Why are so many players incapable of playing the endgame?

@jonesmh

1) So it's wrong to call an idiotic idea idiotic now? I have only been demeaning to morons who think it's a good idea to ban people because they posted a game in a chess forum. Do you have any idea how stupid that idea is? Really stop and think about how moronic that is. Think of the ramifications of banning anyone who posts a game that may be of embarrassment to another individual on a game analysis chess forum. Really stop and think about that. Facts don't care about your feelings. Only SJW want ban ban ban ban everyone who is not "super nice". People with an attitude got rights too!

2) Why should I personally show any respect/kindness to an individual who calls for me to be banned over absolute nonsense (posting a game on a game analysis forum)? According to your own logic, you should be banned as well if I am to be banned for not being a bright little ray of happy fun sunshine and joyful radiance! The only people I been disrespectful to are those who have treated me poorly. You would have a valid point if I were to have cursed them out, or did some sort of personal attack, or was being racist/sexist/homophobic or whatever. I'm drawing the line in the sand at calling an idiot an idiot though. If idiots can't be called idiots then the forums are "over moderated".

3) Yea, you are correct I didn't play at peak performance that game and made a number of mistakes. It's not one of my greatest victories. At the same time though credit where credit is due to that 1500 for performing at above their normal strength at least in the opening / middle game. I thought they were doing well until the endgame they even had me on the ropes for a short time until I managed to equalize the position. Besides the endgame I'd say they did VERY well for a 1500. They played well enough to draw me (500 points higher rated) but for the terrible endgame in that game.

4) I'm not calling out any individuals with poor endgame technique. I never mentioned anybody by name. I showed 1 example game, I could post several. What I am talking about is a poor endgame technique being very common. So are you suggesting all players names should be removed from any game before posting it in case it's not a game the player is particularly proud of? I guess I could have re-uploaded it, and taken there name out, but was lazy about that didn't think it was an issue.

@lurarose: "I never mentioned anybody by name. I showed 1 example game..."

Do you not see the contradiction here? In showing even that one example game, you have called out somebody by name, i.e., your opponent in that game.

There are plenty of occasions where there is nothing wrong with the opponent's name being shown; in particular, if you are using the game to showcase a particular idea, middlegame theme, opening variation, something along those lines, then there is nothing wrong. But to post a game with the sole purpose of pointing and saying "hey look, my opponent played badly in the endgame!" is poor sportsmanship on your part. You have directed the focus of the conversation away from the actual chess and towards the player with negative intentions, which is not the intended purpose of the feature.

Whether or not you should be banned is not up to me. I personally would give you at least second chance.

tl;dr: If you don't have anything nice to say, then you should really consider not saying anything at all.

@lurarose: You did directly insult @mstef0, and this is a ban offense. I'm not saying to be nice to everyone--actually I believe that that would hurt society. I don't care if you post every game where your opponent played a boner, and I've played more than my fair share, but you must be respectful of others ideas. BTW, if you, as in post #11, called the idea idiotic instead of the person, I would not have posted my first statement.

@lurarose #9
Think

Fischer - Taimanov, 2nd game candidate's quarter final match, 18 June 1971.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044362

Geller - Fischer, Interzonal Tournament, Palma de Mallorca, 24 November 1970.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044663

These were wins in totally drawn 5 and 6 men endgames against top Soviet Grandmasters with thorough education and experience in endgames.
Time control was 40 moves in 2.5 hours, adjournment with posibility for analysis and help from seconds and then 16 moves per hour.
The games were important, as a shot at the match for the World Championship against Boris Spassky was at stake.

@jonesmh

I am familiar with your idea, but it's one I disagree with. Differentating between an idiot and idiotic behavior is just semantics. Saying you are x, generally means the same thing as your behavior is x. I'll give you some examples:

Bob wears a KKK hood, and goes to Klan rallies.
"Bob is a racist." or "Bob's behavior is racist." can be taken to mean the same thing.

Sally had sex with the entire football team.
"Sally is a slut." or "Sally's behavior was slut like." can be taken to mean the same thing.

Mike beat his wife.
"Mike is abusive." or "Mikes behavior is abusive" can be taken to mean the same thing.

Jim farted in the middle of class.
"Jim is a pig." or "Jim's behaves like a pig." can be taken to mean the same thing.

Samantha stole the cookie.

"Samantha is a thief. or "Samantha's behavior is thief like." can be taken to mean the same thing.

Tommy hasn't taken a shower in a week.

"Tommy is stinky." or "Tommy smells like a stinky person." can be taken to mean the same thing.

When it comes down to it: If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. It's pointless semantics to use such soft language as if it were sugar coating anything. To prove my point go and ask any random black person if saying "You sound like an N-word" or "You look like an N-word" or "You smell like an N-word" or "You act like an N-word" means anything less to them than "You are an N-word". Go test that now. Go check if it is taken as any less of an insult.

The methodology you suggest I use is just a way to sound condescending in a more polite way. Some situations do not call for politeness.

@tpr

Nice finds, fisher was always known to squeeze water out of a rock.

