Hi folks,
One of my goals on the site is to improve my endgame play, and I have developed a technique that has helped me evaluate games, so I thought I would share and get feedback.
In a middlegame position where I need to make a decision about piece exchanges or other game-altering moves, I first ask myself:
1. If all the pieces were off the board, is the pawn ending a draw, or a win, and if a win, for whom?
2. Based on that assessment, I then begin to mentally add the remaining board pieces "back" to the position to see how they alter the assessment.
3. As I mentally add pieces back, I evaluate each piece in the context of the position for both sides, and try to determine the optimum mixture for each player.
4. Once I have what I consider to be the optimum mix for each player, I play to exchange and/or preserve pieces to maximize my winning or drawing opportunities.
The idea comes from a quote about Capablanca's and Fischer's play about their ability to trade their bad pieces and keep their good ones, but the particular application of this idea per above has helped me draw lost games and win games that should have been drawn on the site.
Paul
6 edits
Originally posted by Paul Leggettthat looks very much like overly-generalized Silman stuff. Just have some principles in mind and calculate. The emphasis on the word calculate. and then you'll need to calculate more. chess players calculate. When they're asked what do you do, they answer with "I calculate variations." they earn their living by calculating variations, that's how they feed their children, calculating variations, not by romantically trying to visualize the board empty and then putting the pieces back on, that's how Oprah would play chess.
Hi folks,
One of my goals on the site is to improve my endgame play, and I have developed a technique that has helped me evaluate games, so I thought I would share and get feedback.
In a middlegame position where I need to make a decision about piece exchanges or other game-altering moves, I first ask myself:
1. If all the pieces were off the has helped me draw lost games and win games that should have been drawn on the site.
Paul
and please pardon my aggression, I'm trying to quit smoking 🙂
and by the way, exchange ruy lopez is a winning ending if all pieces are out. where does that take us?
Originally posted by philidor positionI don't agree. Calculation is indeed a major approach to a position, but I don't see why it has to be the only approach. Some of the best endgame literature refers to techniques such as "schematic thinking". I think the OP is right to experiment with this approach.
calculating variations, not by romantically trying to visualize the board empty and then putting the pieces back on
exchange ruy lopez is a winning ending if all pieces are out. where does that take us?
If true, it means Black has to reply upon other advantages and can't just blindly keep exchanging pieces.
1 edit
Originally posted by philidor positionI agree- I just use the above to reduce the position to a point where I can calculate. The Ruy Lopez Exchange is a pretty good example, unless you were being facetious! I think Fischer played the exchange for exactly the reason you cited-it allowed him to visualize a winning endgame, and he then played the game through (calculating all the while, of course!) to get to that point, if his calculations did not deliver a quicker win to him before that point.
that looks very much like overly-generalized Silman stuff. Just have some principles in mind and calculate. The emphasis on the word calculate. and then you'll need to calculate more. chess players calculate. When they're asked what do you do, they answer with "I calculate variations." they earn their living by calculating variations, that's how th y, exchange ruy lopez is a winning ending if all pieces are out. where does that take us?
I see generalizations and concepts as tools to narrow the field of focus to a calculable level, much in the same way that algorythms narrow and focus the calculating ability of computers.
I was basically restating Capablanca and Fischer as an approach, and I think Silman is doing basically the same thing in his books. In the end, you have to go with what gets results for you.
Paul
4 edits
Originally posted by VarenkaI agree with that to some extent, I was exaggerating a little. But I do think experimenting with abstract ideas in a certain position requires a huge amount of accurate calculation anyway. When grandmasters say stuff like "yeah I'm so cool I didn't calculate for a second about that sacrifice," I tend not to believe them. of course we're talking about endgames, not tactical middlegame positions, but I think I could explain my position.
by the way, I looked at the thing a little and I think I was wrong about the exchange ruy. But I do remember something like that, it should be some other opening where white gives up the bishop pair but doubles black's pawns.
Originally posted by philidor positionWe're in the same book, and just at different places in the plot line!
I agree with that to some extent, I was exaggerating a little. But I do think experimenting with abstract ideas in a certain position requires a huge amount of accurate calculation anyway. When grandmasters say stuff like "yeah I'm so cool I didn't calculate for a second about that sacrifice," I tend not to believe them. of course we're talking abo ...[text shortened]... ould be some other opening where white gives up the bishop pair but doubles black's pawns.
I think the beauty of some openings where an early imbalance occurs, (RL Exchange and Nimzo with the "trade off bishop for knight, and double his pawns" idea, or the Benko with the "lose a pawn, gain an half-open file" motif) is that they encourage the debate of ideas.
Neither has been calculated to a clear conclusion (which is why they are still played, of course), so the battle rages over the concept as each side tries to negotiate the position to a calculable result in their favor.
I think that is why the Tarrasch-Nimzowitsch and Capablanca-Alekhine contests had such drama, and their games continue to be attractive today.
Paul