61 ( +1 | -1 ) endgamesJust started an intense study of endgames. Wow! Thius stuff is pretty heavy. It is no wonder many club p,ayers are weak in this area. Memorizing proper endgame technique makes openings look like child's play. I had to practice a simple rook and pawn technique about twenty times befoe I started to get a feel for the pattern. Even king and pawn endgames are tricky unless you take alot of time. I am still getting ready for the task of mating over-the-board with bishop and knight and other difficult mating stiuations.
14 ( +1 | -1 ) Well, you learn something..........every day! I've never owned or even read a book on endgames --- I've always worked out the moves for myself, no doubt not always successfully.
38 ( +1 | -1 ) yeah.....me too! 'til I started reading these forums. Turns out it's all one big game....opening, middle and endgame. They should flow together. Many of the openings are "aimed" at setting up certain types of endgames. I recently bought a copy of " THE AMATEUR'S MIND" BY Jeremy Silman and began reading more about endgames. In the last month I've picked up over 200 pts in my rate...nuf said
8 ( +1 | -1 ) philaretustwo other concepts you MUST look into are "the opposition" and " triangulation" check 'em out.
13 ( +1 | -1 ) PS......could be you have already worked these things out for yourself as you stated was your habit to do. If so, you'll be amazed to find out how smart you are. ;-)
31 ( +1 | -1 ) Rook and Pawn technique.Yes, brobishkin, well actually I learned how to manipulate certain endgames, just to set up a lucena position and then follow through with the rather elaborate pattern of queening the pawn by "building a bridge" with the rook and king.
65 ( +1 | -1 ) victordThere's much more to endgame technique than being able to identify these terminal positions. In practice, you find yourself with (for example) King, Rook, Knight, and four pawns against King, Rook, Knight, and three pawns (or even four pawns). How do you play? You have to try to identify the THEME of the ending, and proceed accordingly --- even if for the time being it's only gaining some space.
BTW, the 'opposition' is something I learned about from playing draughts (American 'checkers'). But it becomes obvious as soon as you (for example) try to keep the enemy King away from the queening square.
44 ( +1 | -1 ) Good book..."The Amatuer's Mind" is a personal fav of mine... Thr Lucena Position and the Philidor Position are the most popular of King-Rook-Pawn vs King-Pawn endgames... One develops a win and the other a draw... It all comes down to the endgame...
It is said one must play like a book in the opening, like a magician in the middle game, and like a machine in the endgame... A player that studies has already fought more than half the battle...
15 ( +1 | -1 ) Brunetti...I stand corrected... Absolutly right... King-Rook-Pawn vs King-Rook... Many thanks... Sorry about that folks...
48 ( +1 | -1 ) endgamesAt a high level I never win or lose the game until the endgame. If I have outplayed my opponent, I have some chance to win the endgame. If he has outplayed me, I have some chance to draw the endgame. Most players spend too much time on learning openings. Time would be better spent on endgames.
Fine's "Basic Chess Endgames" has no errors of substance - only a few errors of implementation.
Schereschevsky's endgames books. Mednis. Great stuff there.
87 ( +1 | -1 ) I am studying Fine's Endgames.Great Book. I just recently joined the local chess club. And on the first day I played one of the best, if not the best players. I maneuvered against a backward pawn, and the whole middle game revolved around this pawn which I finally won. In the resultant endgame I couldn't figure out how to win, and he eventually grabbed back the pawn and we agreed to a draw.
After finishing this very interesting and enjoyable positional game. I was speaking with the club leader who asked me how I did in the game. I told him what happened and he was very surprised! He said, "You were a pawn up in the endgame! Wow, you must be good, that guy usually beats me 6 out of 7 times!"
After learning this I realized I needed to study endgames. I earned the chance for a win against a very strong player by playing a great middle game and blew it because of my weak endgame skills....
12 ( +1 | -1 ) Rook on the 7th RankI recently saw a comment that "a Rook on the 7th rank is worth a Pawn". What does this eccentially mean?
12 ( +1 | -1 ) Maybethat you may even sacrifice a pawn if you then can put a Rook on the seventh rank: it's a good enough compensation.
29 ( +1 | -1 ) Thanks!!Well the reason I posted in this endgame thread was that I found the comment from a page discussing endgames...
Now that formerly cryptic remark starts to make sense!
12 ( +1 | -1 ) are you surethat you don't mean it the other way round (a pawn on the seventh rank is worth a rook)? Makes more sense to me.
5 ( +1 | -1 ) brunettiis right if you sac a pawn fir 1 0r 2 pigs on the 7th you usually get compensation.
27 ( +1 | -1 ) Pigs?Graham Burgess in his book "Chess,Tactics and Strategy" says of all the masters I have known only one uses the term pigs for rooks---Seirawan! But to get back to the conversation, quite often a pawn on the seventh is priceless. I mean, if it wins, what is its value?
42 ( +1 | -1 ) pigsI've seen Silman mention 'pigs' but i have a feeling he was citing Seirawan. I personally dislike this name for rooks. I mean really, what positive property does 'pig' apply to our stalwart seventh rank sluggers? Had not bishops earlier been portrayed as elephants, I'd envision the rook as more of a war elephant :P Anyhow, i'm at a loss to suggest anything better. But anything's better than 'pigs'!
53 ( +1 | -1 ) PigsWaitzkin (and, incidentally, I would imagine Pandolfini also) uses this term extensively to refer to a Rook on the 7th rank, meaning that a Rook on the 7th will 'eat' pawn after pawn, like a pig. I thought it was a stretch.
Brunetti's explanation of the quote is correct; however, the quote itself is suspect: although it may often be worth a pawn, it's always best to a**es each situation itself and determine if it really is worth a pawn. If you get into the mindset that "a rook on the 7th is worth a pawn", you may unsoundly sacrifice a pawn :)
27 ( +1 | -1 ) atrifixWhere do you get this information? I've been reading Pandolfini for thirty years and can't recall the use of the word pig. And of course when Burgess wrote his book Waitzkin was still in school and I doubt if anyone really paid much attention to what he called a rook.
120 ( +1 | -1 ) Of courseWaitzkin was not the first to use it; I don't give him that much credit :) As for the origin of the word "pig", I have no idea, but I was merely trying to explain what it meant.
"Hemmed in, the rook can be like a turtle on its back. As a little boy, though, I learned of a special power castles could posses when located on the seventh rank. Bruce Pandolfini used to call a rook sitting there a 'pig.' This is because it can eat up all of the enemy pawns sitting at home on their own second rank. A rook deep into enemy territory can be devastating, to be sure. Chess players, even very strong ones, take this as gospel but rarely if ever offer explanations for this in their books or conversations. Let's think about it. First, pawns are particularly vulnerable when attacked from an angel that they cannot respond toward. In other words as a pawn can only move forward , it is blind to attack from the side or behind. This is frequently the dilemma of pawns confronted along the seventh. Further, a rook on the seventh will often line up to hit more than one pawn in a row." --Josh Waitzkin, Josh Waitzkin's Attacking Chess
22 ( +1 | -1 ) This must have been a term he used in his face to face lessons with Waitzkin. I think I have most of pandolfini's books. The Waitzkin book I'll pick up sooner or later.
5 ( +1 | -1 ) a name for the rookWhat about "pawnbreaker"?
I like puns...
5 ( +1 | -1 ) a name for the rookWhat about "pawnbreaker"?