Yesterday at the club I played our former club champion (2117). In the past I always lost to him. He played a King's Gambit, which I hate to play against, of course. The game showed me two things.
My strength: Attack. If I was him I had kicked black from the board. He attacked too early.
My weakness: I was better in the end of the middlegame, but there I have to rely on the think-modus of my brains, which is too slow for a real game.
I felt very satisfied after the game. Still today.
Here is the game.
I'm experimenting with chesslog.de for hosting my games.
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
About Elo and Ego and the Ideal Amateur
If I was an Ideal Amateur, I would only care about the beauty and the joy of the game. I would consider rating as something that is a little dirty and as totally irrelevant to chess. I must admit that it is not possible for me to commit myself to such Saintlike standards. I allready have used the word "I" 5 times in this post, so I can't keep up the appearances that I have no ego.
In earlier days I tried to deny that I was flattered by a high rating, which is of course a form of hypocrisy. The day I decided to leave hypocrisy, I started shamelessly to indulge my rating-desire (I hope this is correct English).
It is of course of highest importance that such shameless behaviour is executed in a proper way. Otherwise it's not only a shame, but it is stupid and useless either:)
Of course you are standing miles above this.
But since you have to avoid such behaviour, it is of course important to know how it works. . .
I noticed that the rating system is somewhat counter-intuitive for a lot of people.
This is how it works globally.
The explanation is based on the dutch rating system, but the system of the USCF will not differ very much, I assume.
For every game you win you get plus 15 points, for every draw 0 points and for every loss minus 15 points. Besides that, if you have a higher rating, your opponent is compensated for that. You can compare it with a handicap in golf.
The idea is that if you are 1700 , your opponent is 1500 and you play a few hundred games, in the end you will have both still about the same rating, 1700 resp. 1500.
You win more since you are better, but your handicap will compensate that. That handicap is based on statistics.
If you are 700 points better you will always win, so you will always get +15. But since you have a handicap of -15 points, the total effect is nill.
The only way to gain ratingpoints is to score better than the statistical probability.
If you win from Topolov you will only get +30 points. +15 points for the win and +15 points for the ratingdifference. But I bet your ego will get a much bigger boost!
In earlier days I tried to deny that I was flattered by a high rating, which is of course a form of hypocrisy. The day I decided to leave hypocrisy, I started shamelessly to indulge my rating-desire (I hope this is correct English).
It is of course of highest importance that such shameless behaviour is executed in a proper way. Otherwise it's not only a shame, but it is stupid and useless either:)
Of course you are standing miles above this.
But since you have to avoid such behaviour, it is of course important to know how it works. . .
I noticed that the rating system is somewhat counter-intuitive for a lot of people.
This is how it works globally.
The explanation is based on the dutch rating system, but the system of the USCF will not differ very much, I assume.
For every game you win you get plus 15 points, for every draw 0 points and for every loss minus 15 points. Besides that, if you have a higher rating, your opponent is compensated for that. You can compare it with a handicap in golf.
The idea is that if you are 1700 , your opponent is 1500 and you play a few hundred games, in the end you will have both still about the same rating, 1700 resp. 1500.
You win more since you are better, but your handicap will compensate that. That handicap is based on statistics.
| Rating diff. | Handicap rtg pts | You win |
| 0 | 0 | 50% |
| 100 | 4.2 | 64% |
| 200 | 7.9 | 76% |
| 300 | 10.8 | 85% |
| 400 | 12.8 | 92% |
| 500 | 14.0 | |
| 600 | 14.6 | |
| 700 | 15 | 100% |
If you are 700 points better you will always win, so you will always get +15. But since you have a handicap of -15 points, the total effect is nill.
The only way to gain ratingpoints is to score better than the statistical probability.
If you win from Topolov you will only get +30 points. +15 points for the win and +15 points for the ratingdifference. But I bet your ego will get a much bigger boost!
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Drilling along
The microdrills aren't so easy that a person of my rating can do them automatically without thinking at once. That means that the drills aren't so simple that I don't need to do it.The build up of knight sight is somewhat strange: first you look one move ahead, then three.
I flicked in a drill where you have to look two knight moves ahead myself. That's not easy at all. I'm drilling for more than a week now. It's too early to say something about the effects.
Monday, September 25, 2006
Does Dark Energy Matter?
It was in the wee hours. My opponent was a moderate goodlooking guy with impressive biceps. As most chessplayers, he suffered from a form of OCD. He had the nasty habit of adjusting his pieces all the time. While I looked in his bloodred smouldering eyes, I scratched my cheek. This morning I cut myself with my razor. Occam's aftershave is rather irritating, maybe I should change my brand.
My opponent played the Dark Side.
On the board was an unorthodox position which showed some vague relationship with the French defense. But it was clear that my opponent had no respect for the positional rules of Einsteinitz. His pieces where placed with variable space between them. This had the strange effect that it seemed as if his pieces at the outer rim were able to move faster than the ones that were more close to the center of gravity of his position. Somewhat like in the accelerated dragon. Just an optical illusion, of course.
I had gambited a pawn, which was taken without suspence. I got a crushing attack for it, but just at the moment I was making myself up to finish him off, something strange happened. It seemed as if his Dark Forces came out of the blue. As if it substancialized from the hyperspace between two squares, as it were. All of a sudden a dim looking knight, coming from the outer rim, was heading with discrete jumps to my King. I thought I would have enough tempo's that there was no need to bother myself with his counter attack. But my tempo's proved to be relative.
