Temposchlucker

 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...

 I'm working my way through the piece sacrifices on h7, g7 and f7 at an increased pace. Currently I have absorbed about 80 of them, and a new picture arises what it is all about. Most of the time it is about a deadly invasion, where both the LoAs (lines of attack) and the invasion square can be dynamic. White to move 2bqr1k1/ppr1b2p/4p1p1/3n2B1/3P4/P1P2R1Q/5PPP/1B2R1K1 w - - 0 22 Hort, Vlastimil vs. Scotland, Eduard, Bremen 1981 Beware of the LoAs and the invasion squares: It takes some time (80 puzzles) to develop a sense for these dynamic invasions.

  While I am muddling with the first words of the chess language, I sometimes stumble upon an equivalent of a sonnet by Shakespeare. This one is written by Fischer. White to move 5rk1/5Rpp/3p4/3B2q1/R3P1n1/8/P3Q1PP/2r4K w - - 1 31 Fischer, Robert James vs. Sherwin, James, New York 1957

Connecting the rules in a framework  I have asked Claude (AI) lately to collect all chess rules he could find. He found about 150 rules. Often these rules are hanging somewhere in mid-air. Because the rules tend to be provided with too little context. Now the task is to hang them on the LoA (line of attack) framework. Take for instance the rule "improve your worst piece". That only applies when an attacker is not on its LoA yet. Otherwise it makes no sense. The LoA system provides structure and hierarchy to the rules. It provides the context so you can judge how to value the rules whenever you have conflicting rules. The LoA framework is especially important to get feedback from your games. Without a framework, you make the same positional mistakes over and over again without noticing it. A framework makes you life easier and helps you to make faster positional judgements, but it is not going to win you many games. Tactical chess language In order to win games, you have to be...

There seems to be the following levels of abstraction: Level 1 the purpose of existence What a piece wants regardless the position Attack invasion clear the path to promotion attack a target Defense prevent invasion prevent promotion defend a target What a pawn wants: to promote to keep invaders out give room to its own pieces Summary A piece wants to invade, a pawn wants to promote. No matter the position. Level 2 Invasion A specific position poses limits and restrictions to the pieces. Not everything that they want is possible. An invasion square: on the other side of the board cannot be defended by a pawn anytime soon is in contact with a target or focal point The concepts that revolve around invasion are about creating an invasion point and getting your pieces there Level 3 Defending an invasion square Pawns are the best defenders of invasion squares. Invasion squares that are not covered by pawns must be covered by pieces. The usual concepts involving annihilation of the defender ...

 I don't know where this post will be heading, so you are forewarned! The method I concocted is totally empyric. It came about by a mix of elimination, trial and error, and observation. Hence it is not optimized in any way, nor scientific. This means that I'm always on the lookout for improvements and more understanding. The core of my method is generalization of concepts. This means that I have to conceptualize what is happening in a position, and once the concepts are clear, the concepts must be generalized, so that they become useful for other positions as well. Both the creation of concepts and the generalization are done by system 2. The next thing is to ensure that system 1 has absorbed the matter. Attention is the spotlight, and both system 2 and system 1 are following the attention. Because that is their very nature. The bottleneck Because system 2 plays such big role AND is very slow, it is the bottleneck of the process. Any optimization of the process will focus on th...

 Conceptual abstraction is the base of my method. The transfer of knowledge from one position to another can only be reached by generalisation of the patterns that occur in a position. That conceptualization requires a lot of work. There is no free lunch here. You can only ask a grandmaster to gather the material and to draft an outline. So I went to look at AI whether it could help me. I watched a lot of videos and podcasts to see where it is heading. It turns out that AI is suffering from the same problem. LLM's will run out of input the next year. Everything from the internet is processed, and you cannot scale up the LLM's much further. Hence the ugly begging letters and policy changes at X, Reddit and Meta lately to use your data for feeding their LLM's. So the contours of the limitations of LLM's start to become clear, Now the hype is nearly over, it is time to ask the question "what's next?". AGI is the next target to pursue (Artificial General Intel...