginners, were able to beat much stronger teams, including a 9-1 score against a team coached by a man who had exactly your philosophy. His kids never survived the opening against my kids, and my kids had absolutely nothing after their opening knowledge to speak of. > So I have to disagree with Mr. Gordon about the importance of opening > theory. Memorizing vast amounts of opening theory is unlikely to > significantly improve the level of play of a player who does not have > the strength and technique to exploit relatively modest advantages. Obviously one must have both, but the key word there is BOTH. Endgame junkies just like avoiding theory and think that a surface knowledge is all that's required. > There is a very limited amount of base minimum theory you need to know > to survive the opening. If you're playing against weak players who aren't booked up, perhaps. >But beyond that, you are tweaking between += > and =+, a difference which is almost meaningless if you are not very > strong in the middlegame and endings. A half-pawn is not meaningless (if you assume +/= to mean 0.25). >And I think perhaps Mr. > Callenberg underestimates the benefits of a really deep understanding > of a large number of theoretical endgame positions, and of the process > of learning those positions, on a player's middlegame play. The middlegame is actually where most chessgames are won, because it's generally too difficult to book up for and one has to actually think. By booking up in the endgame or in the opening, you can reduce the window by which you have to think in the middlegame. -- "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern District of PA Judge From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918     Date: 14 May 2006 19:57:51 From: Ange1o DePa1ma Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? <[email protected] > wrote > I've played maybe 100 to 150 slow time control OTB games against > masters. I can count on one hand the games that were decided in the > opening. None of my games against GMs or IMs were decided in the > opening. And my knowledge of opening theory has always been fairly > superficial. Geoff, I don't know your rating but I'll assume for a moment you're somewhat weaker than 2200 but somewhat stronger than me (1900). If so, your inferiority in the opening may have led to positions that were positionally or strategically lost without you recognizing it. I was once winning against an IM, right in the opening, but didn't realize it. As a result I adopted the wrong plan. He wound up quickly equalizing and eventually winning by a tempo in a crazy tactical melee. I count that as a loss out of the opening because I didn't realize what was going on. At my level probably 35% of games are won or lost in the opening.       Date: 15 May 2006 05:57:47 From: Ron Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? In article <[email protected] >, "Ange1o DePa1ma" <[email protected] > wrote: > I was once winning against > an IM, right in the opening, but didn't realize it. As a result I adopted > the wrong plan. He wound up quickly equalizing and eventually winning by a > tempo in a crazy tactical melee. I count that as a loss out of the opening > because I didn't realize what was going on. Wait a second here. Is this a game that was "lost in the opening" - or was it "lost because you adopted the wrong plan," which is a middlegame mistake. "I was winning against an IM in the opening, but I lost" to me says not that your openings are holding you back, but rather that the rest of your game needs to catch up. -Ron         Date: 15 May 2006 11:33:27 From: Ange1o DePa1ma Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? "Ron" <[email protected] > wrote > "Ange1o DePa1ma" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I was once winning against >> an IM, right in the opening, but didn't realize it. As a result I adopted >> the wrong plan. He wound up quickly equalizing and eventually winning by >> a >> tempo in a crazy tactical melee. I count that as a loss out of the >> opening >> because I didn't realize what was going on. > > Wait a second here. Is this a game that was "lost in the opening" - or > was it "lost because you adopted the wrong plan," which is a middlegame > mistake. > > "I was winning against an IM in the opening, but I lost" to me says not > that your openings are holding you back, but rather that the rest of > your game needs to catch up. I did not recognize my advantage out of the opening. To me that's the flip side of not noticing that I'm about to enter a losing position out of the opening. Maybe it's a bad example.       Date: 15 May 2006 06:24:04 From: Terry Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? "Ange1o DePa1ma" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > <[email protected]> wrote > >> I've played maybe 100 to 150 slow time control OTB games against >> masters. I can count on one hand the games that were decided in the >> opening. None of my games against GMs or IMs were decided in the >> opening. And my knowledge of opening theory has always been fairly >> superficial. > > Geoff, I don't know your rating but I'll assume for a moment you're > somewhat weaker than 2200 but somewhat stronger than me (1900). If so, > your inferiority in the opening may have led to positions that were > positionally or strategically lost without you recognizing it. I was once > winning against an IM, right in the opening, but didn't realize it. As a > result I adopted the wrong plan. He wound up quickly equalizing and > eventually winning by a tempo in a crazy tactical melee. I count that as a > loss out of the opening because I didn't realize what was going on. > > At my level probably 35% of games are won or lost in the opening. > I would suggest that 35% is way out. Are you sure that you are not using the openings as an excuse. ? Regards         Date: 15 May 2006 11:48:01 From: Ange1o DePa1ma Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? "Terry" <[email protected] > wrote >> Geoff, I don't know your rating but I'll assume for a moment you're >> somewhat weaker than 2200 but somewhat stronger than me (1900). If so, >> your inferiority in the opening may have led to positions that were >> positionally or strategically lost without you recognizing it. I was once >> winning against an IM, right in the opening, but didn't realize it. As a >> result I adopted the wrong plan. He wound up quickly equalizing and >> eventually winning by a tempo in a crazy tactical melee. I count that as >> a loss out of the opening because I didn't realize what was going on. >> >> At my level probably 35% of games are won or lost in the opening. >> > > I would suggest that 35% is way out. Are you sure that you are not > using the openings as an excuse. ? I would say of the games I win, one third are a result of getting a big advantage out of the opening. Of the games I lose, most are due to blunders -- more than half in the opening. I have only lost four games since last September. The most recent was last week, when I dropped a rook in a totally won ending. At the Liberty Bell Open in January both my losses were because of opening miscalculations: one from the White side of an Evans Gambit, one in a 2 Knights. Both were stupid, stupid mistakes on or around move 8. I could have resigned at move 9 in the 2 Knights game. I lost those games because I misplayed the openings. I just noticed that the fourth loss was mis-scored by my TD. I actually won that game after building a tremendous opening advantage, blundering a piece, and then devising a cunning plan to turn the tables. Not a very statistically reliable sample, but believe me I suck at the openings. For example, I'm so frightened by the French defense that I play the exchange variation.           Date: 19 May 2006 07:00:07 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? > Not a very statistically reliable sample, but believe me I suck at the > openings. For example, I'm so frightened by the French defense that I play > the exchange variation. That may actually be the best line against the French. It's far more difficult to equalize than the books say for Black. -- "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern District of PA Judge From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918             Date: 19 May 2006 12:51:00 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? "Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > >> Not a very statistically reliable sample, but believe me I suck at the >> openings. For example, I'm so frightened by the French defense that I >> play the exchange variation. > > That may actually be the best line against the French. It's far more > difficult to equalize than the books say for Black. Sorry to challenge Ray again, I am just interested in how much is generally known by an admnitted booked-up player. Ray - how many moves of the Armenian Variation do you know? Phil Innes > -- > "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, > Eastern District of PA Judge > From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918 >               Date: 19 May 2006 10:09:13 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? >>> Not a very statistically reliable sample, but believe me I suck at the >>> openings. For example, I'm so frightened by the French defense that I >>> play the exchange variation. >> >> That may actually be the best line against the French. It's far more >> difficult to equalize than the books say for Black. > > Sorry to challenge Ray again, I am just interested in how much is > generally known by an admnitted booked-up player. Ray - how many moves of > the Armenian Variation do you know? I stopped studying openings by name 15 years ago. Now I just study moves and don't generally care what they are called. Part of my "purging" of the pre-computer era analysis that so many still rely on. In general, however, if White plays the Advance Variation against my French, I'll be in book until around move 15-20 before I have to take more than a few tenths of a second to make each move, unless White gets very "creative." The only exception to this is if I rebuild my repertoire and temporarily adopt new lines I'm not yet as familiar with. -- "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern District of PA Judge From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918                 Date: 19 May 2006 17:01:41 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? "Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... >>>> Not a very statistically reliable sample, but believe me I suck at the >>>> openings. For example, I'm so frightened by the French defense that I >>>> play the exchange variation. >>> >>> That may actually be the best line against the French. It's far more >>> difficult to equalize than the books say for Black. >> >> Sorry to challenge Ray again, I am just interested in how much is >> generally known by an admnitted booked-up player. Ray - how many moves of >> the Armenian Variation do you know? > > I stopped studying openings by name 15 years ago. Now I just study moves > and don't generally care what they are called. So, when the Bishop is challenged by a3 it retreats to a5. Khalifman and [St P.] Ivanov are good analysts of it, but it doesn't appear in BCO. Phil > Part of my "purging" of the pre-computer era analysis that so many still > rely on. > > In general, however, if White plays the Advance Variation against my > French, I'll be in book until around move 15-20 before I have to take more > than a few tenths of a second to make each move, unless White gets very > "creative." > > The only exception to this is if I rebuild my repertoire and temporarily > adopt new lines I'm not yet as familiar with. > > > -- > "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, > Eastern District of PA Judge > From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918 >                   Date: 19 May 2006 16:35:26 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? >>> Sorry to challenge Ray again, I am just interested in how much is >>> generally known by an admnitted booked-up player. Ray - how many moves >>> of the Armenian Variation do you know? >> >> I stopped studying openings by name 15 years ago. Now I just study moves >> and don't generally care what they are called. > > So, when the Bishop is challenged by a3 it retreats to a5. Khalifman and > [St P.] Ivanov are good analysts of it, but it doesn't appear in BCO. Phil You mean after 1. e4 e5 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bb4 4. a3? I had to guess here, since most opening analysis starts after a move order and actual moves are given, according to basic rules of notation, preferably algebraic. -- "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern District of PA Judge From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918                     Date: 19 May 2006 21:26:07 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? "Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... >>>> Sorry to challenge Ray again, I am just interested in how much is >>>> generally known by an admnitted booked-up player. Ray - how many moves >>>> of the Armenian Variation do you know? >>> >>> I stopped studying openings by name 15 years ago. Now I just study >>> moves and don't generally care what they are called. >> >> So, when the Bishop is challenged by a3 it retreats to a5. Khalifman and >> [St P.] Ivanov are good analysts of it, but it doesn't appear in BCO. >> Phil > > You mean after 1. e4 e5 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bb4 4. a3? > > I had to guess here, since most opening analysis starts after a move order > and actual moves are given, according to basic rules of notation, > preferably algebraic. ? I am making a point, Gordon, that very early moves are not so well known. Will you look this one up and see if the Armenian exists with a Queenj guard to c3 or otherwise. If moves at 4 or 5 are not so well known, yet played at the very highest levels, what point is there in stating that opening klnowledge prevails? My previous example caught you a bit flat footed on move 3! Phil > > -- > "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, > Eastern District of PA Judge > From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918 > > >                       Date: 19 May 2006 18:19:33 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? >> You mean after 1. e4 e5 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bb4 4. a3? >> >> I had to guess here, since most opening analysis starts after a move >> order and actual moves are given, according to basic rules of notation, >> preferably algebraic. > > ? > > I am making a point, Gordon, that very early moves are not so well known. Maybe not to YOU. However, if you are playing ME, I will have played hundreds if not thousands of games in just about anything you can play against me early on. Even if I haven't seen the specific line, I have probably dealt with the formation, the positional issues, and the tactical themes. If this is your only opening and you play me after that, my book will expand with any mistakes eliminated. > Will you look this one up and see if the Armenian exists with a Queenj > guard to c3 or otherwise. > > If moves at 4 or 5 are not so well known, yet played at the very highest > levels, what point is there in stating that opening klnowledge prevails? > My previous example caught you a bit flat footed on move 3! I didn't know what your example was. You did not provide a move order. 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 is the Advance Variation. What is White's fourth move and beyond for your variation? -- "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern District of PA Judge From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918                         Date: 19 May 2006 22:40:05 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? "Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... >>> You mean after 1. e4 e5 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bb4 4. a3? >>> >>> I had to guess here, since most opening analysis starts after a move >>> order and actual moves are given, according to basic rules of notation, >>> preferably algebraic. >> >> ? >> >> I am making a point, Gordon, that very early moves are not so well known. > > Maybe not to YOU. Gordon - you are a bit bust already , don't be silly about it. Here are 2 openings cited very early which caught you out. Its O'K! Not even nnn records them, but if you state that there is some ultimate benefit in opening knowledge and you have to waflemove 3, you must admit interest or otherwise you are screwed! > However, if you are playing ME, I will have played hundreds if not > thousands of games in just about anything you can play against me early > on. Even if I haven't seen the specific line, I have probably dealt with > the formation, the positional issues, and the tactical themes. If this is > your only opening and you play me after that, my book will expand with any > mistakes eliminated. You are full of shit. Your are already get caught out twice, and I do not ever try very hard. > up and see if the Armenian exists with a Queenj >> guard to c3 or otherwise. >> >> If moves at 4 or 5 are not so well known, yet played at the very highest >> levels, what point is there in stating that opening klnowledge prevails? >> My previous example caught you a bit flat footed on move 3! > > I didn't know what your example was. You did not provide a move order. yes, but it gogles - and it is only move 4 or maybe 5. > 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 is the Advance Variation. What is White's > fourth move and beyond for your variation? I did not chose to discuss this, since I was speaking of another possibility. Sorry to be so rude to you - really sorry - you are actually interested in what you speak of, but have learned bad habits on the net since no one has challenged you adequately. When stronger players do this, they require moves, not words. Taylor Kingston has been caught out by excessively abstract reverences by a Gm who handed him hid head - otherwise the public is deceived - but we not need do this. It is difficult on usenet to discuss any more complex aspects of chess - most people are boring and only posutre - I am not deceived ever, by talk. You have all the right attitudes, in my estimation, so whay mess it up by overstating your good and valid points, by contradicting what GMs do to each other to test knowledge of opening? Think a bit upon your response. You are better than this, no? You are better than what you say. Otherwise you are losing the talk, not the knowledge. I write many GMs, it is rare they can express themselves adequately on how they are. Cordially, Phil > > -- > "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, > Eastern District of PA Judge > From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918 >                     Date: 19 May 2006 23:14:49 From: Antonio Torrecillas Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit: >>>>Sorry to challenge Ray again, I am just interested in how much is >>>>generally known by an admnitted booked-up player. Ray - how many moves >>>>of the Armenian Variation do you know? >>> >>>I stopped studying openings by name 15 years ago. Now I just study moves >>>and don't generally care what they are called. >> >>So, when the Bishop is challenged by a3 it retreats to a5. Khalifman and >>[St P.] Ivanov are good analysts of it, but it doesn't appear in BCO. Phil > > You mean after 1. e4 e5 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bb4 4. a3? > > I had to guess here, since most opening analysis starts after a move order > and actual moves are given, according to basic rules of notation, preferably > algebraic. Ray, ... 