Why learn the endgame first?

Main

Date: 11 Sep 2008 22:21:40
From: John Salerno
Subject: Why learn the endgame first?

I understand that it's crucial to learn the endgame, but it seems to me
that learning the opening and middlegame are just as important (and
certainly no *less* important?). So why does everyone suggest that you
learn the endgame first? What benefit does this provide, and what might
be the results of learning tactics and strategy first, or openings?

Thanks.

Date: 14 Sep 2008 16:28:43
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Why learn the endgame first?

On Sep 11, 8:21 pm, John Salerno <[email protected] > wrote:
> I understand that it's crucial to learn the endgame, but it seems to me
> that learning the opening and middlegame are just as important (and
> certainly no *less* important?). So why does everyone suggest that you
> learn the endgame first? What benefit does this provide, and what might
> be the results of learning tactics and strategy first, or openings?

The main argument I've seen is that in the endgame, there are fewer
pieces present. So, when you learn the endgame, you are learning
simple tactical methods, which you can then *apply* in the middle game
as well - and then learn the additional tactical lessons to handle the
more complicated tactics that you can see in the middlegame.

The opening is different from the middlegame and the endgame, being
positional, not tactical. At a later point, some openings will be
learned by memory. But to understand positional principles, to believe
the value of avoiding a cramped position, for example, having
experience in the middle game is a great motivator. If you know why a
cramped position is a problem, you will be able to recognize what
really is a cramped position, and what isn't.

Given that there are cases in the opening where one sacrifices
material - at least a Pawn - for a more open position than one's
opponent, to play that properly you need to be able to judge the value
of a positional advantage very well. That can't really be taught in a
textbook, and takes middlegame experience.

John Savard

Date: 12 Sep 2008 04:37:11
From: Alessandro J.
Subject: Re: Why learn the endgame first?

On 12 Set, 04:21, John Salerno <[email protected] > wrote:
> I understand that it's crucial to learn the endgame, but it seems to me
> that learning the opening and middlegame are just as important (and
> certainly no *less* important?). So why does everyone suggest that you
> learn the endgame first? What benefit does this provide, and what might
> be the results of learning tactics and strategy first, or openings?
>
> Thanks.

Still havent joined that chess club, I see !
Pity, the answer you could have gotten might have been a lot more
elaborate.
Having to type, I will limit myself to this:

1. In the endgame, the pieces are used to their fullest extent.
Learning how the pieces move and interact is the first fundamental
step in learning middle games ( you will see in the middlegame books
you have that they usually begin with the interplay of minor
pieces ) .
You might say : " But I know how the pieces move ! " . Infact, in
Chess, there is knowing, and KNOWING. That is a mistake a lot of
learners make, that by reading about something once, they have that
covered. So you know that a knight moves in L-shape, but can you see
that on the board ? Does the knight radiate eight squares around it,
marking the possibilities that piece has ? Endgame study allows you to
appreciate the dynamic of the pieces and how to use them, which is
what chess is ultimately about ( 99% tactics )

2. Knowing the basic mating positions, and then moving on to the
fundamental King and Pawn endings, will give you a lighthouse across
the sea of the Middlegame. Before I had these under my belt, every
game was an open ended journey. Once I knew how to win with an extra
pawn, I knew that all I needed to do was win a pawn, swap everything
off, queen the extra pawn, and checkmate with the extra queen : with
hindsight, my first succesfull attempts at long term planning.
Again, there is knowing, and there is KNOWING. You will have mastered
an endgame position only when your hand can play it on its own,
without any input from the brain.

3. Silman's recent endgame book, which was the subject of a recent
thread of mine, should be all you need for the moment,as he has
divided his endgame categories by rating groups, so you, being a
beginner, can actually profit fully from this approach.

4. I suppose, with all due deference to one of my Chess Heroes, that
it is advisable to be equally strong in all phases of the game, but
let the endgame be your strong point. For one, endgame theory rarely
changes, and never does in the fundamental positions, so your study
will last you a life time, as opposed to opening study, which needs
constant updating in order to avoid becoming obsolete. Also, endgame
theory does not presume experience, and endgame positions can be
learned with profit by the most rank beginners, as opposed to middle
game study, which needs to be absorbed in layers.

5. Below master level, players generally suck at Endings, and I mean
really suck. I've seen people who knew Sicilian Dragon theory to move
20, but didn't know that Opposite Coloured Bishop endings are fairly
drawish. Just a little study in that area will reap a lot in terms of
practical results.

6. Join a chess club, and play endings against human opponents.

Cheers,

Alessandro.

Date: 16 Sep 2008 11:19:11
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Why learn the endgame first?

