MANY TEACHERS MASTERS OF DECEIT
By ANDY SOLTIS
September 2, 2007 — CHESS CHESS teachers are masters of the maxim. For everyone trying to play better, they offer age-old bits of wisdom. Among them:
“To improve, you first must study the endgame. It’s the most important part of the game.”
“The key to the middlegame is learning the art of long-range planning and strategy.”
“To play the opening well is a matter of 100 percent understanding and zero percent memorization. Never memorize.”
The trouble with these pious pronouncements is none are true.
Why? First, virtually the only games that are decided by endgame skill are those played by masters.
On the rare occasions when 1200-rated players reach the ending, one of them is usually a rook ahead. Learning the differences between the Lucena and Philidor positions in rook endgames, for example, is of little value.
Second, most games played below the 1800 level are won and lost by tactics, not strategy or planning. Leaning more about tactical patterns is of much greater benefit to the student.
And depending on which opening you want to play, memorization can be very valuable. Masters memorize all the time – then tell you not to do it.
Source: NY Post
I certainly do not agree with the view of GM Soltis and so do many other grandmasters and / or top-level chess teachers. Because too many chess coaches are teaching the wrong way, many young players end up paying the price later on. Studying tactics is a must. I have always recommended that. But not giving equal importance to endgame is a big mistake. I also do not teach my students including my own sons to memorize openings. I teach them to understand the principles of chess opening. What do you think? Do you agree with GM Soltis?
Soltis is dead wrong.
In my opinion, if you are determined to become a GM, you really should study endgames, and understand the key strategical ideas as well as opening principles, because these subjects are (probably) difficult to master later on.
However, it also must be noted that most of us have much more “modest” goal. For example, reaching a 2000 rating is already a big achievement for me.
Then the question is should I study endgames first, or spend my time on solving elementary tactical puzzles in order to achieve “my” goal?
From this perspective, I suppose GM Soltis is correct, as I do not need training which are prepared for those who have over 2000 rating at the age of 12, and when you look at games of “my” level, you certainly realize that most of games are decided by simple tactics.
Memorize openings vs “understand the principles of chess opening”.
Are these principles you are talking of specific to each type of opening?
In that case, even understanding the principles behind the openings is a sort of memorizing. It is not memorizing unless these principles are so generic so as to be applicable to all kinds of openings, including Chess960!
My personal agenda: Lets wake up: Chess960 is the real chess!
All my life from the age of eight at every level I’ve played at (not very high) I have played endgames, and they are the most difficult part of the game. Endgame study would definitely give you an big edge. Even at 1200 a rook behind is a resigning position.
I find it gives me a bit of an edge to know the openings up to a point, but I’m happy to know a few, to a few moves. I often seem to find the next move in an established opening by going by the principles of openings, and what I know about getting an keeping an edge in chess. You have a much better understanding of the position as you come out of the opening this way too.
Dan, uk
I think Soltis is 90% right.
The problem is: Are we talking about beginners, 1200’s or 1800’s? That makes a big difference. But of course, even a 1200 needs to learn the basic mates and KP-K, and some important positional elements.
Another thing is that sometimes, big words are used for simple things, like ‘strategy & planning’ while actually it’s about a quite simple positional element, like maneuvring a knight to an outpost square.
The general opening principles cannot be overestimated. Especially in amateur’s ranges, where the opponent often will not play the typical GM fashion variations, and/or even non-theory moves instead, the support you can get from memorization is small. But again, of course a 1200 needs to know some basic and typical variations, in addition to the principles.
Also, sometimes I notice that opening patterns (not principles) are applied without calculation, which can of course lose a game right in the opening. Maybe concrete tactics is the 2nd best important element for strong openings, in addition to the principles, and memorization of (deep) variations is only a support for higher levels.
My first reaction upon reading Soltis’ words was to grimace with disbelief.
The endgame is a critically important phase that teaches players — especially beginners — the unadulterated powers of each piece. Critically important. In middlegames, of course tactics are everywhere, and should be studied in-depth, but the main difference separating a 1500 player from a 2000 player from a 2200 player from a 2500 player, regarding the middlegame, is strategy and planning. For openings, memorization becomes important only at 1800+. It is true that the higher the rating, the more memorization is required, but even in these cases, memorization is preceded by understanding. Memorization without understanding is virtually useless!
I’m a USCF master who is posting anonymously to avoid any appearance of self-aggrandizement.
Endgame studies, not played over the board, are rewarding in themselves provided they are correct, as well as teaching about the power of the pieces in combination – probably better than otb endgames do. The trouble is, many of them are incorrectly set.
However, I doubt that many of the ‘Guinness’ 320+ simul games ever got to the endgame, or were ‘even’ when they got there.
No point memorizing opening moves without knowing why you wanted to get to some magic position: you have to know the gameplan. However, you need a mega-memory just to get to those positions, so that you can remember why you’re there.
The ‘Brain’ program said that SP’s play was based on recognising a lot of positions – which is why she’s relatively better at fast rates of play. Even if you get to the last few in an SP simul, you will be overpowered by the fast tempo forced on you by the ‘no pass’ rule.
I’d like to know how good SP is at classical chess now, but I guess that day is long gone now.
Anon wrote (6:48):
{… understanding the principles behind the [various] openings is a sort of memorizing …
}
Agreed. This truth often suffers at the hands of obfuscating language.
When people claim ‘memorizing’ and ‘learning’ are different things, I think they have in mind the following definitions:
**Wrong Defin** ‘Memorize’:
Rote-repetition without understanding.