3.e5 is impossible, I asume you mean 1...e6 to allow it but 4.a3 is imposible too I hope you know why (there is no knight in c3). AT                 Date: 19 May 2006 16:20:22 From: Antonio Torrecillas Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit: >>>>Not a very statistically reliable sample, but believe me I suck at the >>>>openings. For example, I'm so frightened by the French defense that I >>>>play the exchange variation. >>> >>>That may actually be the best line against the French. It's far more >>>difficult to equalize than the books say for Black. >> >>Sorry to challenge Ray again, I am just interested in how much is >>generally known by an admnitted booked-up player. Ray - how many moves of >>the Armenian Variation do you know? > > I stopped studying openings by name 15 years ago. Now I just study moves > and don't generally care what they are called. Part of my "purging" of the > pre-computer era analysis that so many still rely on. I will help you, ... some strong Armenian players "lately" played a line with good results but which was considered previously as inferior. Sure that with your experience in high level chess you would discover the meaning of "Armenian players". And sure too that Ray, one of best teoreticians in the world, have studied those advances in his pet French Defense. I bet that Ray knows deeply until move 17 and Ray know it by ECO code. Antonio                   Date: 19 May 2006 17:04:24 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? "Antonio Torrecillas" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit: >>>>>Not a very statistically reliable sample, but believe me I suck at the >>>>>openings. For example, I'm so frightened by the French defense that I >>>>>play the exchange variation. >>>> >>>>That may actually be the best line against the French. It's far more >>>>difficult to equalize than the books say for Black. >>> >>>Sorry to challenge Ray again, I am just interested in how much is >>>generally known by an admnitted booked-up player. Ray - how many moves of >>>the Armenian Variation do you know? >> >> I stopped studying openings by name 15 years ago. Now I just study moves >> and don't generally care what they are called. Part of my "purging" of >> the pre-computer era analysis that so many still rely on. > > I will help you, ... some strong Armenian players "lately" played a line > with good results but which was considered previously as inferior. Twice, no? In Armenia [+Gary] vs Rest of the World. I forget results, maybe 1.5 pts to Black? Phil > Sure that with your experience in high level chess you would discover the > meaning of "Armenian players". And sure too that Ray, one of best > teoreticians in the world, have studied those advances in his pet French > Defense. > > I bet that Ray knows deeply until move 17 and Ray know it by ECO code. > > Antonio >           Date: 15 May 2006 18:23:01 From: Terry Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? "Ange1o DePa1ma" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > > "Terry" <[email protected]> wrote > >>> Geoff, I don't know your rating but I'll assume for a moment you're >>> somewhat weaker than 2200 but somewhat stronger than me (1900). If so, >>> your inferiority in the opening may have led to positions that were >>> positionally or strategically lost without you recognizing it. I was >>> once winning against an IM, right in the opening, but didn't realize it. >>> As a result I adopted the wrong plan. He wound up quickly equalizing and >>> eventually winning by a tempo in a crazy tactical melee. I count that as >>> a loss out of the opening because I didn't realize what was going on. >>> >>> At my level probably 35% of games are won or lost in the opening. >>> >> >> I would suggest that 35% is way out. Are you sure that you are not >> using the openings as an excuse. ? > > I would say of the games I win, one third are a result of getting a big > advantage out of the opening. Of the games I lose, most are due to > blunders -- more than half in the opening. I have only lost four games > since last September. The most recent was last week, when I dropped a rook > in a totally won ending. At the Liberty Bell Open in January both my > losses were because of opening miscalculations: one from the White side of > an Evans Gambit, one in a 2 Knights. Both were stupid, stupid mistakes on > or around move 8. I could have resigned at move 9 in the 2 Knights game. I > lost those games because I misplayed the openings. I just noticed that the > fourth loss was mis-scored by my TD. I actually won that game after > building a tremendous opening advantage, blundering a piece, and then > devising a cunning plan to turn the tables. > > Not a very statistically reliable sample, but believe me I suck at the > openings. For example, I'm so frightened by the French defense that I play > the exchange variation. > > > I also avoid the French by playing the exchange. :-) My knowledge of book openings is almost non-existant but I dont play sharp openings and usually survive. What are you doing playing sharp openings like the Evans. You should be playing quiet openings with the aim of reaching a playable middlegame. Regards             Date: 19 May 2006 07:03:36 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? > I also avoid the French by playing the exchange. :-) People who use the word "avoid" when describing their opening play tend to be extremely weak. Now assuming for a second that the Exchange French is quick equality for Black (it's not), that avoidance move isn't going to lose a game for you per se, but it's going to severely limit your ability to carve out a good position. You might see a resulting loss as a product of the middlegame or endgame, yet a strong opening player for Black will attribute the win to exploiting your restrictive approach to the opening. On the other side of the coin, if you are superior in the middlegame and endgame, you will likely steamroll a strong opening player with that line, since you won't be making yourself vulnerable in his strongest part of the game. If you were trying to become a 2800 player, however, I'd say you were on the wrong track with that line. > My knowledge of book openings is almost non-existant but I dont play > sharp openings and usually survive. > What are you doing playing sharp openings like the Evans. You should be > playing > quiet openings with the aim of reaching a playable middlegame. Maybe he wants to expand his limits as a chessplayer? That's the best way to improve. I also said before that if I want to "study" the middlegame and endgame, all I have to do is stop studying openings and force myself to get any improvement from other parts of the game. -- "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern District of PA Judge From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918             Date: 16 May 2006 18:11:08 From: Ron Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? In article <[email protected] >, "Terry" <[email protected] > wrote: > What are you doing playing sharp openings like the Evans. You should be > playing > quiet openings with the aim of reaching a playable middlegame. Whoa, whoa, whoa! The canonical advice is to avoid highly theoretical openings, not to avoid sharp ones. In fact, stuff like the Evans is highly recommended for developing players. The truth is that white gets a "playable" middlegame from the Evans pretty consistently. There isn't that much theory. The principles the opening emphasizes (development, open lines, attacking play) are exactly the sort of thing most class players need to be working on. The Evans is, IMO, a great choice because even in many of the positions where black gets "equality," the practical chances favor white in amateur play (where a pawn in a wide-open middlegame isn't that much to be down, compared to active piece play.) It can be messy, sure, but you need to learn how not to be afraid of messy positions. -Ron               Date: 16 May 2006 22:45:01 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? "Ron" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > In article <[email protected]>, > "Terry" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> What are you doing playing sharp openings like the Evans. You should be >> playing >> quiet openings with the aim of reaching a playable middlegame. > > Whoa, whoa, whoa! > > The canonical advice is to avoid highly theoretical openings, not to > avoid sharp ones. > > In fact, stuff like the Evans is highly recommended for developing > players. The truth is that white gets a "playable" middlegame from the > Evans pretty consistently. There isn't that much theory. The > principles the opening emphasizes (development, open lines, attacking > play) are exactly the sort of thing most class players need to be > working on. > > The Evans is, IMO, a great choice because even in many of the positions > where black gets "equality," the practical chances favor white in > amateur play (where a pawn in a wide-open middlegame isn't that much to > be down, compared to active piece play.) > > It can be messy, sure, but you need to learn how not to be afraid of > messy positions. Here is an Evans declined played against a computer-black opponent with book = 'on' [Event "?"] [Site "?"] [Date "2004.05.07"] [Round "?"] [White "Phil"] [Black "Arasan 7.3"] [Result "1-0"] 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bb6 5. a4 a6 6. Bb2 d6 7. b5 axb5 8. axb5 Rxa1 9. Bxa1 Nd4 10. Nxd4 exd4 11. Qf3 Nf6 12. O-O O-O 13. h3 Qe8 14. d3 Bd7 15. c3 Bxb5 16. Bxb5 Qxb5 17. cxd4 Ra8 18. Nd2 Ra2 19. Bc3 Rc2 20. e5 dxe5 21. dxe5 Qd5 22. Ra1 Bc5 23. Ra8+ Bf8 24. Qd1 Rxc3 25. exf6 g6 26. Qe1 Qe6 27. Ne4 Rxd3 28. Qb4 Rd6 29. Nxd6 cxd6 30. Qf4 Qe5 31. Qxe5 dxe5 32. Rb8 h6 33. Kf1 b6 34. Ke2 h5 35. h4 b5 36. Kd3 e4+ 37. Kxe4 g5 38. hxg5 b4 39. f4 b3 40. Kd3 h4 41. Kc3 h3 42. gxh3 Kh7 43. Rxf8 Kg6 44. Kxb3 Kf5 45. Rxf7 Kxf4 46. g6 Kf5 47. g7 Kf4 48. g8=Q Ke4 49. Re7+ Kf3 50. f7 Kf4 51. f8=R# 1-0 {White mates} > -Ron             Date: 16 May 2006 13:47:32 From: Ange1o DePa1ma Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? "Terry" <[email protected] > wrote > What are you doing playing sharp openings like the Evans. You should be > playing > quiet openings with the aim of reaching a playable middlegame. I don't mind sharp openings, provided my opponent is unlikely to know them. My French problems are probably mostly psychological. I just don't understand it I guess. BTW, I drew a game last night that I should have lost, because my opponent misplayed the ending. It was hardly a textbook ending though -- R vs B+N with passed pawns for both sides. Interestingly, I was winning out of the opening and won his Q for two minor pieces, but I misplayed the next few moves and he developed a horrendous initiative.               Date: 19 May 2006 07:04:26 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? >> What are you doing playing sharp openings like the Evans. You should be >> playing >> quiet openings with the aim of reaching a playable middlegame. > > I don't mind sharp openings, provided my opponent is unlikely to know > them. My French problems are probably mostly psychological. I just don't > understand it I guess. The problem is more likely that French players tend to be very booked up in both variations and positional themes, and will eat for lunch those players who can't match their preparation. -- "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern District of PA Judge From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918     Date: 14 May 2006 17:08:59 From: Antonio Torrecillas Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? Hello Geof, En/na [email protected] ha escrit: > I've played maybe 100 to 150 slow time control OTB games against > masters. I can count on one hand the games that were decided in the > opening. None of my games against GMs or IMs were decided in the > opening. And my knowledge of opening theory has always been fairly > superficial. > (...) > > Assuming that a player has the minimal knowledge of opening theory and > typical middlegame ideas, I will stand by my original statement. I > think that anyone who went through a book like Dvoretsky's Endgame > Manual and mastered it fully would be a strong master (by strong master > I am meaning around 2400 to 2450 FIDE). I think mastering those > endings would not just benefit your endgame play, but also it would > have a lot of trickle down benefits for your middlegame play. I think > you would find yourself winning won endgames, winning drawn endgames, > and drawing lost endgames against players less skilled in the endgame. > I think you would start looking at a lot of middlegame positions with > the endgame in mind. Of course, I am not claiming it would be a simple > task to master all the endings in Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual or some > similar book. It could take a year, or more, to do this for a > motivated student. But I am guessing that well before the task is > over, the benefits of the work would already become evident. I'm not so sure about reaching a certain level doing any study plan, ... there are some people who can't pass a X level no matter what study plan follow. Maybe it's not just, but GOD did not distribute equitatively beauty, intelligence, ... nor chess talent!! Most part of players achieve a force relatively soon, but later it's very difficult to increase it significantly. That's the actual situation in many cases. And I have a personal view about what should be a study plan in endings: I think there basic positions need to be known (specially some rook+pawn vs rook endings, ... I have read an author to be needed to know about 700 basic endings) but it's needed to study another chess endgames principles like we can see in some good books (for example Sheresevski, Speelman, Mednis have written many good books about it). I think practical endgame training need to be added to that reading of very interesting endgame books. > Although perhaps reasonable minds can differ, I think that a player of > 2000 elo (plus or minus 50 elo) can learn all of the opening theory in > the ECOs, the Informants and the NIC Yearbooks in the world, and he > will probably be no more than a 2200 elo player. Here I would like to observe that there are different approaches to study openings. Memorization has no sense in my opinion and maybe your comment its too optimistical (+200 doing that unuseful training would occur in very few cases). I think i'ts preferable to study an opening analising main instructive games, having own ideas tested and analized, playing trainings games with friends, analizing some "typical" endings you can reach in that lines, solving many tactical test with tactical themes typical of that lines, ... You can see, that's no only studying openings but it's a complete training. > (...) > My two bits. > > - Geof Strayer       Date: 19 May 2006 06:57:25 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? > I'm not so sure about reaching a certain level doing any study plan, ... > there are some people who can't pass a X level no matter what study plan > follow. Maybe it's not just, but GOD did not distribute equitatively > beauty, intelligence, ... nor chess talent!! > > Most part of players achieve a force relatively soon, but later it's very > difficult to increase it significantly. > That's the actual situation in many cases. I've heard this theory before, but my own experience doesn't bear this out. As a kid, I played with three or four close friends a lot, got a decent game, even won a JHS tournament in a public school (would have competed at the shall had I not transferred), but for the most part, my game was maybe 1400 strength from that experience. Then, at age 17, I took daily lessons from an FM/IM strength player, and by the end of the summer I was beating rated B and A players regularly in the parks. Two years later, I began studying very seriously, and wound up improving another 400 points in a few years on top of that. If one's "natural talent" gets them to "their level" shortly after learning how to play, I'd have topped off at about 1200-1400, not 2000. > And I have a personal view about what should be a study plan in endings: I > think there basic positions need to be known (specially some rook+pawn vs > rook endings, ... I have read an author to be needed to know about 700 > basic endings) but it's needed to study another chess endgames principles > like we can see in some good books (for example Sheresevski, Speelman, > Mednis