Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Still another problem to solve.

I have been working my way through another 50 2300-rated problems at CT.
Of those I consider 2 to be difficult to find. The rest is simple once you know it.
I refined my checklist to 37 tactical elements. I could describe all 50 problems with only those 37 elements.

I scored 0% which is both amazing and fantastic.
The amazing part is that the users that have done these exercises scored about 30%. Of course it are usually the higher rated players that encounter such high rated problems.
Yet I assume that I don't score in accordance to my rating. That might have to do with the fact that I maybe have trained too much patterns. The recognition of patterns is so strong that it is difficult to come up with something different. But maybe I deceive myself here.

The fantastic part is that it exactly pinpoints why I such at chess. I can't build a consistent logical reasoning which guides my pattern recognition. I falsify moves that are good and I don't falsify moves that are not good. I'm biased towards certain patterns.

Now the problem. The checklist is formulated a bit too general. It doesn't guide my thoughts with enough precision. Besides that it is too difficult to follow the whole checklist once I got distracted by promising looking patterns.

The diagnose of my sucking at chess is perfect.
The remedy still sucks, though.


  1. Tempo said: "I could describe all 50 problems with only those 37 elements."

    Did you actually repeat them all over? Or do you just believe you could describe all 50 with these 37 elements. (--> Like me: I believe you could describe them with these 37 elements).

    I believe it is not so important how many elements there are, as long as you keep going over and over them again and again.
    That will (or shall I say more carefully "might"?) help automate these elements.