On Sep 16, 11:40=A0am, "John Salerno" <[email protected] > wrote:

> So far, the Tactics book is excellent. Easy to understand and very well
> organized. I never realized that stalemate could be used as a tactic, I j=
ust
> thought it was something that "happened" when you are careless! I was eve=
n
> able to try to force a stalemater later that night after I read that
> chapter, but unfortunately I ran out of time and lost! All I had to do wa=
s
> sacrifice my rook and the game would have drawn.....very eye-opening.

In practice, stalemates are not /very often/
forced upon an unwilling opponent.

What normally happens is one side is
winning easily, and if he becomes careless,
his tactically-sharp opponent may, I repeat
may, be presented with an opportunity to
escape via stalemate. In most cases, this
opportunity occurs very late in the endgame,
where a wily player will be looking to avoid
being swindled; but in a few instances, the
possibility of stalemate will manifest itself
earlier, when even very strong players are
not yet on the alert.

One famous example was a game in
which Mr. Reshevsky was slaughtering
Mr. Evans; the latter did not resign, but
fought on, and ultimately there arose a
single opportunity -- one which has
appeared time and again in the pages of
Chess Life magazine -- for a tactical
counter-blow. It is always shown as a
diagrammed position, often omitting the
rest of the game (which was quite simply
awful), and the save was an amazing
one.

Stalemates are not as common as they
might be, for the simple reason that it is
generally the stronger player -- the one
who is winning -- that must be swindled
by his often, weaker opponent. If the
weaker player is winning, he may be in
top form in that one game, and so again,
it is not a simple matter to swindle him.

In my games, the possibility of stalemate
would appear mainly in the side notes, the
trick having been easily averted due to an
alertness that "automatically" sets in near
the finale.

-- help bot

Date: 17 Sep 2008 12:29:36
From: John Salerno
Subject: Re: Why learn the endgame first?

"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:a3512237-63ba-4546-8fa6-aac119cc3704@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 16, 11:40 am, "John Salerno" <[email protected] > wrote:

Stalemates are not as common as they
might be, for the simple reason that it is
generally the stronger player -- the one
who is winning -- that must be swindled
by his often, weaker opponent. If the
weaker player is winning, he may be in
top form in that one game, and so again,
it is not a simple matter to swindle him.
---

Yeah, it's definitely not something worth forcing when you have a lot of
pieces remaining. In my case, I realized that my king was almost stalemated,
so I moved it into position, then moved a pawn or two and just had my rook
left to deal with. I even moved my rook to the same rank as my opponent's
rook, but of course he didn't take it. :)

Date: 14 Sep 2008 13:49:13
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Why learn the endgame first?

On Sep 14, 1:56=A0pm, Alfredo <[email protected] > wrote:

> > > I'm about to start reading Seirawan's book on tactics today.

> The book sounds interesting. Can you provide
> me with the full name/publisher/and-or ISBN
> number/s?

ISBN 1-55615-474-7

Winning Chess Tactics

Sierawan/Silman

Microsoft Press (USA & Canada)
Penguin Books (British Empire)

-- help bot

Date: 14 Sep 2008 10:56:03
From: Alfredo
Subject: Re: Why learn the endgame first?

On Sep 13, 5:13=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Sep 13, 1:39=A0pm, John Salerno <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I'm about to start reading Seirawan's book on tactics today.
>
> =A0 =A0In one review posted at TheGreatPedant.com,
> Edward Winter (who else?) noted that Mr.
> Seirawan -- whose book on the 1992 rematch
> easily won out over the alleged competition --
> was inconsistent in his handling of the problem
> of Mr. Fischer's "demand" for that spectacle
> to be recognized by the press as a "world
> championship" match. =A0Sharp as a pin, Mr.
> Winter spotted the fact that although Mr.
> Seirawan toed the line in his book on the
> match, No Regrets, he reverted /back to
> reality/ (my term) in a comment in his other
> book, the one on Tactics.
>
> =A0 This assumes that EW did not fail to note the
> actual order in which these two books were
> written--something I have not yet checked
> myself. =A0 Assuming EW was not so daft as to
> get them backwards, I find it interesting to see
> just how quickly some Fischer-supporters can
> snap out of their delusions, once removed
> from his sphere of influence. =A0The "reasoning"
> went something like this: although BF got the
> title from FIDE, once he got it, it was his, not
> theirs, but everybody else only got the FIDE
> title, not their own, non-FIDE title, so he was
> in fact still "the" world champ, playing a hand-
> picked opponent while carefully ducking AK
> and of course, GK, who were merely FIDE
> champs, unlike him. =A0LOL
>
> =A0 At any rate, Mr. Seirawan is an excellent
> writer, and his books bypass the era of
> dogmatic thinking and leap nearer to the
> present, where both religions, classical
> and modern, are deemed acceptable ways
> of playing chess.
>
> =A0 -- help bot

The book sounds interesting. Can you provide
me with the full name/publisher/and-or ISBN
number/s? Thank you.

