Ray Gordon wrote:

He hung a rook not long ago in a tournament game.

And? A lot of world class players made grave mistakes in their games.
It's ridiculous how you want to belittle a world class player's ability
to play chess, just because he has reached what you will never achieve
and he has a different opinion about the basics of chess from you.

Greetings,
Ralf

The idea that one should "only" study endings is a carry over from Bobby
Fischer, who said as much. I believe Capablanca was the first great player
to emphasize endings over openings. Another notable was Reshevsky.

I've played about 400 rated games. I estimate that I've won maybe 15 games
directly because of my endgame knowledge. I don't count "indirect" or very
basic knowledge of endings because everybody above 1500 knows that doubled
pawns suck, backward pawns are liabilities, and that if you grab the
opposition you can often win. Of course there are other games where such
deep concepts as "put a rook on the 7th" led to endgame advantages, but all
that knowledge can probably be distilled into about 20 bullet points.

The vast majority of games played at my level (1600-2100) are decided in the
opening and middle game, or by outright blunders.

It's easy to say, "study the endings" because knowledge sufficient to win
95% of all endings can be learned by no more than 30-40 examples. It's a
pain to lose or draw when elementary endgame technique would have brought in
a full point, but as I said those situations are rare.

The advice to study endings is usually given by players who are already
quite strong. It's like the advice to "follow your heart" in choice of
careers. That's easy advice to give when you've devoted your life to bottle
cap collecting and due to a stroke of luck have been successful.



"Zero" wrote in message
ups.com...
I was beaten by a master this weekend. He told that in order to
improve chess players should study endgames.

I don't understand why I should study endgames. If I can't get through
the middlegame or the opening or am I supposed to get to a endgame?
Also I bought a endgame studies book and I don't see the point in going
over these studies. None of these positions are ever going to happen
in any of my real games.

The vast majority of games played at my level (1600-2100) are decided in
the opening and middle game, or by outright blunders.

It's easy to say, "study the endings" because knowledge sufficient to win
95% of all endings can be learned by no more than 30-40 examples. It's a
pain to lose or draw when elementary endgame technique would have brought
in a full point, but as I said those situations are rare.

This is true.

In fact, I did have one very good test of my "1/x rule" when I coached a
high-school team of a 1400-rated player and four beginners, two of whom
barely knew the rules, three hours a day, five days a week, on nothing but
openings and opening principles. I did this primarily because I didn't feel
there was time to make them competitive any other way.

This school, which had an 0-3 record when I got there, finished the season
5-2, winning its last two matches against the same school by a 9-1 score,
and the wins were all miniatures.

Eighteen months prior to this, I had defeated the same coach's "prized
pupil" in twenty-three moves with Black, and got to hear the same "study
endgames, not openings" lecture from the coach several times. It was bad
enough I'd beaten his prodigy, but when the kids I was coaching did it to
his kids five times over, it showed why: we threw punches from move one,
playing to win early, while they played merely to "survive," and didn't.

Endgames are definitely necessary to study, but they are not the holy grail
of chess, since only a fraction of chessgames even make it that far. Triple
overtime is not the main focus of basketball, and you don't see coaches
saving players for OT in regulation, do you? Of course not: they go all-out
for the win in regulation then do the best they can in OT if they are still
tied.

Back in the 1980s, when computer tools weren't around, one had to buy about
a dozen endgame books at a cost of about $300 or so to cover just about
everything he'd need to know, and to have a reference for those times when
he wound up in a confusing endgame situation.


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


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

"Ange1o DePa1ma" wrote in message
news

The idea that one should "only" study endings is a carry over from Bobby
Fischer, who said as much. I believe Capablanca was the first great player
to emphasize endings over openings. Another notable was Reshevsky.

I've played about 400 rated games. I estimate that I've won maybe 15 games
directly because of my endgame knowledge. I don't count "indirect" or very
basic knowledge of endings because everybody above 1500 knows that doubled
pawns suck, backward pawns are liabilities, and that if you grab the
opposition you can often win. Of course there are other games where such
deep concepts as "put a rook on the 7th" led to endgame advantages, but
all
that knowledge can probably be distilled into about 20 bullet points.


Gee, can't middlegames be summarized in one bullet point? "Analyze deeply
and accurately".

But seriously, I wonder about your counting here. It seems to me
the proper measure of the importance of endgames is how often
the result is, or could be, affected by moves played in that portion
of a game. My sense is that at the class level, chess games have a
lot of of back and forth in endings.


The vast majority of games played at my level (1600-2100) are decided in
the
opening and middle game, or by outright blunders.

It's easy to say, "study the endings" because knowledge sufficient to win
95% of all endings can be learned by no more than 30-40 examples. It's a
pain to lose or draw when elementary endgame technique would have brought
in
a full point, but as I said those situations are rare.

What about those not-so-elementary endgames? I'd bet that an
accurately played R+P endgame is a rarity in class A.

Now if you are saying that endgame study has poor returns
vs. other things that could be studied, you might be right. But
it seems that there would be very few chessplayers who
wouldn't benefit from playing endings better.

