(UTC)
Latest Updates:
  ChessPub Forum › General › General Chess › Width or Depth?
(Moderators: proustiskeen, trw, RoleyPoley)
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1
Topic Tools
Normal Topic Width or Depth? (Read 3207 times)
Zwischenzugzwang
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing
& chess pubs!

Posts: 380
Location: Zotzenbach
Joined: 06/14/11
Gender: Male
Re: Width or Depth?
Reply #8 - 04/08/12 at 14:17:45
Post Tools
TN wrote on 04/08/12 at 12:48:26:
When you can look at any Knight vs. Bishop endgame and correctly tell within a few seconds whether it is a win for White, a draw or a win for Black, ...

and know how to reach the indicated result, then definitely
TN wrote on 04/08/12 at 12:48:26:
... you've studied Knight vs. Bishop endgames in enough depth.

Agreed.  Smiley

But then I have to study Knight vs. Bishop for the rest of my life ...  Sad
I might restrict myself a little further: Of interest are only those positions, where the Bishop has two pawns on the f- and g-file, the Knight has one on the f-file, (or the same on the Queen's wing, of course), and the two Kings are in opposition to each other on the d-file. Then I might become the world's leading specialist for these positions!  Cheesy
  
What do people mean when they say "Chess is the pawn of the soul"?
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TalJechin
God Member
*****
Offline


There is no secret ingredient.

Posts: 2892
Location: Malmö
Joined: 08/12/04
Gender: Male
Re: Width or Depth?
Reply #7 - 04/08/12 at 13:13:16
Post Tools
All you need is a Nalimovbase ;)

Really good players are usually hesitant to throw around verdicts like "win" or "draw" after only a few seconds (or minutes or even hours), as they understand most of the complexity of the positions.

As chess is a game between humans first and foremost, you only need to know how to increase your winning or drawing [i]chances[/i]. In depth analysis will often discover rules of thumb that increase the depth of the width. (Like when Kasparov famously called Botvinnik about his bishop vs knight ending, and Botvinnik only needed one question to get to the heart of the matter)
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TN
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 3420
Joined: 11/07/08
Gender: Male
Re: Width or Depth?
Reply #6 - 04/08/12 at 12:48:26
Post Tools
When you can look at any Knight vs. Bishop endgame and correctly tell within a few seconds whether it is a win for White, a draw or a win for Black, you've studied Knight vs. Bishop endgames in enough depth.
  
All our dreams come true if we have the courage to pursue them.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Zwischenzugzwang
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing
& chess pubs!

Posts: 380
Location: Zotzenbach
Joined: 06/14/11
Gender: Male
Re: Width or Depth?
Reply #5 - 04/08/12 at 11:44:05
Post Tools
Bibs wrote on 04/08/12 at 11:41:51:
I understand that it is considered polite to offer both.


Both what ...?
  
What do people mean when they say "Chess is the pawn of the soul"?
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bibs
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 2338
Joined: 10/24/06
Re: Width or Depth?
Reply #4 - 04/08/12 at 11:41:51
Post Tools
I understand that it is considered polite to offer both.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Zwischenzugzwang
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing
& chess pubs!

Posts: 380
Location: Zotzenbach
Joined: 06/14/11
Gender: Male
Re: Width or Depth?
Reply #3 - 04/08/12 at 10:41:42
Post Tools
MartinC wrote on 04/07/12 at 14:07:45:
What are you after?

If just assimilating base knowledge of what is going on in these endgames then width seems logical. If you're trying to actually improve in general then depth because it'll make you think and that's the main thing Smiley


I'm trying to understand your reasoning. "Width" to get an overview about the most common motifs, and then "Depth", to deepen the understanding of them?

Lets assume that I've acquired that overview and want to do the next step. But then I face a similar question as before: Should I spend my time investigating / analyzing a certain position as deep as possible or should I try to have a look at as many positions as possible, being content with a rough understanding of what's going on in each of them?

The problem is, of course, that there are comparably very few chess positions one could claim to have understood exhaustively (for GMs and the like, it might be some more than for mere mortals like me), so there's no "natural end" to the research in most positions. What tells you when to stop and proceed to the next? (The same is also true in relation to Uhohspaghettio's statement: When to stop "Bishop vs. Knight" and proceed to "Rook vs. Rook" or whatever?)

Maybe the answer to that question is so simple that it's almost trivial. Proceed to the next position / topic, when you grow tired of the former one!?  Undecided
  
What do people mean when they say "Chess is the pawn of the soul"?
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Uhohspaghettio
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 514
Joined: 02/23/11
Re: Width or Depth?
Reply #2 - 04/08/12 at 03:01:52
Post Tools
As an example, I want to study, say, the endgame Knight vs. Bishop, and I give myself 100 hours to do so.

It's your time but, I really don't think this is a good thing.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MartinC
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 2073
Joined: 07/24/06
Re: Width or Depth?
Reply #1 - 04/07/12 at 14:07:45
Post Tools
What are you after?

If just assimilating base knowledge of what is going on in these endgames then width seems logical. If you're trying to actually improve in general then depth because it'll make you think and that's the main thing Smiley
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Zwischenzugzwang
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing
& chess pubs!

Posts: 380
Location: Zotzenbach
Joined: 06/14/11
Gender: Male
Width or Depth?
04/07/12 at 13:38:03
Post Tools
Hello everybody,

in case one wants to improve his/her chess by studying certain positions, I always wonder what is more efficient: Width (i.e., investigating a lot of positions, but rather superficially), or Depth (restricting oneself to a small number of positions, but "digging deep").

As an example, I want to study, say, the endgame Knight vs. Bishop, and I give myself 100 hours to do so. Müller & Lamprecht (in their "Fundamental Chess Endings", pp. 132 - 155) give 40 positions of this type. Following the "Depth approach", I would spend 2.5 hours in average at every position (which might still not be considered "very deep"), whereas the width approach would mean that I spend maybe 30 minutes up to one hour per position, and that I use the remaining 70 or so hours for other positions of this type, maybe from other endgame books or from my database or whatever.

Personally, I like the "Depth approach" more, but I have no idea if it is also the most efficient. Is that an individual matter? Does it depend of the theme? Are both "Width" and "Depth" inferior to a "mixed approach" (going into tiniest details with some positions, but just having a superficial glance at others)?

What is your opinion, what are your experiences?

Thank you in advance for your answers!


Best regards,

Zwischenzugzwang
  
What do people mean when they say "Chess is the pawn of the soul"?
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1
Topic Tools
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo
 
  « Board Index ‹ Board Top  

ChessPub Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.6.12!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2024. All Rights Reserved.

Valid RSS Valid XHTML Valid CSS Powered by Perl Source Forge