Loomis asked me:
I'm very interested to see an example or two of problems that you spend 4 hours on. I have a feeling that I don't have the discipline that you do to spend that much time on a problem. :-).
White to move.
White to move.
I don't look at this as actual problemsolving. I see it as an investigation.
The main question is: how can I solve a position as this OTB in 3 minutes (the average time per move).
I use a few minutes in an attempt to solve it. Then I go to the solution and work out all variations with the aid of Arena.
Then I try to find out why I missed what I missed. Then I try to found out what the specific characteristics are of what I missed. What is needed to recognize all important elements of the position within 3 minutes? What happens in my mind? What kind of exercise would I need to train this?
So it isn't a matter of discipline to look for so long at one position. It is a matter of curiosity.
Since the questions I ask myself are the same, it doesn't matter if I investigate 1 problem or 100 problems to try and find the answers on these very questions.
My latest discovery is (the importance of) interference.
My penultimate discovery was that there is a difference between the series of subsequent moves (with moves A, B en C as seperate moves in time, my usual way of looking at a position) and a geometrical pattern (where A, B and C are visible at the same time in one spacial pattern).
The Life and Chess of Bobby Fischer
2 hours ago