Preparation for Corus

.
.
.
The tournament in Groningen went quite well for both Margriet and me, with each 3.5/5
I don't want to spend too much time on blogging or publishing my games, because I want to digest what I have learned in Groningen in order to adjust my preparation for Corus.

In general it can be said that my play has changed in the following way: in stead of throwing the sink at my opponent from move one I develop quietly and play the middlegame as positional as I can. When the exchange of pieces start, at the end of the middlegame, there all of a sudden appears a moment that I can shift gears, sacrifice a few pawns and mate the hostile king. Time and again these attacks seem to appear at the end of the middlegame 'out of the blue' lately, just by playing positionally.

There is another phenomenon I noticed. My attacks used to be as 'lean' as possible. That is to say, when I sensed that there are tactics in the air I started to execute them as soon as I could. Now I let the threat exist, but make a (few) development moves extra first. It proves that this multiplies the amount of tactics manifold. It gives the attack a devastating extra punch.

The Scandinavian with 3. ... Qd6 didn't live up to it's expectations. Although I haven't lost with it yet in six outings (1+ 5=) it is difficult to find a plan for black and to solve all blacks problems. Tiviakov gave as motivation for this move that it is 'different'. Which is not very guiding. Since there are no books about the variation, I can't get inspiration how to treat the opening. I'm not ready yet to develop my own treatment. So for the time being I will abandon this opening at a certain moment. The problem is: before or after Corus?

I don't want to spend time on opening preparation for Corus since I need all my time for improving my positional play. Besides that, I haven't decided on which opening to play yet. I hesitate between the French, the Caro-Kan and the Taimanov Sicilian. At the moment the balance tips to the Caro-Kan. I ordered the book of Jovanka Houska (Playing the Caro-Kan) and if I like what I see there I will take it up.

Ready for take off

.
.
.
Tomorrow I start with the Schaakfestival Groningen as a warming up for the Corus tournament at the end of januari. I'm in the compact group, 5 games in 5 days at a pace of 40/120,SD/30.
If there are readers out there who visit the tournament (you never know), I would be delighted to shake hands. I'm the only participant with a rating of 1819 in the compactgroup, so it shouldn't be too difficult to find me. Otherwise you have a chance at the Corustournament, where I play in the Tienkampen.

As preparation I have read a lot about positional play. I intended to do some positional exercises too, but every exercise raised so much questions that I ended up reading in stead of exercising. So I don't feel quite ready, but I am in the best shape to learn something (with a lot of buzzing questions in my head and half-formulated answers).

I skipped the opening preparation totally, which is quite liberating.

Time to market

.
.
.
The essence of my previous post boils down to the following question:

How can you shorten the time to market from the first acquaintance with a theoretical idea to the practical application of that idea?

Tactics first.
It all begins with tactics. With mastering tactics to a certain degree, every application of an idea is doomed to fail. But after mastering tactics, the remaining speed of development depends solely on the tempo at which you digest theoretical idea's. This speed can differ enormously between persons. I'm a quite slow digester since I need to process an enormous amount of raw information before I dare to draw any definite conclusions. People who care less about the correctness of their conclusions usually develop at a much higher speed.

Then a hunch.
Take for instance the famous idea of Philidor that pawns are the soul of chess. For about a decade I hadn't the slightest idea what he was talking about. I hadn't even the beginning of a clue. The fact that in that decade I played gambits for seven years didn't help either to establish my respect for the humble pawn. Only now that I have reached a certain level of tactics, and a certain level of endgame strategy, I'm starting to get a hunch. But even after finding a startingpoint, it takes a lot of effort to find out the details. My clumsy attempts with merlons and crenels are a good illustration of that process. I'm sure it will take another few years before I have worked it all out.

Then working it out.
12 - 14 years is quite a time to market for a theoretical idea. How is it possible to speed up matters? The transformation of raw information into applicable knowledge seems to be exactly the description of the transfer-problem Phaedrus used to put on the table.

First time exposure

.
.
.
Lately I found myself writing the following as comment to a post of BDK:

Now that you are rubbing that old wound again. . . What if it has nothing to do with circles at all? If I look back I made my greatest progress when I entered a new area. When I started with tactics I didn't repeat them. Yet I gained 250 points.