His knight circled with an unsuspected angular momentum around my King in a deadly embracement. I surely understimated the power of the Dark Side.
I thought for an hour, while offering him drinks all the time. He gratefully accepted. I had decided to use chess creativity and to go for an unorthodox approach. After an hour the nature had to take it's rightfull course and he left the table for a few minutes. At a moment nobody looked at me I reached over the table and put a few things in the pockets of his jacket.
When he came back I waited another 10 minutes, moved a pawn to a3 and pressed the clock. I stood up and went to fetch the arbiter. When he arrived at the table I said that I accused my opponent from taking doping since last year he was playing like a moron and now he would beat me with ease. The arbiter stopped the clocks and asked my opponent if that was true. He denied. The arbiter called for assistance and asked my opponent to empty his pockets. The first thing was a brace-o-maza. The arbiter asked me if I knew what that meant. I said no, but that he wore it before he went to the bathroom. His assistant said "look what we have here, a fly ticket to America, a bottle cap, a dilated Planck length and mascara. It looks like we have an international terrorist here!. I will call Interpol." The police came and took him away.
I pressed the chess clock again, just in case he managed to convince the authorities of his innocence.
Than I awoke. . .
My opponent played the Dark Side.
On the board was an unorthodox position which showed some vague relationship with the French defense. But it was clear that my opponent had no respect for the positional rules of Einsteinitz. His pieces where placed with variable space between them. This had the strange effect that it seemed as if his pieces at the outer rim were able to move faster than the ones that were more close to the center of gravity of his position. Somewhat like in the accelerated dragon. Just an optical illusion, of course.
I had gambited a pawn, which was taken without suspence. I got a crushing attack for it, but just at the moment I was making myself up to finish him off, something strange happened. It seemed as if his Dark Forces came out of the blue. As if it substancialized from the hyperspace between two squares, as it were. All of a sudden a dim looking knight, coming from the outer rim, was heading with discrete jumps to my King. I thought I would have enough tempo's that there was no need to bother myself with his counter attack. But my tempo's proved to be relative.
His knight circled with an unsuspected angular momentum around my King in a deadly embracement. I surely understimated the power of the Dark Side.
I thought for an hour, while offering him drinks all the time. He gratefully accepted. I had decided to use chess creativity and to go for an unorthodox approach. After an hour the nature had to take it's rightfull course and he left the table for a few minutes. At a moment nobody looked at me I reached over the table and put a few things in the pockets of his jacket.
When he came back I waited another 10 minutes, moved a pawn to a3 and pressed the clock. I stood up and went to fetch the arbiter. When he arrived at the table I said that I accused my opponent from taking doping since last year he was playing like a moron and now he would beat me with ease. The arbiter stopped the clocks and asked my opponent if that was true. He denied. The arbiter called for assistance and asked my opponent to empty his pockets. The first thing was a brace-o-maza. The arbiter asked me if I knew what that meant. I said no, but that he wore it before he went to the bathroom. His assistant said "look what we have here, a fly ticket to America, a bottle cap, a dilated Planck length and mascara. It looks like we have an international terrorist here!. I will call Interpol." The police came and took him away.
I pressed the chess clock again, just in case he managed to convince the authorities of his innocence.
Than I awoke. . .
Saturday, September 23, 2006
Once you pop, you can't stop
In the past I put a lot of effort in improvement of my visualisation skills. You can read about that here. It improved my board vision, so that I started to see chessboards in my dreams in 3D en technicolor, but it didn't help to improve my rating. So I dismissed visulisation of the board as not usefull for chess improvement.
I experimented with blindfold chess too, but found it too difficult to improve my vision via that method. I could win a blindfold game from a bad player, but I didn't improve.
Every good chessplayer is able to play blindfold chess. It is a bonus where they don't have to train extra for. It's just an extra aspect of their ability to perform well behind the chessboard.
During my board vision experiment, I felt that board vision alone is not enough.
It is easy to visualise the path of a rook in the minds eye, since we are used to rows and colums since our youth, but the path of a bishop is hard to visualise, let alone the path of a knight.
During the past week I have experimented with the "chessvision" drills of DLM. These microdrills are actually a way to improve your visualisation of double attacks. The power of it is that the drills concentrate on geometrical aspects of chess which are very common in practice.
It seemed logical to extend microdrills to other parts of the game beyond double attacks, so I am developing new microdrills that cover other aspects of the game.
There seems to be a problem to integrate this chessvision into your play. In order to exercise that I try to use chessvision at CTS.
I don't know if it will work, but if it doesn't, I'm at least a little further on the road of exclusion:)
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Circumstancial criteria.
Yesterday I realized that there are a lot of "circumstancial criteria" that play an important role in my theoretical ramblings. These are just simple facts, and any theory or hypothesis must be in accordance with these facts, otherwise the hypothesis can't be true. Since these criteria are self-evident to me, I often forget to inform you about it.
A few examples are:
A circumstancial fact that made a great impression on me and that is very important to understand what I'm after is the following.
During the years I have played a few prodigies. 10 to 13 year old, on their streak to mastership.
I always used the opportunity to talk to them afterwards.
With one important question in mind: are these kids superbeings or are it smart kids with just one supertrick? Do they have superior reasoning skills, an eidetic memory, fabulous knowledge of chess theory etc. or do they have just a simple kink in their brains what makes them to spot good chessmoves faster?
