Just The Facts! Winning Endgame Knowledge In On...
In the endgame, it is usually better for the player with more pawns to avoid many pawn exchanges, because winning chances usually decrease as the number of pawns decreases. Also, endings with pawns on both sides of the board are much easier to win. A king and pawn endgame with an outside passed pawn should be a far easier win than a middlegame a rook ahead.
Just the Facts! Winning Endgame Knowledge in On...
With the recent growth of computer chess, a development has been the creation of endgame databases which are tables of stored positions calculated by retrograde analysis (such a database is called an endgame tablebase). A program which incorporates knowledge from such a database is able to play perfect chess on reaching any position in the database.
Two knights cannot force checkmate against a lone king (see Two knights endgame). While there is a board position that allows two knights to checkmate a lone king, such requires a careless move by the weaker side to execute. If the weaker side also has material (besides the king), checkmate is sometimes possible. The winning chances with two knights are insignificant except against a few pawns. (.mw-parser-output cite.citationfont-style:inherit;word-wrap:break-word.mw-parser-output .citation qquotes:"\"""\"""'""'".mw-parser-output .citation:targetbackground-color:rgba(0,127,255,0.133).mw-parser-output .id-lock-free a,.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-free abackground:url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Lock-green.svg")right 0.1em center/9px no-repeat.mw-parser-output .id-lock-limited a,.mw-parser-output .id-lock-registration a,.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-limited a,.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-registration abackground:url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/Lock-gray-alt-2.svg")right 0.1em center/9px no-repeat.mw-parser-output .id-lock-subscription a,.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-subscription abackground:url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/Lock-red-alt-2.svg")right 0.1em center/9px no-repeat.mw-parser-output .cs1-ws-icon abackground:url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Wikisource-logo.svg")right 0.1em center/12px no-repeat.mw-parser-output .cs1-codecolor:inherit;background:inherit;border:none;padding:inherit.mw-parser-output .cs1-hidden-errordisplay:none;color:#d33.mw-parser-output .cs1-visible-errorcolor:#d33.mw-parser-output .cs1-maintdisplay:none;color:#3a3;margin-left:0.3em.mw-parser-output .cs1-formatfont-size:95%.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-leftpadding-left:0.2em.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-rightpadding-right:0.2em.mw-parser-output .citation .mw-selflinkfont-weight:inheritHaworth, Guy McC (2009). "Western Chess:Endgame Data". CentAUR.) The procedure can be long and difficult. In competition, the fifty-move rule will often result in the game being drawn first.
Rook and pawn endgames are often drawn in spite of one side having an extra pawn. (In some cases, two extra pawns are not enough to win.) An extra pawn is harder to convert to a win in a rook and pawn endgame than any other type of endgame except a bishop endgame with bishops on opposite colors. Rook endings are probably the deepest and most well studied endgames. They are a common type of endgame in practice, occurring in about 10 percent of all games (including ones that do not reach an endgame). These endgames occur frequently because rooks are often the last pieces to be exchanged. The ability to play these endgames well is a major factor distinguishing masters from amateurs. When both sides have two rooks and pawns, the stronger side usually has more winning chances than if each had only one rook.
An important winning position in the rook and pawn versus rook endgame is the so-called Lucena position. If the side with the pawn can reach the Lucena position, he wins. There are several important drawing techniques, however, such as the Philidor position, the back-rank defense (rook on the first rank, for rook pawns and knight pawns only), the frontal defense, and the short-side defense. A general rule is that if the weaker side's king can get to the queening square of the pawn, the game is a draw and otherwise it is a win, but there are many exceptions.
Generally (but not always), if the defending king can reach the queening square of the pawn the game is a draw (see Philidor position), otherwise the attacker usually wins (if it is not a rook pawn) (see Lucena position). The winning procedure can be very difficult and some positions require up to sixty moves to win. If the attacking rook is two files from the pawn and the defending king is cut off on the other side, the attacker normally wins (with a few exceptions). The rook and pawn versus rook is the most common of the "piece and pawn versus piece" endgames.
Of course, the ideal percentages will vary slightly for everyone. Whenever you analyze your games (with a teacher, computer, or even on your own), take note of the areas where you have weaknesses and the types of positions you feel uncomfortable in. Zero in on these areas. For example: If you keep miscalculating, emphasize tactics. If you're uncomfortable when your opponent is attacking your king, don't just change to a more solid opening---Become a better defender. If you find yourself unsure of how to play certain endings, immerse yourself in the games of the great endgame masters of the past. Use your tournament games to identify your weaknesses. Turn them into strengths.
Before reading the book I would be pretty planless in endgames and often throw a winning position. Just having knowledge of what must seem to a lot of people like obvious stuff has helped me a lot. For example - do I have a passed pawn in the endgame? Great. Stick a rook behind that and launch it up the board.