@lurarose The difference is length of time. Although, by your examples, I can infer that you're a racist and probably a bully with low self-esteem.

BTW, these Fischer examples are famous and better would have been Carlsen's games he won starting from a losing position. However the unforced blunders from the great masters of today may be interpreted as staged to heighten the excitement.

@jonesmh I can infer a lot of things by your statements as well.

To an easily triggered NPC drone like you, those who speak the truth can often be seen as a "bully" or "racist" simply because you are incapable of comprehending the world in a light outside of your officially painted mainstream pc culture narrative. Your mind has been controlled by them, and I take it I am the first person in a long time who has given you a chance for freedom from the oppression you are currently under. I'm not mad at you, I feel pity for you. As Mr. T said, "I pity the fool".

For starters, I have a healthy level of self-esteem. Not too much, not too little. A realistic judgment based on my abilities.

Going to "you are racist" or "you are a bully" is complete nonsense, and I will explain why.

You are a racist: Calling someone a "racist" under your belief system is tantamount to calling someone a "witch" 3-400 years ago. There is no winning in your rigged game when called a "racist".

If I say "I'm not racist": That's what a racist would say. You are racist.
If I say "I am a racist": See you admit it, You are a racist.
If I move out: That's white flight. You are a racist.
If I move in: That's gentrification. You are a racist.
If I take part in culture: That's cultural appropriation. You are a racist.
If I avoid culture: That's being non-inclusive. You are a racist.
If I say "I am color blind": That's just ignoring racism. You are a racist.
If I say "I notice people's race": That's looking at people differently. You are a racist.
If I date outside my race: Fetishizing people of other races. You are racist.
If I date only my race: Non-inclusive/ prejudice. You are racist.
If I am in favor of affirmative action: Soft bigotry / think blacks are not capable. That's racist.
If I oppose affirmative action: Hard bigotry "muh 40 acres & mule". That's racist.
If I have a black friend: Tokenism. That's racist.
If I have no black friends: Not embrasing diversity. That's racist.
If I have an in-group preference: Not embracing diversity. That's racist.
If I have an out-group preference. Fetishizing / cultural appropriation. That's racist.
If I say "black lives matter" Views black as victims. That's racist.
If I say "all lives matter" mocks blm movement. That's racist.

The fact of the matter in this day and age the word "racist" has been so diluted that it no longer means what it once did much like the boy who cried wolf. Your system concludes that all people are racist, and maybe everyone is. The system also concludes that all racists should be destroyed... Perhaps Bender from Futurama had the solution with "Kill all humans." People like you simply use the term "racist" as a shut down term to close discussions about ideas that make you uncomfortable due to your programming.

As for being a bully, weak minded people often view strong-minded people as a "bully". Also, bullying isn't as bad as you think it is. Bullying is often very helpful in rooting out undesirable behavior from a group. It is a survival mechanism that strengthens a group. Assuming it does not go "overboard". On the other hand, bullying can have the effect of pushing undesirable behavior under the surface and into the closet. Bullying is a double edge sword, and I'm not going to go ahead and say "it's always a good thing," However I do not believe it is "always a bad thing" either.

@lurarose My inference comes from text book examples. Your personal attack, using the same reference material, just proves its theories.
My personal observation is that all people are racist as a biological fact.
If you can avoid the fallacy you stated, I suggest we end this conversation, as no one will ever "win".

Well I do agree with @lurarose that you are being far fetched on calling someone a racist based on the context of his replies. On the other hand. I did look back. He did directly call him and idiot. It's not a question of interpretation. I wanted to back you on this one lurarose. But I can't solely because of the fact that it was blatantly obvious that it was directed at the person not his actions.

To defend you however.. I can see saying or typing, "You are an idiot!" as a slip of the mind. Because you would love to call someone an idiot for what they say. It's common practice to do so depending on how old you are. This is bad practice is all. However, saying someone is inherently a bully or racist because of this is probably not being any more respectful. That is just my two cents. Not that it matters.

I think that you are being a little harsh on your opponent lucarose. And my reason is. Let's pretend that you can get perfection out of a game with 5 second delay and he drew the game. Wouldn't it then be on you since you didn't play perfectly and allowed a 1400-1500 player draw a 2000? Maybe this is how you should attempt to examine the question you are asking. Personally, I am pretty good at endgames. I could probably blitz this out even without an increment. But my level of endgame practical knowledge is much higher than the rest of my game.. I take that into consideration in my play when assessing my games vs lower rated or higher rated players.

Regarding the actual game, one thing I will note is that at the rating level of your opponent (similar to mine), reaching a basically drawn endgame is actually pretty rare. It's much more common that 1) someone gets checkmated in the early/middle game; 2) someone resigns; 3) one player has an overwhelming advantage in the endgame and it's trivial; 4) someone flags. In my own games, even on longer time controls I only reach a real endgame maybe 1 in 10 or so games. I don't find it that hard to believe that someone at that sort of rating level might have problems with this kind of endgame because, in practice, it rarely arises in their games so it's probably not the kind of thing that's been the focus of intensive study.