Date: 16 Sep 2008 11:40:47
From: John Salerno
Subject: Re: Why learn the endgame first?

"Alfredo" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

The book sounds interesting. Can you provide
me with the full name/publisher/and-or ISBN
number/s? Thank you.
-------

Here's a link to all (or most of?) his books, if the link works:
http://www.everymanchess.com/disp_biog.php?id=95

So far, the Tactics book is excellent. Easy to understand and very well
organized. I never realized that stalemate could be used as a tactic, I just
thought it was something that "happened" when you are careless! I was even
able to try to force a stalemater later that night after I read that
chapter, but unfortunately I ran out of time and lost! All I had to do was
sacrifice my rook and the game would have drawn.....very eye-opening.

Date: 13 Sep 2008 15:13:54
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Why learn the endgame first?

On Sep 13, 1:39=A0pm, John Salerno <[email protected] > wrote:

> I'm about to start reading Seirawan's book on tactics today.

In one review posted at TheGreatPedant.com,
Edward Winter (who else?) noted that Mr.
Seirawan -- whose book on the 1992 rematch
easily won out over the alleged competition --
was inconsistent in his handling of the problem
of Mr. Fischer's "demand" for that spectacle
to be recognized by the press as a "world
championship" match. Sharp as a pin, Mr.
Winter spotted the fact that although Mr.
Seirawan toed the line in his book on the
match, No Regrets, he reverted /back to
reality/ (my term) in a comment in his other
book, the one on Tactics.

This assumes that EW did not fail to note the
actual order in which these two books were
written--something I have not yet checked
myself. Assuming EW was not so daft as to
get them backwards, I find it interesting to see
just how quickly some Fischer-supporters can
snap out of their delusions, once removed
from his sphere of influence. The "reasoning"
went something like this: although BF got the
title from FIDE, once he got it, it was his, not
theirs, but everybody else only got the FIDE
title, not their own, non-FIDE title, so he was
in fact still "the" world champ, playing a hand-
picked opponent while carefully ducking AK
and of course, GK, who were merely FIDE
champs, unlike him. LOL

At any rate, Mr. Seirawan is an excellent
writer, and his books bypass the era of
dogmatic thinking and leap nearer to the
present, where both religions, classical
and modern, are deemed acceptable ways
of playing chess.

-- help bot

Date: 12 Sep 2008 19:03:52
From: Alessandro J.
Subject: Re: Why learn the endgame first?

On 12 Set, 21:28, "John Salerno" <[email protected] > wrote:

> I don't mean I've mastered anything, by far. I just now know how to mate
> with K/R and K/Q. The Chessmaster program has an infinite (literally) number
> of exercises that set up these positions so you can practice them, so I do
> those often.

I don't know the Chessmaster program, but if you could do the same
work with just a few crucial positions in King and Pawn and Rook and
Pawn endings, which are by far the most common endings, your game will
soar to new heights, literally. That is the beginning of strategy, at
every move, having a vague idea wether the pawn structure results in a
favorable ending or not, never mind having an extra pawn ! That's the
whole point of the Exchange variation in the Lopez, for example !

I've been trying to find a good analogy in Sports, I hope you're
familiar with soccer : Endgame knowledge can be considered the
equivalent of Goal Scoring ability, and tactics the ability to treat
the ball. They are basic, and they need to be adressed before
defensive and offensive movements simply because, what good would it
do you to know your movements as a winger, if you can't pass the ball
correctly or dribble the opposing defender ?

Strategy is an extremely subtle matter, and needs a certain degree of
sophistication to be handled correctly, and has to eventually leave
center stage to either a tactical solution or a winning endgame
position, infact, most strategic play can only be conducted
tactically. Sometimes the positional advantage is so great ( Knight on
the sixth rank, for example ) that the position plays itself, but most
of the time, you're treading a very fine line between a win and a
loss.

So this is why it is importanto to familiarize yourself essentially
with tactics and basic endgames at this point. Of course, by all
means, read up on Strategy and keep your overall knowledge at the same
level, try out different openings to get a feel for them, but
especially, at the risk of repeating myself, play, play, play ! :o)

Alessandro

Date: 13 Sep 2008 13:39:08
From: John Salerno
Subject: Re: Why learn the endgame first?

Alessandro J. wrote:

> So this is why it is importanto to familiarize yourself essentially
> with tactics and basic endgames at this point.

I'm about to start reading Seirawan's book on tactics today.

Of course, by all
> means, read up on Strategy and keep your overall knowledge at the same
> level, try out different openings to get a feel for them, but
> especially, at the risk of repeating myself, play, play, play ! :o)

I signed up with USCF last night, so that's my first step! :)

Date: 12 Sep 2008 11:01:32
From: Alessandro J.
Subject: Re: Why learn the endgame first?