have written many good books about it). I've read endgame books by those authors. > I think practical endgame training need to be added to that reading of > very interesting endgame books. As in specific "book" positions? > >> Although perhaps reasonable minds can differ, I think that a player of >> 2000 elo (plus or minus 50 elo) can learn all of the opening theory in >> the ECOs, the Informants and the NIC Yearbooks in the world, and he >> will probably be no more than a 2200 elo player. > > Here I would like to observe that there are different approaches to study > openings. Memorization has no sense in my opinion and maybe your comment > its too optimistical (+200 doing that unuseful training would occur in > very few cases). Memorization must be guided by general principles that one can fall back on once they leave (or are taken out of) their book. Still, memorization comes first as it's easier to remember that a move should be played than to understand why one is playing it, though that understanding tends to come with experience. I didn't know why 6. Bg5 against the Najdorf was strong, for example, but since almost every GM in the world was playing it, I figured they had a reason so I took that on faith. With experience, however, I carved out my own path that suits my own style. > I think i'ts preferable to study an opening analising main instructive > games, having own ideas tested and analized, playing trainings games with > friends, analizing some "typical" endings you can reach in that lines, > solving many tactical test with tactical themes typical of that lines, ... I prefer 200-300 "drills" per day in my repertoire, through bullet chess, meticulously running each game through my engine and looking for the first mistake by either side, then adjusting my repertoire accordingly. -- "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern District of PA Judge From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918       Date: 15 May 2006 13:27:14 From: David Richerby Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? Antonio Torrecillas <[email protected] > wrote: > En/na [email protected] ha escrit: >> I think that anyone who went through a book like Dvoretsky's >> Endgame Manual and mastered it fully would be a strong master (by >> strong master I am meaning around 2400 to 2450 FIDE). [...] Of >> course, I am not claiming it would be a simple task to master all >> the endings in Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual or some similar book. It >> could take a year, or more, to do this for a motivated student. >> But I am guessing that well before the task is over, the benefits >> of the work would already become evident. > > I'm not so sure about reaching a certain level doing any study plan, > ... there are some people who can't pass a X level no matter what > study plan follow. I wonder if, perhaps, Equinorm's statement is something of a truism: is it that the only people who are capable of mastering all the endings in Dvoretsky are the sort of people who are going to get to about 2450 anyway, assuming they have a reasonable study plan? > And I have a personal view about what should be a study plan in > endings: I think there basic positions need to be known (specially > some rook+pawn vs rook endings, ... I have read an author to be > needed to know about 700 basic endings) but it's needed to study > another chess endgames principles like we can see in some good books > (for example Sheresevski, Speelman, Mednis have written many good > books about it). 700 sounds like a lot. ISTR Mueller and Lamprecht say that rook endings have the greatest number of basic positions to be learnt and that it's about thirty. That would suggest not more than a hundred or so in total. > Here I would like to observe that there are different approaches to > study openings. Memorization has no sense in my opinion Memorization of some lines might be important if you're playing a very sharp opening where you need to play a series of `only moves' to avoid getting into a bad position. Of course, you also have to understand what's going on so that, as with all lines, if (when!) your opponent deviates from `book', you know why his move was bad and can exploit it. In general, though, I agree with you. Dave. -- David Richerby Solar-Powered Beefy Atom Bomb (TM): www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a weapon of mass destruction that's made from a cow but it doesn't work in the dark!         Date: 15 May 2006 16:36:49 From: Antonio Torrecillas Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? En/na David Richerby ha escrit: > Antonio Torrecillas <[email protected]> wrote: > (...) >>And I have a personal view about what should be a study plan in >>endings: I think there basic positions need to be known (specially >>some rook+pawn vs rook endings, ... I have read an author to be >>needed to know about 700 basic endings) but it's needed to study >>another chess endgames principles like we can see in some good books >>(for example Sheresevski, Speelman, Mednis have written many good >>books about it). > > 700 sounds like a lot. ISTR Mueller and Lamprecht say that rook > endings have the greatest number of basic positions to be learnt and > that it's about thirty. That would suggest not more than a hundred or > so in total. Maybe we are writing not much different things: for example: when we study R+p vs R maybe Mueller consider ONLY a single position many endings related. (As example: similar endings with a different pawn "b" or "c" or "d", similar endings with rooks i different placs like one more column far or not, similar endings when it's white turn or black turn, ...) There is an entusiast amateur in Spain trying to publish some of the most important basic rook endings in a series (with 4 parts published). There are near 50 endings in those 4 chapters. Maybe those 50 endings are 3 or 4 for Mueller. There is chesbase version and html version too: Here you have http://www.ajedreznd.com/2006/ROOKS4.cbv http://www.ajedreznd.com/visor/torre5.pgn http://www.ajedreznd.com/visor/torre3.pgn http://www.ajedreznd.com/visor/intro0.pgn http://www.ajedreznd.com/2005/torres.html http://www.ajedreznd.com/visor/intro.htm http://www.ajedreznd.com/visor/torre3.htm http://www.ajedreznd.com/visor/torre5.htm Rook endings with more pawns arte missing, and there are other endings (B+p vs B, N+p vs N, pawn endings, B endings, N endings, Queen endings, queen vs pawns, rook vs pawn, piece vs pawns, rook vs B or N, B vs N, R+B vs R+N, ...) Yours, Antonio     Date: 14 May 2006 07:35:59 From: John J. Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? That's a bold statement. Studying endgames will certainly increase a player's strength, but stating that one book will make him a strong Master? Wow. I wish that were true, however, most chess teachers believe that studying tactics gives the best return on time investment. "but even a player of my relatively modest > strength would probably beat such a player in a match without much > difficulty," What 'modest' strength is that? Did I see your USCF rating at close to Senior Master? If so, that's not very modest at all. <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > I've played maybe 100 to 150 slow time control OTB games against > masters. I can count on one hand the games that were decided in the > opening. None of my games against GMs or IMs were decided in the > opening. And my knowledge of opening theory has always been fairly > superficial. > > The problem I have with the suggestion it makes more sense to focus on > opening knowledge than other aspects of the game is this: much of > opening theory is devoted to the differences between +=, =, and =+. > These differences are actually not that big, and are not likely to make > a critical difference in any game between players who are below, say, > solid IM strength. You need a large amount of technique and chess > understanding to play what GM Speelman calls "+= chess," where you > maintain a nagging pressure over many moves. In typical games between > non-IMs/GMs, the games are not decided by a logical capitalization on > an opening advantage, but by positional or tactical blunders in the > middlegame or endgame errors. > > I agree with Mr. Callenberg's comment, but only to a certain extent. I > agree that to become a strong master, you would need to know some > opening theory and have some knowledge of typical middlegame ideas in > the openings you play. You need to know enough opening theory to > survive the opening with a playable middlegame. And you need to know > enough about middlegame ideas to give you some sense of direction. > > But I think the amount of actually knowledge or study needed to be a > strong master is relatively little, particularly if you choose solid > openings rather than sharp, highly theoretical ones. If you play solid > openings with White and Black, then you need to know relatively little > theory to survive the opening with a playable middlegame, and > relatively little specialized middlegame knowledge. Maybe a few weeks > of studying a few hours a night with some introductory books like > "Starting Out: the Caro-Kann" and "Starting Out:: the Slav" would give > you enough theory to survive the opening and sufficient examples of > typical endgame ideas to get playable middlegames against anyone below > IM level. You might end up with a slight disadvantage out of the > opening when you play against a "booked" player, but it won't be that > significant. Also, if you play 1.d4 or 1.c4 as White in a solid style, > you can go far just playing natural, solid moves. Also, I think deeper > opening knowledge is something best built over time and through > experience (if you get a bad position out of the opening in a game, you > can go to ChessBase, see how strong masters played the same position, > and next time you will play better), while endgame theory is something > where organized study can be very beneficial. > > Assuming that a player has the minimal knowledge of opening theory and > typical middlegame ideas, I will stand by my original statement. I > think that anyone who went through a book like Dvoretsky's Endgame > Manual and mastered it fully would be a strong master (by strong master > I am meaning around 2400 to 2450 FIDE). I think mastering those > endings would not just benefit your endgame play, but also it would > have a lot of trickle down benefits for your middlegame play. I think > you would find yourself winning won endgames, winning drawn endgames, > and drawing lost endgames against players less skilled in the endgame. > I think you would start looking at a lot of middlegame positions with > the endgame in mind. Of course, I am not claiming it would be a simple > task to master all the endings in Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual or some > similar book. It could take a year, or more, to do this for a > motivated student. But I am guessing that well before the task is > over, the benefits of the work would already become evident. > > Although perhaps reasonable minds can differ, I think that a player of > 2000 elo (plus or minus 50 elo) can learn all of the opening theory in > the ECOs, the Informants and the NIC Yearbooks in the world, and he > will probably be no more than a 2200 elo player. He will tend to do > well in the openings, but even a player of my relatively modest > strength would probably beat such a player in a match without much > difficulty, simply by outplaying him/her in the middlegame and > (particularly) the endgame. > > So I have to disagree with Mr. Gordon about the importance of opening > theory. Memorizing vast amounts of opening theory is unlikely to > significantly improve the level of play of a player who does not have > the strength and technique to exploit relatively modest advantages. > There is a very limited amount of base minimum theory you need to know > to survive the opening. But beyond that, you are tweaking between += > and =+, a difference which is almost meaningless if you are not very > strong in the middlegame and endings. And I think perhaps Mr. > Callenberg underestimates the benefits of a really deep understanding > of a large number of theoretical endgame positions, and of the process > of learning those positions, on a player's middlegame play. > > My two bits. > > - Geof Strayer >   Date: 12 May 2006 15:56:44 From: Nick Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames??   Date: From: Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames??   Date: 11 May 2006 19:42:23 From: Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? I read somewhere that the best single indicator of a player's chess strength is the amount of his or her knowledge of theoretical rook endgames. I would not be surprised if this were true, or at least close to the truth. Studying endgames will almost certainly add much more to your overall chess strength per hour of study than studying openings, but the vast majority of players below master strength have spend many times the hours studying openings that they have spend studying endgames. This is almost certainly one of the reasons why they are still below master strength. People like Short, Capablanca, Lasker, Karpov, Silman etc., all say the same thing, but people just don't seem to believe it. You can choose not to study endgames because you find them boring. There's nothing wrong with that. Most of us play and study chess for fun, not for a living, and we should feel free to do what we enjoy, not necessarily what will make us a stronger player. But we should at least be honest with ourselves. Studying endings is probably the best and quickest way to improve the overall level of a player's play. You improve your tactics, because every theoretical endgame is essentially a tactics problem. You learn core lessons about piece cooperation, pawn structures, piece activity, space advantages and see tactical concepts in their most fundamental and digestible form. I suspect that anyone who went through a book like Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual and thoroughly mastered it would end up being a very strong master. Without studying the openings or middlegames. Just the one book. I suspect I would add at least 150-200 elo points to my chess strength, maybe more, if I did that. Just the one book. Probably could do it in a year's time, if I worked at it. But I haven't done it. Probably won't ever do it, either. It's just too much work. I'm not that motivated. Never really was. It IS work, studying the endgame. Sure, there are some beautiful endings, some study-like concepts, some surprising tricks and traps. But a lot of endgame study involves mastering fairly complicated concepts and manoevers whose chief aesthetic virtue is that they actually work, and this must be done meticulously. Not just going through endings, but understanding them. Comprehending them fully. This is work, but it builds your understanding of chess, not just your chess knowledge. And an ounce of understanding is worth a pound of knowledge. The bottom line is that work pays off. If I had to propose a simple formula for overall chess strength, it wold probably be (strength) = (talent) x (work). Noone can improve their talent, but you can compensate for lacks in that department through hard work. And hard work on the endgames pays big dividends. I would be a much stronger chess player if I worked hard on endgames. You would too. It really is that simple. My two bits. - Geof Strayer     Date: 14 May 2006 19:52:25 From: Ange1o DePa1ma Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? [email protected] > wrote >I read somewhere that the best single indicator of a player's chess > strength is the amount of his or her knowledge of theoretical rook > endgames. I would not be surprised if this were true, or at least > close to the truth. I can believe it. If you can grasp the ideas in rook endings (which to me are among the most difficult of the essential openings) you've probably mastered most of the others.     