Thanks John!
So Simon on this evidence it would indeed appear that you are right that the Keres book is shoddy(at least compared to the Averbakh set anyway).I wonder what happened to those books? maybe I left them behind in Derby?
2 knights v pawn
-
Simon Spivack
- Posts: 600
- Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 4:06 pm
Re: 2 knights v pawn
It does make me wonder how much use chess books are. 
I have read every chess book I own, although I have only perused three. In some books, just one example can take me an hour or more to grasp properly. I just don't see how one can find the time to read lots of chess books thoroughly.
I have read every chess book I own, although I have only perused three. In some books, just one example can take me an hour or more to grasp properly. I just don't see how one can find the time to read lots of chess books thoroughly.
-
David Williams
- Posts: 337
- Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 8:37 pm
Re: 2 knights v pawn
My copy of Edward Lasker's 'Modern Chess Strategy", published in 1951, shows a mate with a brief explanation of the general method in the chapter 'Elementary End Games' (sic). I know I was aware of it as an unremarkable schoolboy. I once had a ending of two knights and a rooks pawn against knight and pawn, and I remember thinking long and hard as to whether to leave his pawn on the board. I decided to take it, reasoning that if I took a piece out to blockade it I probably couldn't force the win of knight for pawn, and in any case I'd probably never manage the mate. (In the event I couldn't win the resulting ending of two knights and rooks pawn against knight. It's not as easy as you might think.)