I note that Emms' new re-issue of Survival Guide to Rook Endings  has been checked with the tablebases. Are there any significant changes or serious analytical errors discovered compared to the original edition?

I know this topic is dated but James Howell's Fundamental Chess Endings definitely deserves a plug. Not only because he shows you the right answer but why the wrong answers are wrong. I know i hate nothing more than seeing my opponent make a mistake but not knowing how to take advantage of it.

I agree that Emms's Survival Guide to Rook Endings is great - and it a shame that it wasn't followed by other Survival Guide to ... Endings books.

However, it seems that people expect a "new edition" of the book. As I read the Gambit website, it looks like a "re-issue", which I understand as a reprint with no content changes - and I'm sure that the website would have stated it very clearly if this was an improved version.

The best books are probably Smyslov's and Levenfish (of course newer editions could improve several things), Emms book was ok but perhaps not 

1) deep enough to really be of help in some endings
2) Too practical (just analysing a few endings without a system) to be able to retain useful material

Korchnoi book is tremendous, but probably just for 2450+, and even most would find it too difficult.

Dvoretsky is incredibly pedantic in most of his books, but the endings one is fantastic. One has to endure his tragicomedies sections, but the actual explanations are second to none.

I would get a primer ( I even went through Nunn's book, but I was very determined then ) like Smyslov's and then use Dvoretsky.

Muller and Lamprecht on pawn endings is fantastic but the much acclaimed F¡undamentals is considerably worse. A funny thing, actually, cause their pawn endings is simply astounding.

Waiting for the 2nd edition of Emm's book

IMJohnCox wrote on 02/11/08 at 14:08:21:


No!  It's all in the book I choose.


This way when I fail, I know it's not my fault.

I know there is a secret book out there that people have been keeping from me and THAT is why I am not improving as much as others, as I RIGHTFULLY should.




I got by on the work By Ludek Pachman (Endings for the Practical Player), supplemented by the very exciting read:  Encylopedia of Rook Endings (I can't wait for the film version starring Leo McKern & Angelo Muscat.)

Be seeing you.

Quote:

Somewhere I read: "You know your becoming better, when you have the feeling your opponents are playing worse". To "jump up" a level you need to leave your mistakes behind. If you feel you can play at the same level as stronger players until the endgame and then lose, then learning endgames is certainly the way to start. If you improve endgame play you will mostly win more games against similar and lower rated opponents, but to win against the stronger ones you have also to improve opening and middlegame. Some weeks ago I saw a nice example of a stronger player winning a level endgame where both sides had 3 pawns, knight and rook - Black was about 2.350 and white 2.150 - it took the stronger player about 20 moves to win out of a level situation. The 2.150 played opening and middlegame as well as the 2.350 - but in the end one saw the difference. 

After knowing some basic principles (eg Rook+pawn against rook) you should mainly concentrate on strategic and tactic features of endgames, not so much of learning more and more theoretical situations. They wont appear on board! If you play activly in rook endgames you can even be a pawn down and have the better chances - passive defence is only good if youre sure of a fortress, otherwise zugzwang will tell or you will finally make a blunder.

I have some endgame books: Averbakh, Smyslov, Panchenko - I learned the basics with Smyslov (and sometimes take the book on a rail journey with me, just to repeat something) but most of my own improvement came with replaying topical games - if the endgame starts I put the magazine (or what ever) aside and think for myself. Sometimes I find the winning or drawing plan but sometimes I am really amazed what those super-GMs can do. I try compare the way the endgame goes to my own thoughts: What would I have played? Did I see a way to win / save the game? Why did I not see the moves of the super-GM? and so on....

I started this method after reading J. Rowsons books - a central statement of him is, that you have to work on the board for yourself and not only "consume" - I try to improve my thinking!

Another thing which really helped me and is easier to start with endgame positions is to replay positions without a board (obviously the special "Gold member section" with the "blindfold-instruction" on chesspublishing is to blame for that). If there are more diagrams I try to get from one to the next and in endgame positions I try to calculate until the end (which needs a lot of concentration sometimes - but thats what you need at the board also). 

What happened is, that now I am able to think about chess positions whenever I have time (eg. waiting for the bus) - Hopefully no one can read my mind at the busstation - they would certainly think I am crazy 

Okay guys......I am a 1980 rated player, aspiring to 2100. Based on this conversation, I understood Mednis is good enough till I make it to 2100+. Am I correct ? Or I need to go through Dvoretsky also ?