I don't get it either 😅 sorry
Uhh I need help
Sort:
VOB96 wrote:
I don't get it either 😅 sorry
It's okay it's a book of I think hard endgames so yeah 👍
I learned that in this video, but it's in spanish... try with subtitles 
https://youtu.be/_ZXLl0eqvZU?si=BzLvA8QPSR8hA45v
It's not easy to understand and You will almost never see it in your OTB games
damafe wrote:
I learned that in this video, but it's in spanish... try with subtitles
https://youtu.be/_ZXLl0eqvZU?si=BzLvA8QPSR8hA45v
It's not easy to understand and You will almost never see it in your OTB games
Can you explain it? What is it exactly?
Uf... its a 90 min video 
I asked chatgpt and this is his explanation:
In chess, conjugate squares (or corresponding squares) are an advanced strategic concept, particularly relevant in endgames involving king and pawn versus king scenarios. This technique is used to determine the opposition and the optimal move to either win or draw a position.
Conjugate squares are pairs of squares on the chessboard that are related in such a way that if one king occupies one of these squares, the opposing king must occupy the corresponding square to maintain balance in the position. The idea is that any move by one king to a conjugate square allows the other king to move to its corresponding conjugate square, thus preserving a favorable position.
This concept is crucial for understanding and handling endgames where opposition (direct, distant, or diagonal) plays a significant role. King and pawn versus king endgames are a classic example where conjugate squares are essential in determining whether a player can force a win or secure a draw.
This concept can be extended to more complex positions, but the essence is that understanding conjugate squares allows a player to better manage opposition situations and control the outcome of the endgame.
Okay so this information is useless and just calculation is better?
In a real game you don't have time to see this, so calculation or intuition are better 
Opposition is a particular case of conjugate squares and it is important that you know that, and that you know that there are conjugate boxes. Maybe in a correspondence game, with a lot of time, you can waste your time 
Is not useless, but... you won't use it
Oh I see, thanks!
llama_l escribió:
Silent_Assassin wrote:
Okay so this information is useless and just calculation is better?
What?
No, corresponding squares are pretty basic. You'd find them in pretty much any endgame manual that covers king and pawn endgames.
The basic idea is you find a pair of squares, where if your opponent steps on their square, then you can win by stepping on your square. For example here's a simple one
-
-
If black moves Kc4 then white wins with Ke5... so the winning move is 1.Ke6 which forces black onto c4 then you win with Ke5.
In positions where there are more corresponding squares, you can build outward to find more and more. For example If e4 is paired with X, and also d4 is paired with Y, then e3 (a square that touches both of them) may be paired with Z if Z touches both X and Y (the same way e3 touches both e4 and d4).
It's not that hard once you figure it out, but doing it at the end of a long game might be hard since you'll be tired and maybe low on time.
The basic idea, yes, but not to see all the sqares, you need a lot of time
Silent_Assassin wrote:
Okay so this information is useless and just calculation is better?
There is no human who can solve a corresponding squares puzzle with pure calculation. Even an engine has a chance to fail. There are way too many variations.
magipi wrote:
Silent_Assassin wrote:
Okay so this information is useless and just calculation is better?
There is no human who can solve a corresponding squares puzzle with pure calculation. Even an engine has a chance to fail. There are way too many variations.
I get it. Thanks!
I mean I do know corresponding squares but I didn't get the 1, 2 3.... Part. Like, isn't that the whole point of this chapter? Zugzwang.
damafe a écrit :
The basic idea, yes, but not to see all the sqares, you need a lot of time
It's the exact opposite: once you've studied and integrated the concept for good, you kinda instant see the squares you need to see, cos you then "see it".
Silent_Assassin wrote:
I mean I do know corresponding squares but I didn't get the 1, 2 3.... Part. Like, isn't that the whole point of this chapter? Zugzwang.
Their definition of zugzwang in this position is a win by opposition. The squares numbered 1, 2, 3, 4 are just there to show where to move your king (assuming you are white) if black moves their king to such square. For example, if black moved their king to g7 (4) you would move your king to c7 (4), then if Kg6 (3) Kc6 (3), then if Kg7 (4), Kd5 (4), etc...
The only thing you must know in pawn endgame is opposition. And then you calculate. “Corresponding squares” is artificial term good for nothing. I was 2190 fide at my peak, i won countless endgames and never in my life even for 1 second i thought about something like corresponding squares.
borovicka75 wrote:
The only thing you must know in pawn endgame is opposition. And then you calculate. “Corresponding squares” is artificial term good for nothing. I was 2190 fide at my peak, i won countless endgames and never in my life even for 1 second i thought about something like corresponding squares.
So different people have different opinions. I get it. Thanks!
So I was studying chess endgames as usual from this one book I recently got as a reward in a chess tournament for 2nd place. (Analysing the Endgame by Jonathan Speelman).
And I came across page number 10 (pawns) and I couldn't understand the following diagram 7,8 and the paragraph for it.
Can anyone help me with understanding the following?