I entered the (to me) new area of positional play last year. I gained another 70 points. If I count my latest winning streak which isn't processed by the rating committee yet, I can add another 80 points. Virtually I'm above 1900 now. What if you simply can't avoid to memorize patterns when you enter a new area? What if plateauing simply means that you ran out of new area's? Not because they aren't there but you simply don't know how to get access?

For me, there is no proof that repetition is the key to improvement. I didn't improve when I repeated problems. I improved when doing tactical problems only once for the first time. It seems that it is the mere fact of exposure to the practical application of new knowledge that did the job. Looking at the other knights, they usually weren't all that much exposed to tactics before they did the circles. Accidently, unlike me, their first time of serious exposure to tactics coincided with doing repetitions. So it was easy to attribute their progress to the circles while in fact it might be caused by first time exposure.

First of all I have to make clear that I use here a very "Temposchluckeresque" interpretation of the word area. That is, I abuse the meaning of the word to make it fit into my current biassess. Take for instance the two fighting methods I showed you in my previous post. That specific knowledge I call an area. There are zillions of them.

It is by no means simple to get access to a new area. Look for instance at the struggle of BDK with the area of colorcomplexes. Without the feedback of a coach, or a helping blogcommunity, you are having a hard time to find your way in the jungle of chessknowledge.

It all begins with tactics. Without tactics you are nowhere. I remember only all too well how I learned about the power of the bishoppair. I quite wreckaged my position game after game to obtain that powerful asset, only to lose it the very next move by a simple trade.

But those tactics lead to a concrete variation bias which helps you to think forward, while for all other area's of chess you need to think backwards. Seperated by a gestalt-switch, as BDK called it. Only when you sufficiently master tactics, you are ready to enter other area's.

In order to enter the area of endgames, it took me two months only to find out where to start (pawnendings, I thought at that moment). After that I studied endgames for almost two years, only to find out that it was the wrong starting point. Lately I have found a more logical approach and I started with endgame strategy. Only now I have the feeling that I factually entered the area of endgames. Such entrance shows itself by that I get the positions I'm reading about on the board now, and that from the practical application of new knowledge arise new questions of which I am able to find the answers to. A little detour along the crenels and merlons rose a lot of questions which I have managed to answer now, for instance.

I like the idea of the gestalt-switch. When you have mastered a new area, all of a sudden you see it everywhere. While before the patterns associated with the area remained hidden. To me this indicates the road to go to master new patterns.

Based on my own experience I deem the progress by mastering the area of tactics alone at about 250 ratingpoints. High time to enter other area's.

Tactical skill impairing your sight

.
.
.
There seems to be a simple reason why it is difficult to make progress in chess. For tactics you have to learn to love variations, for strategy and endgames this addiction to variations tends to impair your sight of the big picture. The approaches seem to mutually exclude each other.

If you see the big picture but you miss the tactical skills to obtain what you want, it is time for tactics. When you start to train tactics you sharpen your eyes to see concrete variations. Once you are skilled in tactics, you have lost your sight to see the big picture. Usually only a coach can help you to overcome this paradox.

The problem is that all chessauthors share this addiction for concrete variations. Watson even devoted a whole book to the subject of concrete variations vs general schemed thinking. In the mean time, books are flooded with concrete positions, giving us a hard time to look behind them.

If you look at my diagrams, you can see that I often try to get rid of the concrete variations and try to regain the holistic vision that lies beyond that. Look at the following attempt.

Diagram 1






















.
.
.
White to move.
When the king is on h1, this position is a draw. But when the king is on g1, it is mate in 32. Why? Where does this difference come from?

If you try to solve this by means of concrete variations, it is easy to get lost. But what do you think of the following approach:

diagram 2






















.
.
.
White to move.
This diagram shows what the outcome is when you place the king on a certain square.

You can see that there are two "centers of gravity": f7 and h6.
This gives away a hint what the two fighting methods are. On f7 you are squeezing the black king and pawn so they become seperated. On h6 you can force the trade of the pawn, creating a passer.

Thanks to the comments of Ed and LF, I recently realized how important it is to know the fighting methods. The concrete knowledge that Kh1 is a draw while Kg1 is mate in 32 is irrelevant in this story.

