If I focus on, let's say, pawn endgame puzzles on lichess for a while, how does it compare to reading a book on the subject? Could I get good at pawn endgames just by solving a lot of puzzles, or am I missing some crucial pieces of theoretical chess knowledge this way?
Yes, You could get good at pawn endgames just by solving a lot of puzzles
Doing both is better, obviously. Nodoby but you knows what puzzles you've solved and what pieces of knowledge you have or haven't missed. As a way to check, open some endgame book, take a theoretical position and try to solve it as a puzzle, then check your results.
Some endgame stuff I learned mainly by solving puzzles, for instance the endgame Queen against Rook. I have exercised that on Chesstempo and I still prefer that site to solve puzzles, because I find the comment section to share experiences extremely helpful.
Of course it is possible to discover everything by trial and error, but there is nothing wrong to learn things like the Philidor position ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philidor_position ), triangulation ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangulation_(chess) ) and distant opposition ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_(chess)#Distant_opposition ).
I would recommend at least a cheap paperback, it does not even have to be new. I have only worked through two endgames books by Awerbach and Pachman.
"am I missing some crucial pieces of theoretical chess knowledge this way?"
Yes, you will not be able to reinvent all the findings of Philidor, Lucena, Lolli...
On the other hand just reading an endgame book will not stick in your memory
You need a mix of theory and practice
By the way pawn endgames are not as important as rook endings.
https://lichess.org/training/themes
#5
Right, but these are rook endgames. There certainly are some other positions that one should know, wrong color bishop + rook pawn and so on. But pawn endgames? Yeah triangulation and oppositions, but other than that? Isn't every pawn breakthrough different? Don't you just have to calculate who queens first every time?
"pawn endgames are not as important as rook endings" Maybe they don't happen as often on the board as rook endgames, but I guess it's good to know what would happen if you exchange the rooks?
#7
"Yeah triangulation and oppositions, but other than that?"
There is much more to pawn endgames. For example conjugated squares. You will never reinvent that yourself.
"I guess it's good to know what would happen if you exchange the rooks?"
Yes, that is good to know. This is precisely the reason why rook endings happen that often: the defending side usually has an interest not to trade rooks.
@tpr "By the way pawn endgames are not as important as rook endings"
Umm, do you want to try that again? How do you expect to know when trading the rooks is good/bad without knowing whether the resulting pawn ending is winning/losing/drawn?
#9
Many rook endings 1 or even 2 pawns down are still a draw.
Almost all pawn endings 1 pawn down are lost.
For this reason rook endings are the type of endgame that occurs most.
Beginners often trade rooks when they should not.
Generally:
If you are up a pawn, trade rooks if you can.
If you are down a pawn, do not trade rooks.
There are exceptions of course. Once in an over the board tournament I was a pawn down in a rook endgame and to the surprise of my opponent I traded rooks, because I had a breakthrough in the pawn endgame.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.