Blitz as test, not as exercise

The past few days I have played about 85 blitz games (G/10) in order to find out if I could use blitz play to train my scan habits. Allthough I resolved to scan before every single game, I didn't manage to actually do so during the game. With 10 minutes there is so little time that I can only work on my usual autopilot, in trial and error mode. I just forget to scan.

So alas blitz play isn't suitable to train scan habits. Since you play on autopilot, habits are paramount in blitz. That makes it an ideal method to test your scan habits. Despite my scan training the past month (DaBattPinOlC) my blitz rating hasn't improved.

Maybe I have to admit that Phaedrus and DLM are right, and is transfer from training to OTB a separate problem alltogether. I hoped that my approach would work around this, but obviously that hope turned out to be in vain. It's a pity, because I like to play blitz.

Discipline powered low level drills

The program of Mike Anderson is the best way by far to do the concentric circles. It helps to see a double attack or a skewer within no time (1.7 seconds/5 days). I get more and more convinced that being able to do these simple elementary tasks at lightning speed is the root of more complex skills. Just as Troyis was an ideal program to learn to move the knight in a limited space.

Concern.
The main concern of this kind of programs is: is the learned skill important, fruitfull and sufficiently common. In the case of the concentric circles it is, in the case of Troyis it isn't.

Maurice Ashley has made a CD with a lot of this kind of exercises (Maurice Ashley teaches chess). Those exercises are excellent for novices. For more seasoned players those exercises don't meet our major concern though.

I found out that with a little discipline it is possible to transform those too simple exercises. Take for instance the following escape exercise. You have to move the white knight while the computer chases you with the black pieces. In general there is always at least one way to go.




















White to move and escape.

In itself it is a simple exercise for novices. But I add the discipline to look at every square where the knight can go before I move. In that way it becomes a knight sight exercise a la DLM.

It kills two birds with one stone:

• the exercise meets our concern for frequency and effectiveness
• the program supplies a sufficient amount of exercises in a short time, so that you can develop a habit within days. Just like Troyis and the program of Mike Anderson.

This way I hope to improve my knight sight, since the standard method of DLM with a board and pieces is so boring and time consuming that it is too difficult for me to develop a habit.

The missing scans

In my previous post I arrived at the conclusion that I had no adequate scans for knightforks and for prelimanary moves. The diagram below shows that point quite well. There is a knightfork possible on f6, but both the white knight and the targets aren't in place yet (K on h7 and Q on e8). Some prelimanary moves are needed to get the job done.
























White to move

But how do you train for such invisible knightforks? The prelimanary moves can be found by thinking, once the pattern of the fork is recognized. The prelimanry moves don't seem to be the problem. But how do you know which virtual fork has good chances to bear fruit? How to scan for this?

A tribute to Mike Anderson

Speeding up















Glenn Wilson drawed our attention to the nifty program of Mike Anderson. Since I experienced trouble with my double attack-scan I decided to use his program.

The scan for double attacks is quite time consuming and so far I haven't seen hardly any habit forming to speed things up or to make it easier. It is a compound scan and maybe it works better to train the constituent parts seperately. To that end I'm experimenting with Mike's great little program.

The program is based on the microdrills of DLM. Let me demonstrate.
























White to place a queen.

The problem is where you should place a white queen in order to attack both targets simultaneously in a way that you win the rook. To solve this you need to scan for the following:

• where do the diagonals which radiate from the rook intersect with the lines that radiate from the king?
• can you skewer?
• can the rook intercept the check? (that's why the queen can't stand on b3 in the diagram)
  
• can the king protect the rook?

Even such simple scan has 4 constituent parts already which have to be checked seperately. I strive for a speed of 2.6 seconds per mouseclick. When I try to do it faster the mouse handling begins to interfere. Any slower means that I'm thinking in stead of applying a habit.

In stead of a rook and a king the program enables you to do the same exercise with a bishop and a king, which is a comparable exercise, except that you scan for the horizontal and vertical lines that go out from the bishop in stead of the diagonals.

The program give you the possibility to use a knight and a king, which combines the exercises of rook-king and bishop-king. That is to say, you scan for all the lines that radiate from the knight for intersection with the lines radiating from the king. Be it horizontal-, vertical- or diagonal lines. Besides that, an extra element is added:
























White to place a queen.

With a knight close to the rim of the board you have an extra possibility to win it. You can place the queen on the squares with the blue edge where she attacks both the knight and all of it's escape squares. That's a different kind of double attack. It doesn't make a difference where the black king is, as long as it is far enough away to prevent the knight from jumping into safety.

The exercise with the knight takes me 15 minutes (5.3 seconds per move). I want to be able to do it in under 12 minutes (2.6 seconds per move).

Thanks for sharing your program, Mike!

What is not adressed.
The program gives me an opportunity to improve on the constituent parts of the double attack. There are two parts of the double attack that are not adressed by the program though:

• knightforks
• replacement of targets

Knightforks.
The movement of a knight is quite alien to the human mind. The knightvision exercises of DLM are not really making me happy. I haven't found a good alternative though. The checks for knightforks consumes a considerable amount of time of the total double attack-scan.

Replacement of targets.
You don't want to scan for double attacks that are manifest on the board solely. You want to know if there are any potential double attacks too. There are a few techniques and prelimanry moves to place targets on the spots that are under attack:

• Trade. You can trade a target piece with a low value, thus forcing a takeback with a piece of a higher value.
• Annahilation of the defender of a target. Thus making the target ready to pluck.
• Deflection of the defender of a target.
• Decoying a target to the right spot.
• Etc..

Especially difficult to see is if the target is an empty square.

If I am able to adress these omissions and if I could proof that you can learn a habit by training it's constituent parts, that would be a major leap forward in the theory of chess improvement with the aid of habit forming.

Heads I win, tails you lose

Lurking dangers















After a few years of conscientious blogging about chess only I hope you don't mind some off topic rant.

I have been thinking a lot about the phenomenon confirmation bias lately. It is very worthwhile to read the article of Wiki aboout this. If you want something to be true, you ignore reality and you only see what confirms your ideas. There is a sort of buffering what excludes non confirming ideas from entering alltogether.

[Wiki]
The effect is also known as belief bias, belief preservation, belief overkill, hypothesis locking, polarization effect, positive bias, the Tolstoy syndrome, selective thinking, myside bias, Plate pick-up and Morton's demon.

Alternately, Murphy's Law of Research dictates that "Enough research will tend to support your theory."
[/Wiki]

A few years ago Margriet and I stayed at a chess camping in France. There was a guy from Belgium. In Belgium they have a language border. Everybody who is not from Belgium cannot imagine what that is. This guy was from the French speaking side. The enemy speaks Dutch. Since he knew we were from the Netherlands, he spoke Dutch to us. We had a good contact with him and we played a lot of games. After two weeks we decided to ask him about the language border, since inquiring minds need to know. All of a sudden he started to speak French and he pretended that he couldn't understand Dutch. Margriet and I were quite perplexed. No matter what we said, he refused to talk Dutch anymore.

Confirmation bias seems to be based on emotions. Those emotions prevent logical thinking. There are quite a few problems with this:

• The truth is denied
• Any attempt from outside to adress logical reason is placed in the camp of the enemy
• Logic reason is replaced by emotions.
• Emotions are more powerfull than logical thoughts.
• Emotions are much faster than logical thoughts.
• It is contageous.
• It is incomprehendsible for outsiders
  

Confirmation bias seems to be very common. So common that we tend to deny that it effects us. Which in itself is an example of confirmation bias.

The Belgium language war suffices all criteria above.
To me it seems that confirmation bias is the root of all wars, quarrels and misunderstandings. I'm very surprised there is so little scientific interest for such life influencing problem.

