Delaware Chess Review
Sunday, April 24th, 2005 at 8:23 am by docfleetwood
Bob Wilder joins us again this week to review some gems from Chess Cafe. Thanks again Bob and I might let you return next week 
——————————
Let’s continue our review of some of my favorite contributors to www.chesscafe.com. In the last review I stated that
“There are three things that an improving chess player needs:
1) an ever-increasing pool of chess knowledge.
2) practice and instruction in how to apply that knowledge
3) guidance in how to ‘train’ to provide the most efficient path to mastery.”
Number 1 is what I’d call classical chess instruction – here’s what you do in this position (whether opening, middlegame, or ending). Number 2 is the practice phase – usually over the board, in correspondence chess, or working through a book of problems. Number 3 is the more nebulous stuff – what books do I get, how do I work through a book, how much of my time do I spend studying endings, and so on.
For those most comfortable with classical chess instruction – or who often, like myself, find themselves in positions where they don’t know how to proceed – you can’t beat the best trainer ever …. Mark Dvoretsky. For those who don’t know “Mark”, he has trained over a generation of Russian – and other – grandmasters. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, many of his writings have become available in English.
And yet every month, for free, he offers some of his wisdom to us all. In addition to the world class instruction, I like the insight into how grandmasters think and work. It’s quite fascinating. He has four and a half years of columns in the archive on classical instruction and on chess training. His latest article is on combinative discoveries he’s made that were first documented in one or more of his books. Last month’s article dissects some of the annotations of my hero (Alekhine) to demonstrate a bias in his writings. So I’ve learned a lesson – never trust the annotations of anyone! Even the grandmaster who (before Kasparov) was generally thought of to be the most skilled annotator ever. (Says me)
The other contributor I read faithfully is Karsten Mueller (not that my endgame skills would give any supporting evidence to that). Being a somewhat clueless observer of the chess scene, I’d never heard of him until I ran across Fundamental Chess Endings, co-written with Frank Lamprecht. This is the next monumental book on chess endings and is surprisingly readable. It’s hard to answer the question what endgame book to recommend when one’s skills have deteriorated to the point of being non-existent, but this is way up on my list.
Anyway, Karsten’s column on endings is always informative – and entertaining! The last two months he’s been exploring Capablanca’s assertion (generally accepted since then) that Queen and Knight are stronger than Queen and Bishop in an ending with pawns. This is actually an ending that quite a few scholastic players are likely to face … and so working through these articles can actually be worth points to you down the road! But more importantly they highlight one of the major reasons to study endgames – in the simplified world of the ending it’s easier (clearer) to see how two different pieces can cooperate. Lasker also recommended this approach – and I wish I’d worked at it when I was young! Set up positions (or search for them in a database) where 2 random pieces plus pawns are in an ending and play them yourself. There are lots of combinations: Bishop + Knight vs. 2 Bishops; Rook + Knight vs. Rook + Bishop; and so on. Another nice feature is that you are given problems to work on which counts for practice!
I strongly encourage you to visit Chess Café and start compiling your own list of favorite contributors. And then visit them faithfully and work through their columns. That work will make you stronger ….
Next review (if Tom allows!) I’ll finish up extolling the virtues of Chess Café, and then decide you’re hopeless and move on to something else!
Yours for Chess - Bob
Permalink
Filed under: 
Post your comments »