This 1100 puzzle from puzzle storm confused me. Am I stupid?

My first instinct was trade off the rooks. I made a mistake after the trade with pawn takes thinking a connect two should win apparently the puzzle wanted king takes, which when looking at it makes more sense. My first instinct was right but my second approach was incorrect.. if pawn takes after the rook trade was losing or not is unknown for me, but yes seeing king takes to get a passed pawn does seem more promising for the endgame.

Gambsum69

@V1g1yy said in #20:

@nadjarostowa
As I look at the puzzle objectively, every aspect of it seems like end games 101 to me. Above, @Gambsum69 points out that if you open the engine there are a bunch of only moves, but look at what those only moves are. You begin with Rx, now there just can't be anybody who doesn't Begin by capturing that rook. Then as I point out above, the recapture, probably the only place anybody could guess wrong, is painfully obvious because of opposition and the passer. From there, another absolutely fundamental concept is shouldering the opponent's king. You do that until he has no more squares and then you push the a pawn to break up the White Pawn majority. That is of course if white doesn't help you out by either moving their King to where you can just gobble up a b and c without your a pawn, or you advance the F Pawn so that he's got to go back and let you alone with a b and c.

The advantage throughout this is plus four, so this is a seriously won end game. I even agree with you that there probably are some puzzles which are a little bit incorrectly rated because of circumstances like you mentioned. I just don't think this is one of them since the concepts in this are all stuff you get in chapter one of your first endgame book. Opposition, passed pawns and shouldering.
Nice comment but actually not all pawn endgame are won by opposition and also fxg6 can create outside passpawn so you need to think that also basically,I am saying the solution should go till a4 not till Kxg6 as there are lot of only moves after that

@V1g1yy said in #20: > @nadjarostowa > As I look at the puzzle objectively, every aspect of it seems like end games 101 to me. Above, @Gambsum69 points out that if you open the engine there are a bunch of only moves, but look at what those only moves are. You begin with Rx, now there just can't be anybody who doesn't Begin by capturing that rook. Then as I point out above, the recapture, probably the only place anybody could guess wrong, is painfully obvious because of opposition and the passer. From there, another absolutely fundamental concept is shouldering the opponent's king. You do that until he has no more squares and then you push the a pawn to break up the White Pawn majority. That is of course if white doesn't help you out by either moving their King to where you can just gobble up a b and c without your a pawn, or you advance the F Pawn so that he's got to go back and let you alone with a b and c. > > The advantage throughout this is plus four, so this is a seriously won end game. I even agree with you that there probably are some puzzles which are a little bit incorrectly rated because of circumstances like you mentioned. I just don't think this is one of them since the concepts in this are all stuff you get in chapter one of your first endgame book. Opposition, passed pawns and shouldering. Nice comment but actually not all pawn endgame are won by opposition and also fxg6 can create outside passpawn so you need to think that also basically,I am saying the solution should go till a4 not till Kxg6 as there are lot of only moves after that

V1g1yy

@Gambsum69 said in #22:

Nice comment but actually not all pawn endgame are won by opposition and also fxg6 can create outside passpawn so you need to think that also basically,I am saying the solution should go till a4 not till Kxg6 as there are lot of only moves after that
White has a majority on the Queens side. He doesn't have to go over there, but we do. So fxg6 does not create a pass Pawn unless white allows it, which they're not going to.

And like I said above, those only moves are the easiest only moves in the world to find. For people who memorize openings, this is probably difficult. For people who study chess, it's pretty easy.

@Gambsum69 said in #22: > Nice comment but actually not all pawn endgame are won by opposition and also fxg6 can create outside passpawn so you need to think that also basically,I am saying the solution should go till a4 not till Kxg6 as there are lot of only moves after that White has a majority on the Queens side. He doesn't have to go over there, but we do. So fxg6 does not create a pass Pawn unless white allows it, which they're not going to. And like I said above, those only moves are the easiest only moves in the world to find. For people who memorize openings, this is probably difficult. For people who study chess, it's pretty easy.

nadjarostowa

edited

@V1g1yy said in #20:

As I look at the puzzle objectively, every aspect of it seems like end games 101 to me.

Absolutely not for me.

Then as I point out above, the recapture, probably the only place anybody could guess wrong, is painfully obvious because of opposition

This shows how misleading those ideas can be, as opposition is basically irrelevant here. And I hope you counted all the spare tempi with and without exchanges to make that conclusion about opposition.

and the passer.

Yes, the passer is great. But having two vs one you could always build one yourself, without having that vulnerable f pawn. See, there are many concepts that you learn "in your first endgame lesson". Calling an exercise simple because one of them (barely) fits, but others don't... not going to work.

But yes, here the passer is a very important factor. (Opposition just is not.)

From there, another absolutely fundamental concept is shouldering the opponent's king. You do that until he has no more squares and then you push the a pawn to break up the White Pawn majority. That is of course if white doesn't help you out by either moving their King to where you can just gobble up a b and c without your a pawn, or you advance the F Pawn so that he's got to go back and let you alone with a b and c.

