Author: Uri Blass
Date: 16:00:53 06/05/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 05, 2004 at 16:53:20, Tord Romstad wrote: >On June 05, 2004 at 15:26:53, Anthony Cozzie wrote: > >>We need to get Nalimov to write some W/L/D tables. > >I am not sure I agree. Implementing simple high-level rules for evaluating >endgames >like KRPKR correctly is a difficult, but very valuable excercise. The reason >is that you >will sometimes discover principles which are also useful in more complicated >endgames, but which are much more easily noticed when there are just a few piece >left. If you rely too heavily on bitbases and tablebases in the early phases of >development, you lose the chance to make such discoveries. > >This applies to human chess players as well as computers. I spent a lot of time >studying the KRPKR endgame when I was young. I cannot remember a single >tournament game I played in which this endgame appeared on the board, but >the heuristic knowledge learned by studying this endgame helped me save a >lot of half points in rook endgames with numerous pawns. Studying basic >endgames gives you a unique chance to learn about the strengths and >weaknesses of the individual pieces and how they interact. > >My experience as a tournament player was that knowledge of basic endgames >decided a much bigger fraction of the games than concrete opening knowledge. >This is one of the reasons I find it hard to understand the FRC enthusiasts. I think that the middle game is the most important stage. My experience suggests that a lot of games are decided in the middle game and even if they are decided in the endgame if the decision is between draw and a win for myself than this may be thanks to better play in the middle game. I think that I need to improve the middle game knowledge and better endgame knowledge is lower priority. Uri
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.