Date: 13 May 2006 22:01:48 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? >I read somewhere that the best single indicator of a player's chess > strength is the amount of his or her knowledge of theoretical rook > endgames. I would not be surprised if this were true, or at least > close to the truth. Actually, according to a study that compared strong and weak chessplayers, the single common denominator was that that stronger players calculated their opponents' strongest moves as well as their own, while the weaker players dismissed any threat to their position as insignificant. > Studying endgames will almost certainly add much more to your overall > chess strength per hour of study than studying openings, How was this "certainty" proven? By sounding like what you want to hear or believe? >but the vast > majority of players below master strength have spend many times the > hours studying openings that they have spend studying endgames. This > is almost certainly one of the reasons why they are still below master > strength. Many GMs are "below world championship strength" because they can play the opening well enough to survive, and mistakenly assume that their work is done. > People like Short, Capablanca, Lasker, Karpov, Silman etc., all say the > same thing, but people just don't seem to believe it. Kasparov certainly isn't saying this. > You can choose not to study endgames because you find them boring. > There's nothing wrong with that. Most of us play and study chess for > fun, not for a living, and we should feel free to do what we enjoy, not > necessarily what will make us a stronger player. But we should at > least be honest with ourselves. Studying endings is probably the best > and quickest way to improve the overall level of a player's play. What is this conclusory statement based upon? >You > improve your tactics, because every theoretical endgame is essentially > a tactics problem. And openings are not? >You learn core lessons about piece cooperation, > pawn structures, piece activity, space advantages and see tactical > concepts in their most fundamental and digestible form. Guess what? Play STRONG openings and you get all of that, PLUS you might actually get to play what you study in a real, live game? Ever play K+B+N vs. K yet? > I suspect that anyone who went through a book like Dvoretsky's Endgame > Manual and thoroughly mastered it would end up being a very strong > master. Without studying the openings or middlegames. Just the one > book. I suspect I would add at least 150-200 elo points to my chess > strength, maybe more, if I did that. Just the one book. Probably > could do it in a year's time, if I worked at it. But I haven't done > it. Probably won't ever do it, either. It's just too much work. I'm > not that motivated. Never really was. I've studied endgames more than many players, even though I don't emphasize it. I do find it useful to learn them, but that doesn't come close to the utility a good opening repertoire will give a player. Obviously, the strong opening player has to have a good grasp of endings if he wants to properly evaluate things like pawn structure, passers, etc. > It IS work, studying the endgame. Sure, there are some beautiful > endings, some study-like concepts, some surprising tricks and traps. > But a lot of endgame study involves mastering fairly complicated > concepts and manoevers whose chief aesthetic virtue is that they > actually work, and this must be done meticulously. Not just going > through endings, but understanding them. Comprehending them fully. > This is work, but it builds your understanding of chess, not just your > chess knowledge. And an ounce of understanding is worth a pound of > knowledge. This is the case with openings as well. I don't consider a booked-up player to be strong if they only know some move sequences, but don't understand why those moves are the "book" moves. I also see guys who know a ton about the Ruy Lopez, say, yet they get lost if Black doesn't follow the script and plays the Latvian instead. ooooo > The bottom line is that work pays off. If I had to propose a simple > formula for overall chess strength, it wold probably be (strength) = > (talent) x (work). Noone can improve their talent, but you can > compensate for lacks in that department through hard work. And hard > work on the endgames pays big dividends. > > I would be a much stronger chess player if I worked hard on endgames. > You would too. It really is that simple. > > My two bits. The other problem with backloading one's game is that until the holes in their openings are fixed, improvement will become much more difficult. Chess is designed to favor opening study because the opening comes first, and every game has an opening. To that extent it is like the line of scrimmage in football; if you can't hold that, it won't matter what play you've drawn up since you'll never get to execute it. -- "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern District of PA Judge From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918     Date: 12 May 2006 07:00:16 From: Martin S Subject: Re: Need tactical example Antonio Torrecillas wrote: > En/na Claus-J�rgen Heigl ha escrit: > >>> if you put in google: >>> anti-computer Nemeth >> >> Hello Antonio, >> >> I was just writing about Nemeth and his computers can't play chess >> strategy but you beat me on it. >> >> Just a link: >> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/adam.bozon/computers.htm > > Another link I like very much is: > http://www.xs4all.nl/~timkr/chess2/honor.htm > In excelent Tim Krabb� pages we can see some of those Nemeth games with > Bg5 h6- h4 (or Bg4 - h3 h5) but also the revolutionary Nemeth > anticomputer gambit. I like very all Tim pages, don't miss them! > > And if tin prefer the Nemeth games in pgn: > http://www.angelfire.com/on/anticomputer/images/ENemeth.zip > >> So I contribute a game played long before computer time. It's not >> perfect, but has a nice finish: (...) > > The most popular example I remember is > > [Event "NED sim"] > [Site "?"] > [Date "1933.??.??"] > [Round "?"] > [White "Alekhine, Alexander"] > [Black "Mindeno, A."] > [Result "1-0"] > [ECO "C62"] > [PlyCount "33"] > [EventDate "1933.??.??"] > > 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 exd4 4. Qxd4 Nc6 5. Bb5 Bd7 6. Bxc6 Bxc6 7. Bg5 > Nf6 8.Nc3 Be7 9. O-O-O O-O 10. h4 h6 11. Nd5 hxg5 12. Nxe7+ Qxe7 13.hxg5 > Nxe4 14.Rh5 Qe6 15. Rdh1 f5 16. Ne5! dxe5 17. g6! 1-0 > > A very nice and intructive game! Looks neat as well! Thanks. tin S -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service ------- >>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access   Date: 11 May 2006 14:57:25 From: Nick Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? Antonio Torrecillas wrote: > En/na Nick ha escrit: (The context was snipped by Antonio Torrecillas.) > > I concur with Ron's general point that Ray Gordon places > > far too much importance on the opening in chess. (Again the context was snipped by Antonio Torrecillas.) > The problem is that Ray gives very few importance to other > factors and offer a nonsense way to study openings. > > ----------------- > > Nick, do you think any people is able to memorize 20x20x20 ... > (10 times mean only 5 moves) = 10,240,000,000,000 opening lines? > > Using 10 complete years 24 hours each day to memorize all that, gives > Ray the need to memorize 32,470 lines each second. Maybe a too hard for > an human!! > > And it seems there is not much benefit obtaining the best possible > position after 5 moves, is not it? Mr Torrecillas, why on earth have you been writing to me like you believe that I must agree with what Ray Gordon has been writing here about how to study chess? *If* that's what you believe about me, Mr Torrecillas, then you are absolutely wrong. I have noticed that you, Mr Torrecillas, sometimes seem to misunderstand some comments in English, and I have to say that some of your apparent assumptions about me are quite wrong. Please consider the possibility that you may not understand what I write as well as you think that you do. --Nick   Date: 11 May 2006 13:42:46 From: Nick Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? Ron wrote: > In article <[email protected]>, > "Ray Gordon" <[email protected]> wrote: > > If the weak player is really booked up, however, > > even your "novelties" will still be in his book. > > So what? > > Give a master a -/= position against a 1700 rated player, and the master > will still win most of the time. > > Give him an even position (a successful opening for black!) and he'll > win even more. > > I've used the following well-known trap to illustrate this principle > before: > > 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 Bg7 7. f3 O-O > 8. Qd2 Nc6 9. O-O-O d5 10. exd5 Nxd5 11. Nxc6 bxc6 12. Nxd5 cxd5 13. > Qxd5 Qc7 14. Qxa8 Bf5 15. Qxf8+ Kxf8 * > > Of for those who prefer FEN: > > 5k2/p1q1ppbp/6p1/5b2/8/4BP2/PPP3PP/2KR1B1R w - - 0 16 > > This is a well known idea in the 9.0-0-0 Yugoslav attack. It is, in > fact, given as the reason why white can't accept the pawn sacrifice. > > White has a pawn and two rooks for the queen, but no GM would > be willing to play this as white. Black's attack is considered too strong. > Almost all opening analysis ends here. Let's suppose that a chess supercomputer (name your favourite) was playing White and an ordinary GM was playing Black. What do you think would happen? (I don't know.) > But give the white side to a player who's 400 points stronger than > black, and it'll be black who's struggling for the draw. > > This is the folly of studying openings. Imagine you're black here. > You're up against a strong player and he plays into a prepared trap. > You feel great! But despite black "winning" the opening he's a long > way from winning the game - and, in fact, black can easily lose from > the resulting position. > > Or something simpler: > > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.d3 > > Nobody in his right mind would call that a good move. I concur with Ron's general point that Ray Gordon places far too much importance on the opening in chess. But I have to say that Ron has chosen a far from convincing example to support his general point. "Nobody in his right mind would call that (5 d3) a good move." --Ron 5 d3 does not appear to be the most ambitious move, but, according to ChessBase, it has been played by Topalov (2804 FIDE), Ponoiov (2738 FIDE), Morozevich (2730 FIDE), Adams (2720 FIDE), Grischuk (2719 FIDE), Akopian (2706 FIDE), etc. > There are now so many plausible choices for each side that > memorization is almost absurd. Black may no longer be worse, > but white's got plenty of room to outplay him the rest of the way. I met an average club player who said that he was spending much time attempting to memorize the 'hottest' GM opening theory. I told him that he could use his study time more productively, and he disagreed. Then we played a game. I decided to make a point by playing 1 a3 (which is not what I consider to be the objectively strongest move), which provoked my opponent's laughter. Then I outplayed him for the rest of the game and won. --Nick     Date: 19 May 2006 18:03:57 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? >> There are now so many plausible choices for each side that >> memorization is almost absurd. Black may no longer be worse, >> but white's got plenty of room to outplay him the rest of the way. > > I met an average club player who said that he was spending much > time attempting to memorize the 'hottest' GM opening theory. > I told him that he could use his study time more productively, > and he disagreed. Then we played a game. I decided to > make a point by playing 1 a3 (which is not what I consider > to be the objectively strongest move), which provoked my > opponent's laughter. Then I outplayed him for the rest > of the game and won. So if you win a tennis point with a 25 mph serve, have you proven that tennis players shouldn't perfect their serve first? Wouldn't you get better practice if your serve was perfect? It's not easy to plot a tennis point if the serve sucks, but you could almost choreograph one if it's 140 mph, and even win many aces. The opening in chess is the most important part of the game for the same reason that serve is the most important part of tennis, or the center snap and lineup formation are the most important parts of football. Ever hear the phrase FIRST THINGS FIRST? I view the middlegame as a tiebreaker for an even opening, and the ending as a tiebreaker for an even middlegame, or the rough equivalent of double overtime in the NFL or NBA. The main advantage of endgame strength is that if your opponent is weaker in that phase, and you get there, he's fucked, whereas one can recover from a bad opening, but the laws of nature and the rating system are such that opening study will always produce a higher rating. I definitely want to know how a GM can play 17 perfect moves instantly before I move onto anything else in chess, and I want to know what those 17 moves are, and what separates them from the detours along the way. Check out Botvinnik-Fischer from 1963 I think it was. Fischer played 19...Nc6, which had been ignored by "theory," but the move destroyed Botvinnik in one fell swoop. The comment in the book I had said "As it says in the beginner's books, DEVELOP YOUR PIECES." I thought it was the quintessential Fischer move: one that expanded, or corrected, existing theory, and which flowed naturally from his superior opening preparation. He was still in book when Botvinnik was not, and as a result, no endgame was necessary. Computers actually do the same thing, though not intentionally, when they find solid moves that aren't in the opening manuals. Maybe I'll get better than Anand and Leko, and maybe I won't, but at least I'm trying with an actual plan for getting there. I can't say the same of the people who preach avoidance in the opening. Another thing that people are overlooking here is that a GM generally won't play his A repertoire unless he has to, because he wants to save those moves for when he truly needs them. If I can beat you with 1. b3, you're never going to see what I can do with other lines unless I think I have something to learn from you by playing them. -- "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern District of PA Judge From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918     Date: 11 May 2006 23:12:19 From: Antonio Torrecillas Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? En/na Nick ha escrit: > I concur with Ron's general point that Ray Gordon places > far too much importance on the opening in chess. The problem is that Ray gives very few importance to other factors and offer a nonsense way to study openings. ----------------- Nick, do you think any people is able to memorize 20x20x20 ... (10 times mean only 5 moves) = 10,240,000,000,000 opening lines? Using 10 complete years 24 hours each day to memorize all that, gives Ray the need to memorize 32,470 lines each second. Maybe a too hard for an human!! And it seems there is not much benefit obtaining the best possible position after 5 moves, is not it? Antonio       Date: 19 May 2006 18:08:07 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? >> I concur with Ron's general point that Ray Gordon places >> far too much importance on the opening in chess. > > The problem is that Ray gives very few importance to other factors and > offer a nonsense way to study openings. And which method is it that I recommend? I say players should make themselves invincible in the opening. It can be done. Hell, if you can "survive" against 2400 players, why wouldn't someone else be able to "survive" against the 2800s? It's the same principle at work, just more study required to execute it. > Nick, do you think any people is able to memorize 20x20x20 ... (10 times > mean only 5 moves) = 10,240,000,000,000 opening lines? My repertoire is not based on "lines" but on FORMATIONS. The purpose of an opening "line" is to achieve a superior FORMATION. Once a player understands FORMATIONS, the "lines" become very easy to memorize and can be reduced to a series of tactical and positional themes that reveal the ideal move order (such as "don't allow ...c5" or "meet Na3 with Kf5, winning"). Endgame wizards don't memorize tablebases; why should an opening wizard have to memorize ECO? > Using 10 complete years 24 hours each day to memorize all that, gives Ray > the need to memorize 32,470 lines each second. Maybe a too hard for an > human!! > > And it seems there is not much benefit obtaining the best possible > position after 5 moves, is not it? It's five moves more than a beginner can do, and on the way to 10, 20, 25, 30, 35, etc. One need not outrun the bear; only the guy next to him who is also trying to outrun the bear. I wouldn't score the high number of miniatures that I do if I did not know how to play the opening. I want the game OVER by move 25. Even if I win, if I fail to do it in a miniature, I consider the game a failure and look to improve on the opening play. -- "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern District of PA Judge From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918   Date: 11 May 2006 11:17:08 From: Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? Ray Gordon wrote: > You'd have to play better openings to know for sure, but an early > improvement leads to a better ending. Hey, Ray, you've made a lot of general statements - how about a concrete example? In your vast collection of one-minute games, there must be some real pearls. Show us, man! That will silence the skeptics. - IP     Date: 11 May 2006 14:47:12 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? >> You'd have to play better openings to know for sure, but an early >> improvement leads to a better ending. > > Hey, Ray, you've made a lot of general statements - how about a > concrete > example? In your vast collection of one-minute games, there must be > some > real pearls. Show us, man! That will silence the skeptics. I have a HUGE book coming out that will have a lot more than one example. I've posted a few here and there but I want to delay the release of all this theory until I'm properly positioned to profit from it. Sadly, I will need to do this in order to pay my training expenses, which means my opponents will have access to my entire opening repertoire up to whatever date I include in my latest release. I would much rather have been able to get to GM strength without anyone being the wiser, but I've already seen some of my lines spread just through online practice (or in one case, a line that I never see now but which used to see two years ago before I refuted it OTB). The book will provide an entire repertoire to the player, but not in the way those "complete repertoire" books usually do. Some of the chapters will be as in-depth as an ECO, while others will be based on lines I developed myself, where the known theory is far less (obviously). -- "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern District of PA Judge From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918       Date: 11 May 2006 19:17:46 From: John J. Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? I can see it now..hoards of IM's and GM's rushing to the bookstore to get their copy of Gordo's chess secrets. Make sure you notify Borders and Barnes and Noble of the impending deluge of customers. "Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... >>> You'd have to play better openings to know for sure, but an early >>> improvement leads to a better ending. >> >> Hey, Ray, you've made a lot of general statements - how about a >> concrete >> example? In your vast collection of one-minute games, there must be >> some >> real pearls. Show us, man! That will silence the skeptics. > > I have a HUGE book coming out that will have a lot more than one example. > I've posted a few here and there but I want to delay the release of all > this theory until I'm properly positioned to profit from it. > > Sadly, I will need to do this in order to pay my training expenses, which > means my opponents will have access to my entire opening repertoire up to > whatever date I include in my latest release. I would much rather have > been able to get to GM strength without anyone being the wiser, but I've > already seen some of my lines spread just through online practice (or in > one case, a line that I never see now but which used to see two years ago > before I refuted it OTB). > > The book will provide an entire repertoire to the player, but not in the > way those "complete repertoire" books usually do. Some of the chapters > will be as in-depth as an ECO, while others will be based on lines I > developed myself, where the known theory is far less (obviously). > > > -- > "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, > Eastern District of PA Judge > From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918 >         Date: 19 May 2006 07:59:01 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? >I can see it now..hoards of IM's and GM's rushing to the bookstore to get >their copy of Gordo's chess secrets. Wow, someone's jealous! Maybe he can write his own book someday. For the record, my book will be for players of any level, though lower-rated players obviously have the most to gain from that or just about any book since they have the most room for improvement. -- "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern District of PA Judge From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918           Date: 19 May 2006 16:04:22 From: Antonio Torrecillas Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit: >>I can see it now..hoards of IM's and GM's rushing to the bookstore to get >>their copy of Gordo's chess secrets. > > Wow, someone's jealous! Maybe he can write his own book someday. > > For the record, my book will be for players of any level, though lower-rated > players obviously have the most to gain from that or just about any book > since they have the most room for improvement. For the record: Ray book is a completely waste of time for any strong player but it is an innocuous book (sure they do not read more than 1 page), but for lower rated players it is very dangereous because they can follow any negative suggestion made in it. Antonio For laugh: Ray comparison with serve in tenis is tiring me: maybe Ray devote each day 1 hour to practice with his first move. I can imagine him playing 1.e4 again and again until He perfectione his first move! lol :-)             Date: 19 May 2006 10:11:33 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? >> Wow, someone's jealous! Maybe he can write his own book someday. >> >> For the record, my book will be for players of any level, though >> lower-rated players obviously have the most to gain from that or just >> about any book since they have the most room for improvement. > > For the record: Ray book is a completely waste of time for any strong > player but it is an innocuous book (sure they do not read more than 1 > page), but for lower rated players it is very dangereous because they can > follow any negative suggestion made in it. This is what we call "commercial disparagement," from the same person who could only call me a liar when I said I coached a group of high-school beginners. People get sued for shit like this all the time, because it's a clearly malicious attempt to hurt my sales rather than to make any kind of objective analysis of the product. I assume this man won't be playing in any American tournaments, because he'd be a sitting duck for a process server if he did. > For laugh: Ray comparison with serve in tenis is tiring me: maybe Ray > devote each day 1 hour to practice with his first move. I can imagine him > playing 1.e4 again and again until He perfectione his first move! > > lol :-) Easy to LOL when one can hide halfway around the world from a lawsuit. -- "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern District of PA Judge From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918               Date: 19 May 2006 16:22:51 From: Antonio Torrecillas Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit: >>For the record: Ray book is a completely waste of time for any strong >>player but it is an innocuous book (sure they do not read more than 1 >>page), but for lower rated players it is very dangereous because they can >>follow any negative suggestion made in it. > > This is what we call "commercial disparagement," from the same person who > could only call me a liar when I said I coached a group of high-school > beginners. People get sued for shit like this all the time, because it's a > clearly malicious attempt to hurt my sales rather than to make any kind of > objective analysis of the product. > > I assume this man won't be playing in any American tournaments, because he'd > be a sitting duck for a process server if he did. The only commercial dispargement is the own "book" and your wrong ideas about chess. AT                 Date: 19 May 2006 14:33:08 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? >> I assume this man won't be playing in any American tournaments, because >> he'd be a sitting duck for a process server if he did. > > The only commercial dispargement is the own "book" and your wrong ideas > about chess. Note that his statement presumes that his ideas are the "right" ones, even if he is no closer to perfect chess than most humans. He still never explained why he thought it was okay to call me a liar regarding the high school team I coached in 1989 even when I quoted the name of someone rather unimpeachable (Steve Schutt), who coached a school (Masterman) that actually played against the one I coached. The Washington team my kids beat 9-1 could also confirm it, I suppose, and if anyone has an old copy of the Pennswoodpusher around, I believe my 23-move win as black over Elvin Wilson was published in that. -- "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern District of PA Judge From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918   Date: 10 May 2006 21:08:48 From: Ange1o DePa1ma Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? The idea that one should "only" study endings is a carry over from Bobby Fischer, who said as much. I believe Capablanca was the first great player to emphasize endings over openings. Another notable was Reshevsky. I've played about 400 rated games. I estimate that I've won maybe 15 games directly because of my endgame knowledge. I don't count "indirect" or very basic knowledge of endings because everybody above 1500 knows that doubled pawns suck, backward pawns are liabilities, and that if you grab the opposition you can often win. Of course there are other games where such deep concepts as "put a rook on the 7th" led to endgame advantages, but all that knowledge can probably be distilled into about 20 bullet points. The vast majority of games played at my level (1600-2100) are decided in the opening and middle game, or by outright blunders. It's easy to say, "study the endings" because knowledge sufficient to win 95% of all endings can be learned by no more than 30-40 examples. It's a pain to lose or draw when elementary endgame technique would have brought in a full point, but as I said those situations are rare. The advice to study endings is usually given by players who are already quite strong. It's like the advice to "follow your heart" in choice of careers. That's easy advice to give when you've devoted your life to bottle cap collecting and due to a stroke of luck have been successful. "Zero" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... >I was beaten by a master this weekend. He told that in order to > improve chess players should study endgames. > > I don't understand why I should study endgames. If I can't get through > the middlegame or the opening or am I supposed to get to a endgame? > Also I bought a endgame studies book and I don't see the point in going > over these studies. None of these positions are ever going to happen > in any of my real games. >     Date: 18 May 2006 11:19:16 From: Kenneth Sloan Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? Ron <[email protected] > writes: > ... > I have Harding's 1996 book, "Evans Gambit and a System Against the Two > Knights Defense. It has something like 135 pages on the Evans. But it's > not particularly dense going - it's all in the annotated-games format, > and it's only something like 14 complete games. > > There may well be more to know, but I think most players would be pretty > confident with it after going through those games. Indeed. In a past life, the juniors I coached were pointed at this book as the *only* opening book they needed. One helplful hint: you can read this book, and others like it, at several different levels. At the first level, just play through the games. At the next level, play through the games and read the notes (but don't *study* them). Finally, go through all the games again with a fine toothed comb - examining all the sidelines in detail. It helps if you can manage to play a few serious games in between levels. but...the point was...the Evans Gambit is a fine choice of opening for a "developing player". It's possible to be ready to play (low-level) tournament games after a minimal amount of preparation, it leads to positions that stimulate development of your entire game, and....even World Champion level players can find something new an interesting. What more can you ask for? -- Kenneth Sloan [email protected] Computer and Information Sciences (205) 934-2213 University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX (205) 934-5473 Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/       Date: 19 May 2006 07:07:52 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? >> I have Harding's 1996 book, "Evans Gambit and a System Against the Two >> Knights Defense. It has something like 135 pages on the Evans. But it's >> not particularly dense going - it's all in the annotated-games format, >> and it's only something like 14 complete games. >> >> There may well be more to know, but I think most players would be pretty >> confident with it after going through those games. > > Indeed. In a past life, the juniors I coached were pointed at this book > as the *only* opening book they needed. > > One helplful hint: you can read this book, and others like it, at > several different levels. At the first level, just play through the > games. At the next level, play through the games and read the notes > (but don't *study* them). Finally, go through all the games again with > a fine toothed comb - examining all the sidelines in detail. > > It helps if you can manage to play a few serious games in between > levels. > > but...the point was...the Evans Gambit is a fine choice of opening for a > "developing player". It's possible to be ready to play (low-level) > tournament games after a minimal amount of preparation, it leads to > positions that stimulate development of your entire game, and....even > World Champion level players can find something new an interesting. > What more can you ask for? I am convinced that the Ruy Lopez offers White no better chance at a better position than almost any other double king pawn game, which would make openings like the Evans Gambit ripe for modern improvements. I see Black equalizing too easily and too often in the Ruy, and not doing so as easily or often as people seem to think should happen if White doesn't play 3. Bb5 or 2. Nf3. -- "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern District of PA Judge From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918     Date: 14 May 2006 20:03:02 From: Ange1o DePa1ma Subject: Flip side The flip side of this discussion is represented by the zillions of chess teachers who instruct their pupils to play formula openings (Colle, KIA, Pirc, etc.). Why do you think that is? Because when you stink at chess, as most of us do, it's very easy to lose a game by move 10. I do it all the time. However, personally, I would never trade the fun of playing a "Kasparov" opening for the relative safety of a sterile Colle or King's Indian Attack.       Date: 19 May 2006 16:45:45 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Flip side > The flip side of this discussion is represented by the zillions of chess > teachers who instruct their pupils to play formula openings (Colle, KIA, > Pirc, etc.). Why do you think that is? Because when you stink at chess, as > most of us do, it's very easy to lose a game by move 10. I do it all the > time. However, personally, I would never trade the fun of playing a > "Kasparov" opening for the relative safety of a sterile Colle or King's > Indian Attack. If you think the Colle or the KIA are "safe" against a truly strong opening player, you're wrong. You also speak of winning or losing games NOW rather than focusing on long-term development. Most chess coaches can't play the opening for shit, don't keep up with the new theory, and don't even train, so it's much easier to recommend a brain-dead opening system that will yield "playable" positions instead of knowing how to teach a student to sharpen his teeth. I built the third-strongest school program in my city (the public league anyway), from scratch, and I didn't get them until they had already started the season 0-3. Four beginners and a 1400-rated player, drilled three hours a day for two straight months, and winning their last match by a 9-1 score in an average of a little more than 20 moves a game, with the players on the other side getting up from the board and repeatedly asking their coach "can we resign now?" My kids were playing kids who were more experienced and who had been schooled your way, and dusted them before they ever even got to an endgame, and barely into a middlegame, 18 months after I dusted their 2200-rated prized pupil in the PA state championship with black in 23 moves, after which his coach said basically the same thing you guys say, which is that openings do not matter. Beating that coach in a match with an "inferior" group of kids trained to play far superior opening moves (not just by memory, but also by general principle) was my second favorite chess achievement. Getting a draw against Asa Hoffman in a Manhattan Chess Club quad, that tied him for first and took $12.50 out of his pocket where I had slept two hours and taken a 100-mile train ride to NYC, was the first. Have you ever seen Asa Hoffman after someone beat him out of $12.50? -- "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern District of PA Judge From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918 -- "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern District of PA Judge From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918       Date: 15 May 2006 13:32:12 From: David Richerby Subject: Re: Flip side Ange1o DePa1ma <[email protected] > wrote: > The flip side of this discussion is represented by the zillions of > chess teachers who instruct their pupils to play formula openings > (Colle, KIA, Pirc, etc.). Why do you think that is? Because when you > stink at chess, as most of us do, it's very easy to lose a game by > move 10. The double flip-side is that if you're losing by move ten, you're losing because your tactics are lousy. Also, if you're losing by move ten, you're losing once you've got, say, seven moves out of book. Booking up to move ten just means that you'll lose on move seventeen instead of move ten. Whoop. Dave. -- David Richerby Broken Sadistic Tool (TM): it's like www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a screwdriver but it wants to hurt you and it doesn't work!         Date: 19 May 2006 16:46:42 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Flip side >> The flip side of this discussion is represented by the zillions of >> chess teachers who instruct their pupils to play formula openings >> (Colle, KIA, Pirc, etc.). Why do you think that is? Because when you >> stink at chess, as most of us do, it's very easy to lose a game by >> move 10. > > The double flip-side is that if you're losing by move ten, you're > losing because your tactics are lousy. Also, if you're losing by move > ten, you're losing once you've got, say, seven moves out of book. > Booking up to move ten just means that you'll lose on move seventeen > instead of move ten. At first. Then move 17 becomes move 24, move 31, etc. If you are rated 1600 booked up to move 10, it's not like you'll drop to 1400 by booking up another seven moves. -- "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern District of PA Judge From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918           Date: 29 May 2006 17:21:49 From: David Richerby Subject: Re: Flip side Ray Gordon <[email protected] > wrote: > David Richerby wrote: >> The double flip-side is that if you're losing by move ten, you're >> losing because your tactics are lousy. Also, if you're losing by move >> ten, you're losing once you've got, say, seven moves out of book. >> Booking up to move ten just means that you'll lose on move seventeen >> instead of move ten. > > At first. Then move 17 becomes move 24, move 31, etc. If you're losing seven moves after you come out of book, it doesn't matter if you're booked out to move fifty. You're still going to lose by move fifty-seven if your opponent plays reasonably well. Dave. -- David Richerby Psychotic Cheese Goldfish (TM): it's www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a fish that's made of cheese but it wants to kill you!             