Let’s assume that someone who has never sat
behind the wheel of a car, has learned by heart
traffic rules and regulations and knows exactly
when to turn the wheel and step on the gas.
Would this be enough to allow him on the street
in traffic? Of course not. It would first be
necessary to train, develop and consolidate one’s
driving skills.
And so it is with chess. Knowledge of endgame
theory does not guarantee skill in actually
playing endings. Michel de Montaigne accurately
wrote in his well-known Experiences: Knowledge
is a dangerous sword; in a weak hand that does not
know how to wield it, it gets in its master’s way
and wounds him.
As you read endgame books, you become
acquainted with many instructive examples, but
you do not know which ones are particularly
important and demand a deep understanding of
their subtleties. (By the way, one of the main
systematic concepts in writing DEM was to
precisely flag and allocate the key, obligatory
endgame material.) To better understand and
remember the studied material, it is important to
consider additional examples on a given theme,
and to work through suitable exercises.
As I noted in the introduction to DEM, the
connection between theory and specific practical
endings is not that far from being direct and
obvious. At times it is not simple to make out, in
complicated positions, familiar theoretical
patterns and to understand just which of the
ideas that have been studied may be necessary to
use. In other cases, a position, on the contrary,
may be very similar to the theoretical. It is
important to notice the slight differences and
establish how they will affect the course and
outcome of the struggle.
In connection with my previous remarks, I recall
an episode at one of the sessions at my school for
gifted chessplayers held in Moscow in October
2001. Participating were not only young
candidate masters, but also masters and even
grandmasters. I was discussing the theory of
rook-and-pawn-versus-rook endgames. The
students accurately took down everything. They
were later presented with the following position
(DEM, 9-22).
Were the black rook on e1, a draw would be
achieved without any particular problem (“the
second method of defense in Philidor’s Position”).
13
But the rook is positioned less favorably, and on
move, White will win, although, contrary to
expectations, not without some difficulty. He has
to precisely consider concrete variations,
supported by, of course, the evaluation of core
theoretical positions.
7. Rohde – Cramling, D.
Innsbruck wch jr 1977
I divided the students into two-player teams.
Teams competed among themselves, playing out
this ending. On each team, one member played
White, another Black, so the overall chances in
these matches were objectively equal. Teams
were given time (30 or 45 minutes) to prepare –
analysis of a position, reference to notes and
moving pieces on the board (but naturally
without the help of a computer). Then the
matches began.
Under these conditions, it would seem that the
task for the chessplayers was not too difficult.
Alas, not one of the games finished properly; in
each, one of the players (in most cases both)
made serious errors, and, as rule, right from the
outset. I repeated the training exercise, using
another rook endgame from Hector-Krasenkov
(DEM, 9-14), with the same sad result.
Three months later a similar experiment was
repeated at a training session with the strongest
French club at that time, NAO. I reviewed with the
club members some of the basic theory of rook
endings and then proposed that they play each
position against me in a simultaneous exhibition
(although without preparing analysis). The
results turned out identically: not one of the
players was up to the task. And among them, two
of France’s leading grandmasters, Etienne Bacrot
and Laurent Fressinet...