Important endgames for juniors

[Jonathan Rogers]

If, heaven forbid, there is still interest in teaching basic endings (as well as opening miniatures) then practicing coaches may want to use the end of van Wely v Howell, played today in Amsterdam - assuming that their charges understand that B + "wrong colour rook pawn" is a draw if the defending side can get his or her king in the corner.

Howell sacced his last piece in order to head for this ending which he would hold if he could march his king to the corner (a8). BUT, starting from c3, the march back was not straightforward: he would have lost had he played an immediate 80...Kc3 - c4? 81.Ke5! instead he played 80...Kc3-b3, forcing Whites' bishop to move to c5 to defend the a3 pawn. Then Howell was able to gain a vital tempo by 80...Kb3-c4, because he was forcing the bishop to move again. There was still more to it than that, because he could not afford to start the retreat to a8 until White's bishop was removed from the g1-a7 diagonal. Quite instructive, I think.

[Alex Holowczak]

Why teach endgames when you can stop half way through and then worry about it?

[John Upham]

Why teach endgames when you can stop half way through and then worry about it?

Strangely enough I have been working on various leagues web sites today and my choice of symbol for an adjournment time control might be appreciated by some :

http://www.berkshirechess.org.uk/local/timecontrols.php

However, this ending is instructive for sure.

[Richard Bates]

Why teach endgames when you can stop half way through and then worry about it?

Well that's easy. Before one can begin to analyse endgames you need to understand the basic (and not so basic) principles and motifs behind them. Most endgame analysis is raw calculation, but raw calculation which cannot be attempted without an understanding of the above. That is why outside of tablebase positions which give them a reference point to aim at, this remains the area of the game where computers are potentially weakest. They cannot 'understand' fortresses, and standard computer evaluation methods work horribly in situations where pawns can be valued (in simplistic terms) at anywhere between 1 and 9pts (and also where the lack of pawns can render the standard value of a piece (or two pieces in the case of knights!) so misleading as well)

An endgame like this is perfect for teaching because it contains a basic concept (which most computers i think would still find it impossible to cope with, in advance of the position being reached) of "B and wrong rook's pawn" but takes it to the next more complex (although still pretty basic) level. The advantage to be reaped from teaching it, lies not in being able to play the position itself, but in being able to factor in the consequences before the endgame is reached. The question of whether aiming for the ending will offer potential salvation for the defender or not, will fundamentally govern the entire way the preceding phase of the game is played. For many these days it seems "endgame study" means learning how to mate with B&N, defend R&BvR, or various other "textbook" or "tablebase" positions. Whether this is a consequence of modern time controls or rather just the way the endgame has become squeezed out by opening theory i don't know, but it's sad. Or maybe it was ever thus for most people.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

For many these days it seems "endgame study" means learning how to mate with B&N, defend R&BvR, or various other "textbook" or "tablebase" positions. Whether this is a consequence of modern time controls or rather just the way the endgame has become squeezed out by opening theory i don't know, but it's sad. Or maybe it was ever thus for most people.

For me, studying endgames has been mainly because of the amazing twists and turns you can get in supposedly "simple" positions. Not that I really understand endgames as well as I'd like, but it has also resulted in me winning some games that I might have only drawn or lost. I also find that knowing some endgame tricks still helps even when the time control forces you to speed up a bit, as the key is whether your opponent knows endgames better or not. At my level, I get good swindling and winning chances in endgames regardless of the time control. And watching GMs play endgames at fast time controls (especially 30 seconds per move) is great fun, even if not entirely accurate.

[Alex Holowczak]

Why teach endgames when you can stop half way through and then worry about it?

