This may be a slightly different topic for a new post, but then there is also the importance of positional knowledge vs. tactical ability.  My feeling on this is that it is almost impossible to successfully implement positional knowledge if the necessary tactical ability is not there.  That is, if someone have the raw tactical/calculation ability, they should pick up the positional knowledge needed for that level of play relatively quickly.  From my personal experience, every time I had a plateau, I broke it by doing lots and lots of tactical/checkmate problems, and the new positional knowledge soon came. 

I think that the de la Maza approach is a bit too focused on tactics, but I have to say I disagree with Silman's article.  Firstly, I don't think that a 900-1000 player can, by definition, have 1500+ tactics.  If they do have a tactical capacity that high, then they still probably blunder pieces quite a bit, and having 1500+ tactics includes not blundering often.  In the first game that Silman described, he said his student made a blunder (tactical) when he was easily winning and lost.  The second example talks about drawing from a Lucena position.  As much as I love endgame, I can't imagine knowledge of Lucena positions being of much use to a 900-1000 player, when a tactical mistake decides the vast majority of games.  Even if they do get a Lucena position, I think knowing the basic principle (building the rook bridge, etc) and being able to calculate the win (with tactical ability) are two different things.

Personally I try to play very solid/positional chess (almost to the point of playing defensively), but I don't think it is possible to play this way without focusing on tactics first.    

Any input on this topic would be welcome.  *note: In this post I am talking only about untitled improving adult players.

Greetings,

I'd certainly agree that endgame knowledge is very important to a player's development - without it, most players will either try to avoid endgames or fail to win/lose them because they don't know what to do.

Having said that, a certain knowledge of openings - and traps to avoid! - is necessary. The Tactics in the Chess Openings series is a particularly useful guide, in conjunction with Collins' Understanding the Openings. The former will certainly appeal to most developing players as it involves the one thing they like - tactics!

Along with endgame knowledge, and perhaps more important, is the ability to analyze - again, this includes tactical vision (pattern-recognition) as well as the ability to calculate.

With these three - tactics, endgame and opening knowledge - most developing players could "get by".

If they want to increase their opening knowledge, they could add suitable specialist books on their specific repertoire.

At a certain level, they'll then need to develop a greater awareness of positional play - which will take them up to (and beyond) the 2000 mark.

I also agree with ErictheRed's comments about games being lost due to errors other than in the opening.

As a teenager, I once played a game in a tournament where I dropped a piece through playing the opening on "auto-pilot", but then outplayed my opponent through superior tactical ability and endgame knowledge.

The latter came into play both in the late middle-game and the actual ending.

In the middlegame, I was concious of which pawn formations would be advantageous in an ending.

In the transition to the endgame, I showed my middle-aged(!) opponent how to create a passed pawn from a three-against-three pawn formation (central pawn advances and no matter which way the opponent captures, a passed pawn is created...but you know this already!) - my point, though, is that this isn't normally found in books on openings or the middlegame(!)

There were some other endgame "tricks of the trade" which I was able to use as well - my opponent was suitably impressed, makings "Ahs!" of delight - on my way to queening the passed pawn ... before blundering her to a knight fork with check - the game ended in a draw.  

(The blunder was due to having had to concentrate for so much of the game - until the pawn queened, when I subconciously relaxed.   Having queened, I even checked and double-checked that the knight check wasn't possible - it seemed that there was a phantom file between the king/queen and the square on which the knight would land! Mental tiredness... )

Still, the point only goes to show that if I hadn't had the endgame knowledge I did at the time, I wouldn't have been able to gain a winning advantage on opening/middlegame tactics alone.

Lastly, talking of "tactics" and "endgames" - has anyone read van Perlo's recent book, Endgame Tactics by any chance?

It looked/sounded rather interesting.

If it is a good book, might it be suitable for the afore-mentioned teaching of endgames, given that youngsters would more readily accept endgames with "tactics" than the rather dry material upon which most endgames are based?

Kindest regards,

James

@SF

I think micawber meant centralisation of the King in the endings.

I think it is well possible to teach children endgame play, without the risk to bore them to death.
But it requires some adaptions to 'regular' endgame courses:
a) Avoid difficult technical endgames (dont try to teach them to mate with Bishop and Knight)
In stead illustrate how middlegame principles like centralisation and pawn structures have an even
greater significance in the endgame.
b) Let them find out for themselves. After a short lesson, let them play the endgame position against each other. The role of the teacher is to observe typical mistakes, and correct them on an individual basis.
c) Select examples that are bound to occur in their games.
d) Show fun-tactics in the endgame.

I pretty much agree completely, except to say that I don't Capablanca really meant that openings and middlegames should be learnt in relation to the endgames they create.  Chess is so complicated that a single opening can create innumerable endgames!  Shereshevsky wrote a great two-volume work about typical endgame positions that arise from various openings setups called Mastering the Endgame, but it's really more of a book that deals with mastering the complex strategic themes of openings, mostly by analyzing positions that aren't truly endgames (just because the queens come off doesn't mean that you're in an ending).   

I guess my point is that I agree, but I think that Capablanca was talking about much, MUCH simpler positions when he said "endgame."  Look at the positions in his book Chess Fundamentals to see what I'm talking about; he analyzes basic K & P vs. K positions, simple rook endings like the Lucena position, etc.  These positions have absolutely nothing to do with any particular opening; however, they have everything to do with chess because they can arise from ALL openings.   

Studying endings does great things for your chess skill (I personally think I made the push to USCF Expert based mostly on studying endgames).  For one thing, none of the information you acquire goes to waste, like memorizing opening lines can if you switch openings.  Secondly, you really gain an understanding about what pieces are capable of when you analyze simple positions.  Also, analyzing endgames is probably the best way to improve your visualization/calculation skills, which are important for all areas of chess (like accurately calculating a combination when you've seen some tactical idea).  Lastly, all great players agree that you need to do serious analysis to improve beyond a certain level; endgames are perfect for this!  They can be extremely complicated but with few enough pieces to be "manageable", they often allow for long-range, gradual planning, etc. etc.

Lastly I want to say that despite hanging around this site mostly for the community and sharing of ideas, I truly believe that most players spend WAAYYYy too much time worrying about openings.  In my opinion, about 50% of the opening knowledge a player under 2000 or so needs can be found in a single book: Pawn Structure Chess by Soltis.  I've mentioned this book in a few other posts, but I strongly believe that it really teaches the ideas behind openings and middlegame setups excellently, which will prove far more valuable in a game between non-masters than memorizing theory.   

About a year ago I decided that I REALLY wanted to become a USCF master (2200+).  I haven't made it yet, but one of the things I did was look through my personal database of my games and find out, in general, why I lost the games I lost.  I don't mean what particular moves, I mean I tried to find out what area of chess I was deficient in.  Guess what??  Out of the last 20-30 or so losses of mine in rated tournament play, poor opening play accounted for exactly ZERO of the results!  That's not to say that I never obtained a difficult position out of the opening, but in every game I looked at the critical, game-altering mistakes were NOT made in the openings.

Obviously you need to study openings to the point that you don't make game-altering mistakes early on, but I think, for class players, that they would do best with just Pawn Structure Chess and a few specialist volumes on the opening they play (like Gallagher's Play the King's Indian, for instance).

Sorry that I went off on a kind of tangent there  .  Yes, I believe studying endgames and typical middlegame positions are more important than "studying" (i.e. memorizing) openings.  Studying endgames will improve your general chess abilities like calculation tremendously, but understand that there's (generally) no magic link backwards from the endgame, middlegame, to opening.