Everywhere where you see something incomprehendsible in social or political relations you can be sure that confirmation bias is the root. Take the following examples:

• The lauguage barrier in Belgium.
• The Chinese ambassador in our country once said: I would rather give up an arm than to lose Taiwan.
  
• Denial of the Armenian genocide by Turkey.
• Claiming of Cyprus by both Greece and Turkye.
• Claiming of the Kuril Islands by both Russia and Japan.
• The claiming of Tibet by China.
• The problems of muslims with pictures of the Prophet.

These problems have in common that they are quite incomprehendsible for outsiders and there are a lot of emotions involved.

I have taken great pains to find out what the confirmation bias was of the Germans in WWII. To that end I read mein Kampf from Hitler. The main idea was that the Germans were something special. Übermenschen. To us, who live next door to them, such idea would only give rise to risibility. If we think about Übermenschen, the Germans wouldn't be in the top ten at all. But no matter how illogical and ridicule the ideas are, they proved to be very contageous.

The problem is that outsiders tend to take such ideas not serious, since they are so illogical and they can't imagine anything by the triggered emotions. But taking the ideas not serious can be quite dangerous, as history has proved. Confirmation bias is a highly contageous illness that can even influence those who try to prevent contamination. Before 9-11 I had no opinion at all about Muslims, what's more, I didn't wanted to have one. Due to Bin Laden I now have an opinion about them. Which was his goal. Confirmation bias causes polarization into two opposite camps. The ideas in both camps are necessarily biassed.

On smaller scale the same happens. Take for instance the confirmation bias of people towards Elizabeth Vicary. People drawing conclusions based on non existing facts.

That makes this post slightly chess related. Boards of chess clubs and chess federations tend to bicker every few years. It usually starts the same way: somebody does something for a reason that is incomprehendsible to others. In stead of asking "why do you do that?" they fill in the motivations of that person by themselves. Usually an evil motivation is presumed. On their turn they start to behave strange against that person, who suddenly founds himself accused of evil intentions. When he starts to defend himself a quarrel is born and emotions take over. It is the same everywhere. Take the FIDE, the USCF, the KNSB (dutch federation) etc. or maybe your own chessclub. Even the chess improvement scene is ruled by biassed cults:)

Positional scans, inventing my own wheel

Hard to spot.



















State of affairs of the tactical scans.
I have done about 300 masterlevel problems. The paralyzing stalling of the brain hasn't occurred anymore due to the scans. That is a big plus. I was pleasantly surprised by my pace and my accuracy. Some scans are difficult, some are easy and already start to become a habit.

• Double attacks. This is a difficult scan since there are often multiple possibilities which have to be examined. Further you need two targets at fork distance, but the targets aren't necessary already in place. Sometimes a preliminary move or trade is necessary. Besides that, an empty square can be a target too.
• Batteries. This is an easy scan. Both real and potential batteries are now recognized within seconds.
• Pins/skewers. This is an easy scan too, which I already am able to do in a few seconds. I discovered that there is a sort of "semi-pin". Usually that concerns the pawns that are in front of the opponents king. The aren't directly pinned, yet they can't move without causing great danger to the king. In combinations you treat them often as actual pins.
• Overloaded pieces. These are hard too spot. Often you have to trust on a feeling that the pieces are overloaded.
• Convergence squares. Sometimes hard to spot if there are many of them close together.

Scans that are concrete and not compound become a habit fast. Scans that are abstract and compound are difficult to learn. Maybe it must be divided in simpler subtasks.
The double attack-scan worries me the most. After 300 exercises I'm nowhere near a habit.

Positional scans.
I have thought a lot about the proper approach. I even re-read Buckley. There seem to be 3 major tasks in the middlegame which deserve 2 seperate scans.

• Improve your worst piece. Scan: identify your worst piece. This is something I definitely know but always forget to do. Once a bad piece is identified, I know how to activate it. The scan only is intended to make you aware of pieces that can perform better, not to tell you how to activate them.
  
• Induce weak pawns. Scan: identify which pawns can be forced to become weak.
• Attack weak pawns. Since you are already aware of them, no seperate scan is needed.

