Thursday, November 15, 2018

A flaw a day. . .

The flaws sofar seem pretty trivial. Probably that triviality is preventing them from being addressed. The flip side being that it is probably possible to fix it.

White to move

3qr3/Rb1nrpk1/2p2npp/1p1p4/1P1P3B/3BPP2/2Q3PP/2R2NK1 b - - 3 1
[solution]

Two B.A.D. (Barely Adequate Defended) pieces and a point of pressure. Smells like a duplo attack in the making. But since the chess logic is underdeveloped, I start with the wrong capture.

Chess logic should be so obvious, that you look at the consequences of the answer moves to both captures. Why isn't the obvious obvious to me? Due to a poor educated system II, I guess.

Monday, November 12, 2018

Flaw of the day

So what are we talking about? What are typical flaws in the trial and error process in dire need of repair? Here is an example:

White to move


3Qrk2/5p2/p2R2p1/P5n1/8/2Q1pp2/1q2N1PP/6K1 b - - 2 1
[solution]

First I considered 1.Qh8#
Well, that isn't mate due to 1. ... Qxh8

Then I considered 1.Qxe8+ Kxe8
Well, that looks very promising!

So I continued with 2.Qh8#
Which isn't mate of course. Due to 2. ... Qxh8

So what happened here?
This types of errors happen anytime. An important cause is the blitz time constraint, of course. In standard mode, it probably wouldn't have happened. But what has exactly happened?
  • board vision ok? CHECK
  • Sometimes we don't look at a certain part of the board ok? CHECK
  • Sometimes we do look at a certain part of the board, but we fail to realize us the consequences of what we see ok? CHECK
  • they are aware where the pieces are and what they ( potentially) do ok? CHECK
  • memory of (already calculated ) lines ok? CHECK
  • memory of (already analysed ) positions ( related to board vision ) ok? CHECK
  • memory of own thought process and won insights ok? COMPROMISED!!
  • hyper fast pattern recognition ok? CHECK
  • knowledge ( to be able to judge the final positions )ok? CHECK
Now let's have a closer look at the point that is compromised. The first question is, am I able to remember my own won insights? Well, I certainly am. Long ago, I wrote a post about playing a blindfold game to the computer. During the game, the telephone rung, and I delayed the game for about an hour. When I continued, I knew exactly where every piece was. Proofing that I stored the position in long term memory.

So why did I forget the already analyzed line 1. Qxh8+ Qxh8 ?
I cannot formulate it better than "I failed to appreciate the importance of the fact".

Normally, I exercise under standard conditions. When there is no time pressure, the error isn't made, since there is enough time to administer a blunder check. In blitz mode, you don't have that luxury. The error isn't made, so there is no feed back.

In blitz mode, I dismiss the error as being not something I can learn from. The blunder is so simple, I will not make him again. At least, so I think. So again, such errors get no feedback.

Since feedback is the only way to learn something from the past, it is obvious that I condemn myself to make these kind of errors over and over again.

I'm pretty sure that the data set of 164 problems that I gathered yesterday, is full of such overlooked flaws in the trial and error process.

How to repair these flaws? Did I already mention feedback?

Only by precise feedback we can overcome our repetitive errors!!

Sunday, November 11, 2018

Repairing the flaws in the trial and error process

Boy, this must be the most boring chess site ever. If you don't know what is going on.

I become more and more convinced that trial and error is the most natural way to solve tactics. It is totally tailored for system I.

At the same time, it has become quite clear, that  my trial and error process is full of flaws. But I must not abandon the process, I must repair the flaws. Since abandoning the trial and error process, means attempting to replace it by some sort of thought process based on system II.

System II based thought processes don't work, as we have seen. Well, they kinda work, but at the cost of time, energy and added redundancy. Which means they don't work under time constraint.

In order to find out what we are talking about, I have done 164 blitz problems today at Chess Tempo. Those 164 were needed for an estimated FIDE rating. This is the baseline:

Blitz rating: 1683
All Time High: 1806
Estimated FIDE rating based on blitz: 1794
As you might remember, I consider an All Time High of 2050 as the proof that a method works.

I'm going to use the 164 problems as the base for the investigation of the flaws in my trial and error process. I look forward to it!

Sunday, November 04, 2018

Realizing us the consequenses of what we see

When I summarize the observations of both me and the commentators on my posts lately, I come to the following:

  • Sometimes we don't look at a certain part of the board
  • Sometimes we do look at a certain part of the board, but we fail to realize us the consequences of what we see
The video of GingerGM seems to rehabilitate the method of trial and error. Are the two points above the reason why our trial and error fails so often?

Sofar, the work arounds that we have invented to solve the two points above, were at the cost of introducing redundancy. That is to say, we put system II at work and we got more correct solutions at a slower pace. The use of extra solving time nullified the rating effect, overall.

But now the problem is formulated so clear, we might find a solution. Both the tree of scenarios and the PLF (PoPLoAFun) system focus on realizing us the consequences of what we see.

I'm pretty sure that we are on the right track. We tend to switch to trial and error automatically when we do not fight against it. Maybe we shouldn't fight it but embrace it, since it seems to be the most natural and energy and mental resource efficient method. Meaning that we must just take away the impediments why trial and error doesn't work for us. The impediments being the two points above.

Friday, November 02, 2018

A tempo

I was rather surprised to see the rating of this problem. I considered it to be a fairly simple problem. Mainly that was because my system I was continuously shouting the first move.

Black to move
r5k1/p4pq1/1p2pn2/PP1p1P2/1P1B1Qn1/8/4BK2/2R5 w - - 4 1
[solution]

After solving the problem correctly, I was surprised to see that I had used more than four minutes for the solution. Where had the time gone?

Mainly I was busy to convince system II that this was the right solution.

This story shows one important aspect of  what we try to accomplish. We must familiarize system II with the principles of this position. Why is 1. ... e5 correct and 1. ... Nxg4+ wrong? The difference lies in the move 2. Kf3.

2.Kf3 solves the check after 1. ... Ng4+ AND attacks the black knight on g4. It is a defensive move AND an attack.

When I see the move 2.Kf3, I just see the the defensive side of the move. But I fail to appreciate the offensive side of the move. I see of course that my knight is under attack. But I fail to see that it is outnumbered. More precise: I see that it is outnumbered, but I don't realize the importance of that fact.

Exactly at this point, the education of system II begins.

I have showed you a whole bunch of 2100 (blitz)rated position in the past, where my gut feeling said: this is a simple position. Often readers tried to convince me that it were actually complex positions. My system I told me that it were simple positions in essence. But my uneducated system II failed time and again to appreciate the importance of what was shown by system I. That is, in a nutshell, the problem I need to solve.

Wednesday, October 24, 2018

Tagging a label or labeling a tag

I'm trying to walk the walk lately, which means it is not a good idea to talk the talk at the same time. Since walking the walk is a system I activity, and talking the talk is for the satisfaction of system II. But anyway, here is some talk.

The different attitude towards chess seems to be beneficial. Being no longer impressed by the complexity and trying to take the lead of my own line of thought seems to work.

I remember that we (I) speculated in the past about the progress of Munich being caused by his labeling activity. By labeling the problems, you build a framework of understanding. Now I'm a premium member at Chess Tempo again, I can define my own labels, based on PoPLoAFun and the initiative. This gives me much more freedom to label a problem. I can tailor the labels just to my needs.

Ok, 'nuf talk.

Wednesday, October 10, 2018

Oops, wrong tunnel

White to move
8/p5pk/4R3/6Q1/P7/3qn1nP/6PK/8 w - - 1 1
[solution]