Answers.Body: <p>What is endgame theory?   </p>
  
  <p>Endgames are just special cases and principles that have been worked out over analysis of millions of end game positions and then codified into categories of similarities. </p>
  
  <p>And it is not easy as there are many special cases and exceptions.</p>
  
  <p>You will have to do all that by yourself  for  your new nuclear version of chess.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-01-25T02:34:06.577Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-01-25T02:34:06.577Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: edwina oliver
Answers.Body: <p>How do you want to do it?</p>
  
  <p>I know that sounds flippant, but that's pretty much the only good answer to questions along the lines of "How do I create something that no one has created?"</p>
  
  <p>Chess endgame theory developed by people starting from very simple positions and identifying commonalities among them. Typically, endgames get classified by the pieces involved (Rook endings, minor piece endings, etc.) so I'd start with elemental positions that are clearly won/lost, see what leads to them, try and see common maneuvers to create them, etc.</p>
  
  <p>From simple positions you create the building blocks for understanding more complex positions.</p>
  
  <p>Rinse. Lather. Repeat.</p>
  
  <p>An example is pawn endings. We started with simple concepts like the queening square, moved on to techniques like opposition, and kept building until we ended up with a theory of co-ordinate squares, which covered all pawn endings. Opposition, Triangulation, all of that stuff boiled down to being special cases, subsets within that theory. But it all started with atoms, from which we built molecules, and so on until we eventually arrived at an impressive, comprehensive, edifice.</p>
  
  <p>There's no single uniform best way to approach something that's never been done. You try something, if it seems helpful you keep using it; if not, try another way.</p>
  
  <p>By definition, there is no mapped out course to get you safely through uncharted waters.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-08-21T07:51:53.860Z
Answers.Text: Flippant indeed, but a fair assessment. I might ask a separate question in the future to clarify what you said - is it really true that historically we started from the "square of the pawn" and then developed the opposition and other more complicated concepts, or were there complicated individual problems and studies composed before anyone had explicitly written anything about even basic ideas like "king opposition"?
Answers.UserDisplayName: Remellion
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-08-21T19:03:48.340Z
Answers.Text: Well, more likely we started from "I know this position is won," and built a library of won positions, at which point someone else said "memorizing all those is silly, there's got to be a better way!" And with each pass over known positions abstractions were refined, until we have what we have today. The beginning position is arbitrary, but I'd suggest the simpler the better. And not sure if they were composed, but the odds are they were.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Arlen
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-08-16T01:35:33.807Z
Answers.Text: 'How do you want to do it? I know that sounds flippant' --> doesn't sound flippant at all to me. sounds very  empathic to me.
Answers.UserDisplayName: BCLC
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-08-14T14:27:26.673Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-08-14T14:27:26.673Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Arlen
Body: <p>First of all, I am explicitly <em>not</em> asking for a list of endgame principles, nor am I asking for resources to study endgames from.</p>
  
  <p>My question is: <strong>How does one develop endgame theory?</strong> The main motivation of my question is that I have been trying to study endgame theory for a chess variant (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_chess" rel="noreferrer">atomic chess</a>, as it were) and there is precious little of it. I am quite literally writing new theory the deeper I study.</p>
  
  <p>I'm looking for answers that could address either or both of the following points, in regular chess or in chess variants:</p>
  
  <ul>
  <li>How endgames (regular chess or any chess variant) were analysed, organised and codified over the decades until we have our present-day knowledge;</li>
  <li>How to study endgames, but <em>without</em> access to any books or professional games (just a chess set, a brain, an engine, tablebases, and lots of patience.)</li>
  </ul>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-08-01T09:56:16.343Z
Comments.Text: Start with 3-men endgames, then 4-men and so on... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endgame_tablebase
Comments.UserDisplayName: David
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-08-01T10:14:03.203Z
Comments.Text: I already have access to (6-man) tablebases, as mentioned. I'm asking how to study endgames as a human, generate rules of thumb and principles and classify endgames.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Remellion
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-08-01T10:57:59.203Z
Comments.Text: Possible duplicate: https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/1702/systematic-approach-to-learning-opening-endgame-theory?rq=1
Comments.UserDisplayName: Ellie
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-08-01T10:59:47.903Z
Comments.Text: @Remellion What makes you think that the "endgame classification principles" of regular chess apply to Atomic?
Comments.UserDisplayName: David
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-08-01T13:22:44.293Z
Comments.Text: @David I'm looking for anything that could help me structure my approach. The development of atomic chess knowledge might mirror regular chess, so I could look to that for clues. (An off-the-cuff analogy: think about what if Stockfish went back to the 1800s and short-circuited chess theory development. We are missing out.) Also Phonon, I don't think it's a duplicate because I'm asking specifically how to study *without books, literature, problems or master games* to refer to. There are few for atomic, and those I've already been through (and even corrected some errors in prior theory.)
Comments.UserDisplayName: Remellion
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-08-02T08:51:41.953Z
Comments.Text: @BrianTowers I don't agree with the title change - I'm not looking only for how to develop atomic theory. I'm also open to learning something about the historical development of regular chess endgame theory, as that might give a clue for what I should do.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Remellion
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-08-02T09:22:39.700Z
Comments.Text: @Remellion I made that change to counter a vote to close on the grounds that the question was unclear and because I thought you made it clear in the body that that was your main intention. I think it is a good question and hope that it remains open.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Brian Towers
Tags: <endgame><theory><chess-variants><atomic-chess>
Title: How is endgame theory developed?
ThreadText: # How is endgame theory developed?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2019-08-01)
  
  First of all, I am explicitly *not* asking for a list of endgame principles, nor am I asking for resources to study endgames from.
  