Well that's easy. Before one can begin to analyse endgames you need to understand the basic (and not so basic) principles and motifs behind them. Most endgame analysis is raw calculation, but raw calculation which cannot be attempted without an understanding of the above. That is why outside of tablebase positions which give them a reference point to aim at, this remains the area of the game where computers are potentially weakest. They cannot 'understand' fortresses, and standard computer evaluation methods work horribly in situations where pawns can be valued (in simplistic terms) at anywhere between 1 and 9pts (and also where the lack of pawns can render the standard value of a piece (or two pieces in the case of knights!) so misleading as well)

An endgame like this is perfect for teaching because it contains a basic concept (which most computers i think would still find it impossible to cope with, in advance of the position being reached) of "B and wrong rook's pawn" but takes it to the next more complex (although still pretty basic) level. The advantage to be reaped from teaching it, lies not in being able to play the position itself, but in being able to factor in the consequences before the endgame is reached. The question of whether aiming for the ending will offer potential salvation for the defender or not, will fundamentally govern the entire way the preceding phase of the game is played. For many these days it seems "endgame study" means learning how to mate with B&N, defend R&BvR, or various other "textbook" or "tablebase" positions. Whether this is a consequence of modern time controls or rather just the way the endgame has become squeezed out by opening theory i don't know, but it's sad. Or maybe it was ever thus for most people.

That's all well and good. But why can't I show them that at move 31? After all, in the nether regions of a league while they're still developing (i.e. under 120 grade), then surely an adjournment is the perfect time to explain these things to them? Sure you would use a computer to check for any tactics, but when they go to the junior club, you can sit them down, teach them the relevant trick from the ones you listed above, and they can play accordingly. Even if they lose that game, they will hopefully learn to aim for it next time.

I'm beginning to think I missed a trick not registering my team for adjournments, to be honest. They perhaps could have learnt more that way. Since younger people are worse at endgames, naturally, then it maybe would have been more advantageous for us.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I'm beginning to think I missed a trick not registering my team for adjournments, to be honest. They perhaps could have learnt more that way. Since younger people are worse at endgames, naturally, then it maybe would have been more advantageous for us.

I'm not so sure that adjournments are the best way to teach juniors endgames, but it's not a bad idea. I know that when I first had to do adjournments in the TVL (Thames Valley League), I didn't have a computer (didn't have a computer at university either), and I had to rely on others to help me analyse them. But analysing over the board proabably did more to help me win adjournments back then (even in the early 1990s, computers were strong, but far, far, far weaker than they are today). Having said that, what is the best way to teach juniors endgames? I would widen the question and ask what is the best way to teach adults endgames, as many avoid improving their endgames from what I can tell.

[Alex Holowczak]

You're probably right. The point is, they haven't really experienced complex endgames yet. I think the team's results would improve if the strong players at the teaching club could tell them what to do. It'd improve their play far more than it would the adult, which could improve our results. The more that we can tell them what to do, the better they'll do.

[Richard Bates]

I'm beginning to think I missed a trick not registering my team for adjournments, to be honest. They perhaps could have learnt more that way. Since younger people are worse at endgames, naturally, then it maybe would have been more advantageous for us.

Alex, if you come out in favour of allowing adjournments, let alone promoting them for your own players, then it might do such damage to the fundamental assumptions underpinning debate on this forum that Carl might have to clear the whole history and start again!!!

It would seem to be obvious that (leaving aside all arguments about the practical difficulties, use of gamesmanship, and whether it "compromises" the result of the game itself) adjournments can be very good for chess improvement. Analysis of positions is naturally much more effective and focussed when it is "live". And it is true that adjournments would be a good time to develop endgame knowledge and technique. Although I suppose it's a bit akin to saying "why bother doing general opening preparation?" when you can do it all just before a game.

[John Upham]

adjournments can be very good for chess improvement.

I worked on my endgame skills specifically to play the ending in a single session. Knowing that I could not cheat by asking others or an engine to help I forced myself to learn how to play endings more accurately and quickly.

Most of the persons I know who are serial adjourners are not interested in enhancing their endgames skills but use adjournments to :

1. Bamboozle and con juniors and inexperienced players
2. Forcing their opponent to travel and then offer resign when they turn up or accepting their draw offer
3. Avoid completing a lost position and getting the game scored as a double default
4. Spend more time shuffling wood as they are retired or unemployed.