Learning how to checkmate is essential, or gaining a winning material advantage will not help you. You can also use this knowledge to make it more difficult for your opponent to checkmate you and play for a stalemate.
RobertJasiek: Simultaneously, human go theory research by Berlekamp, Spight, me et al creates another, non-AI revolution concerning especially endgame evaluation and explanation, which is (becoming) much more accurate than previous endgame theory. AI does not take it all and render human invention void. Besides, AI lacks knowledge explanation so far.
RobertJasiek: Berlekamp: that is because people do not apply it, although it would improve their game. Spight / Jasiek (to be published soon): it also depends on whether people apply it, but everybody ought to apply it because of significantly to greatly improving their endgame. Of course, all endgame looks like "endgame", but different endgames moves mean better scores so "looking the same" misses the point of good endgame, which is about "better scores despite looking the same to the naive beholder". The impact of correct vs. wrong endgame is like the effect of correct vs. wrong status assessment due to tactical reading. It all "looks the same" because all is just variations. Endgame all "looks the same" because all is just values. Better variations! Better values! The "unusual" of better tactics or endgame is how small (or inexistent) the remaining error is. (Close to) perfect reading would be or (close to) perfect evaluation is (going to be) a revolution! Not noticed at a glance like the 3-3 under 4-4 change but only the lazy refuse to improve their game dramatically WRT the endgame. Soon, every amateur can learn better endgame evaluation (the one without complex tactics) than 9p because the theory will be applicable for everybody willing to calculate numbers. BTW, I am very much more impressed by the AI's emulated tactical reading skill than by their openings, josekis, fancy middle game moves. That revolution has also been mostly overlooked thus far because, like endgame, it does require meticulous study to really appreciate and profit from it.
Hamm also acknowledges this phenomenon: "Absent always. It all happened without me. I don't know what's happened." Just as a bad player in chess suddenly finds the endgame and potential victory slipping from his grasp, so do Beckett's characters. As the endgame begins to slip from grasp, the characters' thoughts fall to mortality.
Ludwig was acknowledged as the first hunter of the Healing Church. Ludwig fought with heavy weapons that were meant to mortally wound his enemies, an irony since the Healing Church is normally dedicated to saving lives. Nonetheless, this became a tradition among Church hunters, who employed heavy weapons just like Ludwig did. Moreover, Ludwig is also likely the first to recruit normal Yharnamites to join the hunter's rank, since the beasts are many. Eventually he fell victim to the Old Blood and changed into a monstrous beast wielding the Holy Moonlight Blade.
The idea of the Eldritch truth is spread throughout the game as people from Master Willem, to even the choir (a group of people), have tried to achieve an evolution toward a higher state of being by learning the Eldritch truth. The truth it is not expressed by simply a sentence or a phrase, rather it is a state of being in existence. The great ones understood this either through naturally knowing the eldritch truth, having been humans or beings which gained enough insight to evolve, or an otherwise unknown method to understand the true state of reality. Later as you, the player, by killing Rom made the true reality of the world shown ( for an arbitrary reason his death either as part of a ritual or by being the thing holding back people from seeing reality. (This needs to be confirmed or greatly defined )) or by gaining 40 insight you saw the reality of the world as it truly was, and achieved what those before you sought to do but failed. They failed by using other methods like lining your brain with eyes, using the mensis cage, or accepting a great ones power many of which failed to achieve true enlightenment as a side effect resulted in madness, deformation/transformation into a monstrosity, or death for the user with their corresponding method.However you, as the player, achieved this by gathering insight throughout the world and absorbing it into your itself. Following this, utilizing the action of using the item in game you crush the skull in your hand releasing this partial knowledge into the world which channels into you for some reason either because of proximity or another variable. Other ways such as fighting nightmarish enemies which provoke your mind into perceiving them, which forces you to gain insight so you can fight them it is also a safe method of gaining insight. This way you don't get side effects (as far as I know if you find any then add them).This makes you able to perceive the great ones fully, and able to see the world as it truly is plus interacting with the real reality; such as being able to enter and face enemies in the yahar`gul unseen village under the blood moon which was previously not fully available. The difference in the area as far as how deep you can go into it between the variety of enemies is shown in a comparison of the area and when you are captured by the Snatchers and taken to hypogean gaol as well as after you visit the area and have killed rom. The player thus gain`s true enlightenment or simply understand the eldritch truth. As well on a final note, you are probably wondering how blood ministration fits into this explanation well in the Bloodborne universe blood is used as a cure/healing or a way of making a individual stronger. Therefore, in a sense it is moving towards this same goal although from a different direction. It ultimately never leads to the Elderitch truth as the humans wanted (ideally they got to be elevated, understand more with a clear mind, and be in control of themselves), just a monstrous transformation but considering many of these enemies end up in the true reality you could say they reached the physical state of enlightenment but their minds are completely gone in most cases and they just attack anything they can. So they got what the wanted they just can`t enjoy it. 041b061a72