16675 zalogowanych graczy!
Człowiek kontra maszyna - powodzenia!
Gra korespondencyjna - grasz, kiedy Ci pasuje!
Głosuj na najlepszy ruch, aby wygrać!
Gotów na wyzwanie?
Wyostrz swój zmysł taktyczny!
Porady i sugestie
Ucz się od najlepszych graczy i zawodowców!
Przeglądaj miliony gier mistrzów!
Twój wirtualny trener szachowy!
Udoskonal swoje debiuty!
Sprawdź się grając z komputerem!
Znajdź prywatnego trenera dla siebie!
Dasz radę rozwiązać je każdego dnia?
Złóż to w całość!
Początkujący, zacznijcie tutaj!
Zaprzyjaźnij się i graj drużynowo!
Wiadomości ze świata szachów!
Wyszukaj użytkowników Chess.com!
Znajdź lokalne kluby i wydarzenia!
Kto jest Twoim najlepszym przyjacielem?
Przeczytaj, o czym piszą użytkownicy!
Nice games Chess_Troller, you seem to live up to your name.
Yeah, thank you very much :D
I don't think there is a clear definition when the opening becomes a middlegame and when the middlegame becomes an endgame. Some might argue that you are still playing the opening when you follow theory moves, even if the position is closer to a middlegame or endgame. In the Fischer and Petrosion game I certainly wouldn't call it an endgame after the queens get exchanged. The play is more about the open files and piece activity rather than getting the king active after all, so I would consider it to be more of a middlegame. If someone would say they study endgames I certainly wouldn't expect them to study games like that.
The olders say that the opening is completed when the rooks face each other and the ending starts when the king feels safe to activate him self. From a practical point of view a huge percentage of openings acomplished that rule. Those who dont its because one of the two players have done a positional mistake or there is a forced sequence ( like Berlin ) who leads that situation. Its more difficult to point the moment when the middlegame its an endgame because depends a lot from the position. The fact is that with out Queens in the game, the king is more safe to mobilise and thats why, many times players dont castle when Queens are out. The Fischer- Spassky game , Bobby has castled before the exchange and Borris has to castle cause the file its open with the rook opposite. The position has already simplified, there are not so many tactical issues to been solved. Fischer activate his Bishops better, use the dark squared bishop trade, to force an another exchange with his knight, to penetrate the 6th or the 7th rank. Spassky loses the position and resign... Its not a typical or a clasical endgame, but its the endgame of this certain sequence. Some times happens because we cant defin the quntinuation...
An endgame is when there are only a few pieces left. There is no strict criterion for when an endgame begins, and different experts have different opinions (Fine 1952:430).Alexander Alekhine said "We cannot define when the middle game ends and the end-game starts" (Whitaker & Hartleb 1960). With the usual system for chess piece relative value, Speelman considers that endgames are positions in which each player has thirteen or fewer points in material (not counting the king). Alternatively, an endgame is a position in which the king can be used actively, but there are some famous exceptions to that (Speelman 1981:7–8). Minev characterizes endgames as positions having four or fewer pieces other than kings and pawns (Minev 2004:5). Some authors consider endgames to be positions without queens (e.g. Fine, 1952), while others consider a position to be an endgame when each player has less than a queen plus rook in material. Flear considers an endgame to be where each player has at most one piece (other than kings and pawns) and positions with more material where each player has at most two pieces to be "Not Quite an Endgame" (NQE), pronounced "nuckie" (Flear 2007:7–8).
Alburt and Krogius give three characteristics of an endgame: (Alburt & Krogius 2000:12)
Some problem composers consider that the endgame starts when the player who is about to move can force a win or a draw against any variation of moves (Portisch & Sárközy 1981:vii).
Mednis and Crouch address the question of what constitutes an endgame negatively. The game is still in the middlegame if middlegame elements still describe the position. The game is not in the endgame if these apply:
If you consider it to be an endgame in the Fischer Spassky game, then fine with me, but my main point is that there is no clear definition when an endgame starts. I would not consider it an endgame since I don't feel the characteristics for an endgame like active king is important yet.
Agreed. No position with five pieces per side can be considered an endgame and four pieces per side is murky ground, sometimes even when one is a queen.
So, done with the academics? Then let's get back to the topic ;)
I believe there are positions you can't put your self in trouble to learn about them if you first don't become an expert. With your hand in your heart, how many of you are prepared to play an pawnless endgame two bishops vs one knight? It's an endgame that requires a presiacly technique and before computers arrived many GM where consider it as a draw. It's an endgame that beginners would never understand and those who are in a level between intermediate and advanced will also have a tough moments to realize. The procedure to study some parts of the game should be adapt to the general knowledge of the individual player has plus his tactical ability. You can't teach someone how to run if he don't knows how to walk...
I think 2 bishops vs one knight is one of the endgames that is negatively effected by the 50 move rule with perfect play. I'm not sure if that matters though, I have never reached that endgame and if I did I might try to win it, although I doubt I would be successfull.
I think trying to learn how to win with 2 bishops vs knight is a waste of time for both expert and those who are not expert players. Pawn endgames and rook endgames for example are more important.
I've lost that endgame twice haha
I agree with you, but when it happens...the feeling is awfoul because you didnt know how and when. Like suddenly you play a different game with no theory at all.
How to learn the Sicilian Najdorf as thoroughly as possible?
PilateBlue kilka minut temu
Can a Premium member do me a small favor?
Martin_Stahl kilka minut temu
1000 Worst Places to Play Chess
OperationOverlord kilka minut temu
Can you be a dumb person and still be good at chess?
lightning_1 3 minut temu
What do you think of the Sicilian?
JJZ03 5 minut temu
Changing opening Repertoire
XPLAYERJX 7 minut temu
Tips for my the 1st tournament
General-Mayhem 7 minut temu
4 years to become a chess master
klimski 9 minut temu
Hou Yifan about to become strongest female player in the world
chessmicky 10 minut temu
kaynight 12 minut temu
Dlaczego warto dołączyć | Tematy szachowe |
O nas |
Najczęstsze pytania |
Pomoc i wsparcie |
Polityka prywatności |
Regulamin serwisu |
© 2015 Chess.com
• Szachy - Polski
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!