I agree it is finally not too difficult to play out, but it's not part of the exercise.

I think it is quite a common mistake where people have started to grasp some"rules", and then are quick to apply them to everything they see, no matter if appropriate or not.

It is just the same as with "cheater moves". You can play the correct move for the completely wrong reason.

It would be really nice to see how puzzles are solved by different rating cohorts, both in terms of success, and how much thought they actually put into it.

@V1g1yy said in #20: > As I look at the puzzle objectively, every aspect of it seems like end games 101 to me. Absolutely not for me. > Then as I point out above, the recapture, probably the only place anybody could guess wrong, is painfully obvious because of opposition This shows how misleading those ideas can be, as opposition is basically irrelevant here. And I hope you counted all the spare tempi with and without exchanges to make that conclusion about opposition. > and the passer. Yes, the passer is great. But having two vs one you could always build one yourself, without having that vulnerable f pawn. See, there are many concepts that you learn "in your first endgame lesson". Calling an exercise simple because one of them (barely) fits, but others don't... not going to work. But yes, here the passer is a very important factor. (Opposition just is not.) > From there, another absolutely fundamental concept is shouldering the opponent's king. You do that until he has no more squares and then you push the a pawn to break up the White Pawn majority. That is of course if white doesn't help you out by either moving their King to where you can just gobble up a b and c without your a pawn, or you advance the F Pawn so that he's got to go back and let you alone with a b and c. I agree it is finally not too difficult to play out, but it's not part of the exercise. I think it is quite a common mistake where people have started to grasp some"rules", and then are quick to apply them to everything they see, no matter if appropriate or not. It is just the same as with "cheater moves". You can play the correct move for the completely wrong reason. It would be really nice to see how puzzles are solved by different rating cohorts, both in terms of success, and how much thought they actually put into it.

V1g1yy edited

@nadjarostowa said in #24:

Absolutely not for me.

Then you should go watch Danya's pawn endgame videos. Every concept in this puzzle is shown as a fundamental idea, and it works to follow the rules.

This shows how misleading those ideas can be, as opposition is basically irrelevant here. And I hope you counted all the spare tempi with and without exchanges to make that conclusion about opposition.

But Opposition isn't irrelevant. And IMO, I can't ever recall an instance where it isn't. As to the Tempi, yes, I considered that first thing.

Re: tempi. We have a majority on the Queen's side, the opponent has a majority on the King's side. Those majorities are able to deal with themselves unless by some chance the position is locked up with 1 pawn stopping 2 or 3. But we don't have that here. The Opponent king has to stay with our Majority or our pawn promotes, same goes for us on the other side. BUT, keep in mind while you are thinking the F/G pawn (wherever it ends up) is somehow the same regardless of which file it's on, that's not true. If it is on the G file, we lose a tempo. We can't make progress on the Queens side without engaging their pawn, so when the eventual trades take place, we are forced to make our capture with the less-advanced h-pawn, thus losing the tempo. If the pawn is on the F file, it doesn't need to be replaced with the H pawn. Now as described here, that might seem complicated, but simply looking at the arrangement of the pawns should tell you taking with the f-pawn will not work (or at the very minimum we should know we lose an important tempo that way).

Let's also not forget that in order for us to have our "connected" passed pawns advance through their h pawn, we need to also advance our h pawn so it's ready to recapture, so more lost tempos.

So yes, opposition does matter, in addition to our king needs to go up the board to engage the abc pawns. we can't afford to allow their king closer to our h pawn or again, we lose a critical tempo.

Then, as far as counting tempos goes, in 90% of cases it's as easy as visualizing only my own moves and counting and doing the same for the opponent, to see who promotes first. No big deal. We should be able to see 30 plies deep in a matter of seconds that way. It might not work for every single position but most times, it's easy enough to also figure in the problems our opponent might give us. In this example, no such issues exist. I admit, the method I use is not one I've ever seen in an instructional video, and perhaps it's not sound, idk. It works for me and it saves me 15 minutes of clock every time I try it instead of using the way I see GMs do it. :D

Yes, the passer is great. But having two vs one you could always build one yourself, without having that vulnerable f pawn. See, there are many concepts that you learn "in your first endgame lesson". Calling an exercise simple because one of them (barely) fits, but others don't... not going to work.

See above, making a passer with Kx is not remotely the same as fx. And the f pawn is not vulnerable, you don't care about the f pawn. Not only do you gain a tempo by taking with the king, you gain another because as long as you don't advance the f pawn, they need to go farther to get it. Keep in mind, he's not allowed to ignore that pawn either, because as soon as the enemy king gets behind that pawn, it's lights out. He simply is not allowed to go to the h file or even the 7th rank, without capturing on f7 first.

I think it is quite a common mistake where people have started to grasp some"rules", and then are quick to apply them to everything they see, no matter if appropriate or not.