Date: 06 Jun 2006 16:27:29 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Flip side >>> The double flip-side is that if you're losing by move ten, you're >>> losing because your tactics are lousy. Also, if you're losing by move >>> ten, you're losing once you've got, say, seven moves out of book. >>> Booking up to move ten just means that you'll lose on move seventeen >>> instead of move ten. >> >> At first. Then move 17 becomes move 24, move 31, etc. > > If you're losing seven moves after you come out of book, it doesn't > matter if you're booked out to move fifty. Doesn't work that way. Every ONE move you book out makes the rest of the game easier. The tipping point is reached when one outbooks everyone else, as Fischer had done. >You're still going to lose > by move fifty-seven if your opponent plays reasonably well. Every extra move one books up will increase their rating, since they achieved the rating without the extra move, and will score more points now that they play the better move. -- "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern District of PA Judge From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918         Date: 15 May 2006 11:52:48 From: Ange1o DePa1ma Subject: Re: Flip side Tactically I'm very strong, much stronger than my rating. I went 2-2 last night against a USCF 2300 on ICC at G/3 (games supplied on request). Ok, maybe he'd been drinking. I don't consider my opening deficiencies to be due to lack of tactical vision. It's very easy, if you don't have confidence, to drift into a horrible position out of the opening, or simply to drop material. At least for me it is. All of a sudden, kerplonk. "David Richerby" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:WUr*[email protected]... > Ange1o DePa1ma <[email protected]> wrote: >> The flip side of this discussion is represented by the zillions of >> chess teachers who instruct their pupils to play formula openings >> (Colle, KIA, Pirc, etc.). Why do you think that is? Because when you >> stink at chess, as most of us do, it's very easy to lose a game by >> move 10. > > The double flip-side is that if you're losing by move ten, you're > losing because your tactics are lousy. Also, if you're losing by move > ten, you're losing once you've got, say, seven moves out of book. > Booking up to move ten just means that you'll lose on move seventeen > instead of move ten. Whoop. > > > Dave. > > -- > David Richerby Broken Sadistic Tool (TM): it's > like > www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a screwdriver but it wants to > hurt > you and it doesn't work!           Date: 19 May 2006 16:47:32 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Flip side > Tactically I'm very strong, much stronger than my rating. I went 2-2 last > night against a USCF 2300 on ICC at G/3 (games supplied on request). Ok, > maybe he'd been drinking. I don't consider my opening deficiencies to be > due to lack of tactical vision. It's very easy, if you don't have > confidence, to drift into a horrible position out of the opening, or > simply to drop material. At least for me it is. All of a sudden, kerplonk. Usually people who blunder in the opening do so only after they've been led into unfamiliar territory that is also familiar to the opponent. -- "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern District of PA Judge From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918           Date: 16 May 2006 09:30:11 From: David Richerby Subject: Re: Flip side Ange1o DePa1ma <[email protected] > wrote: > Tactically I'm very strong, much stronger than my rating. I went 2-2 > last night against a USCF 2300 on ICC at G/3 (games supplied on > request). Ok, maybe he'd been drinking. I don't consider my opening > deficiencies to be due to lack of tactical vision. It's very easy, > if you don't have confidence, to drift into a horrible position out > of the opening, or simply to drop material. At least for me it > is. All of a sudden, kerplonk. I don't understand. How you can drop material except by tactics? Or do you mean that, in the opening, you often play routine developing moves, not expecting that there'll be any tactics so early in the game? As Terry (IIRC) suggested, wouldn't it be better to play less sharp openings if you feel you don't play the opening well? Dave. -- David Richerby Lead Flower (TM): it's like a flower www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ that weighs a ton!             Date: 16 May 2006 13:50:52 From: Ange1o DePa1ma Subject: Re: Flip side "David Richerby" <[email protected] > wrote > I don't understand. How you can drop material except by tactics? Or > do you mean that, in the opening, you often play routine developing > moves, not expecting that there'll be any tactics so early in the > game? > > As Terry (IIRC) suggested, wouldn't it be better to play less sharp > openings if you feel you don't play the opening well? Thanks for the advice. Actually on a good day I play the openings at about my rating (1900). But yes, sometimes I play ordinary developing moves that turn out bad. I guess that's tactics. Hey guys, I don't want you to think I am constantly losing games in the opening. I've only lost 4 games out of about 35 since last September.     Date: 11 May 2006 18:50:52 From: Martin S Subject: Re: Need tactical example Thanks both, I'll have a look. tin S -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service ------- >>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access       Date: 11 May 2006 14:43:30 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? >>>> Games which would never have reached the ending (in that state) if you >>>> had >>>> studied more openings. >>> >>> This is simply not true. >> >> You'd have to play better openings to know for sure, but an early >> improvement leads to a better ending. > > If you haven't studied endings, how would you know this? Well I've studied the endgames, but if you're referring to someone who hasn't, the endgame positions will still be better whether or not they have studied it. -- "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern District of PA Judge From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918     Date: From: Subject:     Date: 10 May 2006 22:57:44 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? > The vast majority of games played at my level (1600-2100) are decided in > the opening and middle game, or by outright blunders. > > It's easy to say, "study the endings" because knowledge sufficient to win > 95% of all endings can be learned by no more than 30-40 examples. It's a > pain to lose or draw when elementary endgame technique would have brought > in a full point, but as I said those situations are rare. This is true. In fact, I did have one very good test of my "1/x rule" when I coached a high-school team of a 1400-rated player and four beginners, two of whom barely knew the rules, three hours a day, five days a week, on nothing but openings and opening principles. I did this priily because I didn't feel there was time to make them competitive any other way. This school, which had an 0-3 record when I got there, finished the season 5-2, winning its last two matches against the same school by a 9-1 score, and the wins were all miniatures. Eighteen months prior to this, I had defeated the same coach's "prized pupil" in twenty-three moves with Black, and got to hear the same "study endgames, not openings" lecture from the coach several times. It was bad enough I'd beaten his prodigy, but when the kids I was coaching did it to his kids five times over, it showed why: we threw punches from move one, playing to win early, while they played merely to "survive," and didn't. Endgames are definitely necessary to study, but they are not the holy grail of chess, since only a fraction of chessgames even make it that far. Triple overtime is not the main focus of basketball, and you don't see coaches saving players for OT in regulation, do you? Of course not: they go all-out for the win in regulation then do the best they can in OT if they are still tied. Back in the 1980s, when computer tools weren't around, one had to buy about a dozen endgame books at a cost of about $300 or so to cover just about everything he'd need to know, and to have a reference for those times when he wound up in a confusing endgame situation. -- "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern District of PA Judge From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918 -- "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern District of PA Judge From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918       Date: 25 May 2006 14:47:07 From: Skeptic Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? >>>My computer also "think" 13.Ne5 to be a mistake but if you allow it more time you will discover that that move also wins. I agree; I quite like white's play in that game--ignoring material, he went for an attack on the black king that combined three pieces apart from the queen. No matter what Fritz says, such an attack in such a position was bound to succeed. That, however, is not the main point I was making--my point was not that the tactics that Fritz found in a quick check are necessarily totally correct. The point is that the losing move, 10. ... exd4 (allowing 11. Nd6+) is simply a tactical blunder which has nothing to do with the opening, which is the case with the decisive mistakes in 95%+ of amateur games.         Date: 06 Jun 2006 16:25:50 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? > That, however, is not the main point I was making--my point was not > that the tactics that Fritz found in a quick check are necessarily > totally correct. The point is that the losing move, 10. ... exd4 > (allowing 11. Nd6+) is simply a tactical blunder which has nothing to > do with the opening, which is the case with the decisive mistakes in > 95%+ of amateur games. Tactical blunders that early in the gamie are a natural byproduct of not being properly booked up. -- "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern District of PA Judge From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918       Date: 11 May 2006 12:21:28 From: Antonio Torrecillas Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit: > In fact, I did have one very good test of my "1/x rule" when I coached a > high-school team of a 1400-rated player and four beginners, two of whom > barely knew the rules, three hours a day, five days a week, on nothing but > openings and opening principles. I did this priily because I didn't feel > there was time to make them competitive any other way. > > This school, which had an 0-3 record when I got there, finished the season > 5-2, winning its last two matches against the same school by a 9-1 score, > and the wins were all miniatures. I claim Ray lies lies and lies, please, post here the games of the pupils before your coaching and the games after it and post the concrete data of those school to prove that. I think you are lying!! ... and if really you are coaching that high School, I think, as a educator, I must notify them you are doing a very bad coaching! AT         Date: 11 May 2006 11:29:43 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? >> In fact, I did have one very good test of my "1/x rule" when I coached a >> high-school team of a 1400-rated player and four beginners, two of whom >> barely knew the rules, three hours a day, five days a week, on nothing >> but openings and opening principles. I did this priily because I >> didn't feel there was time to make them competitive any other way. >> >> This school, which had an 0-3 record when I got there, finished the >> season 5-2, winning its last two matches against the same school by a 9-1 >> score, and the wins were all miniatures. > > I claim Ray lies lies and lies, Wow, libel! > please, post here the games of the pupils before your coaching and the > games after it and post the concrete data of those school to prove that. Steve Schutt, a USCF something or other, coached one of the only two schools to defeat that team of mine (Masterman crushed them 5-0, since they were trained to survive the opening onslaught). I coached that school as part of my overall training and because a chess friend of mine was their top board. The school was four blocks from my home. -- "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern District of PA Judge From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918       Date: 11 May 2006 08:14:15 From: Neil Coward Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? Your basketball analogy doesn't work. Chess changes from opening to middlegame to endgame. The endgame is a simpler affair in some ways with only a few pieces left on the board. Overtime in basketball is just a continuation of the game and is identical to any other period of the game. "Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... >> The vast majority of games played at my level (1600-2100) are decided in >> the opening and middle game, or by outright blunders. >> >> It's easy to say, "study the endings" because knowledge sufficient to win >> 95% of all endings can be learned by no more than 30-40 examples. It's a >> pain to lose or draw when elementary endgame technique would have brought >> in a full point, but as I said those situations are rare. > > This is true. > > In fact, I did have one very good test of my "1/x rule" when I coached a > high-school team of a 1400-rated player and four beginners, two of whom > barely knew the rules, three hours a day, five days a week, on nothing but > openings and opening principles. I did this priily because I didn't > feel there was time to make them competitive any other way. > > This school, which had an 0-3 record when I got there, finished the season > 5-2, winning its last two matches against the same school by a 9-1 score, > and the wins were all miniatures. > > Eighteen months prior to this, I had defeated the same coach's "prized > pupil" in twenty-three moves with Black, and got to hear the same "study > endgames, not openings" lecture from the coach several times. It was bad > enough I'd beaten his prodigy, but when the kids I was coaching did it to > his kids five times over, it showed why: we threw punches from move one, > playing to win early, while they played merely to "survive," and didn't. > > Endgames are definitely necessary to study, but they are not the holy > grail of chess, since only a fraction of chessgames even make it that far. > Triple overtime is not the main focus of basketball, and you don't see > coaches saving players for OT in regulation, do you? Of course not: they > go all-out for the win in regulation then do the best they can in OT if > they are still tied. > > Back in the 1980s, when computer tools weren't around, one had to buy > about a dozen endgame books at a cost of about $300 or so to cover just > about everything he'd need to know, and to have a reference for those > times when he wound up in a confusing endgame situation. > > > -- > "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, > Eastern District of PA Judge > From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918 > > > -- > "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, > Eastern District of PA Judge > From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918 >         Date: 11 May 2006 05:02:38 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? > Your basketball analogy doesn't work. > Chess changes from opening to middlegame to endgame. If you survive the opening. >The endgame is a simpler affair in some ways with only a few pieces left on >the board. If you get there. > > Overtime in basketball is just a continuation of the game and is identical > to any other period of the game. If the players get there, and no, it's not "just a continuation of the game," but a five-minute sudden death period where foul trouble continues. Here's an example: there is three minutes left in a basketball game, you're tied, and your star player has five fouls. Do you bench him to save him for overtime or put him in to finish the game? -- "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern District of PA Judge From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918           Date: 11 May 2006 21:53:33 From: Neil Coward Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? I dunno the answer to your basketball question, I'm English. We don't have basketball here, well we do but its called netball and played by schoolgirls. But to get back to the original point about chess, its funny how Capablanca and Short both say the same thing. I think i will stick with their advice thank you. "Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... >> Your basketball analogy doesn't work. >> Chess changes from opening to middlegame to endgame. > > If you survive the opening. > >>The endgame is a simpler affair in some ways with only a few pieces left >>on the board. > > If you get there. > >> >> Overtime in basketball is just a continuation of the game and is >> identical to any other period of the game. > > If the players get there, and no, it's not "just a continuation of the > game," but a five-minute sudden death period where foul trouble continues. > > Here's an example: there is three minutes left in a basketball game, > you're tied, and your star player has five fouls. Do you bench him to > save him for overtime or put him in to finish the game? > > > -- > "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, > Eastern District of PA Judge > From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918 >   Date: 10 May 2006 08:21:50 From: Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? Ray Gordon schrieb: > If "off the book" moves are "logical" they become "book" moves by > definition, so what you're talking about, when applicable, is a solid > novelty, and a very wise strategy. Ahem, if this is found over the board at this very moment it is played, it is not in the books. > The question is, can a 1700 player really rewrite theory at move five? No. And it is not necessary. If he deviates from theory a GM might be able to refute this move, but not necessarly another 1700 player. And if his move was not in the books the other player is now on his own to find the right answer. So, let's say, there is somebody with otherwise the stength of 2000 but with the opening knowledge of a GM. Now his opponent, let's say a 2200 player comes up with an idea which simply is not in the books, not as main nor as side line. If the 2200 player was on the hight of his playing the 2000 player now is on his own. Even if the move resulted in a slight objective disadvantage for the 2200 player, all the knowledge is not so important any more and with each move its importance fades away. > >> whereas some players book up to the point where they reach a clear-cut > >> endgame while still in book. > > > > In practical games this is a neglectible case. > > For someone who isn't booked up to move 30, it would be. This would mean that both sides play to the book until move 30. That the one who is