On 12 Set, 16:39, "John Salerno" <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> Interesting! That definitely seems to fall into the mysterious category of
> "strategy". Actually this morning I played a little game on my cell phone
> and even though I had a queen and a rook to my opponent's rook, I decided to
> trade off all that material and just resort to the pawn endgame. Granted, I
> did not attempt to see far enough ahead to know if this was a good idea or
> not, but I just saw it as an option and wanted to play around with the
> endgame a little. It worked out well since I won, but who knows how it may
> have gone!

Well, you should never give up an advantage if you don't know where it
will lead you. However, it is not uncommon to give away a seemingly
large advantage for an apparently smaller one if you're sure that that
position is a theoretical win, and know exactly how to win it.

In a recent game of mine, I gave back an Exchange to enter a K+P
ending position that wasn't obviously winning at first sight, but a
little calculation, backed up by the few endgame positions that I
REALLY know, was enough to prove to me that Rxd5 was completely
winning. Conversely, you might be well advised to give up material to
enter inferior endings with less material that you know how to draw,
provided you REALLY know how to draw them.

Date: 12 Sep 2008 10:53:31
From: Alessandro J.
Subject: Re: Why learn the endgame first?

On 12 Set, 18:20, "John Salerno" <[email protected] > wrote:

> So far I've read Learn Chess (Alexander/Beach), Play Winning Chess
> (Seirawan), and Idiot's Guide (Wolff). All of those are basic books that
> cover everything in varying amounts of detail.

Alexander and Beach was my first primer, brings back memories ... :O)

>
> What I've learned so far is how to give mate with a king/rook vs. king, and
> king/queen vs. king. I feel comfortable with that now. Wolff's book also
> mentions a few others, such as opposite-colored bishops and a few other
> stranger (to me) endings.

Well, by memory, already in vol. 1 of Alexander and Beach there are
endgame concepts you would do well to master, rather than just having
read.

>
> So I've certainly learned the basics of the ending already.

No you haven't, you've read about them, which is an entirely different
thing. Can you really say that you've succesfully solved the endgame
exercises in Alexander and Beach ? can you take the opposition in K +
P endgames ? Can you avoid stalemating your opponent ? If you can't ,
then you KNOW ABOUT, but you don't KNOW, the basics of the ending.
By the way you word it, it seems to me you haven't bought Seirawan's
endgame book yet. If that is the case, my suggestion is that you
purchase Silman's book instead.

> I guess my
> original question was (as you put it) more theoretical, wondering why the
> endgame is suggested first.

To resume above, cause it teaches you about pieces, to give you a
lighthouse, and because it can be learned independently through study
alone no matter what your rating is.

> I actually feel decently comfortable with
> opening principles and basic endgames. My main weakness (I feel) is figuring
> out a plan to execute in the middle game.

When you will be strong enough, you can study openings, and the plans
that flow naturally out of them. The reality though, is that at this
point ( and I totally agree with de la Maza on this ) you should be
striving to avoid one move blunders, and spotting tactical
opportunities when they do arise : what good is it to you to double
your rooks on the c-file aiming for the seventh rank, if you've just
lost your knight to a two-move trick?

> That, combined with the fact that
> tactics and strategy seem like the most interesting aspects of the game,
> makes me want to study the middle game more. I just don't want to "ruin" my
> learning by doing things backwards or out of order.

I detect on your part a certain impatience to move forward and
discover the intricacies of the game ( I know that it was the case
with me ) fascinated by the sheer volume of seemingly interesting
information available but also, I assume, labouring under the
assumption that Chess is learnt in books, and not at the chessboard,
which is an idea that is very hard to get rid of.

Let me warn you that such an approach can be counterproductive : I
used to spend days just leafing through middlegame manuals out of
curiosity, with the result that at one point I had a huge muddle in my
head, and played my games in a sort of drunken stupor, which was all
the more sorrowful as I took my chess very seriously, and couldn't
understand how I could lose to the patzers I did lose to when " I knew
so much more about Chess than they did " .

Just like you seem to want to do, I breezed through Alexander and
Beach so I could start with " The real thing " cause " I know this
beginner's stuff already ", the real thing being of course Kotov's "
Think like a Grandmaster " and Euwe's " Judgement and Planning ".

The truth of course, is that while I was quite the expert on chess
nomenclature, could name all the world champions, knew a lot of chess
trivia and had breezed through a couple of primers, this is all
knowing ABOUT chess, and not how to implement chess ideas correctly
over the board, which is quite another matter.

That's the reason why I suggested Silman earlier, because he tells you
exactly what to know for the level you're at, but stresses that you
must know the material thoroughly before you move on, that you must
have REALLY learnt it, not just read about it.

