yakcyll wrote:
Bill Spight wrote:
Kirby wrote:
I’d say I don’t actually have much practical experience in the endgame. Many of my games are decided by resignation. I guess I could think about move values before then, but I’m too busy trying to read variations.
Then again, maybe I’m just making an excuse not to learn the math.
The purpose of the math is to make reading easier.
Personally, I don't think it makes reading easier; more like it dispenses with reading in favor of 'preparing' the endgame before the game begins in the form of analyzing and remembering particular formations and their values. I'm starting to believe that this is
the way to go about it, given how complex some positions can be. If I got it correctly, Antti seems to share this sentiment when talking about finding the compromise between precise counting and managing time during tournament games. Calculating and manipulating a tree of formation-value pairs during a match doesn't quite strike me as natural.
Precise calculation of average values of complex positions is for analysis. During play I do not recommend that amateurs strive for more accuracy than ¼ pt., as a rule. Yes, situations do arise where the players can recognize that a very small difference matters, or may matter, and can do the math over the board. If precise calculation mattered much, you would not see so many math mistakes in endgame texts, Tormanen's and Jasiek's books being exceptions. But if the calculations did not matter, you would not see them in endgame texts at all.
Besides, there is more to endgame math than calculating average values.