A downside is that both scans are compound scans. You have to examine every piece for the first scan and every pawn for the second scan. And both scans are pretty abstract too: How good or bad a piece is is rather subjective.

The tactical scans have some benefits for positional play too: targets are identified, convergence of pieces is a positional asset too, overloaded pieces indicate targets for attack etc..

There are two possibilities to train the two positional scans: use the strategy module of PCT and look if the scans lead you to the answers, or take a masterlevel game and go through it, performing the scans every move.

Cumulative analysis.
I tried this scan (again). But it is quite alien to my usual way of thinking and I don't expect the scans to become a habit in short time. So I decided to postpone it.

Cumulative analysis

Confusion. . .





















In order not to confuse you I had better not written this post. It is about a nagging idea which I can't get rid of, so in order to set me free I share it. Sorry, I don't mean to disturb you.

I'm completely happy with the scanmethods that I described in previous posts. And that is what I am training right now. In fact the method is a form of extended microdrills, with more practical value added.

The idea that I can't help thinking about might not be possible or practical at all. Yet there is a certain theoretical beauty in it that causes me to think about it.

The scan methods as described are useful in any position. I mean that you can break in in the middle of a game and start the diagnosis with these scans. It is quite useful to be able to do that. But that is not how we play. We play move by move, which means that theoreticly we can diagnose the game in a cumulative way. In order to do that, all consequences of a single move must be seen. That is quite a task. Maybe even too big to be practical. But it is the only way to prevent your positions from being accidental. I will try to explain it with a diagram.
























White to move

1.Ra7+ Ke8
Common practice is that I treat the new position as a new position. Which it is not. Let me focus at move 1. ... Ke8. If my diagnosis was up to date so far, then I have to look only at the cumulative effect of Ke8. That is to say: the black king leaves f7, which has certain effects, and he is put on e8, which has certain effects. An effect of the latter for instance being the interruption in the communication between the rooks. With cumulative analysis you have only to worry about the current move, since the cumulative effect of the previous moves is already known.

That is not how it works with me now. Since I don't look at the exact effect of every move, I must treat the new position as new. That is to say, I have to make a full scan of the position, as if I have never seen it before. If I'm lucky those scans reveal that the rook on b8 is no longer protected. In the position above it took me about a minute to see that. Simply because I was looking at other parts of the board first.

I wonder if it is possible to enlighten the task of cumulative analysis by making it a habit. That would change the feeling that I now often have: that a position befalls me accidently. That the features of the position seem to appear out of the blue.

Most miraculous problem ever.

Black to move

This is the weirdest problem I have ever seen. I had great problems to believe that it actually works!

At the club

Look at the right spots.























Ideas tested at the club.
Friday I tried my scansystem against an opponent against whom I have never won a single game over the years. He has about 200 ratingpoints more and my score is +0 =12 -3, which is actually quite good.
For some reason our play doesn't match. I cannot get grip on his pieces and he cannot get grip on my pieces. Our latest encounters were all draws.

Although the scans are still time- and effortconsuming I managed a few times to do the full scans during the game. That showed me that the amount of elementary tactical motifs was way below the average in a masterlevel problem. There were a few knightforks now and then, but then I had to put my knight on a square which it couldn't reach because it was solidly protected.

No tactical shots.
The scans told me with certainty that there were no viable tactical combinations around. (The game became a draw again.) That brings me to the next point. I'm very happy with the scans and I'm quite sure that it will get me lots of points once the habit is fully settled. Yet there are situations that there simply is no combination around. No matter how good your scans are. For this situation a positional scan must be invented.

Positional scans.
I'm sure that a positional scan will sound as trivial as the tactical scan after developing it, yet I must take the pains necessary to go through the process of formulating a positional mnemonic and testing it. The positive side of triviality is that it is the best way to keep things secret. The items, however trivial, are carefully selected from a bunch of irrelevant trivial items. The fact that the application of a mnemonic is subject to subtility and it needs considerable efforts to establish the habit is sufficient guarantee that my ideas will remain "secret" for the mass.

