Wednesday, July 04, 2018

Deep understanding

My mind is easily overwhelmed. When my mind is overwhelmed, it stalls.

That is the feeling I have when I play chess.

The reason that my mind is overwhelmed, is that it can not handle complexity. Probably no mind can. The only way to prevent the mind from being overwhelmed, is to get rid of complexity.

There are quite a few areas in life where I managed to get rid of complexity. I studied the book Progress and poverty of Henry George for about six years. In the beginning it was impossibly to apply his ideas to modern economic events. But when it finally dawned on me, I could see through complicated economic events in seconds. Because the events where no longer complex.

One of the characteristics of complexity is that you see things as different while they actually belong to the same category.

The mind is overwhelmed by numbers (vast amounts). When you see that things are different that are actually the same, you add to the numbers. By adding numbers, you add complexity. The conscious mind can handle only a few numbers at the same time. That is why it is overwhelmed so easily.

When I started this blog, it had the subtitle "chess improvement by effort (hatsjoe)". It was a joke, but since nobody knew the dutch word "hatsjoe", nobody recognized the joke. Only when I explained that the dutch hatsjoe was the same as achoo in English, the allergy to effort became apparent.

I learned six languages at school, and to me all languages were essentially different dialects of the same language.

Once I had to translate a brochure from Swedish. I never had been in contact with the language before. But by pronouncing it as old English with a German accent, it became suddenly clear what the words meant. All of a sudden I recognized about 80% of the words.

Only when you think that all languages are different, you  manage to introduce complexity.

groot, groß, grand, grande, great, gran, grut, gwo, are all the same word in different languages. You add to the amount of numbers by seeing them as different.

We talked a lot about the subconscious working miracles. I always wondered in what area these miracles would be when it comes to chess. When complexity disappears, miracles are being worked. To recognize that groot, groß, grand, grande, great, gran, grut and gwo are all the same, is such miracle from the subconscious. But you must first realize that the words are actually the same.

I have gone at great length in the past  in understanding chess problems. But what I failed to do, is to consolidate that knowledge. I analyzed, but I didn't systemize the knowledge that emerged from analysis. The analysis rendered the problem as simple, in the end. But I didn't simplify the analysis.

I have wandered every path of chess improvement under the sun. I have fallen in every pitfall one can imagine. I even didn't miss a single pitfall you cannot imagine, the past 18 years. Which makes matters very simple nowadays. Only one thing I haven't tried. And that is what I'm up to now. Deep understanding. Even so deep, that matters become simple. Time to put in some effort again (hatsjoe).

Wednesday, December 13, 2017

Developing a sense for the initiative

Now the ToS is simplified, it is time to get a sense for this way of looking to the position. To describe it in those terms.

Black to move

r3kb1r/2qn1pp1/p4n2/4pNB1/1p3P2/6N1/bPPQ3P/2KR1B1R b kq - 0 1

In terms of the tree of scenarios:
  • Target: The king and queen look juicy
  • point of pressure:  c2; b3
  • line of attack: c-file
  • function: c2 defends king and b3 (overworked)
  • immobility: King has Lack of Space; c2 is pinned; K and Q are at a knightforks distance

Plan: add attacker to b3

Cashing in: it becomes apparent that  you not only have to look for counter attacks when you want to cash in, but at any moment that you don't make a double function move. When you potentially give the initiative away. Due to the multiplex immobility you can permit a move that hasn't a double function. That isn't a two headed monster. (1. ... Nc5)

ToS version 2

Tuesday, December 12, 2017

Simplifying the tree of scenarios

So how would a simplified tree of scenarios may look like?

Monday, December 11, 2017

the role of the initiative and immobility

I'm trying to understand the essence of the tree of scenarios. What I find is that every scenario leans on either the initiative or immobility.

Take for instance the generic scenario "add an attacker". You cannot simply add an attacker to a target which is already attacked by two of your attackers, since your opponent simply moves the target away, and your attackers will be rendered looking silly.

Somehow, the crucial tactical elements must be "fixated" for a little while. You must either add an attacker with tempo or the target must be immobile for a while. The initiative or the immobility are the necessary precondition which must be met.

The scenario is the plan what you want to do, while the precondition determines if the plan is viable.

The initiative
The initiative is maintained by a double function move. One function is based on CCT, the other function is what you actually want to do. Say, you want to clear a line of attack. Your own knight is standing in the way. When you can move the knight out of the way with a check, or a capture, or a threat, you clear the line of attack with tempo.

Sometimes it is suggested that you have to investigate every possible CCT move. If you try, you will find that that is not doable. Usually there are way too much CCT-moves that perform no second function. That approach is a waste of time.

It is better to turn it around: find the scenario you want to execute, then you look whether you can do it with a CCT-move. With tempo, that is.

When a target is immobile, be it by lack of space or because it performs a function it can't abandon, you factually have a free move. An immobility is temporary, and it takes your opponent two or more moves to free himself. It is quite comparable with the initiative.

The core problem
That is the core problem. We have to develop an eye for the initiative and for immobility.

Tuesday, December 05, 2017

Wrapping my head around the tree

So far, I haven't been able to internalize the knowledge which is confined within the tree of scenarios.  Several methods were tried, but none of them stood up to the challenge.

I wondered why that is, and while pondering about it, I came up with an analogy. Quite some time ago I was a member of an economy study group who studied the book Progress and Poverty of Henry George. It took me about six years before I was able to wrap my head around the matter that was described in the book.

Once that was the case, it usually took me only seconds to dissect a complex economic problem and to describe it within the context of the book. I realized that despite all my efforts so far, I still am not able to wrap my head around chess tactics though.

I can investigate parts of it well enough if I take my time, but there is no coherence in my tactical chess knowledge. I feel that I'm not at all that far off, though.

So I'm rereading my posts from about April to now, and extract the essence of it. I'm going to reshuffle the knowledge until the core of it sinks in. Until I'm able to wrap my head around it. From there, the magic of the unconscience is supposed to kick in.