So how to solve the dilemma, natural curiosity versus the need to do
first things first ?
I suppose the best would be to have a training programme, and a " read
for fun " programme. In the training programme, you'd go back to A &
B's primer and solve the endgame exercises correctly for an hour or
two, before you take out your middlegame manual of preference and just
leafed through it, just to see what it's like.

As far as learning things in the wrong order, as long as you are well
rounded, you shouldn't have too many problems. In any case, the
general experience is that chess improvement happens in leaps and
bounds, and is not a regular upward trend , at least, it was certainly
the case with me.

Date: 12 Sep 2008 15:28:35
From: John Salerno
Subject: Re: Why learn the endgame first?

"Alessandro J." <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>> So I've certainly learned the basics of the ending already.
>
> No you haven't, you've read about them, which is an entirely different
> thing.

I don't mean I've mastered anything, by far. I just now know how to mate
with K/R and K/Q. The Chessmaster program has an infinite (literally) number
of exercises that set up these positions so you can practice them, so I do
those often.

> I detect on your part a certain impatience to move forward and
> discover the intricacies of the game ( I know that it was the case
> with me ) fascinated by the sheer volume of seemingly interesting
> information available but also, I assume, labouring under the
> assumption that Chess is learnt in books, and not at the chessboard,
> which is an idea that is very hard to get rid of.

> Just like you seem to want to do, I breezed through Alexander and
> Beach so I could start with " The real thing " cause " I know this
> beginner's stuff already ", the real thing being of course Kotov's "
> Think like a Grandmaster " and Euwe's " Judgement and Planning ".

Well, not so much. I actually enjoy dwelling on the basics over and over
again. That's why I've read three "beginner" books so far, instead of just
one and then jumping ahead to study specific aspects. I've read about the
basics several times over, because I want to solidify that in my mind (and
yes, *use* those ideas as well when I play games online).

The Seirawan tactics book will be the first more specific book I read. I
figured I'd do Tactics > Strategy > Endgame > Openings, but perhaps after
tactics I should go to endings.

Date: 12 Sep 2008 09:04:25
From: Alessandro J.
Subject: Re: Why learn the endgame first?

On 12 Set, 16:32, "John Salerno" <[email protected] > wrote:

> Hmm, I've always found strategy to be the vaguest aspect of chess. Tactics
> are easy because they are identifiable, named moves (fork, pin, etc.).
> Strategy is more like "Ok, look for a plan and then execute it!" :)

usual afterthought :

Strategy, in its material elements, can be defined just as well : weak
square, weak pawn, open file etc. and you can learn to identify them
relatively early. What is less obvious is how to take advantage of
these elements, which is an impossible task to undertake if you are
not familiar with tactics and the dynamics of the pieces,seeing as
they require subtle play and are simply a means to an end.

Date: 12 Sep 2008 09:00:24
From: Alessandro J.
Subject: Re: Why learn the endgame first?

On 12 Set, 16:32, "John Salerno" <[email protected] > wrote:

>
> Today I'll be getting Seirawan's book on Tactics, so I plan to start reading
> that. The next step was going to be his Strategy book, then his Ending and
> Opening books. Do you think I should skip the Strategy book for now?

Allow me to reiterate : the most important thing to do is play ,
you're still too focused on your " training programme " !
When you're done playing, you can certainly start working on
Seirawan's books, he is a wonderful writer for the improving player,
and, as far as endgames go, it's as good a primer as you will get,
but, it does not address your main problem, indeed, every class
player's main problem, which is, what is useful for you to learn at
this stage ? Silman's endgame book adresses that point perfectly, by
serving endgame knowledge to you in morsels according to your
strength, as opposed to all other endgame books, which provide all
material in one lump.
I would say if you haven't gone through a basic primer ( there are
quite a few on the market ), you should start with those, they usually
have a basic endgame section. I think Seirawan has written one
himself ?
If you have already worked through such a book, then I would say a
good program might be :

Start off with the tactics book, and while you're working on that,
master basic mates, basic King and Pawn ( Opposition, Rule of the
Square, Outside Passed pawn ), basic Rook and Pawn endgames ( Lucena
and Philidor ), these are the essential patterns that will guide you
through most endgames and need to be learnt perfectly, then, because
endgame study gets boring relatively quickly for most, read the
Openings book, read the Strategy book, and then come back to read the
rest of the Endgame book. Note the difference between read and master.
As I mentioned before, Opening and Middle Game study is acquired
through practical application of vague principles that become clearer
with time and experience, whereas perfect knowledge can be acquired
for basic endgames through study alone, regardless of your actual
strength.

Date: 12 Sep 2008 15:24:13
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Why learn the endgame first?

"Alessandro J." <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 12 Set, 16:32, "John Salerno" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Today I'll be getting Seirawan's book on Tactics, so I plan to start
>> reading
>> that. The next step was going to be his Strategy book, then his Ending
>> and
>> Opening books. Do you think I should skip the Strategy book for now?
>
> Allow me to reiterate : the most important thing to do is play ,
> you're still too focused on your " training programme " !

