Naughtybishop (United States)
I've found its more effective to explain these
endgames in terms of "winning" & "losing" the
opposition rather than "taking" the opposition.
For example, White can allow Black to TAKE the
opposition as long as he has a pawn waiting move
forcing Black to LOSE the opposition later. Anyone
can TAKE the opposition, but that's not always
sufficient.
(posted Tuesday, March 17, 2009, 3:47 pm)
Naughtybishop (United States)
I've found its more effective to explain these
endgames in terms of "winning" the opposition
rather than "taking" the opposition. For example,
White can allow Black to TAKE
(posted Tuesday, March 17, 2009, 3:45 pm)
***
ChessLecture.com reserves the right to remove any post found to be racist, sexist, obscene, spam, advertising, profane, belligerent, duplicate, or in violation of United States law.
***
I've found its more effective to explain these endgames in terms of "winning" & "losing" the opposition rather than "taking" the opposition. For example, White can allow Black to TAKE the opposition as long as he has a pawn waiting move forcing Black to LOSE the opposition later. Anyone can TAKE the opposition, but that's not always sufficient.