Temposchlucker

  In a comment, I lately described the four stages of my method. Unearth the logic. That takes quite some fiddling around. Transform the logic into patterns that are more or less position independent Remember the patterns Test the absorption This method works to a certain degree. With a pace of one problem per day and, say, 3 patterns per problem. about 1000 new patterns per year seems to be doable. But it is hard work, and although the method works,  I have somehow the feeling that I haven't reached the maximum learning potential of the method. The method is pretty crude, so let's have a look whether it is possible to refine it. Unearth the logic In this area, you might be able to snatch a free lunch or two. Don't waste your time with trying to solve the problems yourself. Use Stockfish and fiddle around as much as you can. Make use of every annotation by grandmasters if you can. Use themed problem sets whenever possible. Since this is a system 2 activity, it will take a l...

  Step by step, I'm trying to unearth a set of standard scenarios for the whole game. It is a highly personal approach, and I assume that there are a lot of people who don't like such a rigid approach. That is fine with me of course, in that case you must invent a strategy of your liking yourself. TINSTAAFL. I started at the end of the game with the PoPLoAFun system, from there I invented the sitting ducks (king and weak pawns), piece activity as the nec plus ultra of positional play. Lately I added a stage before that, the invasion. A chess game can go in either two directions: a king assault (king = duck 1) or an endgame (pawn = duck 2). Either way, you need to invade the side of the enemy (invasion square = duck 3). Tactics usually don't appear just out of the blue. If they do, it are blunders. As your opponents become better, it is likely that the blunders diminish, and that they change into mistakes due to the pressure you apply. And pressure is related to the 3 ducks....

  With the assault of the king, you need a standard plan. You must have a clear picture of the standard scenarios. That way, you prune the tree of scenarios and the tree of analysis beforehand. You calculate the main line, and when you are happy, you calculate the alternatives (or else), when the opponent doesn't want to cooperate. When all alternatives are worse, you are good to go. White to move 3r2k1/p3b2p/3pbpp1/7R/1r2P3/1P1B2Q1/q5PP/B4R1K w - - 0 25 The standard plan of the assault contains two elements: breach the wall of the killzone invade What does the breach Rxh7 accomplish? it attacks Be7 it undermines g6 it allows the white queen to attack the invasion square f6 with tempo Black cannot afford to ignore the rook . He must take the rook (or else). The next move is 2.Qh4+, which is a double attack on the king and the invasion square f6. Another way to say that it is, the white Queen attacks f6 with an additional tempo (the check).

 We have not  really names for patterns that are related to the tempo battle. And when items have no names, they are difficult to absorb. System 2 takes care of naming things. He is the one to take care of making the tactical words absorbable. White to move 2r5/p3npkp/3qpnp1/4N3/3P2P1/1B6/PP1Q1P2/4R1K1 w - - 1 27 Lucki, Stanislaw vs. Beltins, Gunars, Email 2010 What is the difference between 27. Qh6+ and 27. Qf4 immediately? And should this tempo move have its own name?

 In order to manipulate the killzone, you need to learn to recognize the invasion squares. White to move r4nk1/pp3rp1/2b4p/3p1p1Q/5q1B/3B2R1/PPP4P/4R2K w - - 0 29 The first invasion square is e7. Why? Because B and R converge there. The second invasion square is g7. Why? Because Rg3 and Re7 converge there. What does the queen sac Qxf7+ achieve? It eliminates the defender of both invasion squares. What is more, it does so with tempo. The task at hand is to recognize the potential invasion squares (count the attackers relative to the defenders), and to find the tempo moves that change the balance.

I use a problem set with a lot of sacrifices around the king. Of course you have the usual tactics, which we all know. What we do need most, though, is to identify the logical scenarios that are involved. A useful metaphor is to identify the killbox that the king is in, and to build your logic around that. White to move r4rk1/pbq2pp1/1p1b4/4B2p/7P/2PBQ2R/PP3PP1/R3K3 w Q - 1 20 Janowski, Dawid Markelowicz vs. Saemisch, Friedrich, Marianske Lazne 1925 One square is not accounted for: h8. Yet you have already a piece in place to cover that: Be5. 20. Qh6! f6 21. Qh7+ Kf7 22. Bxd6 Qxd6 23. Re3 Look how the killbox is morphing.  Black to move These moves are not the only way to win. But I want to show you how the killbox evolves over time. It requires a different way of thinking. The tactics are subordinate to the killbox. Just like the tempo moves.

 There are two gaps that I must bridge. The gap between the end of the opening and the beginning of the final king assault (the Vukovic gap) The gap between the end of the opening and the beginning of the endgame Both gaps will take a few years to close. The past two years I learned more about chess than the previous 23 years. The reason for that is that the first 23 years I focused solely on developing the learning method, so there was no time to actually learn. Without a method it would have been marginal anyway. Vukovic gap In order to bridge the gap, I must have an idea how the final assault works. Currently I have a problem set of 1000 problems which focus on the assault. This set is a perfect fit . For the gap itself I have quite a few courses that can be studied. But this study is hampered by the fact that I'm only at the beginning of the study of the assault. As long as I don't master the actual assault to a certain degree, I cannot make informed decisions about the act...