Smyslov_Fan wrote on 04/29/12 at 19:37:39:



Well it is - my previous post, I mean - just in a roundabout way.

You say that KBN v K is not 'exotic' because it's in loads of beginners books.  I agree with you, to an extent, but the point that I was making is that *all* endings can be considered exotic to a point because the understanding of even the very basic endings is so very rare.

The examples listed aren't really 'exotic' at all, then, but super-exotic at the very least.

E.g.
in the last year or so I've won a drawn K and single P v K position and drawn a lost K v K and single pawn position - in both cases against players rated 2050 to 2100.

Even the simplest three piece ending is exotic!

I agree, there are quite a few players in the US who are +2000 strength who don't know their basic endgames.

However, that's not what the question was about. 

Personally, I don't think B+N vs a lone king is an "exotic" endgame. It is covered in many beginners' books on chess. 

I studied some of the more exotic endgames as part of my attempt to learn all endgames by reading large section of Reuben Fine's Basic Chess Endgames. and Paul Keres' Practical Chess Endings (which is both misnamed and overrated despite the brilliance of some of Keres' studies). I was about 1700 strength at that time.

I have learned far more about various endgames by studying games where the possibility arose and I didn't take that chance. Also, I have learned a great deal by studying certain endgames of the great masters. 

So for me, most exotic endgames that I've studied have been by chance. I particularly remember the joy I felt studying some of Timman's endgames. There was no specific time when I chose to analyse rare endgames except when I borrowed Nunn's endgame book on pawnless endgames. I was already +2100 at that point.

Knowing that an example is no data I put in this beautiful endgame from Plovdiv 2012. Go to move 32 look at the position and the further moves. Do you see the KNN-KP endgame behind the scene?

Girkassa wrote on 04/27/12 at 20:37:29:


Good idea! In contrast to, say, Q vs R, the computer can't make any "inhuman" moves in that endgame. 

Girkassa wrote on 04/27/12 at 20:37:29:


I'm not so sure I agree about that. While it's probably easier than RB vs R, I have seen several examples of strong players mishandling RN vs R (the most remarkable one being Polgar's loss against Kasparov). And if a "standard" starting position is too easy to defend, you could make a starting position where the defending side is a bit uncomfortable. E.g. the defending king is starting off on the 8th rank, and the attacking rook on the 7th.

Back to the original question, I agree with TN and chk that studying these endgames is good for learning the strengths of the pieces. I would say I have learnt a lot especially by studying RB vs R and BB vs N, even though I haven't got any of those endgames in my own games.

For training, it might be a good idea to play a thematic tournament with the most common of these endings: KBN vs K, KRB vs KR, and KQ vs KR; if the defender manages to draw, then he/she will get the point, and the attacker "looses" (gets nothing). Has anyone tried that before?

TN wrote on 04/26/12 at 13:14:18:


I think TN nicely rounds up the subject, especially his last comment, which I pasted again above. Frankly, this is the reason to learn such openings, even if you may never face them OTB. Pawnless endgames give you a nice feeling regarding coordination of pieces in the endgame - in the same way that learning IQP or gambit lines may do for you in the middlegame. 

Regarding ELO considerations, almost none of my clubmates knows all of these, but that does not inhibit them from playing good chess. Myself, I studied these (except from B+B vs. N  ) when I was about 1700-800 in strength. Practicing on ChessTempo like dfan mentioned has helped me a lot. I was good already in endgames so my results cannot reveal whether it has helped me or not. But I like to investigate some matters in depth even if sometimes they are not suited for my current level of strength. It's like a small investment in anticipation of me getting stronger someday   .

All in all, it has helped me in the same way as studying the Yugoslav Attack vs. Dragon. You learn sth new and improve as a player irrespective of its immediate practical value. Examining in depth sth completely new may have a positive impact on all of your current chess qualities.

P.S.: I mostly like R+B vs. R which has a lot of aesthetic value => Philidor was a genius!