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.

Chapter 10 in Volume 4 of "Comprehensive Chess Endings"by Y. Averbakh & I.
Maizelis discusses several "Theory of Corresponding Squares Systems".

"Petrovitch" wrote in message
oups.com...
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.

Petrovitch wrote:
I'm having trouble understanding corresponding squares.

To say that two squares `correspond' is to say that `if his king is on
that square, my king must be on this square or I lose.' (Or, more
generally, `if his king is on that square, my king must be on one of
these squares', since the correspondence does not have to be one-to-
one.)

Sometimes, as you observe, the opposition will allow you to work out
what the corresponding squares are. But, in general, the only way to
work it out is to imagine the kings on the relevant squares and
analyze. As such, the method is more commonly used when solving
problems and in correspondence play (no pun intended), rather than
over the board.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Strange Laptop T-Shirt (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a fashion statement that you can put
on your lap but it's totally weird!

On Nov 13, 6:12 am, David Richerby
wrote:

Sometimes, as you observe, the opposition will allow you to work out
what the corresponding squares are. But, in general, the only way to
work it out is to imagine the kings on the relevant squares and
analyze. As such, the method is more commonly used when solving
problems and in correspondence play (no pun intended), rather than
over the board.

I've certainly used the idea of corresponding squares in OTB games, so
I am not sure relegating it to problems, and for some reason, to
correspondence play, is accurate.

On Nov 13, 10:14 am, SBD wrote:

Sometimes, as you observe, the opposition will allow you to work out
what the corresponding squares are. But, in general, the only way to
work it out is to imagine the kings on the relevant squares and
analyze. As such, the method is more commonly used when solving
problems and in correspondence play (no pun intended), rather than
over the board.

I've certainly used the idea of corresponding squares in OTB games, so
I am not sure relegating it to problems, and for some reason, to
correspondence play, is accurate.

I think you may need to work more on tactics;
clearly, by the time you reach the sort of ending
in which this theory is crucial, you ought to be
at least a full pawn ahead, /like me/. ;D


-- help bot

SBD wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
Sometimes, as you observe, the opposition will allow you to work
out what the corresponding squares are. But, in general, the only
way to work it out is to imagine the kings on the relevant squares
and analyze. As such, the method is more commonly used when
solving problems and in correspondence play (no pun intended),
rather than over the board.

I've certainly used the idea of corresponding squares in OTB games,
so I am not sure relegating it to problems, and for some reason, to
correspondence play, is accurate.

I only said it was `more common' in problems and correspondence. I
mentioned correspondence chess because, there, unlike OTB chess,
you're allowed to make notes.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Disgusting Salted Widget (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a thingy but it's covered in salt
and it'll turn your stomach!

On Nov 13, 10:02 am, help bot wrote:

I think you may need to work more on tactics;
clearly, by the time you reach the sort of ending
in which this theory is crucial, you ought to be
at least a full pawn ahead, /like me/. ;D


Actually I overemphasize the tactical (if you open 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3
d5!? you must), but I think that was the point he intended to make -
that the need rarely surfaces in his or most OTB games because of the
material surplus usually found in most endings, making fine strategy
moot.

However I have won tons of games where my opponent kept telling me it
was a dead draw, and many of them because of sloppy king handling in
the endgame ("doesn't matter if I move to b6 or c6....").

On Nov 13, 10:34 am, David Richerby
wrote:

I only said it was `more common' in problems and correspondence. I
mentioned correspondence chess because, there, unlike OTB chess,
you're allowed to make notes.

I'm sort of starting to see.... is it a depth of analysis you are
referring to?

On Nov 13, 11:41 am, SBD wrote:

However I have won tons of games where my opponent kept telling me it
was a dead draw, and many of them because of sloppy king handling in
the endgame ("doesn't matter if I move to b6 or c6....").

At GetClub, the main problem is that -- as far as I can tell --
the program is still in defensive mode, even if no pieces remain
except the two Kings!

Most pawn endings do not require any serious knowledge
of corresponding squares theory; in most cases, knowledge
of the opposition and direct calculation will do the job. In
fact, I believe the mate with BB or with BN comes up more
often than corresponding squares.


-- help bot

On Nov 13, 12:59 pm, help bot wrote:

of the opposition and direct calculation will do the job. In
fact, I believe the mate with BB or with BN comes up more
often than corresponding squares.


That strikes me as incredibly implausible, do you have any proof?