not in the book will follow so long is extremely unlikely. Und if both are in the books, the one getting a lost endgame would be stupid to follow such a variation. So again: it's not relevant for practical games. > I have several openings that I've worked out to forced draws or even forced > wins for one side, and where avoiding them causes the other side to lose. Which means the other side has to enter this opening variation the first place. > > No, you are simply more flexible. If you know a lot about middlegame and > > endgame knowgledge, you are not so confined to the books as somebody who > > has to rely on preparations. > > If you don't know the book moves you won't make it to the middlegame in very > good shape, if you are playing someone who is truly GM strength in the > opening. Not necessarly. Not every deviation from the theory leads automatically to a bad position - at least not one easily exploitable by a non GM. > I get many wins, even against strong players, that are straight out of my > book, just as I'm sure you get many wins against strong players with your > style of play. How many players beyond 2100 did you beat the last 5 years if we keep bullet and blitz out of the counting? And a not so unimportant point might be the rek, that I didn't have to spend 60 hours a week to go where I am now. > Our ratings are within a few hundred points of each other for now, and would > probably be even closer if I chose to spend the time competing. That you can reach my rating I do not doubt, even that you could go beyond. But I don't think much beyond. Somewhere around 2200, 2300 should be the end. Your misconcept is, that mainly the difference between a GM or very strong players in general and an amateur is the opening. Greetings, Ralf     Date: 10 May 2006 18:50:23 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? I should add that I have in fact studied a great deal of endings by most people's standards, as "Basic Chess Endings" was one of the first three chess books I ever bought (the other two were MCO and "500 Master Games Of Chess" to cover the opening and middlegame). I've studied books on endgame theory, even specialized ones like "Queen and Pawn endings" (very important as many pawn endings turn into Queen and pawn endings) or "Rook Endings" or "Bishop v. Minor Piece Endings," etc, as well as 'Tactical Chess Endings" by Nunn, "Encyclopedia of Chess Endings" "1234 Modern Endgame studies," and my all-time favorite: "Domination is 2,545 Endgame Studies." (that books is great for learning how to trap pieces). Despite having studied ALL of the above books, and having a good working knowledge of endgame theory, I still find it to be rather useless in terms of rating improvement. I do not ignore the endgame, and loaded up on all those specialty books so I would have a reference library for any position I got over the board (back in the pre-computer era). -- "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern District of PA Judge From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918     Date: 10 May 2006 18:45:00 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? >> If "off the book" moves are "logical" they become "book" moves by >> definition, so what you're talking about, when applicable, is a solid >> novelty, and a very wise strategy. > > Ahem, if this is found over the board at this very moment it is played, > it is not in the books. And if a tree falls in a forest with no one there to hear it, it does not make a noise. >> The question is, can a 1700 player really rewrite theory at move five? > > No. And it is not necessary. If he deviates from theory a GM might be > able to refute this move, but not necessarly another 1700 player. And > if his move was not in the books the other player is now on his own to > find the right answer. Aided by whatever positional factors caused the move not to be in the books. > So, let's say, there is somebody with otherwise > the stength of 2000 but with the opening knowledge of a GM. Now his > opponent, let's say a 2200 player comes up with an idea which simply is > not in the books, not as main nor as side line. If the 2200 player was > on the hight of his playing the 2000 player now is on his own. Even if > the move resulted in a slight objective disadvantage for the 2200 > player, all the knowledge is not so important any more and with each > move its importance fades away. You're talking about taking a weak player out of book with an inferior line in order to take him out of his strength. If the weak player is really booked up, however, even your "novelties" will still be in his book. Of course, he won't be 2000 for very long, as his rating is just a pit stop on the way to 2600, since his opening repertoire won't restrict his rating advancement. -- "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern District of PA Judge From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918       Date: 06 Jun 2006 17:16:48 From: Kenneth Sloan Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? "Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > writes: > ... > This is why a sub-2100 player could win the world open one year. > How many World Opens have been held? How many have been won by sub-2100 players? Approximately what bound does this establish on the probability that a sub-2100 player will win this year? -- Kenneth Sloan [email protected] Computer and Information Sciences (205) 934-2213 University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX (205) 934-5473 Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/         Date: 06 Jun 2006 22:21:31 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? >> This is why a sub-2100 player could win the world open one year. >> > > How many World Opens have been held? About 30-35 I think. > How many have been won by sub-2100 players? One. Alan Trefler. He is now a CEO. > Approximately what bound does this establish on the probability that a > sub-2100 player will win this year? Depends on whether or not I enter. -- "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern District of PA Judge From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918       Date: 06 Jun 2006 17:15:05 From: Kenneth Sloan Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? "Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > writes: > ... > Players who don't push their limits will tend to have higher ratings > relative to their current ability than those who do and focus on long-term > improvement. > Why do you believe this? Do you have any mathematics to support this claim? -- Kenneth Sloan [email protected] Computer and Information Sciences (205) 934-2213 University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX (205) 934-5473 Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/         Date: 06 Jun 2006 22:23:02 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? >> Players who don't push their limits will tend to have higher ratings >> relative to their current ability than those who do and focus on >> long-term >> improvement. >> > > Why do you believe this? > > Do you have any mathematics to support this claim? Jeremy Silman wrote about "perfecting your mediocrity." Most chessplayers do this, and don't upgrade their game after a certain point, but instead become very consistent "journeymen" at their level. A journeyman will win if the superior opponent does not play up to form, and can be very difficult to finish off even when he does. In my own experience, my rating always tanks just before I smash through to a new peak. -- "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern District of PA Judge From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918       Date: 12 May 2006 00:23:10 From: Ralf Callenberg Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? 11.05.2006 00:45, Ray Gordon: >>> If "off the book" moves are "logical" they become "book" moves by >>> definition, so what you're talking about, when applicable, is a solid >>> novelty, and a very wise strategy. >> Ahem, if this is found over the board at this very moment it is played, >> it is not in the books. > > And if a tree falls in a forest with no one there to hear it, it does not > make a noise. This comparison doesn't make any sense. If the move is in the books after the game finished, it is of no relevance for the actual game. >>> The question is, can a 1700 player really rewrite theory at move five? >> No. And it is not necessary. If he deviates from theory a GM might be >> able to refute this move, but not necessarly another 1700 player. And >> if his move was not in the books the other player is now on his own to >> find the right answer. > > Aided by whatever positional factors caused the move not to be in the books. Moves are not in the books for many reasons. Even on super-GM-level there are novelties in move 9 or 15. And they are definitely not all in the books for good reason, but simply just because nobody had the idea to try this out before. Heck, recently even 1. e4 c5 2. Na3 is appeared on GM level and is not proven to be weak. The deviation by a 1700 might not stand the proof of a GM, but at least the reason why it hasn't been played is likely not to be in the book, so his opponent has to show up, not the opening book. > If the weak player is really booked up, however, even your "novelties" will > still be in his book. No, of course not. Opening theory is not a closed book, where all the good moves are already written and all the bad ones are ked as such. Greetings, Ralf         Date: 11 May 2006 18:20:29 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? On Fri, 12 May 2006 00:23:10 +0200, Ralf Callenberg <[email protected] > wrote: >No, of course not. Opening theory is not a closed book, where all the >good moves are already written and all the bad ones are ked as such. Exactly. Let Fritz crank away on most "book" positions and watch all the playable (in practice, anyway) alternatives, many of which published theory doesn't even mention.           Date: 19 May 2006 10:07:40 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? >>No, of course not. Opening theory is not a closed book, where all the >>good moves are already written and all the bad ones are ked as such. > > Exactly. Let Fritz crank away on most "book" positions and watch all > the playable (in practice, anyway) alternatives, many of which > published theory doesn't even mention. A properly prepared opening player in the 21st century should do this as a matter of course. In the course of writing my opening book, I've found this to be the case many times over, where a move that barely gets a mention in ECO (if at all) is at least as strong as the main lines, if not stronger, and often far more complex. -- "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern District of PA Judge From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918       Date: 11 May 2006 02:38:39 From: Ron Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? In article <[email protected] >, "Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote: > If the weak player is really booked up, however, even your "novelties" will > still be in his book. So what? Give a master a -/= position against a 1700 rated player, and the master will still win most of the time. Give him an even position (a successful opening for black!) and he'll win even more. I've used the following well-known trap to illustrate this principle before: 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 Bg7 7. f3 O-O 8. Qd2 Nc6 9. O-O-O d5 10. exd5 Nxd5 11. Nxc6 bxc6 12. Nxd5 cxd5 13. Qxd5 Qc7 14. Qxa8 Bf5 15. Qxf8+ Kxf8 * Of for those who prefer FEN: 5k2/p1q1ppbp/6p1/5b2/8/4BP2/PPP3PP/2KR1B1R w - - 0 16 This is a well known idea in the 9.0-0-0 Yugoslav attack. It is, in fact, given as the reason why white can't accept the pawn sacrifice. White has a pawn and two rooks for the queen, but no GM would be willing to play this as white. Black's attack is considered too strong. Almost all opening analysis ends here. But give the white side to a player who's 400 points stronger than black, and it'll be black who's struggling for the draw. This is the folly of studying openings. Imagine you're black here. You're up against a strong player and he plays into a prepared trap. You feel great! But despite black "winning" the opening he's a long way from winning the game - and, in fact, black can easily lose from the resulting position. Or something simpler: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.d3 Nobody in his right mind would call that a good move. There are now so many plausible choices for each side that memorization is almost absurd. Black may no longer be worse, but white's got plenty of room to outplay him the rest of the way.         Date: 11 May 2006 11:17:37 From: Antonio Torrecillas Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? En/na Ron ha escrit: > Or something simpler: > > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.d3 > > Nobody in his right mind would call that a good move. There are now so > many plausible choices for each side that memorization is almost absurd. Ron, ... Have you ever read "Wilt" from Tom Sharpe? It's a book where a teacher try to teach English literature to unmotived and rude students aiming to work as "meat sellers". Or have you ever try a pig/donkey to learn enjoying honey? (I imagine that maybe that is not a correct expression in English but I hope his meaning to be understand) I have sometimes tried to convince Ray (sometimes to help him, other to avoid people to be confused for his nonsense advice) with zero success. I see you try the same with logical advice but with same result. :-( Antonio           Date: 11 May 2006 11:26:31 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? > I have sometimes tried to convince Ray (sometimes to help him, other to > avoid people to be confused for his nonsense advice) This is where one crosses the line. Others don't need a self-professed knight in shining armor showing up telling them who to listen to. I merely present my ideas for people's consideration. To go on a campaign to simply disparage me goes beyond fair commentary, and to do it with an idea of costing me students is a good way to wind up sued. -- "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern District of PA Judge From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918             Date: 11 May 2006 16:15:19 From: Ron Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? In article <[email protected] >, "Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote: > To go on a campaign to simply disparage me goes beyond fair commentary, and > to do it with an idea of costing me students is a good way to wind up sued. Calling your ideas nonsense is disparaging your ideas, not you. And it's not the sort of thing you can successfully sue over. -Ron               Date: 11 May 2006 14:41:56 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? >> To go on a campaign to simply disparage me goes beyond fair commentary, >> and >> to do it with an idea of costing me students is a good way to wind up >> sued. > > Calling your ideas nonsense is disparaging your ideas, not you. > > And it's not the sort of thing you can successfully sue over. When people go the next step and advise others not to do business with you, that's not the same thing. -- "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern District of PA Judge From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918             Date: 11 May 2006 15:59:03 From: Shut up and Sue Me Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? In article <[email protected] > "Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote: > > > I have sometimes tried to convince Ray (sometimes to help him, other to > > avoid people to be confused for his nonsense advice) > > This is where one crosses the line. > > Others don't need a self-professed knight in shining armor showing up > telling them who to listen to. I merely present my ideas for people's > consideration. > > To go on a campaign to simply disparage me goes beyond fair commentary, and > to do it with an idea of costing me students is a good way to wind up sued. What a fucking loser. When logic fails, threaten to sue.               Date: 11 May 2006 12:17:59 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? \ >> > I have sometimes tried to convince Ray (sometimes to help him, other to >> > avoid people to be confused for his nonsense advice) >> >> This is where one crosses the line. >> >> Others don't need a self-professed knight in shining armor showing up >> telling them who to listen to. I merely present my ideas for people's >> consideration. >> >> To go on a campaign to simply disparage me goes beyond fair commentary, >> and >> to do it with an idea of costing me students is a good way to wind up >> sued. > > What a fucking loser. When logic fails, threaten to sue. Bullshit. When somneone tries to interfere with your livelihood by attacking your credentials (I have a rating relatively few men will ever achieve and am more accomplished than about 90 percent of American tournament players), that goes beyond fair opinion. Governments get a cut of what I make, so they have an interest in protecting my cred. If you don't like the trade libel laws, blame them, not me. -- "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern District of PA Judge From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918         Date: 10 May 2006 23:38:23 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? >> If the weak player is really booked up, however, even your "novelties" >> will >> still be in his book. > > So what? > > Give a master a -/= position against a 1700 rated player, and the master > will still win most of the time. How is this an excuse for getting a weaker position in the first place? > Give him an even position (a successful opening for black!) and he'll > win even more. How is this an excuse for getting a weaker position in the first place? > I've used the following well-known trap to illustrate this principle > before: > > > 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 Bg7 7. f3 O-O > 8. Qd2 Nc6 9. O-O-O d5 10. exd5 Nxd5 11. Nxc6 bxc6 12. Nxd5 cxd5 13. > Qxd5 Qc7 14. Qxa8 Bf5 15. Qxf8+ Kxf8 * Is that a trap? My engine has White over a pawn to the good. > Of for those who prefer FEN: > > 5k2/p1q1ppbp/6p1/5b2/8/4BP2/PPP3PP/2KR1B1R w - - 0 16 I was able to visualize it without a board. > This is a well known idea in the 9.0-0-0 Yugoslav attack. It is, in > fact, given as the reason why white can't accept the pawn sacrifice. > > White has a pawn and two rooks for the queen, but no GM would be willing > to play this as white. Black's attack is considered too strong. Almost > all opening analysis ends here. I've played this as White and not done poorly with it. I don't play 9. O-O-O anymore, however, so I wouldn't get into this line. Unless Black has a forced win here, I'd take white in a heartbeat. > But give the white side to a player who's 400 points stronger than > black, and it'll be black who's struggling for the draw. Or if someone knows how to play without his Queen. > This is the folly of studying openings. Evel Kenevil would be proud of this jump. >Imagine you're black here. > You're up against a strong player and he plays into a prepared trap. My engine says White is comfortable, and my eyes agree. >You > feel great! But despite black "winning" the opening he's a long way from > winning the game - and, in fact, black can easily lose from the > resulting position. My computer says Black *should* lose from the resulting position. 