Petrovitch wrote:
I'm having trouble understanding corresponding squares. The orthadox
system is similar to Euclidean geometry when dealing with opposition,
but there are many instances where the pawn structure warps our
understanding of opposition revealing a curviture of space. If a
player makes what appears direct, distant, diagonal, or oblique
opposiiton the game will be lost; an understand of corresponding
square is required to find the correct move. I do not have this
understanding. Can anyone recommend further reading on this subject?
My only source is a single page from Mark Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual.


Aside from Averbakh's monograph on the subject (which is pretty dense,
even for masters), an excellent treatment, with many practical
examples, is "The Final Countdown" by van Riemsdijk and Hajenius
(Cadogan 1997).

On Nov 15, 6:04 am, wrote:

Aside from Averbakh's monograph on the subject (which is pretty dense,
even for masters), an excellent treatment, with many practical
examples, is "The Final Countdown" by van Riemsdijk and Hajenius
(Cadogan 1997).


Here is a brief snippet from a review by Jeremy Silman:

"One day I was relaxing between endless raves and pulled out my
copy of The Final Countdown. Serper (who is an extremely talented
player) asked what I was looking at. I handed it to him and he
glanced at the contents. "Why would anyone want to read this?"
he asked. Other grandmasters passed it around and also looked
at me as if I was insane."

------

Anyone who is familiar with the typical chess book review
on that site will immediately notice that far from any real
"review" of the book's contents, when it comes to works on
the endgame, these openings-mongers appear to know zip.

Not one position was taken and tested for accuracy of its
analysis -- an astounding change in methodology from
what happens when a given book on the /openings/ is up
for review. Thus far, each time I have looked up almost any
work on this neglected phase of the game, no substantive
knowledge is demonstrated by the FIDE-titled reviewers
whatsoever. The commentary is always positive, but no
real meat is doled out; I think this reveals something about
how the reviewers' time and effort is allocated among the
various parts of the game.

By comparison, when a work on the opening is reviewed,
there might be as many as fifty lines discussed, in which
the expert details every conceivable angle: accuracy of
analysis, referenced prior works, overall suitability for
players of various strengths, etc., etc.

One final note: look at the names of the authors of this
book on K & p endings, on corresponding squares; do
you see the name "Schiller" or "Keene" or "Soltis" or
even "Silman" on the cover? Of course not. The very
reason names like Nobody-ski and Forgottenius can
make it to print is the lack of big-name competition, due
to an utter lack of interest on their part. Indeed, the gut
reaction "are you insane?" fits perfectly with the facts:
chess has largely become a book-monkey battle of
openings theory.


-- help bot