Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
What did you learn that propelled you to the next level? What did you learn that propelled you to the next level?

02-18-2015 , 05:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by watergun7
If you can speak Russian, then probably Yuri Averbakh's books would have been curriculum.
Of course I didn't read them thoroughly enough, but I think I picked something from them, like the adage that nearly all middlegame tactics are either combined or double attacks. Still. my results didn't improve much upon reading them, so I really doubt that they're really worth spending time.
What did you learn that propelled you to the next level? Quote
02-18-2015 , 05:56 PM
I disagree for me. It depends a lot where exactly you want to improve to. Of course at lower levels, being great at endings won't be that useful if one side is going to be at least a few pawns up etc. But for me from 2000+ learning endings helped a lot. I saved a lot of games because my opponent exchanged some pieces into an ending where I had more chances to hold etc. Also ofc I didn't make as many mistakes myself doing the same thing.

Also depends what openings you play- you can study certain structures in endings. For example one of the reasons why I liked to play the Sicilian is because black generally has a great endgame. There are a few dragon endings that I know quite well (e.g. black sacs a piece for 3/4 pawns, exchange sac on c3 into an ending etc). Similarly against 1.d4, the Nimzo is an opening that generally gives black a superior endgame if white has no other advantages. I also know the (1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.dxc3 Qxd1 7.Kxd1) ending quite well.

I used to own a book (or 2) concentrating on opening specific end games but for the life of me I can't remember what it's called.
What did you learn that propelled you to the next level? Quote
02-18-2015 , 06:04 PM
Ah found it:

http://www.amazon.com/Mastering-Endg.../dp/0080377777

I used to own both vol 1 and vol 2 (prob still do but can't find it). I strongly recommend these books for anyone aiming to get to 2200+, even for those who want to get to IM/GM level. The books are absolutely amazing and goes through typical endings which arise from popular openings.
What did you learn that propelled you to the next level? Quote
02-18-2015 , 06:09 PM
nvm they are out of print now so cost a lot. So meh.
What did you learn that propelled you to the next level? Quote
02-18-2015 , 10:11 PM
How often are you guys focusing on what your opponent is trying to do versus what you're trying to do? Or maybe a more clear question is: When do you decide it's time to be defensive versus offensive? Is it mainly an instinctual "this could get dangerous" type of feeling when you look to be defensive? I guess I remember when I was a good poker player I would get all sorts of instincts that I would then justify with reason--so I'm wondering if it's similar for good chess players.

Also, how often are you surprised to find yourself in a losing position? I watch a lot of games played by the world's greats, and often I get the sense the losing player is thinking "I'm going to win, I'm going to win, I'm going to win," and then BAM they realize they're about to lose.
What did you learn that propelled you to the next level? Quote
02-19-2015 , 03:34 AM
After 40 years of chess I have learned two things:

1. The evaluation-function and the move-search-algorithm are essentially the same.
2. There is no planning in chess. There are only good moves and bad moves.
What did you learn that propelled you to the next level? Quote
02-19-2015 , 03:56 AM
I'll let you know when I get to the next level.
What did you learn that propelled you to the next level? Quote
02-19-2015 , 05:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Go_Blue
How often are you guys focusing on what your opponent is trying to do versus what you're trying to do?
"Versus"? There's no dichotomy. Both are interconnected. What your opponent is trying to do often leads to what you want to do. What you are trying to do often leads to what your opponent should do. Etc. etc. etc.

You should keep track of what your opponent is trying to do on pretty much every move. It usually helps to ask "What does my opponent's last move do?" very early in your thought process.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Go_Blue
Or maybe a more clear question is: When do you decide it's time to be defensive versus offensive?
This question isn't the same at all -- the mappings of "offense -> what you're trying to do" and "defense -> what your opponent's trying to do" don't work. You're not going to be good at "offense" if you aren't paying attention to your opponent's resources. And strong defensive play requires an awareness of what you have going on (counterattacking resources, whatever).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Go_Blue
Is it mainly an instinctual "this could get dangerous" type of feeling when you look to be defensive?
I think you should rarely be "looking to be offensive" or "looking to be defensive". You should be looking to play the strongest moves / operations you can find, whatever they are.

Like, imagine a typical position that calls for a pawn storm. By playing it, you aren't "looking to be offensive"; you are looking to enact a positional operation that you recognize to be correct, which happens to be offensive. When you play Kc1-b1 while castled on opposite wings, you aren't "looking to be defensive"; you are playing the move you recognize to be correct and which happens to be of a defensive nature.

