Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

lichess.org
Donate

The Upstream Problem

The difference between patzer and master, I suppose: in the first example (Ikeda-Lane), 21.Qg4 simply wouldn't merit consideration as a candidate move for me, because it would double my pawns and I would rule it out purely on that basis.

The difference between patzer and master, I suppose: in the first example (Ikeda-Lane), 21.Qg4 simply wouldn't merit consideration as a candidate move for me, because it would double my pawns and I would rule it out purely on that basis.

The opposite happens to me, precisely because I'm bad at endings, I save time in the middle game to be able to arrive with plenty of time.

The opposite happens to me, precisely because I'm bad at endings, I save time in the middle game to be able to arrive with plenty of time.

As a 2200 rapid and about 1850 fide, to say that this article was eye-opening is an understatement.

One of the best chess improvement articles I've ever read. Massive kudos to you.

As a 2200 rapid and about 1850 fide, to say that this article was eye-opening is an understatement. One of the best chess improvement articles I've ever read. Massive kudos to you.

@pauliewoll said ^

The difference between patzer and master, I suppose: in the first example (Ikeda-Lane), 21.Qg4 simply wouldn't merit consideration as a candidate move for me, because it would double my pawns and I would rule it out purely on that basis.

Understandable you find the doubled pawns are uninviting. They can be bad for sure, here I felt the negatives (g2 pawn isn't useful in endgames with g4 pawn in front of it) were outweighed by the positives (clamp down on potential pawn breaks by Black). And I was just keen to swap queens this tournament. And Qg4 is not the best move or anything, there are many good moves in that position so not thinking about it at a candidate is definitely not the end of the world.

@pauliewoll said [^](/forum/redirect/post/JvPQRnMf) > The difference between patzer and master, I suppose: in the first example (Ikeda-Lane), 21.Qg4 simply wouldn't merit consideration as a candidate move for me, because it would double my pawns and I would rule it out purely on that basis. Understandable you find the doubled pawns are uninviting. They can be bad for sure, here I felt the negatives (g2 pawn isn't useful in endgames with g4 pawn in front of it) were outweighed by the positives (clamp down on potential pawn breaks by Black). And I was just keen to swap queens this tournament. And Qg4 is not the best move or anything, there are many good moves in that position so not thinking about it at a candidate is definitely not the end of the world.

@damafe said ^

The opposite happens to me, precisely because I'm bad at endings, I save time in the middle game to be able to arrive with plenty of time.

Oh that's interesting. Definitely possible to improve at endgames, maybe if you see it as less of a weakness over time, you'll be getting there with more time than your opponents.

@damafe said [^](/forum/redirect/post/hHBvPThi) > The opposite happens to me, precisely because I'm bad at endings, I save time in the middle game to be able to arrive with plenty of time. Oh that's interesting. Definitely possible to improve at endgames, maybe if you see it as less of a weakness over time, you'll be getting there with more time than your opponents.

@hyp3rpassive said ^

As a 2200 rapid and about 1850 fide, to say that this article was eye-opening is an understatement.

One of the best chess improvement articles I've ever read. Massive kudos to you.

I'm really happy to hear it helped, thanks for reading!

@hyp3rpassive said [^](/forum/redirect/post/R1byZKeP) > As a 2200 rapid and about 1850 fide, to say that this article was eye-opening is an understatement. > > One of the best chess improvement articles I've ever read. Massive kudos to you. I'm really happy to hear it helped, thanks for reading!

@datajunkie said
More importantly, I wanted to play endgames.

I can't take the advice of crazy people! :-D

On a more serious note, your explanation makes perfect sense and thanks for publishing this post. I never thought about it that way, even if I knew that training endgames is a very good idea from Josh Waitzkin's book.

> @datajunkie said > More importantly, I wanted to play endgames. I can't take the advice of crazy people! :-D On a more serious note, your explanation makes perfect sense and thanks for publishing this post. I never thought about it that way, even if I knew that training endgames is a very good idea from Josh Waitzkin's book.

@TotalNoob69 said ^

@datajunkie said
More importantly, I wanted to play endgames.

I can't take the advice of crazy people! :-D

On a more serious note, your explanation makes perfect sense and thanks for publishing this post. I never thought about it that way, even if I knew that training endgames is a very good idea from Josh Waitzkin's book.

Endgames are so useful - when you can enjoy playing them, it unlocks a whole new world (especially as not many of your opponents like them!)

@TotalNoob69 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/toOJg02k) > > @datajunkie said > > More importantly, I wanted to play endgames. > > I can't take the advice of crazy people! :-D > > On a more serious note, your explanation makes perfect sense and thanks for publishing this post. I never thought about it that way, even if I knew that training endgames is a very good idea from Josh Waitzkin's book. Endgames are so useful - when you can enjoy playing them, it unlocks a whole new world (especially as not many of your opponents like them!)