So, I take the opposite view that many players used adjournments as means of avoiding working on endings.

I do agree that potentially they could be used to study endings of course.

[Richard Bates]

adjournments can be very good for chess improvement.

I worked on my endgame skills specifically to play the ending in a single session. Knowing that I could not cheat by asking others or an engine to help I forced myself to learn how to play endings more accurately and quickly.

Most of the persons I know who are serial adjourners are not interested in enhancing their endgames skills but use adjournments to :

1. Bamboozle and con juniors and inexperienced players
2. Forcing their opponent to travel and then offer resign when they turn up or accepting their draw offer
3. Avoid completing a lost position and getting the game scored as a double default
4. Spend more time shuffling wood as they are retired or unemployed.

So, I take the opposite view that many players used adjournments as means of avoiding working on endings.

I do agree that potentially they could be used to study endings of course.

Was the preceding line of my post which said:

(leaving aside all arguments about the practical difficulties, use of gamesmanship, and whether it "compromises" the result of the game itself)

written in invisible ink?

And, with respect, I reckon Alex might have higher aspirations for his players at this stage than John Upham's endgame ability! "Learning to play endgames more quickly and accurately" sounds suspiciously to me like

"For many these days it seems "endgame study" means learning how to mate with B&N, defend R&BvR, or various other "textbook" or "tablebase" positions"

[Alex Holowczak]

I'm beginning to think I missed a trick not registering my team for adjournments, to be honest. They perhaps could have learnt more that way. Since younger people are worse at endgames, naturally, then it maybe would have been more advantageous for us.

Alex, if you come out in favour of allowing adjournments, let alone promoting them for your own players, then it might do such damage to the fundamental assumptions underpinning debate on this forum that Carl might have to clear the whole history and start again!!!

I'm certainly not in favour of them; I'd much rather they played quickplay finishes.

What I am saying is that because we could tell them what to do, their results would be more likely to improve. If they get an interesting ending, they may learn for it. In reality, I suspect they'll get a drawish game that'll be agreed a draw over the phone.

[Jonathan Rogers]

So we are back, in the utterly random thread where a simple but instructive endgame moment occurs, and we earmark it for the benefit of those who do coaching. We decide to put in the junior section because ... because ... well, stereotype, I suppose.

The moment occurs at move 64 in Anish Giri's win today, at

http://ugra-chess.com/livegames?gameid= ... =en&tmnt=1

Black could capture the pawn on c7 immediately, but instead plays 64...Rd1 so as to capture it after a check on c1. The difference? The rook is now sacrificed for the c-pawn on c8 instead of c7, and that means that White cannot get his king back in time. Had the king captured the rook on c7, it could have made its way back to f3 after Black captures on g2 and h3; but starting from c8, it could only reach f4, which is not far enough.

[Jonathan Rogers]

actually, the better way to deal with that example is not to ask the student to find 64...Rd1, but rather to find White's best 64th. White played 64.K (b7)-c6?? losing as above. But 64.Kb6 or Kb8 draws, because Black must now take on c7.

So, after two hours of salvaging a hopeless position, White threw it all away again, presumably because he thought it didn't matter and that 64.Kc6, which attacks the rook as well as threatening to promote, "couldn't" be wrong.

[Maxim Devereaux]

actually, the better way to deal with that example is not to ask the student to find 64...Rd1, but rather to find White's best 64th. White played 64.K (b7)-c6?? losing as above. But 64.Kb6 or Kb8 draws, because Black must now take on c7.

So, after two hours of salvaging a hopeless position, White threw it all away again, presumably because he thought it didn't matter and that 64.Kc6, which attacks the rook as well as threatening to promote, "couldn't" be wrong.

That might work if we set up a study with your example, but in the Giri game, there was a black rook on c6 also (having captured a White one that went Rb6-c6), so Kb6 wouldn't be legal, and Kb8 might be met by R6xc7