All I have read about chess are about middlegame and endgame, but still I feel I am much stronger in the opening, then I play good the middlegame, but I lose too often in the endgame.
Here are two games with this the same interesting player, the first one got to the endgame and I lost, but I won in the second game within 10 moves.
1.
en.lichess.org/GHtogQLyxLQe2.
en.lichess.org/mfpvyFyh/white#0It's probably a question of information vs application. For example, the first endgame shown above had egregious blunders with very basic ideas that were missed by both sides that often won on the spot. Once shown the blunders, if you've seriously put some time into the endgame, you'd probably look at the oversight and claim "Well, obviously this wins", and you may be able to perfectly understand why that wins when it's shown to you. However, if you simply know this information and you never apply it to a practical situation, it can very often slip from your mind. Try solving some endgame studies or playing out some endgames that you've learned against a computer or a friend to get a true feel for the nuances of that endgame, then analyze them and try them again until you feel that you've actually learned the concepts. Your results should improve immediately.
One case could be that you like to complicate things and to find some art in positions, in that case just admit it, knowledge it, and use it for your advantage.
In the endgames it's much harder to complicate, create multiple threats, make some nice mess on board.
If this is your case, just have idea in mind not to exchange as much as possible and not to play into balanced or simplified positions.
Just because your opponent blundered in the opening doesn't mean you play the opening well.
@GentjanLici in regards to the 2nd game black had to play 5... d5!
6. exf6 dxc4
6. Bb5 Nfd7
In terms of the 1st game 12..e5? looks like a questionable move positionally, it allows the d pawn to advance kicking the knight away, in endgames i find people generally stopping looking for tactics which might explain why you missed 28.. b2!
Ra1 is threatened and white is completely lost. cxb5 blocks the b-file so after Ra1 Kg2 Rxb1 the rook cant get behind the pawn owing to his pawn on b5, Rxa1 bxa1=Q is equally hopeless
35... f6? with your being a pawn down you want to try and exchange off as many pawns as possible, the less pawns on the board the harder it is for white to win a second pawn
37...Rc6? if the pawn advances it makes it easier for your king to get to it, bringing the king across is the best option as it forces the white rook and king to keep an eye on the pawn
Thanks for your opinions guys, all of you are right. Your analysis is also helpful.
In the opening and grandmaster can make a mistake. But if he doesn't know how to play the endgame, what is he a grandmaster? In General, the Checkmate of rare beauty, especially nice after moving 9. ... Qxd7.
also openings are systematic and standardized,
First Game
---------------
IMHO :)
The endgame needs a plan, just like any other phase.
There was a tactic you missed to potentially win a pawn back.
First thing to acknowledge, you are a pawn down. You should be thinking of how to save the game.
So the line 35 ... exf4 36. gxf4 Rd4 37. Rc2 Rxe4 - means you win the pawn back, and White now has 3 pawn islands to your one. The trump for White is the passed c-pawn. However, it can be defended. Clearly, White needs to move the pawn and get you passive. So 38. c5 Re7 39. c6 Rc7.
Picture the board. Still equal, but White has to be careful as well. White brings King up looks obvious. So 41. Kf3 Kf6 42. Ke4 Ke6 remember you need to keep White's King at bay. So whilst Black looks passive, White cannot move the Rook off the c-file, or the pawn drops. Then let's say White tries to mix it up, and plays 42 f5+ - I would not take the pawn but play Kd6. In my mind is a 2v1 majority for Black on the kingside .... plus White's remaining pawn is a rook pawn. So visually I am thinking I can draw this now. So lets assume 43. fxg6 fxg6.
Look at the board now. See the difference? In my mind's eye, I see the Rooks coming off the board along with the c-pawn, Black goes after my pawns via the dark squares and I along the white diagonal a8-h1 to take the rook pawn. Game is drawn. Or if that looks risky. Then I move my king in line with the White King ... The c-pawn can't go anywhere without the support of the King AND Rook. So long as I stop the White King coming into d5 there is no way for White to make progress.
White could lose the game, by overpressing. However, as Black because of the passed pawn I would concentrate on nullifying White before counter-attacking.
That is just my opinion, there are a few ways to play this endgame. Rook and many Pawns are the hardest ones.