The advice to study endings is usually given by players who are already
quite strong. It's like the advice to "follow your heart" in choice of
careers. That's easy advice to give when you've devoted your life to
bottle
cap collecting and due to a stroke of luck have been successful.

Your basketball analogy doesn't work.
Chess changes from opening to middlegame to endgame. The endgame is a
simpler affair in some ways with only a few pieces left on the board.

Overtime in basketball is just a continuation of the game and is identical
to any other period of the game.



"Ray Gordon" wrote in message
news
The vast majority of games played at my level (1600-2100) are decided in
the opening and middle game, or by outright blunders.

It's easy to say, "study the endings" because knowledge sufficient to win
95% of all endings can be learned by no more than 30-40 examples. It's a
pain to lose or draw when elementary endgame technique would have brought
in a full point, but as I said those situations are rare.

This is true.

In fact, I did have one very good test of my "1/x rule" when I coached a
high-school team of a 1400-rated player and four beginners, two of whom
barely knew the rules, three hours a day, five days a week, on nothing but
openings and opening principles. I did this primarily because I didn't
feel there was time to make them competitive any other way.

This school, which had an 0-3 record when I got there, finished the season
5-2, winning its last two matches against the same school by a 9-1 score,
and the wins were all miniatures.

Eighteen months prior to this, I had defeated the same coach's "prized
pupil" in twenty-three moves with Black, and got to hear the same "study
endgames, not openings" lecture from the coach several times. It was bad
enough I'd beaten his prodigy, but when the kids I was coaching did it to
his kids five times over, it showed why: we threw punches from move one,
playing to win early, while they played merely to "survive," and didn't.

Endgames are definitely necessary to study, but they are not the holy
grail of chess, since only a fraction of chessgames even make it that far.
Triple overtime is not the main focus of basketball, and you don't see
coaches saving players for OT in regulation, do you? Of course not: they
go all-out for the win in regulation then do the best they can in OT if
they are still tied.

Back in the 1980s, when computer tools weren't around, one had to buy
about a dozen endgame books at a cost of about $300 or so to cover just
about everything he'd need to know, and to have a reference for those
times when he wound up in a confusing endgame situation.


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


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

Your basketball analogy doesn't work.
Chess changes from opening to middlegame to endgame.

If you survive the opening.

The endgame is a simpler affair in some ways with only a few pieces left on
the board.

If you get there.


Overtime in basketball is just a continuation of the game and is identical
to any other period of the game.

If the players get there, and no, it's not "just a continuation of the
game," but a five-minute sudden death period where foul trouble continues.

Here's an example: there is three minutes left in a basketball game, you're
tied, and your star player has five fouls. Do you bench him to save him for
overtime or put him in to finish the game?


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

What about those not-so-elementary endgames? I'd bet that an
accurately played R+P endgame is a rarity in class A.

Even in class "GM" that could be said too.

En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit:

In fact, I did have one very good test of my "1/x rule" when I coached a
high-school team of a 1400-rated player and four beginners, two of whom
barely knew the rules, three hours a day, five days a week, on nothing but
openings and opening principles. I did this primarily because I didn't feel
there was time to make them competitive any other way.

This school, which had an 0-3 record when I got there, finished the season
5-2, winning its last two matches against the same school by a 9-1 score,
and the wins were all miniatures.

I claim Ray lies lies and lies,

please, post here the games of the pupils before your coaching and the
games after it and post the concrete data of those school to prove that.

I think you are lying!!
.... and if really you are coaching that high School, I think, as a
educator, I must notify them you are doing a very bad coaching!

AT

In fact, I did have one very good test of my "1/x rule" when I coached a
high-school team of a 1400-rated player and four beginners, two of whom
barely knew the rules, three hours a day, five days a week, on nothing
but openings and opening principles. I did this primarily because I
didn't feel there was time to make them competitive any other way.

This school, which had an 0-3 record when I got there, finished the
season 5-2, winning its last two matches against the same school by a 9-1
score, and the wins were all miniatures.

I claim Ray lies lies and lies,

Wow, libel!


please, post here the games of the pupils before your coaching and the
games after it and post the concrete data of those school to prove that.

Steve Schutt, a USCF something or other, coached one of the only two schools
to defeat that team of mine (Masterman crushed them 5-0, since they were
trained to survive the opening onslaught).

I coached that school as part of my overall training and because a chess
friend of mine was their top board. The school was four blocks from my
home.

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

I dunno the answer to your basketball question, I'm English.
We don't have basketball here, well we do but its called netball and played
by schoolgirls.

But to get back to the original point about chess, its funny how Capablanca
and Short both say the same thing. I think i will stick with their advice
thank you.

"Ray Gordon" wrote in message
om...
Your basketball analogy doesn't work.
Chess changes from opening to middlegame to endgame.

If you survive the opening.

The endgame is a simpler affair in some ways with only a few pieces left
on the board.

If you get there.


Overtime in basketball is just a continuation of the game and is
identical to any other period of the game.

If the players get there, and no, it's not "just a continuation of the
game," but a five-minute sudden death period where foul trouble continues.

Here's an example: there is three minutes left in a basketball game,
you're tied, and your star player has five fouls. Do you bench him to
save him for overtime or put him in to finish the game?


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