Wednesday, April 08, 2009

Another missed characteristic

Who would have thought of e6 as the best place for the night?
I didn't.

It seems it is all about building a database of cues in stead of patterns or ideas. Most patterns are already there, in my system, ready to be recognized. It just needs cues to be triggered.
Lack of cues means that you forget your ideas or patterns during play. It is maybe the key of Phaedrus' transferproblem.


  1. Is this still a poition from the Chapter 7, Positional Exercises?
    I startet yesterday evening with Exercise #1 in my bed. Aagaards solution did surprise me totaly and i had bad dreams. This morning i did ask a few 3000+ players about the position:

    Rybka 3 Depth 16:

    #1. 1.b3 Nd4 2....
    #2. 1.Qd2 Nd4 2....

    Bg4 (My Move)
    and Rc2 (Aagards move) are changing positions with calculation time, place #6 and more, sometimes Bg4 seems better sometimes Rc2.

    Zappa mexico II

    likes Bg4 much better than Rc2 and #1.Qd2, #2.Re1, #3.b3

    Fritz 11

    likes h4, other moves like zappa or rybka #9.Lg4 #13.Rc2

    Toga II

    #1.Qd2 #2.Qb3 #3.Qa4 #4.Qd5


    Some time ago i saw GM Vlastimil Hort in TV making jokes about a Super GM playing like FRITZ ( "going to the toilet and..." ), because the Super GM did play the moves of Fritz and not the analysed moves of Hort and others...

    1 or 2 jears ago i gave some positions of Kmochs: Pawn Power in Chess in my computer. Wonderful Bock, i had the feeling of deep understanding. But the most was simply wrong. Wonderful fights of both players about lines, fields and positional progress, but both did not see a running pawn there, the combination here .... both where fixed on the same wrong idea.

    If you intend to transfer patterns in "some corner" of you brain, then lock for the right patterns!

  2. Uwe,
    you are quite right. Look at it here.

    Such silly positions that are not suited to learn you anything are quite common among chess authors, alas. First there is shock, then unbelief, then disappointment. I had that with Buckley, Larsen, others and now Aagaard. But I have learned to become pragmatic. I only focus on the idea that the author is trying to teach me and I am not interested in the fact if his example is actually correct. It's the idea that matters. In exercise 1 I don't understand the idea either, but I have taken a mental note that I have to read more about positional exchange sacs. The rest I just ignore while shaking my had and shrugging my shoulders.

    How an other can start a series of exercises while he hasn't explained exchange sacs well is beyond me.

  3. Aagaard did beleve this move / idea is clearly the best. His patterns are the patterns of an IM. The remarks of Hort shows me, that better players have better patterns ( well? .. hmm.. at least maybe! ).
    If we want to burn patterns in the brain, the patterns better are as good and clear as possible. CT-Art has these wonderful 5x5 helps, where the pattern is even clearer and more concentrated. tactic-patterns are sharp and clear and "easy" to verify anyway.
    If we want to burn positional patterns in our brain, they should be of best possible quality. The few good moves should be "clearly" better than other moves ( and not worse, like Rc2 in Ex #1 ).

    I am looking for people to check with me together books for "good" and "bad" positions with the aid of computers.
    Then we can focus on "good" paterns and save wasted time.