Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

lichess.org
Donate

Silman's Complete Endgame Course

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

@IamNOTamod said ^

As someone who read SCEC, I feel that the knowledge it imparted upon me did not justify its price.

What's "SCEC"?

@IamNOTamod said [^](/forum/redirect/post/PtRjxdRL) > As someone who read SCEC, I feel that the knowledge it imparted upon me did not justify its price. What's "SCEC"?

@kindaspongey said ^

https://lichess.org/study/TYdUS3WL/VFoEPYji

https[colon]//lichess[period]org/study/TYdUS3WL/VFoEPYji
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z4SAGwg4as
https[colon]//www[period]youtube[period]com/watch?v=0Z4SAGwg4as

That video was really interesting!

@kindaspongey said [^](/forum/redirect/post/SWU5CTHn) > https://lichess.org/study/TYdUS3WL/VFoEPYji > https[colon]//lichess[period]org/study/TYdUS3WL/VFoEPYji > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z4SAGwg4as > https[colon]//www[period]youtube[period]com/watch?v=0Z4SAGwg4as That video was really interesting!

I believe that SCEC was a reference to Silman’s Complete Endgame Course.
Perhaps, of interest:
"... Van Perlo’s Endgame Tactics by G. C. Van Perlo. ... To be sure, the book is stuffed with entertaining trickery, but there's educational trickery as well. ... As the ECF Committee put it: 'The New in Chess team has edited and organised the material so that there is considerable instructional content in the book. But the winning factor for the judges was the sheer entertainment value - a rare commodity in the chess world these days.' ..." - IM John Watson (2007)
https://theweekinchess.com/john-watson-reviews/theres-an-end-to-it-all
https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/996.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708234128/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review555.pdf
(Iceberg about 7 posts away.)

I believe that SCEC was a reference to Silman’s Complete Endgame Course. Perhaps, of interest: "... Van Perlo’s Endgame Tactics by G. C. Van Perlo. ... To be sure, the book is stuffed with entertaining trickery, but there's educational trickery as well. ... As the ECF Committee put it: 'The New in Chess team has edited and organised the material so that there is considerable instructional content in the book. But the winning factor for the judges was the sheer entertainment value - a rare commodity in the chess world these days.' ..." - IM John Watson (2007) https://theweekinchess.com/john-watson-reviews/theres-an-end-to-it-all https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/996.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20140708234128/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review555.pdf (Iceberg about 7 posts away.)

@tpr said ^

Silman is one of the worst endgame books, but better than none. It is not complete, and it contains errors.
The best way is just to play games. When you lose an endgame, then study that lost endgame in depth.

You have claimed, both here and in another forum thread, that Silman's endgame book contains errors, but you have never substantiated this claim. When this point was pursued in the other thread, the only evidence of an "error" that anyone produced was (a) the omission of the bishop and knight endgame, and (b) a certain position in which Silman recommends a move that leads to mate in 20 where mate in 16 was possible. Neither of these is an actual error, in the sense of claiming a move wins when it actually draws or loses, or claiming that a move draws when it loses. (By the way, it is ridiculous from a pedagogical standpoint to suggest that a chess coach should only be recommending moves with the shortest distance-to-mate.)

So I will ask again: do you have any example of an error in Silman's "Complete Endgame Course" to back up your claim?

@tpr said [^](/forum/redirect/post/9xdOgSoO) > Silman is one of the worst endgame books, but better than none. It is not complete, and it contains errors. > The best way is just to play games. When you lose an endgame, then study that lost endgame in depth. You have claimed, both here and in another forum thread, that Silman's endgame book contains errors, but you have never substantiated this claim. When this point was pursued in the other thread, the only evidence of an "error" that anyone produced was (a) the omission of the bishop and knight endgame, and (b) a certain position in which Silman recommends a move that leads to mate in 20 where mate in 16 was possible. Neither of these is an actual error, in the sense of claiming a move wins when it actually draws or loses, or claiming that a move draws when it loses. (By the way, it is ridiculous from a pedagogical standpoint to suggest that a chess coach should only be recommending moves with the shortest distance-to-mate.) So I will ask again: do you have any example of an error in Silman's "Complete Endgame Course" to back up your claim?

