As said before, what one has really to know is not that much. See Nunns "Secret of Practical Chess", there is a short roadmap given. De La Villas "100 Endgames you must know" is exactly that what the title reads. Of course the more you know the better - but everyone has many "construction sites".
I'd concentrate on the endgame instead of the openings.
From Chernev's excellent book Capablanca's Best Chess Endings;
“In order to improve your game, you must study the endgame before everything else, for whereas the endings can be studied and mastered by themselves, the middle game and the opening must be studied in relation to the endgame.” -Capablanca
From Chernev's excellent book Capablanca's Best Chess Endings;
“In order to improve your game, you must study the endgame before everything else, for whereas the endings can be studied and mastered by themselves, the middle game and the opening must be studied in relation to the endgame.” -Capablanca
Endgames are far more important than openings, having a strong opening repertoire isn't all that important until well into master strength. You can play basic systems with both sides (as I do) and do fine, but if you don't know what you're doing in an ending, you won't do too well.
As I mentioned before I won some tournaments without being close to an endgame. Or opens with no endgames resp. only a piece up or down.
In my opininon this endgame focus is close to a myth which everyone preaches. I think some endgame basics are sufficient; openings and the resulting middlegames are more important combined with a sharpened eye for tactics. But I am rather alone...
In my opininon this endgame focus is close to a myth which everyone preaches. I think some endgame basics are sufficient; openings and the resulting middlegames are more important combined with a sharpened eye for tactics. But I am rather alone...
I'll never forget what a strong master friend of mine once told me "the endgame is the soul of chess and it's in the endgame that you realise what each piece is really worth and what it can do."
Plus so many times I play these guys that play the opening masterfully, the midgame ok, but once in the endgame they play like they have 300 rating points less.
I really don't think a deep study of the endgame, instead of opening can be a mistake.
But of course if you have time do both! :)
Plus so many times I play these guys that play the opening masterfully, the midgame ok, but once in the endgame they play like they have 300 rating points less.
I really don't think a deep study of the endgame, instead of opening can be a mistake.
But of course if you have time do both! :)
Читайте, занимайтесь, но не забывайте о том, что сказал один литературный персонаж: "Блондин играет сильнее, брюнет играет слабее, и никакие лекции не изменят этого соотношения сил". :-)
btw Mir Sultan Kahn was a good example of a player who was very 'ordinary' in the opening, would get into all kind of trouble, defend successfully and win the endgame.
but then again Kasparov would often win in opening prep...
As always in chess there's never a simple answer :)
but then again Kasparov would often win in opening prep...
As always in chess there's never a simple answer :)
Agreed. A lot helps a lot. ;-)
If you have very little opening knowledge, but are good in the middlegame and ending, you'd generally have an advantage over a player who is good in the opening and middlegame and bad in the ending.
If you have very little opening knowledge then you often need no endgame knowledge as well...
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.