**Wrong Defin** ‘Learn’:
Comprehension of the underlying ideas, which are then automatically remembered for later recall.
– – – –
++Better Defin++ ‘Memorize’:
Make oneself able to recall the information later.
++Better Defin++ ‘Learn’:
Memorize an understanding of the information in a manner that — one can relate the info to nearby subjects and various contexts. Learning is one technique of memorizing among several.
Do not claim the ideas behind say the Ruy Lopez do not need to be memorized. Do not claim ideas once learned are not forgotten after disuse.
GeneM , CastleLong.com
– – – –
P.S. Funny how so many of Susan’s blog topics are followed promptly by a brief one sentence first-post.
Ironically both of the positions expressed are correct! They just differ on their point of view or perspective.
IF you are looking to become a very strong player (master level, FM, IM, GM) then of course, the classical advice is correct – master the endgames cold, understand middlegame strategy and then worry about the openings.
If you are looking to be a better player in the shortest possible time, then the answer of course is to hone tactics. Everyone acknowledges that at the lower levels of play, tactics predominate and trump other considerations.
The confusion is in the question of what is meant by “improvement”. For most casual players, they just want to win more games. Tactical errors are common and are just waiting to be exploited. For more serious players, improvement means something more – like some palpable increase in their understanding of a position (e.g. they will see a Karlsbad pawn formation and think, aha! I understand this formation and its pluses and minuses). To use an analogy, take tennis. If you seriously want to get better, you have to work on your overall fitness, stroke fundamentals (forehand, backhand, steady toss on the serve, etc) and practice, practice, practice. If you just want to win more casual matches, do the following: avoid double faults, keep the ball down the middle and deep and avoid making unforced errors. {not an original thought – actually devised by Vic Braden, the tennis coach). The parks and clubs are full of people who just want to put the ball into play and live off of the errors of their opponents to score points; but their games are stagnant.
Likewise if one only studies tactics, one can become practically a strong player, but to go further, one needs more. Unfortunately people have to decide honestly what they want – do they want to improve their real knowledge of the game or do they just want to win more games against their friends and local competitors? That is why coaching can be frustrating! If you stick to your principles, the immediate practical results aren’t as good, but if you go with what is immediately successful, it doesn’t lay a foundation for truly mastery later on.
Sound contribution again from GeneM: applause.
I think we are agreed that use of language, perhaps a too-literal use of language, may be getting in the way here.
Clearly, it is better to understand something at a deeper level which brings pattern to the detail.
It applies to music too: you can’t perform Wagner’s operas by just going from note to note.
PS: Have also noticed the quick, supportive one-liner after many posts. It is almost as if the writer knew the post was being posted. Can’t think how that could happen.
“Openings teach you openings. Endgames teach you chess!” (Gerzadowicz)
My son is a young scholastic player, rated about 1560, and I can tell you for a fact that he has won a number of games based on superior endgame knowledge.
horses for courses really, I think the best method of coaching players is to pinpoint their most costly weaknesses and concentrate on improving them.
From a general point of view, I think middlegame tactics dictate the outcome of 80-90% of the games up to about 1600 level and should receive the most focus. From 1600+ a much broader syllabus would probably be best employed
I suppose the minute we start to play chess we are “studying” endgames. To take it to the extreme level; if we don’t know how to mate with a rook and king vs. king, then once we are a rook up, our OPPONENT could swap off the pieces, leaving him a draw…
Banjanx
Andy makes his living as a writer & journalist, so his articles need to have a provocative edge to them — controversy sells.
– Masters memorize opening variations because they already thoroughly understand the theme’s and potential middlegame plans. If you don’t know the ideas, memorizing variations will bring little benefit.
– Endgame skill needs to be built layer by layer, just like for the other phases of the game. Basic mates first, then basic K+P, R+P v R, etc. And regarding Soltis’ comment, I’ve saved a few half points because I knew the positions that allowed K+P to draw against K+R.
I’m a mid 1500 player who is trying to get better. According to the USCF Ratings distribution chart, that makes me equal to or better than 78% of all USCF members.
http://www.uschess.org/ratings/ratedist.php
Who is Soltis’ advice for?
When I was a 600 strength player I learned the basic mates. Over the next year or two, on my way to becoming a 1300, I learned most of the end game basics. Occasionally, I would get to a rook ending against a Class B player and lose due to his superior knowledge of the endgame.
But the great majority of my loses were due to falling for traps in the opening, or tactical blunders in the middle game. For a “mediocre player” like me, playing the opening on “general principles” alone was not very helpful against players above 1000 or 1200. In my recent tournaments I’ve noticed that in most of my games one player already has a significant advantage by the 15th move, which usually ends up being decisive. So, while I still have a lot of gaps in my knowledge of the endgame, it seems that the most beneficial use of my study time at this point is improve my play in the first 15 moves of the game.
Soltis’ article makes a lot of sense to me.
Eric
In my own practical experience knowing endgames matters, I perform better when I use long term planning in middlegames instead of merely searching for tactics and I have often run into situations where I see a ‘wrong’ move in the opening (usually in the Ruy) and have to spend a lot of time figuring out how to meet it or take advantage of it.
The three pieces of chess wisdom Soltis mentioned are important precisely because they are the things people don’t think of. Soltis counters by mentioning the things everyone already does, such as studying tactics (useful) or memorising openings (not so useful). Certainly understanding endgames (including basic mates) is helpful even in endgames with significant material advantage. Knowing things like R v B is a draw etc. can inspire practical endgame plans for beginners. The concept of promotion or knowing how to mate with either lone rook or lone queen is something that I find most of the beginners I teach are not always aware of.