16. Rd2 looks pretty damn strong for White. I don't see how we can prove that studying openings is meaningless from this. > Or something simpler: > > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.d3 > > Nobody in his right mind would call that a good move. This move is played a lot, actually. It's not that bad. >There are now so > many plausible choices for each side that memorization is almost absurd. Why? If one is formation-driven, then they won't be thrown by the many variations. > Black may no longer be worse, but white's got plenty of room to outplay > him the rest of the way. He has that in the main lines too, even more so, in fact. -- "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern District of PA Judge From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918           Date: From: Subject:     Date: 10 May 2006 23:14:03 From: Antonio Torrecillas Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? En/na [email protected] ha escrit: > Ray Gordon schrieb: > >>Our ratings are within a few hundred points of each other for now, and would >>probably be even closer if I chose to spend the time competing. > > That you can reach my rating I do not doubt, even that you could go > beyond. But I don't think much beyond. Somewhere around 2200, 2300 > should be the end. Your misconcept is, that mainly the difference > between a GM or very strong players in general and an amateur is the > opening. > > Greetings, > Ralf I think you are too optimistic. Ray will be a player down to 2000 all his life. Ray spend many time here proposing a plan study He might not follow (He maybe has not time enough! ... I spend here in RGCA a few minutes each day and I have no much time to study chess, if He spend in RGCA hours each day and there are not more than 24 hours each day ...). And his study plan is completely wrong and lead to no improvement, ... Here I'm open to change my words if He actually proves He has reached any rating +2000 but I am not interested in reading more "lessons" from him whereas that improvement is not proved. Antonio       Date: 10 May 2006 18:45:40 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? >> That you can reach my rating I do not doubt, even that you could go >> beyond. But I don't think much beyond. Somewhere around 2200, 2300 >> should be the end. Your misconcept is, that mainly the difference >> between a GM or very strong players in general and an amateur is the >> opening. >> >> Greetings, >> Ralf > > I think you are too optimistic. Ray will be a player down to 2000 all his > life. With my age, it's always possible I'll stop improving. I'm the first to admit that. -- "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern District of PA Judge From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918   Date: 10 May 2006 07:49:23 From: Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? Ray Gordon wrote: > He hung a rook not long ago in a tournament game. And? A lot of world class players made grave mistakes in their games. It's ridiculous how you want to belittle a world class player's ability to play chess, just because he has reached what you will never achieve and he has a different opinion about the basics of chess from you. Greetings, Ralf   Date: 10 May 2006 04:56:38 From: Ralf Callenberg Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? Ray Gordon schrieb: > > In "Nigel Short teaches chess" he says exactly the same thing as the > > master - study endgames. > > Short LOST the world championship. And we know, that just any patzer can reach a world championship final > Hell, I could have done that. You think you would have been able to beat Gelfand, Timmermann and Kasparov in order to get there? Short was at the end of the eighties, begin of the nineties one of the strongest players in the world. He still could wipe the floor with you in tournament chess. So, I think just to wave away his opinion shows quite an attitude. He was not dreaming in his room in front of his computer becoming a GM - he is one. Greetings, Ralf     Date: 10 May 2006 10:33:50 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? >> Hell, I could have done that. > > You think you would have been able to beat Gelfand, Timmermann and > Kasparov in order to get there? > > Short was at the end of the eighties, begin of the nineties one of the > strongest players in the world. He still could wipe the floor with you > in tournament chess. He hung a rook not long ago in a tournament game. -- "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern District of PA Judge From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918   Date: 10 May 2006 04:32:27 From: ben carr Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? I have an example for you. One advantage that can be gained in the opening is a queenside pawn majority. This is a small advantage but if you dont know what to do in the endgame with the majority it is pretty useless.     Date: 10 May 2006 10:34:19 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? >I have an example for you. One advantage that can be gained in the > opening is a queenside pawn majority. This is a small advantage but if > you dont know what to do in the endgame with the majority it is pretty > useless. You also need to get many pieces off the board to realize this advantage. -- "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern District of PA Judge From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918       Date: 10 May 2006 23:40:24 From: John J. Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? ". > > You also need to get many pieces off the board to realize this advantage." Hmmm... that's why it's called an 'endgame'.         Date: 10 May 2006 20:54:03 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? >> You also need to get many pieces off the board to realize this >> advantage." > > > Hmmm... that's why it's called an 'endgame'. And that is why it takes MIDDLEGAME skill to realize the advantage gained in the OPENING in the ENDGAME. Now all we need is a chalkboard and that que-stick the teacher used to whack the words as he was saying them. -- "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern District of PA Judge From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918   Date: 10 May 2006 08:36:58 From: Neil Coward Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? In "Nigel Short teaches chess" he says exactly the same thing as the master - study endgames. He also adds that in Russia, chess is taugh backwards, ie endgames first then middlegames then openings. I'm sure he also said the following, though I can't find it in the book.. words to the effect that... If you become stronger at endgames, that will give you more confindence in the middlegame, because you will be able to steer towards what you have learnt is a won endgame. "Zero" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... >I was beaten by a master this weekend. He told that in order to > improve chess players should study endgames. > > I don't understand why I should study endgames. If I can't get through > the middlegame or the opening or am I supposed to get to a endgame? > Also I bought a endgame studies book and I don't see the point in going > over these studies. None of these positions are ever going to happen > in any of my real games. >     Date: 10 May 2006 04:29:53 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? > In "Nigel Short teaches chess" he says exactly the same thing as the > master - study endgames. Short LOST the world championship. Hell, I could have done that. -- "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern District of PA Judge From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918   Date: 10 May 2006 00:11:36 From: ben carr Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? While it is true that the exact positions wont come up often n your games, the tactical and strategic considerations do. There are plenty of times where a middlegeme position calls for a combination that I have learned from endgame study. There have also been plenty of times where I have been on the downside of the position and saved myself by aiming for a drawn ending. And when you are ahead, you know which endings to avoid. There are tons of saving endgames and without knowing them you will be at a big disadvantage. Knowing the endgame better will give you more confidence in the middlegame. You could be down 2 pawns, but if you know that perticular rook ending can be drawn then you wont panic and try to do something crazy. There is nothing better than having an advantage in the middlegame, with a good attack and the better endgame. I know the other posters have explained all of this more thoroughly, but I hope I helped a little.   Date: 09 May 2006 23:33:45 From: John J. Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? We first need to ascertain your general playing strength. Have you ever studied endgames before? "Zero" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... >I was beaten by a master this weekend. He told that in order to > improve chess players should study endgames. > > I don't understand why I should study endgames. If I can't get through > the middlegame or the opening or am I supposed to get to a endgame? > Also I bought a endgame studies book and I don't see the point in going > over these studies. None of these positions are ever going to happen > in any of my real games. >     Date: 10 May 2006 18:51:53 From: michael adams Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? John J. wrote: (rgcp group, & what a 'biggie', resnipped) > > We first need to ascertain your general playing strength. Have you ever > studied endgames before? Well have you? - Don't answer if you don't want to, just curious..   Date: 09 May 2006 15:12:19 From: Chess Freak Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? You're going to look pretty stupid if you cant win a K+R vs K endgame. "Zero" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]...   Date: 09 May 2006 13:49:55 From: Skeptic Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? Basically, the situation is this. If you lose most of your games because the opponent wins a piece for nothing for some point by a two-move combination, then it is true that you don't need to study the endgame too much at that point (though of course you should know elementary mates, the opposition, etc.). But there's little point of deeply studying openings at that point, either, since you wouldn't have any idea what makes one opening position better or worse for one of the sides anyway. You should, in that case, practice basic tactics. If, however, you reach the point that most of your games reach the endgame with more or less even material instead of being a piece down, knowing endgames is what makes the difference between winning and losing. It is true that openings come first in the game, but studying openings in depth is usually a waste of time for a non-master for three obvious reasons: (a) if your opponent deviates from the "best" line--and he will in 99% of the cases--you wouldn't know how to take advantage of his deviation, and (b) you are not going to remember the variations you studies over-the-board in any case.   Date: 09 May 2006 18:04:50 From: Ron Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? In article <[email protected] >, "Zero" <[email protected] > wrote: > I don't understand why I should study endgames. If I can't get through > the middlegame or the opening or am I supposed to get to a endgame? > Also I bought a endgame studies book and I don't see the point in going > over these studies. None of these positions are ever going to happen > in any of my real games. Your ability to play endgames will improve your middlegame. When you learn to evaluate endings properly, you'll have another "weapon" in your middlegame arsenal: the threat to trade into a favorable endgame. You'll be able to employ more sophisticated attacks and sacrifices (because you won't need to win overwhelming material in order to win) and you'll be a better defender. Studying endgames will also help you improve your handling of the pieces in a middlegame. Learning how to use two pieces well together - which you have to do when you only have two pieces left! - will carry over into your middlegame, and you'll find yourself co-ordinating your pieces more effectively when you have more of them. Studying endgames will also probably improve your visualization and calculation. Now, obviously, studying endgames isn't going to save you if you're hanging material to a much stronger player on move 12. Please recognize that Ray Gordon is (to put it nicely) a maverick when he talks about focusing on openings. In fact, the most common advice given to players who wish to improve - advice given by World Champions like Capablanca, Lasker and Botvinnik, as well as respected teaching professionals like Pandolfini, Reinfeld, and Silman - is to focus on tactics and endgames if you want to improve rapidly. Endgame studies aren't everyone's cup of tea. Instead, I'd recommend a pair of books on more practical endgame play: Silman's "Essential Chess Endings" which contains the must-know theoretical knowledge you're going to need, and Soltis' "Grandmaster Secrets: Endings" - which is a great primer of practical endgame play. -Ron   Date: 09 May 2006 10:31:54 From: Ralf Callenberg Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? Zero wrote: > I don't understand why I should study endgames. There are two different aspects of studying endgames. The first has simply something to do with learning the game. In the endgame the concpets of chess can be seen in a clear way, as there are only few pieces on the board. So you can learn much better than on a crowded board how to make plans and how to calculate variations. You get some first ideas of the strengths and weaknesses of the different pieces, how they work together. In order to achieve this, it is not necessary to work through a huge book of endings. It is enough to start with the basic endings, but it is important not just to memorize them, but to understand each move and the idea behind it. Secondly the endgame is important for practical reasons. A very basic reason goes like this. Imagine you have won some material. Alas, your opponent doesn't resign and you are also not able to mate or to increase the material advantage. So, pieces leave one by one the board and at some point you reached the endgame. Now you have to know how to win this game. Many weak players when playing against each other just resign much too early. I have seen it now so often, that weak players are simply not able to realize their advantage. The other way round, if you are down material you might be able to defend more successfully. If you are stronger you should keep the endgame in your mind during the middle game. So you know, that an isolated free pawn on the a-line might be weak during the middlegame, but can become a threat when entering the endgame. You might avoid pawn structures which are bad for endgames if possible. If you are a pawn behind you might try to exchange pieces in a way that bishops on different colours remain, and so on. There are two different principal goals for the middlegame: mating the opponent or getting an advantage which is huge enough to win the endgame - and then mate the opponent. If you concentrate too much on the first, you are limited. Most games are actually not decided by a mate. There is no need to reach expert level in endgames while you are weak in the other parts of the game. So you might start with some basic endings and return later to deepen the knowledge. But you should not completely abondon the endgames. And last not least somehow the pure logic of endgames can just be enjoyable. It's sometimes simply amazing how complicated seemingly simple positions with only a few pawns left can be. And yet the solution can be presented in a crystal clear way. Greetings, Ralf   Date: 09 May 2006 11:43:30 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Why should I study endgames?? >I was beaten by a master this weekend. He told that in order to > improve chess players should study endgames. > > I don't understand why I should study endgames. If I can't get through > the middlegame or the opening or am I supposed to get to a endgame? > Also I bought a endgame studies book and I don't see the point in going > over these studies. None of these positions are ever going to happen > in any of my real games. They'll happen, just not very often. Most people emphasize endgames to justify their laziness in the opening. -- "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern District of PA Judge From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918