What's The Point Of Studying The Endgame?

On blitz: This question is akin to asking whether you should do 100 push-ups a day or lift heavy and focus on the bench press. Both approaches will improve your overall strength a little and lead to significant development of your chest and triceps. So, which strategy is better? The answer, of course, what is your goal? If you are training for a military fitness test that requires you to do 60 push-ups in 2 minutes, you should skip the bench and do 100 push-ups a day. If your goal is to improve your personal best in the bench, well you know the answer.

On endgames: How sad would you be if you lost half a point because you haven't analyzed Q vs R? If I were a chess professional, I might be embarrassed. As a recreational player, honestly, it is no worse than blundering a pawn for no reason, which happens to me all the time anyways, so I don't study these theoretical end games.

I agree with the second part of the text. As for the first part, in chess it is not you who decide which type of knowledge will you need and which not, there is also your opponents and the games often go their own way without any of the players heading for a particular endgame. So it pays off to study endgames, as one can earn many points there and it feels sad to spoil good games because of a lack of knowledge. I have saved (and sometimes also lost) many half-points or even full-points in them and at times these points made quite a difference in the final standings.

@solanacea33 said in #8: > On blitz: This question is akin to asking whether you should do 100 push-ups a day or lift heavy and focus on the bench press. Both approaches will improve your overall strength a little and lead to significant development of your chest and triceps. So, which strategy is better? The answer, of course, what is your goal? If you are training for a military fitness test that requires you to do 60 push-ups in 2 minutes, you should skip the bench and do 100 push-ups a day. If your goal is to improve your personal best in the bench, well you know the answer. > > On endgames: How sad would you be if you lost half a point because you haven't analyzed Q vs R? If I were a chess professional, I might be embarrassed. As a recreational player, honestly, it is no worse than blundering a pawn for no reason, which happens to me all the time anyways, so I don't study these theoretical end games. I agree with the second part of the text. As for the first part, in chess it is not you who decide which type of knowledge will you need and which not, there is also your opponents and the games often go their own way without any of the players heading for a particular endgame. So it pays off to study endgames, as one can earn many points there and it feels sad to spoil good games because of a lack of knowledge. I have saved (and sometimes also lost) many half-points or even full-points in them and at times these points made quite a difference in the final standings.

zwokzwozwo

@ILikeBlitz said in #9:

thought about it. removed the post.
but older books out of sale, could be borrowed there.

and what about affiliate links to amazon?

@ILikeBlitz said in #9: > thought about it. removed the post. but older books out of sale, could be borrowed there. and what about affiliate links to amazon?

dboing

what does it mean to study endgames, and what is endgame knowledge. is this the same as opening knowledge? knowing all the variations. Or is there more?

Bennet09

I strongly disagree with the blogpost. When you reached a certain Niveau, it’s fact that most games are decided in the endgame (at least in classical chess). There are some games decided in the endgame and a very low number of games decided in the opening. So Capablanca recommended to learn chess from the beginning to the start, which I agree with.

peppie23

Reducing the time to play an endgame from 1 hour to 10 minutes only reduces the overall playing strength with 22 rating points see http://schaken-brabo.blogspot.com/2023/03/extra-tijd-deel-2.html
In less than 1 out of 100 games I reached a theoretical endgame in classical games see http://schaken-brabo.blogspot.com/2022/12/theoretische-eindspelen.html
Books don't give advice on how to play most practical endgames as they are unique see http://schaken-brabo.blogspot.com/2014/07/praktische-eindspelen.html
There exist endgame-gurus having exceptional knowledge about endgames (but not having any title) see http://schaken-brabo.blogspot.com/2022/03/de-eindspelgoeroe.html
Rules for endgames can be useful but there are many exceptions see https://schaken-brabo.blogspot.com/2023/02/the-chess-bible.html

There is much much more to read on my blog about endgames but I think those articles which I mentioned are the most relevant ones.

Reducing the time to play an endgame from 1 hour to 10 minutes only reduces the overall playing strength with 22 rating points see http://schaken-brabo.blogspot.com/2023/03/extra-tijd-deel-2.html In less than 1 out of 100 games I reached a theoretical endgame in classical games see http://schaken-brabo.blogspot.com/2022/12/theoretische-eindspelen.html Books don't give advice on how to play most practical endgames as they are unique see http://schaken-brabo.blogspot.com/2014/07/praktische-eindspelen.html There exist endgame-gurus having exceptional knowledge about endgames (but not having any title) see http://schaken-brabo.blogspot.com/2022/03/de-eindspelgoeroe.html Rules for endgames can be useful but there are many exceptions see https://schaken-brabo.blogspot.com/2023/02/the-chess-bible.html There is much much more to read on my blog about endgames but I think those articles which I mentioned are the most relevant ones.

dboing

edited

what about understanding non-endgames static interactions on the board from their abstractions that could exist as examples in endgames? I know that adding more material items on the board is going to saturate our calculation abilities but for the essential spatial interactions of mobility types, that might still linger (still in the backward direction), one could mentally abstract the overcalulation clutter with things learned from end-game and near end-game practical mini-games, including the "theoretical ones".

It seems to me that people are talking about learning things that don't have anything consistent or rational relationships. as if each position was its own new game to be learned independently... that is what i meant by learning only variations, and not the mechanics of chess (beyond the core rules).. That we can't talk about it (for lack of proper language for some things), does not mean there is nothing to learn. And there are many things that can be made real theory (as: it helps to know one for handling many, not the kind that one has to learn the many as many ones each, sorry abusing the word theory has this consequence in trying to explain the purpose of a theory).

what about understanding non-endgames static interactions on the board from their abstractions that could exist as examples in endgames? I know that adding more material items on the board is going to saturate our calculation abilities but for the essential spatial interactions of mobility types, that might still linger (still in the backward direction), one could mentally abstract the overcalulation clutter with things learned from end-game and near end-game practical mini-games, including the "theoretical ones". It seems to me that people are talking about learning things that don't have anything consistent or rational relationships. as if each position was its own new game to be learned independently... that is what i meant by learning only variations, and not the mechanics of chess (beyond the core rules).. That we can't talk about it (for lack of proper language for some things), does not mean there is nothing to learn. And there are many things that can be made real theory (as: it helps to know one for handling many, not the kind that one has to learn the many as many ones each, sorry abusing the word theory has this consequence in trying to explain the purpose of a theory).

Toscani

The subject question sounds depressing. If it's not about end games, it's about what?
The subject title could have said: What's the point of studying? It nearly sounds the same, except it got specific.

Think of the end games as something to master from a University and imagine getting a Master chess degree by mastering the end games that have not yet been solved.

The subject question sounds depressing. If it's not about end games, it's about what? The subject title could have said: What's the point of studying? It nearly sounds the same, except it got specific. Think of the end games as something to master from a University and imagine getting a Master chess degree by mastering the end games that have not yet been solved.

CJester

Because it's chess.

Your network blocks the Lichess assets!