In Morphy opera game he attacks the f7 square and the
b7 square if I remember correctly.
One should make a study exclusively about squares.
A square is a spot as well, its a compound vector where
u can put a piece controlling plenty of the board.
A square can be e5 in the french, caro, I dont play that.
A square its an intersection of lines.
There are big drawbacks that I prefer to dismiss
King and bishop versus king.
This has given me the chance to study endgames with more passion, otherwise not matter how much
effort I put I lack resilience and confidence in my commentary, this is due to endgames
I feel weak there, perhaps I do not reach them
I play too much blitz
Or u need a rook advantage to win or promotion.
But maybe in the endgame there is always the double threat of checkmate and pawn play ( taking pawns, promoting ur pawns)
I mean few pieces at the board but with queen I consider that middlendgame.
@Toscani I don't want holographic chess. nobody needs this nonsense lol
Whether chess is solved or not is totally irrelevant. Humans cannot win cars in speed by running but running is still a hobby and competitve sport
Also chess in not solvable in practice. Checkers is in completely different. Besides the solved game was 8x8 british/american version. International chess has not been solved and will not in near future. Dunno if anyone bothers to try
Amount of position is to power to two of checkers so amount time to solve is somewhere hundreds or thousands of years requiring more memory than is physically possible. You can estimate memory consumption by seeing how much endgame tables grow with each piece. it aint linear growth.
Only possibility that chess would one of such rare problems that can be solves with quantum computing. We just have wait few decades to even estimate when that is possible is foreseeable future.
I mean when u explain chess u explain it with words and
that can be misleading, when u look at the board, u
see things like pressure, motion, space and suddenly a double attack if it protects a check.
Now the queen is the most important piece at the board after the king, a good way to learn middlegames and chess
could be, when to exchange queens, never, soon, keep them
until the endgame.
Because what does the queen in an empty board do right?, too much to learn.
Whats half a tempo in an empty board with a queen.
I exchange the queens too much I need to play more with them.
a1 h8, half a turn its fianchetto play.
@petri999 #32 You are right. The fun struggle between minds will not vanish. Checkers was almost human solved to a draw in the practical sense, since almost all games from the elite players were draw. Almost there were no new relevant discoveries about checkers strategy to solve it, almost all the work was brute force.
We can't say that about chess at the moment. Alphazero came with a fundamentally new approach that wreaked havoc on the very understanding of the game. Who knows what the future will bring before chess is solved. I want to live to see.
So true
@d2d4agaor with ur own mind.
Chess is full of surprises, as soon as u say its a win or a draw
ur head looks like a hammer, its a baroque game.
You see, we (humans) know so little about chess that we don't even know how to teach it effectively. We still don't have a book (with a set of rules or patterns) that one can read, follow the teachings, and be guaranteed to become a chess master.
#37
Capablanca in his "Chess Fundamentals":
"The reader may therefore go over the contents of the book with the assurance that there is in it everything he needs, and that there is nothing to be added and nothing to be changed. "
@tpr #38 Truth be told, the "one pawn to block two" Capablanca teaching in that book is maybe the most universal practical chess principle that exists, in the sense that if one sees this opportunity on the board it is almost always the best move in the position. This principle alone gives one a bunch of rating points. Apart from that, Capablanca was a good marketeer. :-)