Friend, Alessandro has said it! Do not ignore the advice of strong players
for what weaker players recommend you. Play chess!

> When you're done playing, you can certainly start working on
> Seirawan's books, he is a wonderful writer for the improving player,
> and, as far as endgames go, it's as good a primer as you will get,
> but, it does not address your main problem, indeed, every class
> player's main problem, which is, what is useful for you to learn at
> this stage ?

Quite, and to the exact point...

> Silman's endgame book adresses that point perfectly, by
> serving endgame knowledge to you in morsels according to your
> strength, as opposed to all other endgame books, which provide all
> material in one lump.
> I would say if you haven't gone through a basic primer ( there are
> quite a few on the market ), you should start with those, they usually
> have a basic endgame section. I think Seirawan has written one
> himself ?
> If you have already worked through such a book, then I would say a
> good program might be :
>
> Start off with the tactics book, and while you're working on that,
> master basic mates, basic King and Pawn ( Opposition, Rule of the
> Square, Outside Passed pawn ), basic Rook and Pawn endgames ( Lucena
> and Philidor )

**and Legall's and Scholar's mate.

**In designing a chess course the public intimidation to advise people to
study what others have learned is very great. Some amount of opening and
also ending knowledge is necessary. But how much? Strong trainers suggest
principals are the thing you should get, whether in openings or in
end-games - though in endgames this are necessary techniques to know.

**The difficulty for beginners is that they are often defeated in the
openings, and only get to play hopeless endgames. They want to remedy this
by learning from others, as if this would solve their problems, which it
actually does! But that is a limited perspective, and if you adopt it will
limit /how far/ you can raise your game. Since you don't have this
experience already, do you yet note that strong players heavily qualify the
worth of rote learnings?

**Usually the recommendation is restricted to attending to opening
principals, and also endgame technique. So you can start and finish Okay.

> these are the essential patterns that will guide you
> through most endgames and need to be learnt perfectly, then, because
> endgame study gets boring relatively quickly for most, read the
> Openings book, read the Strategy book, and then come back to read the
> rest of the Endgame book. Note the difference between read and master.
> As I mentioned before, Opening and Middle Game study is acquired
> through practical application of vague principles that become clearer
> with time and experience, whereas perfect knowledge can be acquired
> for basic endgames through study alone, regardless of your actual
> strength.

Good advice for any player. The great emphasis here is ' practical
application ' which means you have to do it!

And welcome then to the same pool we are all in. :))

Cordially, Phil Innes

Date: 12 Sep 2008 12:20:42
From: John Salerno
Subject: Re: Why learn the endgame first?

"Alessandro J." <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> I would say if you haven't gone through a basic primer ( there are
> quite a few on the market ), you should start with those, they usually
> have a basic endgame section. I think Seirawan has written one
> himself ?

So far I've read Learn Chess (Alexander/Beach), Play Winning Chess
(Seirawan), and Idiot's Guide (Wolff). All of those are basic books that
cover everything in varying amounts of detail.

> Start off with the tactics book, and while you're working on that,
> master basic mates, basic King and Pawn ( Opposition, Rule of the
> Square, Outside Passed pawn ), basic Rook and Pawn endgames ( Lucena
> and Philidor ), these are the essential patterns that will guide you
> through most endgames and need to be learnt perfectly

What I've learned so far is how to give mate with a king/rook vs. king, and
king/queen vs. king. I feel comfortable with that now. Wolff's book also
mentions a few others, such as opposite-colored bishops and a few other
stranger (to me) endings.

So I've certainly learned the basics of the ending already. I guess my
original question was (as you put it) more theoretical, wondering why the
endgame is suggested first. I actually feel decently comfortable with
opening principles and basic endgames. My main weakness (I feel) is figuring
out a plan to execute in the middle game. That, combined with the fact that
tactics and strategy seem like the most interesting aspects of the game,
makes me want to study the middle game more. I just don't want to "ruin" my
learning by doing things backwards or out of order.

Date: 12 Sep 2008 10:39:13
From: John Salerno
Subject: Re: Why learn the endgame first?

"Alessandro J." <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:43266492-b08f-476a-9230-3364d17ffb92@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

> You might say : " But I know how the pieces move ! " . Infact, in
> Chess, there is knowing, and KNOWING. That is a mistake a lot of
> learners make, that by reading about something once, they have that
> covered. So you know that a knight moves in L-shape, but can you see
> that on the board ? Does the knight radiate eight squares around it,
> marking the possibilities that piece has ?

Well, as far as a single kinght move, I do "see" it in sort of weird way. I
just look down and I can immediately see the squares where it can go to,
they sort of stand out in my mind. My next project is to be able to do this
for two or three knight moves, so I can see where it might end up later.

