Zero wrote (9 May 2006 08:08:12 -0700):

Why should I study endgames??

_
Some other Zero questions:
_
Which is faster: The Enterprise or the Millenium Falcon
Why should I play chess???
Can you please recommend which [Sicilian variation]
is strongest one to learn ?
How come people who play chess act so weird and
strange?
Why does [Capablanca] say to start first with endgames
when the opening comes first ?
I played in some tournaments over the weekend. The
TD told me that he submitted them online and the
USCF took his money. But the USCF has not rated
them yet. Why is that the case?
Is Ray Gordon a secret identity for Bobby Fischer
Is there a chart that I can get which tells me the number
of minimum players required in a tournament that
would prevent any pairing conflicts.
can you recommend a good book to buy about Spassky's
best games?
are you the Don of chess ?
Do you think that Kamsky is playing chess again because
Kasparov retired from chess?
why is Kamsky not playing any of the main lines like he
used to play in the mid 90s. These days he is playing a
lot of sidelines in the Sicilian.
I was wondering ... why the super GMs don't play the
standard dxc4 slav .... Instead, they are opting to play
the Semi-Slav ... and the a6 Slav
_
_
Is this person for real? Does he ever thank people after
they try to help him?

In rec.games.chess.analysis Zero wrote:
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.


You need to know where you are going before you can plan to get there. Most
people that don't know endgames (I am no expert myself), are often scared to
simplify their middle game to an endgame because they are often beaten. If
you know how to steer your middlegame to a winnable endgame, you are spades
over your opponents that do not. If you can recognize a winable game, you
will win. Endgame studies are good for building simple tactical skills as
well.

Do you use Fritz or any chessbase engines that come with the Fritz 8 interface
or newer? If so, consider this.
http://www.chesscentral.com/software/chess-endgames.htm

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" wrote in message
...
In rec.games.chess.analysis Zero wrote:
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.


You need to know where you are going before you can plan to get there.

This simple statement says it all.

Regards

Not in the mood to analyze it,

I'm not surprised, as this game is a a typical example of why Ray's
"method of training" is nonsense.

So because I don't feel like analyzing someone else's game, this affects MY
training? LOL

According to Fritz, 2. b4 is the "last book move" (which,
unsurprisingly, is where Ray Gordon's comments about the game
stop...), after which both sides are "out of book".

The wing gambit runs many more moves than two.


So if white was "booked" and black was not, this happened for one
move-- 2. b4. According to Ray, white should now win more or less by
force, because of his superior (one-ply) book knowledge.

Straw man: the Wing Gambit has lots of theory.


Of course this is nonsense. While black's move isn't "book", the
position is still equal--for the next few moves, Fritz gives the
position ca. a +0-+0.5 or so evaluation. So black suffered not at all
from not being in "book", and white's "book advantage" counted for
nothing in this game.

Black declined the gambit, which is not wise.


Why, then, did black lose the game?

See above.


Again, according to Fritz, 10. ... exd4 is a huge blunder (10. ... Bf5
was necessary) allowing 11. Nd6+, in effect the winning move. Then,
however, white had blundered back most of the advantage with 13. Ne5+,
which is indeed tempting, but 13. Nxd4 would win outright (even if it
doesn't give check...); but then, black blunders back with 14. ... Kc7,
allowing 14. Nb5+, and then Ne8 allows a mate in three.

Semantics. People don't blunder in openings they know.


Obviously, none of these tactical blunders have anything to do with the
opening--we are out of "book" for *eight moves* when white gets an
advantage, and then he gets it due to black's tactical error, not due
to any "book knowledge" whatever.

Which has nothing to do with what wins at top level chess.

This is not said to criticize the players, but simply to show that--as
in 95%+ of amateur games--opening knowledge (beyond basic principles,
of course) means very little, if anything, any it is tactics that
determines almost everything.

Those who learn openings properly do not remain amateurs.


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

That, however, is not the main point I was making--my point was not
that the tactics that Fritz found in a quick check are necessarily
totally correct. The point is that the losing move, 10. ... exd4
(allowing 11. Nd6+) is simply a tactical blunder which has nothing to
do with the opening, which is the case with the decisive mistakes in
95%+ of amateur games.

Tactical blunders that early in the gamie are a natural byproduct of not
being properly booked up.


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

The double flip-side is that if you're losing by move ten, you're
losing because your tactics are lousy. Also, if you're losing by move
ten, you're losing once you've got, say, seven moves out of book.
Booking up to move ten just means that you'll lose on move seventeen
instead of move ten.

At first. Then move 17 becomes move 24, move 31, etc.

If you're losing seven moves after you come out of book, it doesn't
matter if you're booked out to move fifty.

Doesn't work that way. Every ONE move you book out makes the rest of the
game easier. The tipping point is reached when one outbooks everyone else,
as Fischer had done.

You're still going to lose
by move fifty-seven if your opponent plays reasonably well.

Every extra move one books up will increase their rating, since they
achieved the rating without the extra move, and will score more points now
that they play the better move.


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