Temposchlucker

 I started with  the-woodpecker-method-2-positional-play  some time ago. As usual, finding the right beginning is the most difficult thing to do. In the criticism on the course, there are a lot of complaints about the completeness of the analysis. I highly disagree with that. The fact is that you simply have to put a lot of effort in it yourself. Furthermore, I think you can't do without  the video. The video is chockfull of little details. It takes a lot of time to work out all these details. In the video, GM Axel Smith is solving the problems himself. Other people have gathered the problems for him. And although this is the second time around that he solves these problems, he has forgotten most solutions. It gives a pretty authentic insight in how a grandmaster thinks when solving a positional problem. The first task it to inventorize all details of what he is saying. The second step is to categorize these details. The third step is to build a positional framework ...

  Black to move 1k6/1b3p1p/p7/3qp3/Np5Q/4BP2/PPP3rP/R4K2 b - - 1 26 Jean-Marc Degraeve vs. Laurent Guidarelli (2003) Source Chessable The Checkmate Patterns Manual The black queen and bishop cooperate to invade f3 Once invaded, a new invasion square emerges: The black rook and queen eye to f2 But that focal point is defended by the white queen and bishop After 1. ... Qxf3+ 2. Bf2 the helper black rook sacrifices itself 2. ... Rg1+ and acts as a magnet to attract the white king to another square  White gives mate from one of the two invasion squares g2 or h1 The invasion squares are clearly dynamic, and move with the pieces

 The woodpecker method is a carbon copy of the seven circles of madness. We found out what works in the method and why, and what doesn't work and why not. First time exposure First of all, it works for everybody who has never emerged himself in tactics before. The first time exposure to tactics will get anyone 250 rating points, no matter the method.  It becomes increasingly difficult to play in tournaments and to be NOT emerged in tactics. Because there is so much material on the internet available nowadays. I noticed that the tactical proficiency has risen, the past decades. Even new members at the club usually have a lot of tactics under the belt already. Only older guys with some clumsiness when it comes to computers tend to lag behind. For MDLM, Tikkanen and Smith, the seven circles worked. For mere mortal people, like the Knights Errant, it didn't. Understanding The difference is, that you need to make sure you thoroughly understand a puzzle before you start to absorb an...

 To understand why 3 hours per move is not so unreasonable, you must know what to expect from the study. When you know what to learn, you will become more patient. Especially when you notice that the grandmaster missed the move in the game too because he didn't see it either. White to move 1r2r3/p5pp/2nk4/1R1pp3/P2P4/2P3B1/3K2PP/4R3 w - - 0 1 Warmerdam, Max vs. Elgersma, Simon After the move 27.Rxe5, black has 3 captures. It takes time to work out the logical narratives for each capture. Then it takes time to absorb the three narratives so that you SEE them and don't need the verbal description of the narrative anymore. Once you SEE them, you can't UNSEE them. Max played 27.Rxb8. And there is a narrative why this capture is not so good. It is still winning, but there is work left to be done. And this narrative must be absorbed too. So there are 4 narratives in total that are in need to be absorbed.

 It takes 3 hours to absorb a problem at average . This means, that sometimes I'm finished within a minute, and sometimes it takes me six hours. I immediately admit that I use to opt for the lazy approach before efficiency. 30 repetitions of 6 minutes = 180 minutes =  3 hours. Solely remembering the moves that lead to the solution is totally useless, yet the distance from there to absorption is usually not too far. 180 minutes of fiddling around is quite a lot, though. The first worry was how to measure the absorption. I continued a problem until I was sure that I had absorbed it. And if that takes 3 hours, then so be it. But now it is time to see if it can be done more efficient. Usually a bit of new knowledge was unearthed every repetition and added to absorption. Let's see. What needs to be absorbed in the first place? White to move k7/p2q2pp/4p3/3p4/1Q4P1/1P4P1/Pr3P2/2R3K1 w - - 0 1 I already learned from other problems that you often should look first for the slow moving ...

 Yesterday I had been busy by investigating a "standard" bishop sacrifice on h7. I wrote down all preconditions. Today I had it on the board. I could tick off all the checkboxes and sacced the cleric. Stockfish showed me that I could have sacced the lancer even one move earlier, which I have to investigate yet. Woodpecking I acquired the Woodpecker method 2 positional play The method seems to be heavily inspired by MDLM. If I understand it right, then both Hans Tikkanen and Axel Smith became grandmaster with the method. Technically, there is nothing wrong with the method. All three are a proof that the method works. I would like to add the following remarks: All 3 authors don't stress enough what is the most important point of their method: understanding of the subject to the highest degree possible. The authors put far too much emphasis on speed. Speed is totally irrelevant, since speed is a result of the training, not a necessity during the training. I have done the fir...

 The past 21 months I absorbed 2571 patterns. What have I learned? Tactical themes form a language. There are only about 60 themes (30 mates, 30 motifs like pin etc.), so that are not an awful lot of words to learn. The problem lies in recognizing (seeing) the themes in all circumstances . At average I have absorbed 2571 / 60 = 43 patterns per theme. And slowly a new factor starts to emerge. You can only visualize what you have absorbed. In order to visualize a combination that exists of 3 themes, you need to be able to see the 60 x 60 x 60 patterns. There are 60 x 60 x 60 = 216,000 combinations of 3 themes. You cannot calculate this. But if you can recognize the 60 themes UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES, than you can visualize any combination. If I remember well, Dan Heisman told that when he was 18, he often had opponents who stopped calculating halfway a combination. He used that to concoct a theory about calculating until quiescence. Which is a typical description by system 2 of a syst...