You get to a point in a contest of dueling pawn storms where your opponent threatens to win a bit of material, and you sac it (and it happens to be the best move) to continue with your attack. Were you really "looking to be offensive"? Okay, maybe. (This can be one of the rare instances where it might be helpful to think that way.) But more than that, you were playing in accordance with what you know the position calls for -- a valuation of tempi > inessential material -- which happens to be (very) offensively. If you didn't know that concept beforehand, if all you had was a determination to play offensively, would you sac the material? Maybe not. That clearly isn't what reliably leads to the correct moves -- it's calculation* and/or the knowledge of (and feel for) specific positions that does.


*I won't bother with a calculation-intensive example. It should be obvious anyway.

Last edited by Rei Ayanami; 02-19-2015 at 05:49 AM.
What did you learn that propelled you to the next level? Quote
02-19-2015 , 06:22 AM
Studying endgames is one of those things like "if you want to be good at piano, practice your scales!". It's good advice except that it is insanely boring. I think it's good advice for those looking to get to master level and bad advice for those wanting to progress and have fun at the same time.

Disclaimer: I'm a patzer.
What did you learn that propelled you to the next level? Quote
02-19-2015 , 06:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rei Ayanami
It usually helps to ask "What does my opponent's last move do?" very early in your thought process.
Yeah, I mostly play blitz, but if I simply remembered to do this every move, I think I'd be like 100 rating points higher.
What did you learn that propelled you to the next level? Quote
02-19-2015 , 09:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisV
Studying endgames is one of those things like "if you want to be good at piano, practice your scales!". It's good advice except that it is insanely boring. I think it's good advice for those looking to get to master level and bad advice for those wanting to progress and have fun at the same time.

Disclaimer: I'm a patzer.
I only agree with you with certain endgames. For example, http://www.amazon.co.uk/Secrets-Mino.../dp/0805042288 I had this book, but couldn'f finish reading it as it was so tedius and I basically forgot most of it (only vaguely remember some winning zone stuff).

There are 2 types of endgame study. You are talking about the "do the scales" thing, where you really have to memorise some specific positions to win from. This can get very boring, but it depends a bit if you ever enjoyed solving mathematical (or otherwise) puzzles and have some ideas about such positions. I found especially stuff to do with setting up a fortress quite interesting and rewarding for example. If you have zero intuition about this sort of thing though (as I did with minor piece endings) you would get bored fast.

The other side of endgame study is far more interesting. I would recommend books which has practical games in them going through the whole game explaining moves etc. In this regard I don't find endings less interesting than middle games. Like how you should set up your pawns if you are 1 pawn down in certain endings to maximize your chance of a draw. Yes you can just straight up memorise them, but you can also think about it logically to understand reasoning behind it. Endings are the area of the game where you can literally plan out everything, and this I find very interesting.

Idk there isn't much I find boring about endings. There is always some pattern which you can work out or think about (except minor piece endings lol), and there are many unique ideas that you don't get in other areas of the game. It's daunting at first, but the more you know, the more enjoyable it becomes. And over the board you will begin to be able to work out strategic plans to win from a specific position (know what your goals are etc).

Like this random game:

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1199712

Black won eventually- but what move could he have played at move 53 to end things quicker? It's amazing that he was even a grandmaster to have missed this. If you at least thought about Q vs 1p endings then you should find the answer very quickly (hint the black K can be on a1). I personally found pleasure in seeing this neat trick.
What did you learn that propelled you to the next level? Quote
02-19-2015 , 11:09 AM
If you guys are interested I could post some endgame concepts from time to time in this forum.
What did you learn that propelled you to the next level? Quote
02-20-2015 , 05:57 PM
Very interested.
What did you learn that propelled you to the next level? Quote
02-22-2015 , 04:56 PM
So in my last post with the Q+P endgame it's a nice trick to know that although with the h pawn it's usually a draw vs Q (if the K is too far away), if you have more pawns remaining the game turns into a loss because the Q can force the K away from the h pawn or force mate (with Q-g6-f7-f8x). In that game white should have played g4, then h5 to swap off the last pawn (although I haven't worked out if this amounts to a draw).