  My question is: **How does one develop endgame theory?** The main motivation of my question is that I have been trying to study endgame theory for a chess variant ([atomic chess](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_chess), as it were) and there is precious little of it. I am quite literally writing new theory the deeper I study.
  
  I'm looking for answers that could address either or both of the following points, in regular chess or in chess variants:
  
  * How endgames (regular chess or any chess variant) were analysed, organised and codified over the decades until we have our present-day knowledge;
  * How to study endgames, but *without* access to any books or professional games (just a chess set, a brain, an engine, tablebases, and lots of patience.)
  
  **Tags:** endgame, theory, chess-variants, atomic-chess
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: Start with 3-men endgames, then 4-men and so on... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endgame_tablebase  
  > **username_0**: I already have access to (6-man) tablebases, as mentioned. I'm asking how to study endgames as a human, generate rules of thumb and principles and classify endgames.  
  > **username_2**: Possible duplicate: https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/1702/systematic-approach-to-learning-opening-endgame-theory?rq=1  
  > **username_1**: @username_0 What makes you think that the "endgame classification principles" of regular chess apply to Atomic?  
  > **username_0**: @username_1 I'm looking for anything that could help me structure my approach. The development of atomic chess knowledge might mirror regular chess, so I could look to that for clues. (An off-the-cuff analogy: think about what if Stockfish went back to the 1800s and short-circuited chess theory development. We are missing out.) Also Phonon, I don't think it's a duplicate because I'm asking specifically how to study *without books, literature, problems or master games* to refer to. There are few for atomic, and those I've already been through (and even corrected some errors in prior theory.)  
  > **username_0**: @BrianTowers I don't agree with the title change - I'm not looking only for how to develop atomic theory. I'm also open to learning something about the historical development of regular chess endgame theory, as that might give a clue for what I should do.  
  > **username_3**: @username_0 I made that change to counter a vote to close on the grounds that the question was unclear and because I thought you made it clear in the body that that was your main intention. I think it is a good question and hope that it remains open.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 2 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_5 on 2019-08-14. Score: 4 | Accepted answer
  
  How do you want to do it?
  
  I know that sounds flippant, but that's pretty much the only good answer to questions along the lines of "How do I create something that no one has created?"
  
  Chess endgame theory developed by people starting from very simple positions and identifying commonalities among them. Typically, endgames get classified by the pieces involved (Rook endings, minor piece endings, etc.) so I'd start with elemental positions that are clearly won/lost, see what leads to them, try and see common maneuvers to create them, etc.
  
  From simple positions you create the building blocks for understanding more complex positions.
  
  Rinse. Lather. Repeat.
  
  An example is pawn endings. We started with simple concepts like the queening square, moved on to techniques like opposition, and kept building until we ended up with a theory of co-ordinate squares, which covered all pawn endings. Opposition, Triangulation, all of that stuff boiled down to being special cases, subsets within that theory. But it all started with atoms, from which we built molecules, and so on until we eventually arrived at an impressive, comprehensive, edifice.
  
  There's no single uniform best way to approach something that's never been done. You try something, if it seems helpful you keep using it; if not, try another way.
  
  By definition, there is no mapped out course to get you safely through uncharted waters.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: Flippant indeed, but a fair assessment. I might ask a separate question in the future to clarify what you said - is it really true that historically we started from the "square of the pawn" and then developed the opposition and other more complicated concepts, or were there complicated individual problems and studies composed before anyone had explicitly written anything about even basic ideas like "king opposition"?  
  > **username_5**: Well, more likely we started from "I know this position is won," and built a library of won positions, at which point someone else said "memorizing all those is silly, there's got to be a better way!" And with each pass over known positions abstractions were refined, until we have what we have today. The beginning position is arbitrary, but I'd suggest the simpler the better. And not sure if they were composed, but the odds are they were.  
  > **username_6**: 'How do you want to do it? I know that sounds flippant' --> doesn't sound flippant at all to me. sounds very  empathic to me.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2020-01-25. Score: 0
  
  What is endgame theory?
  
  Endgames are just special cases and principles that have been worked out over analysis of millions of end game positions and then codified into categories of similarities.
  
  And it is not easy as there are many special cases and exceptions.
  
  You will have to do all that by yourself for your new nuclear version of chess.
  
  
  ---
  
  