With a tactical approach the elementary tactical motifs seem to come out of the blue. A scanmethod is only invented to detect them once they arise accidentally during the game.
This raises the positional question: how can I put my pieces so that the tactical scans start to deliver positive results? In other words, how can I inflict my opponent with double attacks, batteries, pins, overloaded pieces and convergency squares?

First I need a strategy to do so. There is no doubt that a lot of it can be found in positional books. But before you can decide which positional path to go you must scan the features of the position at hand. That is where the yet to invent positional scans come in. In the coming time I will elaborate on this. Next to my daily tactical scan-drills.

Just a coïncidence?
I have done a vast of amount of experiments the past 3.5 years. It always surprised me that none of the exercises yielded any interest. You never get something extra for free. A positive side-effect which you had never thought of. There was always a direct relation between your efforts and what it brought you. While I'm solving masterlevel problems with the aid of the mnemonic, all of a sudden my intuition begun to work. The killermoves started to rise up in my brain and I didn't know where it came from. Just an urgent feeling to make the right move came up. I wonder if that is a coïncidence.

A few questions.
Likesforests wrote the following comment on my previous post:

Dabattpinolc, dabattpinolc, dabattpinolc. It seems like it can't be THAT easy but you have extreme experience studying tactics so I will also try this mnemonic out as I study tactics and report back my success or lack thereof. I have a feeling this will speed up my process, but won't be able to solve some positions, that have say a queen that can be trapped or somesuch that's not a DA BATT PIN OL C. What about the traditional checks, captures, and threats? Do you try that first? That sequence seems to crack simpler problems very quickly.

I understand the doubt that it can't be THAT easy. The difference is made by the following:
You can't educate your autopilot while you are on autopilot. The conditions are consciousness and an active attitude. You don't focus on the solution of a problem but on the scans that trigger the pattern recognition.

Some tactics are not included, like a queen trap. I have focussed on the bulk. Initially I had included traps in the mnemonic. Since I usually don't miss a queen trap, I dropped it. Feel free to include it yourself. I'm rather pragmatic and try to avoid any ballast. It is difficult enough as it is.

The scan for checks, captures and threats is designed to narrow down on the candiate moves. It is in fact a kind of an heuristic. The scans I suggest have another goal. In stead of narrowing down your view, it is widened. The used method is guided pattern recognition. Just make sure you look at all important spots and your pattern recognition will take over. I have tried CCT myself but it yields to much irrelevant moves.

That sequence seems to crack simpler problems very quickly.
I need no aid to crack simple problems.

Blue Devil asked:
Do you think what holds you back in chess is not finding the right move in complex tactical positions? E.g., is missing such things the reason you aren't 2000 rated?

Partly. The other part is the positional side of the story, as I explained above. The solution for both problems is the same though: guide your pattern recognition. Both tactical and positional.

The future

Now we are officially exposed as a cult I suggest some measures against those who offend our Hero. . . :)

After 136 masterlevel problems with the aid of my new mnemonic I get an idea what the future has in store.

No brain stalling anymore.
The mnemonic definitively solved my problem of a stalling brain due to complexity. Since the mnemonic comprises the most important tactical middlegame motifs, the complex position is broken down into it's simple elements, thus freeing brain resourses. I am very, very surprised that such simple means is so effective. In fact I start to find the masterlevel problems rather easy and I look forward for the more difficult ones deeper in the database.

Score 95%
The mnemonic leads me in 95% of the cases to the correct answer. That is remarkable, to say the least. There were two kinds of problems where the mnemonic wasn't sufficient to find the solution:

Visualisation.
In a few cases I wasn't able to visualize the tree of analysis to the end, so I abandoned a line that was winning. Visualisation will not make you better in chess, lack of visualisation will make you worse though. Since it happened only in a few cases I don't worry about this aspect at the moment.

