Since I have always trained on a computer, except for papa Polgars brick, I always exercised at too low a level.
So my training with the computer couldn't have much effect on my OTB play.
Which it didn't indeed.
Last year I have done 47,000 problems at CTS and improved there with about 70 points, thus closing the gap between my screen-vision and my OTB-vision.
When the gap is closed, traning with the computer will effect immediately my OTB play.
I'm inclined to belief that my previous post on saturday shows that. That was about a combination last friday during an OTB game at my club.
In an earlier post a few months ago I formulated the hypothesis that complex combinations consist of easier parts (that's why it is called a "combination" in the first place, isn't it?) and that when you learn to solve those easy parts a tempo, the solution of the whole problem would be faster and easier.
That was the main reason I started with CTS, which is all about learning to solve simple problems a tempo.
The diagram in my last post on saturday seems to prove that hypothesis.
There are at least 10 parts of the combination in that diagram.
- Removal of the defender of Be2 by Rxc3
- The pin of e3 along the e-file
- The lack of space of the white queen
- The knightfork on e2
- The attack of Nf6 by Qh4 and Bc3
- The mate threat at g7 by Q and B
- The mate threat at f7 by Q and N (via Bxf6, Ng5 and Qxh7)
- The underprotection of d5
- The unprotected Bishop at d6
- The mate threat with Nxf2#
The calculation was about how the parts influence each other.
I only didn't see the the mate threat with Nxf2#, which I saw only after he moved his King to h1.