For backwards thinking (see previous post), you need to see the big picture.

Getting over my endgame phobia

.
.
.
I'm going through a huge development lately. Due to my new openings and my new playing style I can enter an endgame almost at will. During my gambit years I reached an endgame once every 100 games or so. Before I entered an endgame in those gambit games usually one of the following happened:
When I was better I had to offer a draw since I was in time trouble.
When I was equal I offered a draw due to endgame phobia. When it was refused, I lost since I managed to screw up the balanced position soon.

This has dramatically changed.
I don't have timetrouble anymore. My last 8 games were all endings. I'm not afraid for endings anymore. I'm not afraid anymore to refuse a draw in an equal position. I have a lot more energy during the games since I have to calculate less. Hansen's book has given me an idea what I'm after. Most lower rated players don't know this. So they cooparate happily towards their own demise. Lower rated usually choose one of the following strategies:
They play a desparate all out attack. Usually with many leaks in their approach.
They try to draw you by trading pieces on every occasion.

The first group usually don't cause many trouble and their approach leads to a short game.
But now the second group is helping me by trading all pieces towards an endgame they think is drawn since they only count wood. Since short I know better and when most pieces are gone and they don't have something to guide their moves they start to make moves that look familiar to them because they are used to such moves in the middlegame but that are plain bad in an endgame.

The point I'm trying to make here is that with a little knowledge you can see the goal clearly miles ahead in an endgame so you can act as an architect and work backwards to design the moves that can get you there.
You simply cannot find the same moves by trial and error of logical looking moves. You simply can't. Take for instance the following diagram of Kasparov vs Timman, Linares 92:























.
.
.
White to move and win.
You cannot find or understand the beautiful winning combination without some basic endgame knowledge. The first two moves of the combination will be rejected as illogical when you try to find them by trial and error so you will not look any further.
Solution: [1.Ne8+ Kf7 2.Nxf6 Kxf6 3.g5+ Kf7 4.h6 and Timman resigned. The black king is now bound to the square of h6 pawn. The white king can now at an easy pace walk towards the queenside and convert the extra pawn into the win of the black bisshop. Then he walks back and picks up the black pawn at g6 and wins the game.]

Exactly this is what has happened to me lately. Not as beautiful as this example, of course, but according the same principle. Since I know what I'm looking for I can design the tactical combinations to get there, while opponents without such knowledge happily cooperate.

It has taken me a lot of effort to come here. I have been busy intensily with endgames for almost two years. The most of the time was spilled by following crappy advice. Advice which in itself is right but given at the wrong moment. You have to know where to start with endgames. It took me a lot of time to find the starting point, but now I have found it.

The starting point is endgame strategy. You first must have a clue where to head for. The one-eyed endgame kings around do grasp this essence immediately. Since it is simple and logical. Me, it took me two years since authors of endgame book sent me in wrong directions. But now we are on equal terms. Having found the starting point I can start. Finally.

And boy, I'm going to enjoy this!

Now thats Fine!

.
.
.
From Fine's book basic chess endings (hattip to Ed):

When you are two pawns ahead, the win is routine. The straightforward advance of the pawns will net considerable material gain, usually a piece. With a piece to the good you can then capture more pawns, then more pieces, and finally mate. The theory of ending proper is concerned to a large extent with the conversion of an advantage of one pawn into a win. The basic principle is that one pawn wins only because it can be used to capture more material. Straightforward advance will as a rule not do the trick (as with two pawns). The chief devices to be used in the winning process are forcing an entry with the king, keeping the opponent busy on both sides (outside passed pawn) and simplification.

Now that's an eye-opener! If it was written on page 3 in stead of page 572 I wouldn't have hesitated to call Fine an excellent endgame teacher! But nevertheless!!

It invites to go even one step further and to integrate the idea's of Capablanca. Capablanca writes about one holds two. Where one pawn prevents two hostile pawns from advancing. For instance a pawn that blocks a double pawn. Allthough both sides have an equal amount of pawns, you are then effectively a pawn up at the other side of the board.

diagram 1






















.
.
.
White to move.
Even with equal material white is effectivily a pawn up. At the left side one pawn of white holds two pawns of black. At the right side white can convert his virtual pawn up into a passer. White wins easily.