Endgame and positional play.
There are a few tactical motifs that are specific to the endgame. Here the mnemonic for common tactics is of no use. Once the mnemonic for common tactical middlegame motifs is mastered, a dedicated endgame mnemonic can be developed.
This indicates the way to go. A t some point a positional mnemonic will be necessary too.

Habitforming.
The mnemonic is an aid to perform five different scans:

• Double attacks
• Batterries
• Pin/skewers
• Overloaded pieces
• Convergency squares

The conscious application of these scans is quite strainfull for the brain. It is as if you are trying to form 5 habits at the same time. There is no easy way around this. It's my guess that it will take at least 2500 repetitions to settle the habits. There is no need to repeat the problems, as long as you apply the scans once per problem thoroughly.
This are the restraints:

• active attitude
• consciously

you can't educate your autopilot while you are on autopilot.

Base of the scans.
The productivity of the scans has the following base:

• guidance of the eyes over the board. As in guided pattern recognition.
• prevention of brain stalling

Goal of the mnemonic.
In the end the scans must become an automatic habit which is done unconscious and without effort. It will influence your speed and your ability to visualize.

Triviality is the spice of life.

What I have found is almost too trivial for words.
As predicted, the mnemonic used in initial scanning the board has altered a few times and is now changed into DaBattPinOlC

• Double attack
• Battery
• Pin/skewer
• Overloaded piece
• Convergence squares

Before I used this mnemonic I did the first two masterlevel problems of Renko's CD killermoves.
With both problems I had great trouble to find out what was going on since my brain was simply overloaded by the amount of information in the complex position. Trying to solve those problems by my usual trial and error habit it took me 1.5 hours per problem. Once I started to use this mnemonic I did another 38 masterlevel problems and the stalling of my brain was over. Averaging 15 minutes per problem. Either it is a coincidence that the first two problems were much more difficult than the next 38 or a systematic approach really makes the difference. Using this mnemonic the complexity is broken down into its simple bite-sized elements. The only thing I have to do now is to take care that it becomes a habit.

There are a few differences with the previos mnemonic. I don't search for targets anymore. This shortcut to find tactics has proven to be insufficient. This is replaced by the search for double attacks, batteries, pins and overloaded pieces. I omit the scan for traps too since we are talking about mates 99% of the time and I can't help to look for mates anyway. That is already a habit.
Further I changed the order of the scans.

The essence of the matter:

You can't educate your autopilot while you are on autopilot.

CoTarTraDaDaPinOl

Thanks for the help, guys, your comments are quite inspirational.

For scanning I'm using now the mnemonic CoTarTraDaDaPinOl (Convergence, Targets, Trap, Double attack, Discovered attack, Pins, Overloading). The first results are great, since they take away the complexity of the masterlevel problems.

Everybody has his positions where the brain stalls because of the complexity. Weird enough that aren't the same positions for everybody. Tanc gave an example of a position which he found very deep and hard to see. Initially I wanted to show him how he could see the simplicity in the complexity. But soon after I found my own Nemesis in Renko's killermoves.

What do we have?
Good scanning breaks down a complex position in its simple elements. It really works that way. The brain is initially overwhelmed by short term memory overload, but the dissection of the position frees up the resources in the mind.
The scanning must be finetuned by applying it to reality. That makes it into something personal. Expect the mnemonic to change a few times because of the optimization of the scanprocess.
I use the term convergence squares where Tanc uses weaknesses. I use the word trap, but in games that means in 99% of the cases mate.

The scanning for targets was initially designed to replace the need to look for double attacks, discovered attacks and pins/skewers seperately since they all have two targets. But it doesn't work that way. Maybe I have to declare it obsolete, but that is what I'm going to find out next since I intend to continue with the killermoves of Renko. There seems a scan to be missing too which needs to identify the pieces that can be replaced by means of trade. Sometimes a combination doesn't work because of the wrong targets. By replacing those targets by means of trade, you can change those targets in more suitable targets. All that I'm going to optimize the following weeks.

