Why does he say to start first with endgames when the opening comes
first ?

"Zero" wrote in message
oups.com...
Why does he say to start first with endgames when the opening comes
first ?

It is so that you have the confidence that if you see a combination that
wins a pawn you will play it and not look for some bizarre other combination
that might actually lose you the game.

Why does he say to start first with endgames when the opening comes
first ?

Very basic endgames are necessary.

What's also necessary is learning how to win a clearly won ending even more
than knowing what to do in an equal one.

An endgame is like a broken play in the NFL.

--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918

Ray Gordon wrote:

An endgame is like a broken play in the NFL.

A Ray Gordon is like a cracked pot in a china factory.

Charles

An endgame is like a broken play in the NFL.

A Ray Gordon is like a cracked pot in a china factory.

I guess "Charles" is another one of those wimps who can't let his aggression
out any other way.

Pity the eunuch.


--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918

In article ,
"Ray Gordon" wrote:

An endgame is like a broken play in the NFL.

This is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard written about
chess.

Read my response to your other post, Zero, for an answer to your
question.

Ron schrieb:

An endgame is like a broken play in the NFL.

This is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard written about
chess.

Time to ask: what is a "broken play"? I am not sure about the meaning.

Greetings,
Ralf

Ray Gordon wrote:
Why does he say to start first with endgames when the opening comes
first ?


Very basic endgames are necessary.

What's also necessary is learning how to win a clearly won ending even more
than knowing what to do in an equal one.

So you'd rather avoid drawing a won game instead of avoiding to lose
drawn ones?

And you wouldn't like to have a good chance of saving lost positions?
Oh, I forget you of course would never have any of those. Well, hardly ever.

An endgame is like a broken play in the NFL.


It's the logical result of a lot of chess games.

And try to evaluate the following position (white to play) and find
either the winning move(s), the drawing move(s) or the move(s) offering
the best chance of swindling black (if the position is lost):
1r6/1P2R3/7p/2pp4/6p1/2k3P1/4KP1P/8 w - - 0 43
wKe2,Re7,Pb7,f2,g3,h2/bKc3,Rb8,Pc5,d5,g4,h6

Good luck with that with just "very basic" endgame knowledge + tons of
opening theory . I suppose maybe your computer can help you...

--Björn

In article . com,
"Ralf Callenberg" wrote:

Ron schrieb:

An endgame is like a broken play in the NFL.

This is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard written about
chess.

Time to ask: what is a "broken play"? I am not sure about the meaning.

A broken play is what happens when there's a miscommunication, so the
players are running different plays, or don't understand what their
assignments are and have to guess.

Usually when this happens the defense makes a quick tackle for a loss or
no gain, but because of the chaos on the field, sometimes an
improvisational player can make something beautiful and wonderful
happen.

-Ron

An endgame is like a broken play in the NFL.

This is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard written about
chess.

Time to ask: what is a "broken play"? I am not sure about the meaning.

A broken play is what happens when there's a miscommunication [etc.]

Thanks. Well I have to agree, in this case the comparison is indeed
complete nonsense. I have not the slightest idea on what it could be
based.

Greetings,
Ralf