The terms I used in my post yesterday can easely lead to false associations. That's why I want to propose to use the following nomenclature:
- Laminar chess - Opening or endgame. No special name needed, since the term was only introduced to express the analogy with ideas from the chaos theory.
- Turbulent chess - Subtle chess. The piece activity is still below a certain treshold. Play is characterized by gaining little advantages which build up to a great advantage.
- Chaotic chess - Brilliant chess. The piece activity is beyond a certain treshold. Resulting in a complexity beyond the limits of the brains of mortal man. Here are brilliancy prices to be won.
Subtle chess and brilliant chess are used to express the difference in style what usual is expressed by a positional style and a tactical style. But since the latter expressions express a kind of opposition that is non existent, it is better to use the terms subtle chess and brilliant chess. Tactics can appear everywhere in the game from the opening, the endgame, in subtle chess and in brilliant chess.
With hindsight I can say that my new approach to chess was aiming at subtle chess. But how useful will that be in the light of the new discoveries I made yesterday?
Subtle chess is associated with draws. Capablanca was an exponent of subtle chess and he predicted the end of chess because of this.
Brilliant chess is associated with playing for the win.
44% of all played games end in a draw. If I equal the non-draws by subtle chess to the draws by brilliant chess I get a typical Temposchluckerian hypothesis that in 44% of the games subtle chess plays a major role. And in 56% of the cases brilliant chess.
The common thought and advice is, that when there are no tactics around, you have to improve your position. When Blue Devil asked me how I used my time when there are no tactics around, I started an investigation and was shocked by what I found. When there was no evident tactic I mainly stared paralized to the position in an attempt to find one. Once I discovered that, I decided to follow common advice, and try to improve my position in stead. Since I proved to be very bad in positional exercises, this promised to be a panacee.
After my discovery that piece activity is paramount in position improvement, I decided to go for it. Since I never do things half-heartedly, I wanted to adopt an old mans repertoire (a la J'adoube or King of the Spill), as I would have called it earlier.
Despite the advice of some worried fellow Knights like Nezha and Takchess who warned me for mentally going downhill, missing the true purpose of the game.
But now comes an important point.
My discovery yesterday is that brilliant chess consists for only a little part of tactics. I consider the position of yesterday as an example of brilliant chess. There is -to my non brilliant chessmind- no evident tactic in the position. The pieces are already very active, and the suggestion to improve your position looks rather absurd.
And so I'm staring paralized at the position again. Not seeing a tactic, not seeing a method to improve my position.
This are the kind of positions I find my self in very often. Consuming time and hence accepting draws against lesser rated opponents or even losing in time trouble.
In the past I tried to solve this by doing more tactical exercises. But from tactical exercises you get better in tactics and not in common brilliant chess.
Until yesterday I thought that subtle chess would be the panacee.
But before that, I have to ask myself the following question:
Is it possible to improve in (non tactical) brilliant chess?
In order to find out I start with the position of yesterday. If I cannot come to a definite conclusion about this position, I certainly cannot know how to train it.
The first thing is to develop a strategy to approach this kind of positions.
While pondering about the position I was struck by the following: the position is ruled by concrete variations. Common rules don't work. And what is more, the initiative is paramount.
The same geometrical position has to be judged quite different in answer to the question "who is to move?". This sheds another light on pattern recognition. Where concrete variations rule, the move you are going to make MUST keep the initiative. After some thought, this means that the candidate move MUST be a threat, capture or check. This reduces the possible moves considerably. If you are the underdog in the possition, life is simple. You have to react to your opponent. And of course you try to catch the initiative yourself.
The coming time I'm going to investigate the rules that govern the initiative. What to think of patzer sees check, patzer gives check. What seems to be no good. Or the threat is stronger than the execution. Because it hands over the initiative. I'll be back on this later.
In the mean time I continue to listen to video's of mastergames and to experiment with the old mans repertoire in my cc-games.
Update: proofreading by others showed that the main point didn't come across. If the same happens to you, don't despair, I certainly will work it out in the future.