My talks with those prodigies convinced me of the latter. It just all comes down to one supertrick. At all the other area's they were just no match for me because, well they were just 10-13yo kids, they simple had not had enough time to develop all that super reasoning, fill their super memory, they hadn't read as much books as me etc..
That supertrick is what I'm after. A trick so simple that even a 11yo can do it. I realize that I strip the mystic of chess and that common mainstream belief is opposing me.
But when I talk to a smart 11yo I simply cannot get rid of the feeling that I'm talking to a smart 11yo and not to a superbeing with mythical para-abnormal characteristics. Even when he (she!) smashes me from the board.
MDLM found that supertrick, but he failed to tell some (for him) self evident details, or we skipped them while reading, thinking it was not important.
I intend to find out.
This belief is what colors my posts so heavily. So now you know.
A few examples are:
- Susan Polgar used 2.6 seconds per move at average during a simul where she scored 96.6%
- Grandmasters show brainactivity in a different area in comparison to amateurs.
- MDLM isn't special.
- Papa Polgar produced 3 prodigies, not just one, so a prodigy is nothing special, it's just a matter of good training.
A circumstancial fact that made a great impression on me and that is very important to understand what I'm after is the following.
During the years I have played a few prodigies. 10 to 13 year old, on their streak to mastership.
I always used the opportunity to talk to them afterwards.
With one important question in mind: are these kids superbeings or are it smart kids with just one supertrick? Do they have superior reasoning skills, an eidetic memory, fabulous knowledge of chess theory etc. or do they have just a simple kink in their brains what makes them to spot good chessmoves faster?
My talks with those prodigies convinced me of the latter. It just all comes down to one supertrick. At all the other area's they were just no match for me because, well they were just 10-13yo kids, they simple had not had enough time to develop all that super reasoning, fill their super memory, they hadn't read as much books as me etc..
That supertrick is what I'm after. A trick so simple that even a 11yo can do it. I realize that I strip the mystic of chess and that common mainstream belief is opposing me.
But when I talk to a smart 11yo I simply cannot get rid of the feeling that I'm talking to a smart 11yo and not to a superbeing with mythical para-abnormal characteristics. Even when he (she!) smashes me from the board.
MDLM found that supertrick, but he failed to tell some (for him) self evident details, or we skipped them while reading, thinking it was not important.
I intend to find out.
This belief is what colors my posts so heavily. So now you know.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
The method of exclusion
A blog is no book. In a book you represent the end result of your thoughts in a readable way. In a blog the thought processes itself are described. I realize that the rattling of thoughts in my skull are not fun for everyone to follow. I often am confronted with the fact that it looks confusing, but hey, I'm used to it! I like to apologize for that. For me it is a great help to sift my thoughts and to get inspiration. Especially the interaction with other bloggers and readers is very useful!
I have the illusion that my ego isn't bound to any of the theories I advocate here, so feel free to critisize. Just realize that after you have called me crazy for three times in a row, I don't consider it to be news anymore.
For me, believe it or not, my thoughts aren't chaotic at all. I often compare it with a maze, where I go to the left at each crosspoint.
Even if a road looks like a dead end, I have to follow it. Just to make sure I can exclude it. Allthough it is a very labour intensive method, it is a very secure way. After exclusion I don't spill my energy anymore to methods that aren't working. That's where my labour pays off.
Here is a list of methods for improvement I have investigated over the years and their status (from an earlier post).
I like to reformulate my findings on a regular base. Everytime from a slightly different angle. That way I discover new things every now and then. So the above list isn't definite.
Take for instance those microdrills. Two times in the past I rejected them based on logical reasoning. Now I have found new facts that shed a different light on it. And thus I have to re-investigate it. It might be a dead end. So what?
I still have the strong believe that tactics is the first area to master and that there is a fast method. The problem is to find that. We allready found a slow non efficient method that works: massive repetition. The method of exclusion gives me the feeling I'm coming closer to a better training method everyday.
Besides that, I really enjoy these theoretical ramblings. I hope you do too.
I have the illusion that my ego isn't bound to any of the theories I advocate here, so feel free to critisize. Just realize that after you have called me crazy for three times in a row, I don't consider it to be news anymore.
For me, believe it or not, my thoughts aren't chaotic at all. I often compare it with a maze, where I go to the left at each crosspoint.
Even if a road looks like a dead end, I have to follow it. Just to make sure I can exclude it. Allthough it is a very labour intensive method, it is a very secure way. After exclusion I don't spill my energy anymore to methods that aren't working. That's where my labour pays off.
Here is a list of methods for improvement I have investigated over the years and their status (from an earlier post).
| Method | Conclusion | Status/remark |
| Study openings | No rating improvement | Basic opening knowledge is needed. In the fridge. |
| Study positional play | No rating improvement | In the fridge |
| Study mastergames | No rating improvement | |
| Endgames | Very important | In the fridge. Tactics first. |
| Write a chessprogram | No rating improvement | Fun to do |
| Play a lot | No rating improvement | Usefull for incorporation of learned skills |
| Play blitz | No rating improvement | Fun |
| Develop a thoughtprocess | No rating improvement | Periodical habit |
| Training visualisation | No rating improvement | Get lucid dreams of chessboards |
| Blindfold play | No rating improvement | Impress your family |
| Tactical training | Rating improvement of 230 points | Grinded to a hold. Under investigation |
I like to reformulate my findings on a regular base. Everytime from a slightly different angle. That way I discover new things every now and then. So the above list isn't definite.
Take for instance those microdrills. Two times in the past I rejected them based on logical reasoning. Now I have found new facts that shed a different light on it. And thus I have to re-investigate it. It might be a dead end. So what?
I still have the strong believe that tactics is the first area to master and that there is a fast method. The problem is to find that. We allready found a slow non efficient method that works: massive repetition. The method of exclusion gives me the feeling I'm coming closer to a better training method everyday.
Besides that, I really enjoy these theoretical ramblings. I hope you do too.
Monday, September 18, 2006
Going around in circles
It is shown that there is a (negative) statistical correlation between the #times I have repeated a problem and the solution speed. Which means that at average I solve a problem faster when I have seen the problem more times before. This was based on a wee problemset of 56 problems that I solved correct. I plan to investigate a bigger problemset in the future.
So massive repetition works. It doesn't work very efficient though.
The question arises, what is it what works in massive repetition of problems?
We can define a broad spectrum.
On the one end of the spectrum, there is a big database of 50,000 - 100,000 basic patterns you have to master. If you are confronted with a chess position you have to recognize one of these basic patterns. Since the amount of basic patterns is so high, you can say that the "pattern recognition factor" (an own invention) is low. Science did an educated guess that learning much basic patterns is a possible scenario how a grandmaster became good (based on the theory of chunks). There are two arguments against this.
The first is that a pattern recognition factor is usually high in any given situation. If you see a cloud, you recognize a rabbit in it, not a Sylvilagus mansuetus. You only have a database of about a hundred pictures of animals, but you can recognize them in even the most distorted clouds. You don't need a database of 50,000 - 100,000 animals.
The second argument is that it is not according to my own experience. The past few weeks I concentrated solely on memorization of old problems at CTS. My rating declined in stead of improving.
At the other end of the spectrum you break down the basic database until only a few characteristic geometrical patterns are left. The Mother Of All Patterns (MOAP). Here the pattern recognition factor is very high.
You can imagine a database of anywhere from about 10 to 100,000 basic patterns in the spectrum. What is the right amount to train?
MDLM gave a clue about a database of a few amount of basic patterns.
To train them he invented the microdrills.
I investigated the microdrills two times in the past. Both times I dismissed them as being of no use for a person of my level. As too simple. So I have never trained them serious on a regular basis.
But now I see reasons why it could work. Hence today I started my concentric circles and knight sight exercises.
I'm not good in it.
Which means that I have to THINK to get the job done.
And thinking is SLOW.
If you realize that about 30% of the problems at CTS are DOUBLE ATTACKS, and that the microdrills are designed for DOUBLE ATTACKS, and that I do the microdrills SLOW, there is reason enough to do this experiment. Better late than never, as an old Chinese saying goes.
Doing massive repetitions of problems clearly didn't lead to a faster doing of microdrills. Now let's see of doing microdrills leads to faster solving of double attack based problems.
Have I finally arrived at the end of the rainbow, is it the wrong end! %&*#!
Saturday, September 16, 2006
The season has begun
The Dutch chess season has begun. Every week we go to our club to play an unrated game G120.
Today I drawed against our club champion who has a rating of 1965. Our styles don't match. I can never get grip on his position, while he can't stand my unorthodox openings. Every year it is getting tougher for him to beat me. I have more draws against him than losses lately. But I never managed to win. He used to have a rating of 2200, but he is slightly going backwards each year.
Today I drawed against our club champion who has a rating of 1965. Our styles don't match. I can never get grip on his position, while he can't stand my unorthodox openings. Every year it is getting tougher for him to beat me. I have more draws against him than losses lately. But I never managed to win. He used to have a rating of 2200, but he is slightly going backwards each year.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Counting
I wanted to know what the solution time is in relation to the times I have seen the problem before:
The selection is a bit wee (56), but it is a lot of work and there are other things to do.
The first 40,000 repetitions of 64,000 are not taken into account, since the history of CTS is somewhat short for unknown reasons.
| #times seen before | #problems | avg seconds | median seconds |
| 0 | 5 | 11.0 | 8.6 |
| 1 | 15 | 11.4 | 7.9 |
| 2 | 15 | 7.5 | 5.1 |
| 3 | 11 | 8.1 | 6.2 |
| 4 | 5 | 6.9 | 5.0 |
| 5 | 3 | 8.9 | 6.1 |
| 6 | 1 | 3.1 | 3.1 |
| 7 | 1 | 2.3 | 2.3 |
The selection is a bit wee (56), but it is a lot of work and there are other things to do.
The first 40,000 repetitions of 64,000 are not taken into account, since the history of CTS is somewhat short for unknown reasons.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
More research
Yesterday I found that I was familiar with almost all problems that I had right at CTS. Today I investigated how familiar the wrong answers were. I had a look at 32 failures at CTS.
Here is the distribution of how often I had seen the problems before I did them wrong:
I had seen 6 problems 0 times before, 8 problems once, etc..
The problems that I had seen never or only once, looked unfamiliar or vague to me while the rest looked familiar.
The familiar problems I had wrong because I fell for "cheapos".
That is basically what happens when you try to speed up familiar problems: you fall for cheapo's while gambling. So the school that goes for accuracy at CTS is definitely right.
But neither the school of accuracy nor the school that aims for speed at CTS has found a method to improve the speed of solving familiar problems at CTS.
So the question arises: how often have I seen the problems before that I solve right and fast?
This is the distribution of the problems I solved correctly within 3.0 seconds:
The relation between more repetitions and fast solving is not as clear cut as I would like. Maybe due to the wee problemset involved? The fact that unknown problems can be solved in 3 seconds without repetition is encouraging though.
So the question remains: is massive repetition the only method to faster solving or is there a better way?
Here is the distribution of how often I had seen the problems before I did them wrong:
| #times seen before | #problems | familiarity |
| 0 | 6 | new |
| 1 | 8 | vague |
| 2 | 11 | familiar |
| 3 | 4 | familiar |
| 4 | 2 | familiar |
| 5 | 0 | familiar |
| 6 | 1 | familiar |
| 1.75 avg | 32 |
I had seen 6 problems 0 times before, 8 problems once, etc..
The problems that I had seen never or only once, looked unfamiliar or vague to me while the rest looked familiar.
The familiar problems I had wrong because I fell for "cheapos".
That is basically what happens when you try to speed up familiar problems: you fall for cheapo's while gambling. So the school that goes for accuracy at CTS is definitely right.
But neither the school of accuracy nor the school that aims for speed at CTS has found a method to improve the speed of solving familiar problems at CTS.
So the question arises: how often have I seen the problems before that I solve right and fast?
This is the distribution of the problems I solved correctly within 3.0 seconds:
| #times seen before | #problems |
| 0 | 2 |
| 1 | 2 |
| 2 | 4 |
| 3 | 2 |
| 4 | 2 |
| 5 | 2 |
| 6 | 2 |
| 15 | 1 |
| 3.5 avg | 17 |
The relation between more repetitions and fast solving is not as clear cut as I would like. Maybe due to the wee problemset involved? The fact that unknown problems can be solved in 3 seconds without repetition is encouraging though.
So the question remains: is massive repetition the only method to faster solving or is there a better way?
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Surprising discovery
Today I had a closer look at my performance at CTS.
I did a series of 70 problems. I had 15 errors. The average solving time from the other 55 problems was 8.4 seconds. During the solution of the problems I counted the problems that I recognized. Much to my surprise that was close to 100% of the problems!
So the problem is not that I have not memorized the patterns, since I have.
The problem is that my braincells still need 8.4 seconds to release the answer at average!
That's why my rating doesn't increase at CTS while I learned more patterns.
The question arises if this is a matter of stockpiling the patterns in the wrong memory or is it a pre-phase of storing them in the right memory?
I did a series of 70 problems. I had 15 errors. The average solving time from the other 55 problems was 8.4 seconds. During the solution of the problems I counted the problems that I recognized. Much to my surprise that was close to 100% of the problems!
So the problem is not that I have not memorized the patterns, since I have.
The problem is that my braincells still need 8.4 seconds to release the answer at average!
That's why my rating doesn't increase at CTS while I learned more patterns.
The question arises if this is a matter of stockpiling the patterns in the wrong memory or is it a pre-phase of storing them in the right memory?
Sunday, September 10, 2006
Terra incognita
The last 3 weeks I focussed on repeating old sessions of CTS. I memorized about 1200 positions. If our old theory of 1 problem=1 pattern and 34 patterns=1 ratingpoint is correct, that should lead to an improvement of 35 ratingpoints at CTS. But I noticed no improvement whatsoever. Even a little decline. There are two possible explanations for this. The first is that this is a normal statistical anomaly. I have seen that in the past. But I have never seen that it lasted for 3 weeks.
The other explanation is that the theory isn't correct.
So we might have found extra circumstancial evidence that massive repetition isn't the way to go.
I reworked my system of mates with The Mother Of All Mates (MOAM).
I found 29 MOAM. They are derived from King of the Spills unsurpassed Fundamental Checkmates. If you look at the 29 MOAM I think that everybody would agree why there are exactly 29 and not 28 or 30.
From this I derived 55 variants of MOAM by adding pieces to the positions. This happened on a somewhat subjective base, and possibly I missed a few important ones. I tried to define the positions that the mind sees as unique. Since we don't know how the mind works, this is under investigation.
From the point where we are arrived now I can go in two directions:
I can go in the direction of more diversity. The 55 mates are end positions. There are probably a few hundreds (pre-) positions that lead in a forced way to these 55 end positions. These "pre-positions" are possibly the ones to store in our system.
The other direction is to search for "vision". MDLM had a few vision-drills. If the geometric essentials of the 29 MOAM can be found, maybe sophisticated drills can be developed which would help to let the mates "pop up".
If I look in the direction of more diversity, I can see no end. So I start with research on "vision".
The other explanation is that the theory isn't correct.
So we might have found extra circumstancial evidence that massive repetition isn't the way to go.
I reworked my system of mates with The Mother Of All Mates (MOAM).
I found 29 MOAM. They are derived from King of the Spills unsurpassed Fundamental Checkmates. If you look at the 29 MOAM I think that everybody would agree why there are exactly 29 and not 28 or 30.
From this I derived 55 variants of MOAM by adding pieces to the positions. This happened on a somewhat subjective base, and possibly I missed a few important ones. I tried to define the positions that the mind sees as unique. Since we don't know how the mind works, this is under investigation.
From the point where we are arrived now I can go in two directions:
I can go in the direction of more diversity. The 55 mates are end positions. There are probably a few hundreds (pre-) positions that lead in a forced way to these 55 end positions. These "pre-positions" are possibly the ones to store in our system.
The other direction is to search for "vision". MDLM had a few vision-drills. If the geometric essentials of the 29 MOAM can be found, maybe sophisticated drills can be developed which would help to let the mates "pop up".
If I look in the direction of more diversity, I can see no end. So I start with research on "vision".
Friday, September 08, 2006
Basic mate patterns
I found all 55 basic mate patterns to mate a black king on the backrank.
The position of the black king can be from b8 to to g8.
So I didn't cover the mates with the king at the left or right rim, nor the mates with the king in the middle of the board. Yet.
All other mates are lookalikes from the 55 basic patterns.
Before I cover other mates or other traps I'm going to experiment with these 55 positions to see if a viable system can be developed. The 55 basic positions are END-positions. Since every end position can be achieved via different pathways, the amount of basic positions can multiply.
Let's experiment!
The position of the black king can be from b8 to to g8.
So I didn't cover the mates with the king at the left or right rim, nor the mates with the king in the middle of the board. Yet.
All other mates are lookalikes from the 55 basic patterns.
Before I cover other mates or other traps I'm going to experiment with these 55 positions to see if a viable system can be developed. The 55 basic positions are END-positions. Since every end position can be achieved via different pathways, the amount of basic positions can multiply.
Let's experiment!
Thursday, September 07, 2006
Following the logic
Yesterday I developed a logical theory about the basic patterns and their lookalikes. Since I have to obey logic, the road ahead is evident as Hobson's choice. Today I analized a set of 68 problems. The set was derived from CTS by me doing them wrong. It's far from clear how general or biassed the problemset of CTS actually is, since they don't answer questions about it. But now I personal picked them myself by doing them wrong, it is at least clear that it is not a representative set of problems. But I do them wrong while good chessplayers don't, that's good enough for me.
I analysed the tactical key elements of the problemset:
So a trap played a role in 32 of the 68 problems.
In 24 of the cases the trap played a KEY role and in 8 of the cases a NON KEY role. This division is rather subjective of course but hey, it's my blog.
For me a mate is just an instance of all possible traps. A mate is trapping the king.
It is possible to refine the traps by the piece which is trapped:
There are zillion possible traps. My theory presumes that there are a few hundreds of basic patterns and the rest are lookalikes. First I will try to identify the basic patterns. After that I will try to find a method to store the basic patterns into LTM by frying pigs on an open fire or whatever method seems suitable. Recognition of the remaining zillion lookalike patterns should be a piece of cake by that famous pattern recognition lobe of the brains.
A trap is one of the most complex tactics around. To make the start easier, I begin with mates. There are allready some lists around at the web which could be of help.
Wish me luck.
I analysed the tactical key elements of the problemset:
| Tactic | Key element | Non key element |
| Trap | 24 | 8 |
| Double attack | 18 | 3 |
| Pin | 12 | 5 |
| Discovered attack | 7 | 1 |
| Skewer | 2 | 3 |
| Overworked piece | 2 | |
| Intermediate move | 1 | 2 |
| Stalemate | 1 | |
| Invasion | 1 | 1 |
| Total | 68 | 23 |
So a trap played a role in 32 of the 68 problems.
In 24 of the cases the trap played a KEY role and in 8 of the cases a NON KEY role. This division is rather subjective of course but hey, it's my blog.
For me a mate is just an instance of all possible traps. A mate is trapping the king.
It is possible to refine the traps by the piece which is trapped:
| Trapped piece | Key trap | Non key trap | Total |
| King | 16 | 8 | 24 |
| Queen | 4 | 4 | |
| Rook | 1 | 1 | |
| Bishop | 2 | 2 | |
| Knight | 1 | 1 | |
| Total | 24 | 8 | 32 |
There are zillion possible traps. My theory presumes that there are a few hundreds of basic patterns and the rest are lookalikes. First I will try to identify the basic patterns. After that I will try to find a method to store the basic patterns into LTM by frying pigs on an open fire or whatever method seems suitable. Recognition of the remaining zillion lookalike patterns should be a piece of cake by that famous pattern recognition lobe of the brains.
A trap is one of the most complex tactics around. To make the start easier, I begin with mates. There are allready some lists around at the web which could be of help.
Wish me luck.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Time out
We have found a lot of interesting stuff lately. Especially the analogy with pattern recognition and clouds is very strong (see the comment on my previous post). On the other hand my fellow bloggers Mouse, Takchess and Sciurus remind me that there are still some loose ends to cover.
What have we found thus far?
The mind is very economical. From objects only a few remarkable outlines are stored in memory. Most of the picture isn't stored at all.
When you need the picture because you want to think about it in your minds eye, the outlines are recovered from memory and the details are reconstructed on the fly.
You can easely see this for yourself.
If you try to visualise your attic (or garage, or shed or whatever) for your minds eye, what you see is very incomplete. It is not as if you are in your attic and can easely look around. You see only a few outlines, and when you try to focus on details, you have to fantasize them, to reconstruct them. But most details remain simply in the mist. They are not there since you haven't stored them in your memory. (Or if you have, you can't reach them.)
The same is true for a chessboard. You can easely see for your minds eye a rook going from d1 to a6. That is because we have always worked with tables with columns and rows. But if you try to see a bishop going from c1 to a7 in your minds eye, it is very difficult to focus on the crosspoint. That is because we are only familiar with the long diagonals and not the remaining diagonals.
Isn't that funny?
Allthough we have spend days and weeks on end behind a chessboard, we have only so little of its geometry stored into our memory.
Postulate:
A pattern you haven't stored in your memory you can't recognize and you can't visualize it.
Once you have a pattern stored in your memory, you can recognize it even in a very distorted position, and you can visualize it.
This is the reason why grandmasters are always good blind players (and good blitz players), without special training.
Until now I always used the hypothesis that 1 problem is 1 pattern.
Science did an educated guess -solely based on the amount of hours a grandmaster spends to become a grandmaster- that a grandmaster has stored 50,000 - 100,000 patterns in his memory. This gave me no reason to cast any doubts on the correctness of the hypothesis of 1 problem = 1 pattern.
This hypothesis lead to my maniacal behaviour at CTS, since I wanted to store these 23,508 patterns of CTS as quick as possible.
My fellow bloggers Mouse, Takchess and Sciurus casted doubts on this theory in their respective comments and posts.
Sciurus drew our attention to the fact that grandmasters in the past had become grandmaster without computers and without massive repetition.
I dismissed that fact with the argument that they were young and we are adults so what they did has no relevance for us.
Which is a complicated way to say I have no idea how they did it.
But thinking things over, I realized that MDLM didn't make use of massive repetitions either and he was an adult. I hope you don't mind that I call 1209 x 7 NOT massive repetition of patterns.
MDLM used, according to my hypothesis, only 1209 patterns. Why did he become so good so fast? I always had the feeling he forgot something important to tell us. He did something what was natural for him -but not for us- and he didn't realize that it was important to mention it. I often wondered what that could be.
The scientific estimation of 50,000-100,000 patterns stored by a grandmaster has put me on the wrong foot. Let's have a closer look.
White: 2 pieces, a rook and a bishop
Black: 2 targets, a king and a queen
How many ways are there for a discovered attack for white to attack both the black king and queen: 65,280
How many patterns do you have to store to recognize this patterns a tempo in any position?
Somewhere between 1 and 65,280.
Can it be 65,280? If that was the case then probably no one would ever recognize this pattern.
Can it be only 1? I suggested this in a previous post. Most of us feel that 1 is to little. If I look at this specific discovered attack, I think that 4 or 5 positions are basic positions while the rest are lookalikes. So you have to store only 4-5 patterns and you can recognize all 65,280 positions with it. That's the power of pattern recognition.
We have to take a fresh look at it.
People have an amazing ability to recognize a once stored pattern. Even if a cloud is very distorted, you can see a rabbit in it. What you can't do however, is to recognize a pattern that you haven't stored.
How simple is it to store a pattern? We allready found that the brains are very economically with the storage of patterns. Even if you have looked for weeks on end at a chessboard during your games, most geometric details aren't stored in our memory. Why not? We have an idea of the global shape of our country on a map. But how many details can we draw of the various states, provinces, cantons or regions?
When we find out how to store patterns, and we identify the relevant basic patterns, we might be able to make a quantum leap forward.
Yesterday I said I don't have the patterns of Oklahoma or Switzerland stored in my system. I have looked at the map of both. Today I have a clear picture in mind of Oklahoma, but the picture of Switzerland remains pretty vague. The reason for this is that Jim said that Oklahoma looked like a frying pan on an open fire, while Switzerland hasn't such characteristic features. The map of Oklahoma has a lot of straight lines, what is a familiar pattern, while Switzerland consist of ravels, and I don't know how to remember these.
So it might very well be that there are only a few hundreds patterns to master, but that we have no idea how to do it.
Research continued.
What have we found thus far?
The mind is very economical. From objects only a few remarkable outlines are stored in memory. Most of the picture isn't stored at all.
When you need the picture because you want to think about it in your minds eye, the outlines are recovered from memory and the details are reconstructed on the fly.
You can easely see this for yourself.
If you try to visualise your attic (or garage, or shed or whatever) for your minds eye, what you see is very incomplete. It is not as if you are in your attic and can easely look around. You see only a few outlines, and when you try to focus on details, you have to fantasize them, to reconstruct them. But most details remain simply in the mist. They are not there since you haven't stored them in your memory. (Or if you have, you can't reach them.)
The same is true for a chessboard. You can easely see for your minds eye a rook going from d1 to a6. That is because we have always worked with tables with columns and rows. But if you try to see a bishop going from c1 to a7 in your minds eye, it is very difficult to focus on the crosspoint. That is because we are only familiar with the long diagonals and not the remaining diagonals.
Isn't that funny?
Allthough we have spend days and weeks on end behind a chessboard, we have only so little of its geometry stored into our memory.
Postulate:
A pattern you haven't stored in your memory you can't recognize and you can't visualize it.
Once you have a pattern stored in your memory, you can recognize it even in a very distorted position, and you can visualize it.
This is the reason why grandmasters are always good blind players (and good blitz players), without special training.
Until now I always used the hypothesis that 1 problem is 1 pattern.
Science did an educated guess -solely based on the amount of hours a grandmaster spends to become a grandmaster- that a grandmaster has stored 50,000 - 100,000 patterns in his memory. This gave me no reason to cast any doubts on the correctness of the hypothesis of 1 problem = 1 pattern.
This hypothesis lead to my maniacal behaviour at CTS, since I wanted to store these 23,508 patterns of CTS as quick as possible.
My fellow bloggers Mouse, Takchess and Sciurus casted doubts on this theory in their respective comments and posts.
Sciurus drew our attention to the fact that grandmasters in the past had become grandmaster without computers and without massive repetition.
I dismissed that fact with the argument that they were young and we are adults so what they did has no relevance for us.
Which is a complicated way to say I have no idea how they did it.
But thinking things over, I realized that MDLM didn't make use of massive repetitions either and he was an adult. I hope you don't mind that I call 1209 x 7 NOT massive repetition of patterns.
MDLM used, according to my hypothesis, only 1209 patterns. Why did he become so good so fast? I always had the feeling he forgot something important to tell us. He did something what was natural for him -but not for us- and he didn't realize that it was important to mention it. I often wondered what that could be.
The scientific estimation of 50,000-100,000 patterns stored by a grandmaster has put me on the wrong foot. Let's have a closer look.
White: 2 pieces, a rook and a bishop
Black: 2 targets, a king and a queen
How many ways are there for a discovered attack for white to attack both the black king and queen: 65,280
How many patterns do you have to store to recognize this patterns a tempo in any position?
Somewhere between 1 and 65,280.
Can it be 65,280? If that was the case then probably no one would ever recognize this pattern.
Can it be only 1? I suggested this in a previous post. Most of us feel that 1 is to little. If I look at this specific discovered attack, I think that 4 or 5 positions are basic positions while the rest are lookalikes. So you have to store only 4-5 patterns and you can recognize all 65,280 positions with it. That's the power of pattern recognition.
We have to take a fresh look at it.
People have an amazing ability to recognize a once stored pattern. Even if a cloud is very distorted, you can see a rabbit in it. What you can't do however, is to recognize a pattern that you haven't stored.
How simple is it to store a pattern? We allready found that the brains are very economically with the storage of patterns. Even if you have looked for weeks on end at a chessboard during your games, most geometric details aren't stored in our memory. Why not? We have an idea of the global shape of our country on a map. But how many details can we draw of the various states, provinces, cantons or regions?
When we find out how to store patterns, and we identify the relevant basic patterns, we might be able to make a quantum leap forward.
Yesterday I said I don't have the patterns of Oklahoma or Switzerland stored in my system. I have looked at the map of both. Today I have a clear picture in mind of Oklahoma, but the picture of Switzerland remains pretty vague. The reason for this is that Jim said that Oklahoma looked like a frying pan on an open fire, while Switzerland hasn't such characteristic features. The map of Oklahoma has a lot of straight lines, what is a familiar pattern, while Switzerland consist of ravels, and I don't know how to remember these.
So it might very well be that there are only a few hundreds patterns to master, but that we have no idea how to do it.
Research continued.
Sunday, September 03, 2006
Down memory lane
New memories are labile. If you learn a sequence of finger taps, and soon after you learn a second sequence, the skills (speed and accuracy) of the first sequence is disrupted by interference.
Over a period of several hours, the memory undergoes consolidation, making it resistant against interference. Now learning a second sequence will not disrupt the first.
Surprisingly after a memory has been consolidated, brief rehearsel returns the memory into a labile state. Normally rehearsel would refine the learnt sequence. However this can also have negative consequences. After a brief rehearsel of sequence 1, the memory becomes labile. If you you then practice sequence 2, the skills of sequence 1 will be reduced.
Memories improve during sleep. The performance of a learnt motor skill is enhanced during the night.
I have done quite a few experiments lately to find out what's the best schedule. Those experiments revealed a lot of delusions in my thinking about memory. I always thought it would be best to wait untill a memory has sunken into the mud before you rehearse it. But that's not how it works best. The brains learn best when it is in a labile state. So the first session I train, I do the problemset 4-5 times in a row, until I can do them without thinking. The second training session must follow before the memory is forgotten! Typical whithin 24 hours. Here is where spaced repetition comes in. In the second session I repeat the set 1-2 times, until I can do it without thinking. The third session must be done too before the memory has faded. And so on.
Since a few days I work according to this scheme. I'll keep you informed about the results.
The discussion about socks and amount of patterns hasn't lead to a definite conclusion yet. It's time to think it over and work thinks out. You can't sow and harvest on the same day as an old chinese saying goes.
Over a period of several hours, the memory undergoes consolidation, making it resistant against interference. Now learning a second sequence will not disrupt the first.
Surprisingly after a memory has been consolidated, brief rehearsel returns the memory into a labile state. Normally rehearsel would refine the learnt sequence. However this can also have negative consequences. After a brief rehearsel of sequence 1, the memory becomes labile. If you you then practice sequence 2, the skills of sequence 1 will be reduced.
Memories improve during sleep. The performance of a learnt motor skill is enhanced during the night.
I have done quite a few experiments lately to find out what's the best schedule. Those experiments revealed a lot of delusions in my thinking about memory. I always thought it would be best to wait untill a memory has sunken into the mud before you rehearse it. But that's not how it works best. The brains learn best when it is in a labile state. So the first session I train, I do the problemset 4-5 times in a row, until I can do them without thinking. The second training session must follow before the memory is forgotten! Typical whithin 24 hours. Here is where spaced repetition comes in. In the second session I repeat the set 1-2 times, until I can do it without thinking. The third session must be done too before the memory has faded. And so on.
Since a few days I work according to this scheme. I'll keep you informed about the results.
The discussion about socks and amount of patterns hasn't lead to a definite conclusion yet. It's time to think it over and work thinks out. You can't sow and harvest on the same day as an old chinese saying goes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