OK another "easy" position this time (easy as in we should work out exactly what our plan is). Usually with just 3 pawns vs 2 on the same wing and equal material, it's a draw outside of pure K+P endings. But here, white has some weaknesses, and it's a N vs B (advantageous for attacking N if play is on the same wing):



Can black win here? What is his best plan of action?
What did you learn that propelled you to the next level? Quote
02-23-2015 , 12:03 PM
I'll give the whole thought process that should go on here:

Spoiler:
First with all endings we think about possible simplifications. We note that if we swap B and N, the position is won since we can force the black K to g3 and play the f pawn to f3 and win the h pawn. So lets think about how black can make progress.

1. Sac knight for 2 pawns on h3- this ending is not a win for black as a bishop is too good at setting up a light square blockade, and we have an h pawn.

2. Win the g pawn- this is impossible without white blundering.

3. Play for the pawn break on g4- white can just capture the pawn and with not losing g2, he can then swap 1 more pawn off with the pawn on g2 if black wants to make progress, so this achieves little. Btw it's a general theme in similar endings that the player trying for a win should refrain from swapping his g/b pawn for a/h pawns unless there is a tactical reason, or in some cases when we create a passed pawn.

So this only leaves the final option- playing the f pawn to f3.

The plan:

We play Kf4 next move, then manoeuvre the N to e4 and force Ke3. Then if white turtles still we play Ke2-e1 and play Ng3-e2 and force the black K onto f2. We have to be careful of some g3 hxg3 Kg2 moves, and can stop this at any time with f7-f5-f4. If white plays K to f1 it remains to be seen if we have a winning continuation.

Once we get our K to f2 we can force it onto g3, and play the aforementioned plan of f7-f3, gxf3 Nxf3, then winning the h pawn and the game.

The actual key line (from a game):

1...Kf4 2.Kf2 Nf5 3.Bb7 Nd6 4.Bd5 Ne4+ 5.Kg1 f6 6.Bc6 Ke3 7.Be8 g5 8.Kf1! (white's most resilient try)



8...Kf4 9.Bc6 Nc5 10.Kf2 Nd3+ 11.Ke2 Ne5! 12.Bb7 Kg3 and the rest should follow.

Note that if white kept his bishop on the a8-h1 diagonal (specifically a8), black would have been able to waste a tempo with a pawn move on the K side to force the B onto b7 c6 or d5 to carry out his double attack of the B and the ...Kg3 threat.

So the endgame rests on a knife's edge. Had black's pawns been too far advanced the position could well be a draw.

what can we learn from this? It's very important to not set pawns to be the same colour of your bishop in B vs N endings, and also just how bad a/h pawns are in endings (if you didn't know already) both for the attacking side and the side playing for a draw.

In same side pawns (with 1 extra pawn) as the attacking side, we should therefore try to go for the h pawn break if possible to create weaknesses, and if not, we play for the pawn break on the other side of the pawn chain.

A very important defensive "formation" in rook and pawn endings is the following:



Because it's a rook ending, white doesn't have any meaningful light-squared weakness. This formation makes it very hard for black to make progress. He really wants to push the h pawn forward himself, but now can only go for the e3 break. Although this ending is very different to a minor piece one, the pawn structure theme is the same.

Last edited by watergun7; 02-23-2015 at 12:06 PM. Reason: err... imagine black has a rook on board
What did you learn that propelled you to the next level? Quote
02-24-2015 , 02:21 PM
Dunno if anyone is reading these... but anyway here is some more stuff to think about.

Usually with R+2p vs minor piece +3p on the same side it's a draw. But can we construct a "fortress" for N+3p vs R+2p? The 2p being on g and h files. There are many ways to draw this ending, but if you are not careful it can easily be a loss. So think about something like this is very helpful.
What did you learn that propelled you to the next level? Quote
02-24-2015 , 02:24 PM
And we can add in the simpler B+3p vs R+g and h pawns. Find a fortress (there are many) where we can prove that it's a draw. Bishops are much better defending vs a R due to their synergy with pawns, and the fact that N are terrible vs rooks and are easily trapped.
What did you learn that propelled you to the next level? Quote
02-24-2015 , 05:17 PM
I'm reading. Suspect there's plenty of others too
What did you learn that propelled you to the next level? Quote
02-24-2015 , 10:28 PM
Cool glad it's not useless!

Anyway here are the aforementioned some fortresses:

Spoiler:
B+3p vs R+2P:

Obviously there are 2 scenarios, but in both cases the B side only actually requires 2 pawns to draw and not 3 (knight and 2 pawns however is usually lost against R and 2 pawns).



