Having worked through a number of combinations exercises in the back of my old informants, as well as a large number of tactics problems from various books, I'm noticing what would seem to be a solution paradox. Endgame exercise solutions with only a few pieces and pawns for each side frequently require far more moves to solve than even the most complex middlegame tactics exercises with most of the pieces on the board. One would think it would be the other way around.
@mchillsaid Having worked through a number of combinations exercises in the back of my old informants, as well as a large number of tactics problems from various books, I'm noticing what would seem to be a solution paradox. Endgame exercise solutions with only a few pieces and pawns for each side frequently require far more moves to solve than even the most complex middlegame tactics exer ...[text shortened]... ith most of the pieces on the board. One would think it would be the other way around.
Thoughts?
In endgames the aim is normally checkmating, which is a multi move solution routinekly especially if pawn races are involved.
Middle games are looking for fast checkamting or for winning a good advantage. If the latter would be required to be played out (but there are so many options) then the solution would take probably more moves than the typical endgame study
@ponderablesaid In endgames the aim is normally checkmating, which is a multi move solution routinekly especially if pawn races are involved.
Middle games are looking for fast checkamting or for winning a good advantage. If the latter would be required to be played out (but there are so many options) then the solution would take probably more moves than the typical endgame study
Isn't the analysis board good for that?
Not if you're playing a 2000+ opponent. The aim is to stay alive as long as possible.
Log In to Daily Chess
Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree