SHOULD
ONE STUDY COMPLEX ENDGAMES?
Mr. Beaver asks:
I'm struggling to improve my chess, and
was wondering if there is a system or set
of principles that can be learned for King & Queen
vs. King & Rook as easily as King & Queen
vs. King & Knight or other complex endgames
involving pieces.
Silman replies:
Don't waste your time studying this particular
endgame! If you play often for thirty years,
you might get it once or twice. It's also extremely
difficult, and even very strong players screw
it up all the time.
There are so many practical endgames to learn,
why waste your precious study-sessions looking
over something that has absolutely no use?
***********************************************************************
IS AN OLD OPENING BOOK STILL USEFUL?
Mr. Jonckheere asks:
Your reviews have been my guides in buying
interesting chess books. However, I
could find no review on Horowitz's CHESS
OPENINGS: THEORY AND PRACTICE. Several people
have told me that this book is very good
and still worth buying today. I would
very much appreciate your opinion on this.
Silman replies:
This old classic was published in 1964. It's
sort of like an MCO with soul. I admit that
I have a soft spot in my heart for this book
(and own a signed copy!). However, the fact
is that it's not all that useful anymore. The
theory is tremendously outdated, and the explanation
of ideas isn't nearly as good as many modern
books offer.
If you're a collector then by all means pick
up a copy (I've found it in many used bookshops
for about $10.00). But if you're looking for
practical application, spend your money elsewhere.
***********************************************************************
IS SPACE STATIC OR DYNAMIC?
Mr. Dellaca asks:
I have read & enjoyed HTRYC & the
Workbook. You list a Space advantage as a
static advantage. This makes sense to me.
But I was recently browsing Fine's MIDDLEGAME
IN CHESS (the algebraic edition).
In the first two pages of Chapter Nine, "Command
of Space - Superior Mobility" (page
253 in the edition I was reading), Fine stated
that, "an advantage of space is temporary." He
has a similar comment in Chapter Five as
well.
Although it doesn't sound right, I have
to recognize Fine as one of the best of his
time. So I wonder if there are any subtle
ideas behind the difference in his statement
and yours? Perhaps both statements are valid
if each implies a different meaning to one
or more terms, or different underlying assumptions.
Silman replies:
An interesting question! The answer can be
found in the title of his ninth chapter: “Command
of Space - Superior Mobility.” You see – space
as delineated by the pawn structure is indeed
static. Since pawns map out space, and since
these pawns can't back up, usually a spatial
superiority is long lasting, thus once again
making it static.
However, sometimes (but not always) an advantage
in space also offers greater mobility and thus
greater piece activity (thanks to the extra
territory the pieces have to move about in).
This result of space is dynamic – a dynamic
offspring born of a static plus.
So, I would continue to view space as a static
imbalance. However, other specifics (like mobility
or piece activity) must be judged separately,
and may well be dynamic in nature.
Of course R. Fine knew his stuff. But he was
talking about potential effects of space, and
not the extra territory itself.
