How to calculate pawn endgames?

@dboing said in #40:

I am not sure I answered you.. I am not sure I even know what I mean.. it is easier to say what is not confortable and point at it..

Well, I don't know what are ROT or SAN, but I think you'd need to start with the simplest cases and the underlying ideas, e. g. king vs. king + pawn and see (drawings can help a lot) how box and opposition work. The more complex the position, the more ideas you have to consider and discard.

Over the time (I don't think there's a shortcut) you'll learn to recognize the kind of situation more and more easily, at least in a majority of the cases.

I agree that many chess "teaching" books (and not just chess) are just the opposite of "teaching", or at the very least not suited for my little understanding of the subject.

@OctoPinky said in #41:

ROT: rule of thumb (of action most of times)
SAN: the syllables of PGN (short algebraic notation).

example of ROT for the early phase of chess games: openings. Don't bring your queen too early!.. or bring your knights out before your bishops... Which are not wrong to use blindly, on average of some wild notion of how chess games can go, or could still be good in a restricted notion of future games to be played.. but with chess knowledge expanding and its playing population too, and being recorded no matter how far in orbit of ratings, I think they might not work on the long term, yet provide for fast rating improvement for some. But why not take the time to teach rationnally from the begginning, for adults able to control their own learning activities with some own goals... I agree with you. anyway.. yes. some bottom-up in material complexity, and some bottom-up in methods too...

edit: not well defined terms might also be about not well understood term (and nobody knows that it is so, while keeping the communication going). Some self-diagnostic about definition quality from both end, making sure not the wrong thing was "understood" at first exposure and oddly generalized, while nobody would notice until it ends up in confusion down the road.. so not just about the author having a good definition but transmission of that needs work.

@dboing said in #42:

I think they might not work on the long term, yet provide for fast rating improvement for some.

At least they (I include here all the strategical and positional ideas) give you something to think about when there is no other more immediate issue. Or, to put it in other words, it allows you not having to fully calculate every move. For example, I know after 1.e4 c5 2.Bb4 I have to/can move 2...e6. I'm unwilling to think a lot right from the 2nd move or I'll reach 15th move exhausted. But I know there are reasons to that move and, more important, I could write down then if requested.

@dboing said in #42:

But why not take the time to teach rationnally from the begginning.

It has to be not just time-consuming, but a difficult task that maybe don't work the same for everyone.

@dboing said in #38:

my reading clutch slipped after 1....bxc3. ...

https://lichess.org/hQ68frS4

@kindaspongey said in #44:

It was a bit rhetorical, but thanks... closing that loop. Also, I thought there were plenty variations after the such as..

But I now get better that the point was about the room left for long variations before seeing anything of human reasoning scale that might have made use of emergent spatial aware (2D and adjacent square connectivity is close enough to spatial for me) basic arguments to shape future from current position planning.

That "clutch" thing or point of mine was a cherry on top about cryptic aspect of variations as communication argument for the new online bathing generations (I am not of that generation, but I might be immature, might amount to same thing).

@OctoPinky said in #43:

It has to be not just time-consuming, but a difficult task that maybe don't work the same for everyone.

Yes, hard to tell from just one life experience, what works for me, might not be for others, but seeing the vastness apparently not made for me, and not sure I am that unique, I venture sharing what I see.. But yes, I can't project these kinds of needs to everyone. Time consuming depend on context, study or performance. Why does one love chess. That is also not the same for everyone.. But I get there ought to be reasons for the state of things.

I love K&P endgames but they are very tricky, there isn't really a way out but practice!
Here is a small collection of K&P endgames I' 've enjoyed (and thus gathered).

some are pretty tough, others are easier. I hope you enjoy!

@njswift said in #4:

Tactics in Pawn Endgames
A bit late:
I would suggest adding links in yours studies to your other studies.
It seems that people find Tactics in Pawn Endgames but not so many find your other good pawn studies.

The LiChess search feature for studies seems to be lacking IMHO.
I know some of your studies use up all 64 chapters. You could just make a separate study with links to endgame stuff.
Just a suggestion
Thanks

P&K end games are to difficult to think about i can look at P&K puzzle for 12 hours and still get it wrongXD

@theodorecalexico said in #49:

P&K end games are to difficult to think about i can look at P&K puzzle for 12 hours and still get it wrongXD
Magnus Carlsen said if he were looking at the same position for more than 15 minutes, he has thought about it too long and just need to make a move, something like this.. Even for puzzles, you should stick with trying to solve the hardest puzzles you can in under 15 minutes, and try to make a move lose it and move on to next puzle within 15m. It is best for quicker development, not to mention puzzle books and by specific category and the studies on here are severely underrated aspect. Studies are some of the best chess content too..