Changing the emphasis.
It is important to place the emphasis on the scanprocess and not on the search for the solution. That is to say, only after the solution is found the work begins to optimize your scan. We are all very inclined to place the emphasis on the solutionprocess and to stop once the solution is found.

What's the difference.
This is a quite important point of which we know little. 1ooK+ problems didn't optimize the scanprocess by it self. The habit is still to search for a move by random trial and error. For sure I have seen a lot of double attacks, pins and discovered attacks. Yet the search for it hasn't optimized itself and in a complex position I forget to look for them.

With the convergy scan it is different. Allthough I have done that much less, it has already formed itself into a habit. Still a bit shaky, maybe, but nevertheless. The difference is the active attitude with which I try to implement the scan, with the aid of conscious thought. It's the difference between falling asleep over your work or after your work. You can't educate your autopilot while you are on autopilot. That is the main spiller of time while trying to improve.

Overwhelmed

Update 14:00
My official dutch rating has now become 1761. Due to the sluggish processing of ratings 7 games of a tournament aren't included (+4 =2 -1). If I include those games I come to a virtual rating of 1806!


















It's quite difficult to find all the keys in a complex position.

The diagram below is the second problem of the masterlevel problemset I try to solve. (George Renko, CD Killer moves). It shows quite well what the point is. I investigated 7 candidate moves and only the last move was correct. I have investigated the position for half an hour and allthough I know the solution I have no idea what this position is exactly all about.

























White to move.

There is a lot going on in the position. But even when solved, most things aren't evident. I find it hard to formulate a narrative.

Only after I have formulated that, the real problem starts:

• What scanmethod do you need to present what was now my last candidate as the first candidate?
• Right now I scan for convergence and targets. What else do I need to scan to identify all important issues of this position?
• There is so much going on that my short term memory is overwhelmed and stalls. The only solution can be to automatize some tasks. Which ones?

Update 13:00
After 1.5 total analysis time I managed to identify the main themes that dominate this position:

• White is a piece up
• Ne4 is under threat
• Black threatens Rb8
• Nd4 is pinned
• Removal of Bf1 activates battery Rd1-Nd4
• Black queen has little space
• convergence: b5, f6, d8
• potential targets: N, Be7, Bc6, Rh8, Q, K

The move Bb5 (which is the start of the solution) adresses most points above.
The funny thing is that you put your bishop on a convergence square.

Complex vs simple

My new scanmethods work fairly well with the relative simple problems of Chess Tempo. In the past I have seen already two times that mastering simple problems is of little use for mastering complex problems, though. It was Phaedrus who told me so the second time and after checking it it proved he is right. So it is time to put these new scanmethods to the test with a complex problem-set. If you have read my blog in the past then you will find that it is common practice to test the same ideas a few times. Everytime more information is available though, so tests that first failed can go well later when new information is applied.
Today I started with the masterlevel problems of Renko's CD "Killermoves".

The first two problems already showed that the new methods are unsufficient to find the solution in more complicated cases. Only the 6th or 7th candidate move I tried was the right one.
I'm trying to find out what kind of scan will help to find these moves in the hope that there is a common factor.

Creativity in chess

And now for something completely different.
I belief it is obvious that the road I'm following isn't leading to creativity in chess. I break down everything untill there is nothing left of the whiff of magic or romanticism that surrounds chess. I plea quilty.

Yet creativity exists. But it is a difficult subject. Science is a form of superstition that often yields splendid practical results. Yet it doesn't feel itself qualified to do statements about the realm of that what is not direct or easy perceptable in a controlable way.
Those who do feel qualified to speak about such things though, often suffer from confirmation bias and sensationalism.

Speaking about creativity I must go beyond science. My only compass is what I have experienced myself.

Micro-creativity.
My main day to day weapon is logic. Logic isn't creative, it is destructive. You can't use it to determine what is true with logic, but you can use it to destruct what is not true. By consequent applyance of logic you brush away everything that is false in due time. With a little luck you are left with what is true before you die. Usually life is way too short for such slow approach, though. It is as if you are polishing a very, very dirty mirror.