Note the familiar trend with the h pawn forwards! The key here is that black cannot keep his K on g4 (be careful where you place the bishop- it needs to give check once black has K on g4).

For the other coloured bishop we have:



Here black finds it even harder to make progress. Even after h7-h4 and swapping pawns, white will then keep his K on h2 and move the B on the a7-g1 diagonal for days (note that the ending against the lone h pawn without f2 pawn is still a draw, as long as black's h pawn is advanced too far at h4).

Now for the more difficult N fortress:



This position (or with the pawn back on h4) is a slightly different take on the usual advanced h pawn defensive formation. Although not as aesthetically pleasing as the bishop fortresses, white can hold an easy draw. The only way for black to make progress is to get his K to f1 (note he can't keep it on e2 since white will check him away with his N), but by then white can move his pieces forward and force trade of pawns for an easy draw.

If white tries to set up on f2, g3, h4, it's possible that black can advance his pawn to g4 and trap either trap the N on g1, or force an exchange sac for the N and f pawn into a winning ending.
What did you learn that propelled you to the next level? Quote
02-25-2015 , 06:21 AM
Nice posts!
What did you learn that propelled you to the next level? Quote
02-25-2015 , 02:21 PM
Stay tuned. Will be posting more of these same side pawn structure endgames, then prob move onto something else (pawns on both wings maybe?). Anyway these positions are of great practical importance, and if you know them it can help a lot in general with endings to know what pieces to exchange, and what position you want to aim for.

If you guys want- I can also post some simpler stuff as well (opposition, K+P endings, and some thematic R+P vs R).
What did you learn that propelled you to the next level? Quote
02-26-2015 , 12:35 PM


An instructive position on how to win R+4 vs R+3. As we can see, black has failed to make the f7-h5 position, and so is set to suffer for a long time. One thing to point out is that because the activity of the R is so important, even if black had an extra pawn at c7, his position won't have improved by much.

1.g5?!

Preparing this with Kg3, f3, e4 first is better. Black now has a difficult choice.

1...gxh5?!

1...h6! is a better, tactical shot.

2.Ra6 Rb3?

2...Re7 is better, planning 3.Kg3 Re6, and 3.Rh6 Re5 4.Rxh5 Kg6 5.Rh6 Kg7=

3.Rh6 Ra3 4.Kg3 Ra1 5.e4 Rg1+ 6.Kf4 Rh1 7.e5 h4?

The passive 7...Kg8 is better. The position now seems lost.



8.Kg4 Rg1+ 9.Kf5 Rh1 10.f4

...

White can eventually force into the position:



Which is a won position for white (why?).

btw the game is Gligoric-Euwe 1953 zurich http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1042832
What did you learn that propelled you to the next level? Quote
02-26-2015 , 12:48 PM
Conclusions about same side pawns endings:

In minor piece endings, the advantage side is much better off with a Knight than a Bishop (of either colour). Because all the action is on the same side, it's very easy for the defending side to cover his weaknesses since only 1 colour of squares can be attacked. This is even ignoring the drawing motifs associated with the "wrong" Rook's pawn in Bishop endings.

For the defending side however, Bishops do just as well if not better than Knights. This is because of how well they work with pawns to form defensive formations, and how bad the Knight defending its pawns (or defending against enemy past pawns). Also the power of the zugzwang almost always gives the Bishop the edge for defence (even in same side pawns endings).

In general both the attacking side and defending side really wants to advance the rook's pawn forwards. The only exception is pure N vs N endings (doesn't occur often in practical play tbh)- they are very complex and plays similar to pure K vs K endings with added "hopping around".
What did you learn that propelled you to the next level? Quote
02-26-2015 , 12:53 PM
A bit of "fun" now. Idk if you guys ever played the game where you start with 8 pawns only- who ever queens first wins. This game is probably a forced win for someone (I'm thinking black), but it's hard to prove.

Anyway- we know how to keep the zugzwang as the 2nd player with 1 pawn each and 2 pawns each- how should we do it with 3 pawns? If you don't understand what I mean:



White to play first. How should black play?
What did you learn that propelled you to the next level? Quote
02-27-2015 , 03:12 AM
Since you guys seem to be into endings, it might make sense to check out Dvoretsky's "Endgame University".
What did you learn that propelled you to the next level? Quote

      
m