I agree, but when there's only pawns and kings like this, you can.

It is just the same as with "cheater moves". You can play the correct move for the completely wrong reason.

Can't say I've never done that before! Lol.

It would be really nice to see how puzzles are solved by different rating cohorts, both in terms of success, and how much thought they actually put into it.

I think there's too many variables in "thinking" for that to be useful. Some folks simply don't "think" about things because they don't have to. And the nuance there is beyond most of our skill levels. Just watch Magnus discuss endgames a few times and what he sees as elementary, literally a reflex to a construction, is beyond the ability of a lot of players (me included). Just watch on YT where he takes the 100 endgames you must know test. Many exercises were things he's never studied, doesn't even know the name of the things like Lucena position or that sort of thing (I may not have exactly the right one there, but ones I know well he was clueless of), yet he knows precisely how to play them. John Bartholomew did that video for Chessable years ago, and it's funny how Magnus often has no idea what he's talking about, but knows how to win it.

@nadjarostowa said in #24: > Absolutely not for me. Then you should go watch Danya's pawn endgame videos. Every concept in this puzzle is shown as a fundamental idea, and it works to follow the rules. > This shows how misleading those ideas can be, as opposition is basically irrelevant here. And I hope you counted all the spare tempi with and without exchanges to make that conclusion about opposition. But Opposition isn't irrelevant. And IMO, I can't ever recall an instance where it isn't. As to the Tempi, yes, I considered that first thing. Re: tempi. We have a majority on the Queen's side, the opponent has a majority on the King's side. Those majorities are able to deal with themselves unless by some chance the position is locked up with 1 pawn stopping 2 or 3. But we don't have that here. The Opponent king has to stay with our Majority or our pawn promotes, same goes for us on the other side. BUT, keep in mind while you are thinking the F/G pawn (wherever it ends up) is somehow the same regardless of which file it's on, that's not true. If it is on the G file, we lose a tempo. We can't make progress on the Queens side without engaging their pawn, so when the eventual trades take place, we are forced to make our capture with the less-advanced h-pawn, thus losing the tempo. If the pawn is on the F file, it doesn't need to be replaced with the H pawn. Now as described here, that might seem complicated, but simply looking at the arrangement of the pawns should tell you taking with the f-pawn will not work (or at the very minimum we should know we lose an important tempo that way). Let's also not forget that in order for us to have our "connected" passed pawns advance through their h pawn, we need to also advance our h pawn so it's ready to recapture, so more lost tempos. So yes, opposition does matter, in addition to our king needs to go up the board to engage the abc pawns. we can't afford to allow their king closer to our h pawn or again, we lose a critical tempo. Then, as far as counting tempos goes, in 90% of cases it's as easy as visualizing only my own moves and counting and doing the same for the opponent, to see who promotes first. No big deal. We should be able to see 30 plies deep in a matter of seconds that way. It might not work for every single position but most times, it's easy enough to also figure in the problems our opponent might give us. In this example, no such issues exist. I admit, the method I use is not one I've ever seen in an instructional video, and perhaps it's not sound, idk. It works for me and it saves me 15 minutes of clock every time I try it instead of using the way I see GMs do it. :D > Yes, the passer is great. But having two vs one you could always build one yourself, without having that vulnerable f pawn. See, there are many concepts that you learn "in your first endgame lesson". Calling an exercise simple because one of them (barely) fits, but others don't... not going to work. See above, making a passer with Kx is not remotely the same as fx. And the f pawn is not vulnerable, you don't care about the f pawn. Not only do you gain a tempo by taking with the king, you gain another because as long as you don't advance the f pawn, they need to go farther to get it. Keep in mind, he's not allowed to ignore that pawn either, because as soon as the enemy king gets behind that pawn, it's lights out. He simply is not allowed to go to the h file or even the 7th rank, without capturing on f7 first. > I think it is quite a common mistake where people have started to grasp some"rules", and then are quick to apply them to everything they see, no matter if appropriate or not. I agree, but when there's only pawns and kings like this, you can. > It is just the same as with "cheater moves". You can play the correct move for the completely wrong reason. Can't say I've never done that before! Lol. > It would be really nice to see how puzzles are solved by different rating cohorts, both in terms of success, and how much thought they actually put into it. I think there's too many variables in "thinking" for that to be useful. Some folks simply don't "think" about things because they don't have to. And the nuance there is beyond most of our skill levels. Just watch Magnus discuss endgames a few times and what he sees as elementary, literally a reflex to a construction, is beyond the ability of a lot of players (me included). Just watch on YT where he takes the 100 endgames you must know test. Many exercises were things he's never studied, doesn't even know the name of the things like Lucena position or that sort of thing (I may not have exactly the right one there, but ones I know well he was clueless of), yet he knows precisely how to play them. John Bartholomew did that video for Chessable years ago, and it's funny how Magnus often has no idea what he's talking about, but knows how to win it.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.