> Once I knew how to win with an extra
> pawn, I knew that all I needed to do was win a pawn, swap everything
> off, queen the extra pawn, and checkmate with the extra queen : with
> hindsight, my first succesfull attempts at long term planning.

Interesting! That definitely seems to fall into the mysterious category of
"strategy". Actually this morning I played a little game on my cell phone
and even though I had a queen and a rook to my opponent's rook, I decided to
trade off all that material and just resort to the pawn endgame. Granted, I
did not attempt to see far enough ahead to know if this was a good idea or
not, but I just saw it as an option and wanted to play around with the
endgame a little. It worked out well since I won, but who knows how it may
have gone!

Date: 12 Sep 2008 04:57:41
From: Alessandro J.
Subject: Re: Why learn the endgame first?

On 12 Set, 13:37, "Alessandro J." <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 12 Set, 04:21, John Salerno <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I understand that it's crucial to learn the endgame, but it seems to me
> > that learning the opening and middlegame are just as important (and
> > certainly no *less* important?). So why does everyone suggest that you
> > learn the endgame first? What benefit does this provide, and what might
> > be the results of learning tactics and strategy first, or openings?
>
> > Thanks.
>
> Still havent joined that chess club, I see !
> Pity, the answer you could have gotten might have been a lot more
> elaborate.
> Having to type, I will limit myself to this:

As an addendum, learning tactics alongside endgames is certainly
profitable, infact, they complement each other rather well.
However, Opening theory is really designed to give a master a somewhat
microscopic edge against another master, an edge lesser players like
you and me will blow in a move or two when faced with a move we don't
have in our books.
Helpbot's approach in this regard is certainly useful, but some
suggest that before adopting a system opening to learn to a
considerable degree , you immerse yourself in gambit play, open games
and the most tactical lines in the sharpest openings, like the
Sicilian, again, to familiarize yourself with the dynamics of the
game.
Learning a system opening is useful as it gives one an idea of what
opening study is all about, which is something entirely different than
memorizing an x number of moves by rote.

Strategy is best left alone for the moment,as it would only frustrate
and confuse you : you should consider it as the University course of
an imaginary chess school, and, as I'm learning now, it really is just
a way to position yourself in the best manner to use tactics,
something entirely pointless if you haven't mastered tactics before
hand.

There's a chap called Michael de la Maza who has very strong views on
the matter, I suggest you look him up on Google, and what Silman had
to answer, it is an interesting debate.

Of course, for curiosity if anything else, some positional play can be
succesfully mastered by the lower class player as well : I had a
particularly happy experience with "Simple Chess " by Michael Stean,
which is a wonderful introductory course to the subject. Silman's
lauded positional book ( with all it's shortcomings, read negative
reviews on Amazon ) should be tackled, in my opinion, once you are at
least a Class B player, if not a little above.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need a beer.

Alessandro.

Date: 12 Sep 2008 10:32:27
From: John Salerno
Subject: Re: Why learn the endgame first?

"Alessandro J." <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:0decee53-0738-481b-a95b-7e7c20ffd424@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

> Learning a system opening is useful as it gives one an idea of what
> opening study is all about, which is something entirely different than
> memorizing an x number of moves by rote.

Yeah, I certainly don't plan to memorize openings (at least no more than a
couple moves deep). I just learn what I'm *supposed* to do in the opening,
and I try to do that. If I happen to be playing a book line, it's more or
less coincidental.

> Strategy is best left alone for the moment,as it would only frustrate
> and confuse you : you should consider it as the University course of
> an imaginary chess school, and, as I'm learning now, it really is just
> a way to position yourself in the best manner to use tactics,
> something entirely pointless if you haven't mastered tactics before
> hand.

Hmm, I've always found strategy to be the vaguest aspect of chess. Tactics
are easy because they are identifiable, named moves (fork, pin, etc.).
Strategy is more like "Ok, look for a plan and then execute it!" :)

Now, after reading Wolff's book, I see strategy a little more clearly.
Things to look for are weak spots in the opponent's position for example,
and then develop a plan to exploit it. (Of course, how to develop that plan
is still a bit of a mystery!).

Today I'll be getting Seirawan's book on Tactics, so I plan to start reading
that. The next step was going to be his Strategy book, then his Ending and
Opening books. Do you think I should skip the Strategy book for now?

Date: 11 Sep 2008 20:19:02
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Why learn the endgame first?

On Sep 11, 10:21=A0pm, John Salerno <[email protected] > wrote:

> I understand that it's crucial to learn the endgame, but it seems to me
> that learning the opening and middlegame are just as important (and
> certainly no *less* important?). So why does everyone suggest that you
> learn the endgame first? What benefit does this provide, and what might
> be the results of learning tactics and strategy first, or openings?

