From: jrb@Ingres.COM (John Black)
Subject: Re: Endgame question
Organization: Ingres, an ASK Company, Alameda CA 94501
Date: 29 Sep 92 04:21:16 GMT

In article <BvAr1M.5o7@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> gondal@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Eric Eaton) writes:
>>technique to work.  For example, on page 242 Pandoflini gives a winning method
>>in a R+P vs. R ending; he explains several important points, but fails to
>>mention that the technique given works only for a BP and would not work if the
>>pawn were a QP or a KP.  Maybe Pandoflini intends the reader to discover this
>>for himself...?  Comments?  
>>
>
>Hmmm...  I looked at it.  I might be missing something, but it seems to me that
>this technique would work for a QP or a KP.  I don't see why it wouldn't work,
>perhaps you could explain.
>
Sure... Here's the initial position shift right two files (so that the BP 
becomes a KP):


-------------------------
|  |  |  |  |K |  |  |  |
-------------------------
|  |  |  |  |P |  |k |  |
-------------------------
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
-------------------------
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
-------------------------
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
-------------------------
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
-------------------------
|  |  |  |  |  |R |  |  |
-------------------------
|  |  |  |r |  |  |  |  |
-------------------------

Pandolfini calls this method "Breaking the Cut-off"; he describes how black's
rook "cuts off" the white king from the d-file, and then shows how the white
rook can maneuver to break the black rook's hold on the d-file.  If I transpose
Pandolfini's moves two files to the right, here is the method he gives:
1. Rc2 Rd3  2. Rc7 Rd1  3. Rd7 Re1  4. Kd8 Kf7  5. e8/Q+

I would as Black move differently beginning on move 3: 3. Rd7 Ra1 (beginning
a flank attack)  and now if 4. Kd8 Ra8+  5. Kc7 Kf7 and I believe this is a 
draw... White can no longer make progress because Black will play Re8 forcing
White to defend the KP with both his rook and king.

Notice that my line fails if the P is a BP because there isn't any room for
the black rook to give flank checks on the queenside.

So why does Pandolfini give this technique which appears to work only for BPs
when Lucena's method works fine here?  (He describes Lucena's method as if it's 
appropriate only for NPs!!)

>>I've certainly had my fair share of it through school, but fortunately there
>>are still teachers out there who teach kids to *think*.
>>
>I'll agree with you oncea student has gotten the fundamentals.  Then, it's time
>to think a little more (a lot more).  However, there is much to be said for
>a little drill and practice.  Even outside of chess.  Take Calculus for
>example.  You have to think in order to use it.  However, it's almost useless
>unless you have a very good background in Algebra and/or geometry.  There isn't
>any other way to learn, let's say multiplication tables, than to drill it.
>
I agree that drills have a place in the classroom, but in some cases (in my
past, at any rate) they have been used as the sole teaching method... no good!

This brings up an interesting example (albeit having nothing to do with chess);
one issue I took with the movie "Stand and Deliver" was that the teacher (his
name escapes me, but he was played by E.J. Olmos) chose to teach his students by
categorizing Calculus problems into known groups and then applying a practiced
method of solving them.  This was good enough to get these students past the AP
tests, and I'm sure it improved their lives in many ways, but I think students
would get more out of Calculus if they understood the underlying principles
involved.  In high school I took a similar class, and I knew the chain rule and
integration by parts, etc., but it was all meaningless because there was no
understanding.  In college, I had an *excellent* teacher who made us learn all
the proofs and taught us to *think*.  This was a wonderful experience for me...
I mean, who uses Calculus after college anyway??  The only thing I really gained
from these classes was problem-solving ability, and as we all know most real-
life problems don't fit into neatly defined categories... you have to think.

Feynman talks about this very problem in his book "Surely You're Joking, Mr.
Feynman" while giving a lecture to some faculty members in a Brazilian Physics
department.  Drills are ok, as long as there is always an understanding of
the underlying ideas.  But it's tempting to stop thinking and start trying to
only apply a set of rules...

(now let's see... how do you get out of this damn editor...)

john//
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess,sci.math