Silman's INcomplete endgame course contains several mistakes.
E.g. page 153 exercise 9 recommends ...Rg6? which loses, while e.g. Rg1 draws.
https://lichess.org/analysis/standard/6r1/3k4/8/3KP3/8/8/R7/8_b_-_-_0_1#1
Also de la Villa Garcia contains errors and even Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual, though Müller has corrected the latter in a later edition after Dvoretsky passed away.
The best endgame book is now Fundamental Chess Endings, Müller & Lamprecht, also endorsed by Carlsen.

Apart from that and contrary to the title it is NOT complete, as it even lacks the 5 basic checkmates.

Silman's INcomplete endgame course contains several mistakes. E.g. page 153 exercise 9 recommends ...Rg6? which loses, while e.g. Rg1 draws. https://lichess.org/analysis/standard/6r1/3k4/8/3KP3/8/8/R7/8_b_-_-_0_1#1 Also de la Villa Garcia contains errors and even Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual, though Müller has corrected the latter in a later edition after Dvoretsky passed away. The best endgame book is now Fundamental Chess Endings, Müller & Lamprecht, also endorsed by Carlsen. Apart from that and contrary to the title it is NOT complete, as it even lacks the 5 basic checkmates.

@James_J_Henderson said ^

the omission of the bishop and knight endgame

Exactly! they aren't even errors. Silman on the B & N vs K endgame:
"Some of you might wonder when I will finally get around to teaching you how to handle the Bishop and Knight vs. lone King endgame, and my surprising (and almost heretical) answer is 'Never!'. For the simple reason that only once, in my entire career, have I personally found myself playing this endgame. Yes, you heard that right, only once! My good friend and well-known chess author, International Master John Watson, has never even had it once! And to make matters worse, Bishop and Knight vs. King is not an easy topic to learn, and it would require an amount of time disproportionate to the result. It makes no sense to spend so many precious hours of your chess study time learning an endgame that, if you're lucky, will happen once in a lifetime!"

@James_J_Henderson said [^](/forum/redirect/post/HEqL0dtj) > the omission of the bishop and knight endgame Exactly! they aren't even errors. Silman on the B & N vs K endgame: "Some of you might wonder when I will finally get around to teaching you how to handle the Bishop and Knight vs. lone King endgame, and my surprising (and almost heretical) answer is 'Never!'. For the simple reason that only once, in my entire career, have I personally found myself playing this endgame. Yes, you heard that right, only once! My good friend and well-known chess author, International Master John Watson, has never even had it once! And to make matters worse, Bishop and Knight vs. King is not an easy topic to learn, and it would require an amount of time disproportionate to the result. It makes no sense to spend so many precious hours of your chess study time learning an endgame that, if you're lucky, will happen once in a lifetime!"

You dont have to solve B+N endgame everyday to master it. Learn it for once and thoroughly. Silmann clearly sold a gimmick there by saying to not learn them.

You dont have to solve B+N endgame everyday to master it. Learn it for once and thoroughly. Silmann clearly sold a gimmick there by saying to not learn them.

An author who encourages students to be lazy is a silly man.
Look what the great Capablanca said about KBN vs. K:
'The student would do well to exercise himself methodically in this ending, as it gives a very good idea of the actual power of the pieces, and it requires foresight in order to accomplish the mate within the fifty moves which are granted by the rules.
Apart from than an endgame course that omits KBN vs. K and KNN vs. KP is INcomplete.
Capablanca included KBN vs. K and KNN vs. KP in his A Primer of Chess, intended for beginners.

An author who encourages students to be lazy is a silly man. Look what the great Capablanca said about KBN vs. K: 'The student would do well to exercise himself methodically in this ending, as it gives a very good idea of the actual power of the pieces, and it requires foresight in order to accomplish the mate within the fifty moves which are granted by the rules. Apart from than an endgame course that omits KBN vs. K and KNN vs. KP is INcomplete. Capablanca included KBN vs. K and KNN vs. KP in his A Primer of Chess, intended for beginners.

@TheMagnusAura said ^

You dont have to solve B+N endgame everyday to master it. Learn it for once and thoroughly. Silmann clearly sold a gimmick there by saying to not learn them.

B+N is a particularly difficult endgame because it's hard to checkmate in 50 moves. It's absolutely NOT easy and it's objectively the rarest endgame of them all.

@TheMagnusAura said [^](/forum/redirect/post/J8KEKxPq) > You dont have to solve B+N endgame everyday to master it. Learn it for once and thoroughly. Silmann clearly sold a gimmick there by saying to not learn them. B+N is a particularly difficult endgame because it's hard to checkmate in 50 moves. It's absolutely NOT easy and it's objectively the rarest endgame of them all.