First: every chess game has an opening,
most (but not all) get to the middle game,
while relatively fewer reach the endgame
before someone resigns or is mated.

However... in learning both the earlier
parts, it often happens that a writer will
explain that such and such leads to "a
lost endgame". Now, if you learn the
game from front to back, you may never
understand why or how many endings
can be won or drawn by force.

But consider the opposite approach:
you learn the game backwards, first
"mastering" (yeah, right) simpler
positions, and then more and more
complex ones. In theory, you could
fully comprehend the whole shebang,
whereas the fellow who memorizes
openings by rote understands little if
anything, although he will stumble
into wins now and again.

The problem is that most beginners
(and a lot of non-beginners) consider
the endings to be relatively boring;
dull, dry stuff, with about as much
flavor as cardboard, dipped in cream
of wheat. This is why it may be best
to take Mr. Capablanca's advice with
a grain of salt. All the endgame
knowledge in the world will not help
you against a strong grandmaster,
as you will invariably be sliced and
diced right in the opening phase,
then checkmated in mid-game.

What seems to work reasonably
well is to learn a couple of opening
"systems" -- setups you can play
against anyone, weak or strong, and
gradually deepen your understanding
over time. When I was a young bot,
there were precious few works along
these lines; now there are perhaps
so many that it is difficult to choose
between them. One helpful clue is
to look for "understanding the..." in
a book's title, for that is the ultimate
goal, to truly understand what you
are doing, not merely playing by rote.

-- help bot

Date: 12 Sep 2008 20:56:47
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Why learn the endgame first?

On Sep 12, 10:35=A0am, "John Salerno" <[email protected] > wrote:

> What seems to work reasonably
> well is to learn a couple of opening
> "systems" -- setups you can play
> against anyone, weak or strong, and
> gradually deepen your understanding
> over time.

> Yeah, I never meant that I wanted to study deep opening lines before the
> endgame (although I could have been clearer), I just meant why not learn =
a
> bit of opening theory, tactics, and strategy before the endgame? Not simp=
ly
> because the opening comes first, then the middlegame, then the endgame, b=
ut
> more because it seems useless to learn the endgame if you haven't learned
> the others anyway.

Indeed, if you were to know nothing of the
openings and nothing of middle games
but play the endgame perfectly, the result
would be the same as if you were a duffer
in all three phases, for you would likely
never reach any but dead-lost endings!

This is why I mentioned the "system"
approach, where you can learn the ideas
behind a given, simple system over time.
This at least gives you an opportunity to
sneak through the middle game to some
ending which may be won or drawn, not
always lost.

Well, an alternative approach might be
called "total immersion", wherein you
jump into the deep end straightaway,
with no testing the waters using one toe.

Here, you want to play opponents a bit
stronger than yourself, so your mistakes
will be punished just enough for you to
learn. As you improve, you have to keep
seeking out stronger opponents than
before, to keep the learning process
going at a decent clip.

But back to the endgame for a moment;
I find that even though I play at a much
lower competitive level than I once did,
having an edge in the endgame over my
typical opponent gives me an edge all
the way through, because at each stage
I am fully aware of what may ultimately
result once many pieces are exchanged,
and the position and structure of the
pawns gain in relative importance.

Be that as it may, the fact remains that
tactics are what decide most games;
opening, middle game or endgame,
there is no just getting around them.

-- help bot

Date: 13 Sep 2008 13:37:06
From: John Salerno
Subject: Re: Why learn the endgame first?

help bot wrote:

> Be that as it may, the fact remains that
> tactics are what decide most games;
> opening, middle game or endgame,
> there is no just getting around them.

Yeah, I was actually quite proud of myself last night. I won my first
Yahoo game against someone because I spotted a way to fork their king
and queen. The problem was that the square I needed to put my knight on
was guarded by a pawn. So then I realized I could sacrifice my queen to
move that pawn, then I played the fork, took his queen, and this led to
a series of captures (a bishop, a rook) that really put me at an advantage.

I'm not sure if it's a great idea to sacrifice your queen, even if it
means winning the opponent's queen, but I was able to see at least far
enough ahead to know I'd win a few other pieces as well and get to an
endgame that I felt comfortable with.

Date: 12 Sep 2008 10:35:01
From: John Salerno
Subject: Re: Why learn the endgame first?

"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Sep 11, 10:21 pm, John Salerno <[email protected] > wrote:

What seems to work reasonably
well is to learn a couple of opening
"systems" -- setups you can play
against anyone, weak or strong, and
gradually deepen your understanding
over time.

Yeah, I never meant that I wanted to study deep opening lines before the
endgame (although I could have been clearer), I just meant why not learn a
bit of opening theory, tactics, and strategy before the endgame? Not simply
because the opening comes first, then the middlegame, then the endgame, but
more because it seems useless to learn the endgame if you haven't learned
the others anyway.