One thing the mirror reflects is creative ideas. Everytime you polish the mirror and clean a little piece of it, a grain of creativity is revealed. That is the micro-creativity which is shown in this blog, for instance. Of course there is no relation in content between the act of breaking down logically and the resulting mirrored creative idea. That's why I'm often as much surprised as you about what I write, dear reader. Of course I can't write the thus revealed creative ideas on my own conto (allthough I'm inclined to do so:)

Real creativity.
Usually I'm a very slow thinker. But in the right company I can be very ad rem. Which causes much laughter. Often the remarks I make are quite alien to me. Wow, where did that come from? In such cases it seems as if I'm tapping from a reservoir outside myself.
That is what I call real creativity.

It is not quite clear where that reservoir is located. But it is not in my personal mind. In the past I have tapped hundreds inventions from it. All of them are now existing. Invented by other people who tapped it from the same reservoir. If Margriet composes a piece, she simply listens to what is in the reservoir and writes it down.
The energies in the reservoir are quite subtle, volatile and quick. So I cannot make use of it when in my usual slow state of mind. People who are not as addicted to logic as me can dwell much easier in those places. But usually they have later a problem to talk logically and coherent about what they have seen. I'm sure DK knows what I'm talking about.

I guess there is no real difference between real creativity and micro-creativity, besides the standpoint of the observer. If your standpoint is personal, you get micro-creative ideas. If your standpoint is universal, you get real creative ideas.

Creativity in chess.
And maybe a bit of an anticlimax: it is the same in chess.
Of course there is much more to say. Feel free to do so. But I must stop now for this moment.

Convergence

There are 3 scans that I apply while solving problems at Chess Tempo:

• Traps
• Convergence
• Targets

I wrote about traps in a previous post.
The only reason that traps are number one in the list is due to the biased problemset of CT, which contains an abundance of mates. During a game it will be the last scan to perform, convergence being the first.

The following problem is rather simple, but it provides a clearcut example of how to scan for invasion squares where two or more of your pieces converge.























White to move.

The white queen and rook converge at e6. The scan cuts down dramatically on the candidate moves. You first look for the invasion squares. If no pattern is triggered and you cannot make use of the square, you can always look at other candidate moves. But that is what a good scan does, it prioritizes your candidate moves without you consciously being aware of it.

1.Re2+ Kd6 2.Qxe6+ Kc7

The queen and bishop converge at c6.

3.Qc6+ Kd8

The queen and rook converge at e8.

4.Re8#

There is something very logical in looking at the squares where your pieces converge. From all the squares in hostile territory where you can put a piece, these are the most logical candidates. Since if you put a piece there, it is automatically protected. Convergence means cooperation of your pieces. How likely is it that there is a working combination without your pieces cooperating?

I find this the most useful scan by far I and I make use of it almost every move.

Face recognition

My brilliant brain.

At the moment I'm reconsidering the use of Chess Tempo as a means to improve my scanning skills. On the one hand the problems are rather simple, on the other hand it is obvious that my scanning skills leave a lot to be desired, even with simple problems. I rewatched this video from National Geographic about Susan Polgar for the 4th time. She undergoes a fMRI-scan by prof. Joy Hirsch from the New York Neurological institute (around 40th minute).

Susan is presented with chesspositions from her youth and has to treat them as a normal chessposition, and she has to think about the next move. Prof. Hirsch shows that Susan has hijacked here fusiform face area (FFA) in her brain , which is commonly used to process face recognition. Susans FFA processes chess positions too. A chess position is checked against an internal database in about 0.8 seconds.

To me this suggests that pictures are important. I take great pains to see the input-output (see previous post) of a chessposition as a picture.

When I'm solving the problems of Chess Tempo then I often can solve them in 10-30 seconds when they are simple. From time to time I recognize a position "immediately", that is to say in under 3 seconds or so. Are those processed by my FFA and is that the way to go?