If you mean by tagging to sum up the charistics of a position and therefor knows that it is related by such and such tactical or strategic device then yes.
However, one first have to get such database into your head before one can compare. So I guess its creating the database that will add intelligence. Which means its the plain old school technique of remembering that adds intelligence.
Tagging in CT: I created my own tags: - "pattern" I use the pattern-tag for puzzle I believe show s.th. typical (typical tactic) which I did not know before. Puzzles that are tagged with "pattern" are probably of great value, and hence I repeated them often. (On the other hand: most of them I did wrong or very slow anyway, so I would have repeated them anyway).
I divided the pin tag into for further sub-pin-tags, because I felt the tag "pin" is too general.
- "pin: leaving a piece uncovered behind" - "winning the pinned piece" - "Defence flops due to pin" - "pinned to square"
There exist a 5th pinning-sub-tag, but no need to create it, because it already exists: "unpinning".
And there is the tag: - "reloader" see example in diagram 3: http://empiricalrabbit.blogspot.com/2011_06_01_archive.html
CT does not really have such a tag. These puzzles are rather seldom, and till now I have not tagged any puzzles as a reloader so far. Probably they hardly exist in the easy range.
But even for the pin-tags: I hardly used my created pin tags, though, because I am doing mainly easy puzzles, and I didnt have the patience to tag each puzzle (I do such easy puzzles maybe within 12 seconds on average, and tagging slows down my training). But I think I will use my created pin-tags later, when I do more difficult puzzles.
I did tag a lot of puzzles when I started my easy puzzle training. I already suggested previously, that maybe this was the "trick" that helped me to become considerably stronger: tagging puzzles, and arguing in the comments why this or that specific puzzle is/is_not a fork/discovery/pin/unpinning/capturing defender/skewer/x-ray/overloading/distraction... After a while I stopped doing these tagging discussions, and hardly tagged any puzzles anymore. And coincidently I did not improve anymore. (But to be honest: that I did not improve could have an other reason: If I only repeat puzzle I already know, I get better in speed but do not add any intelligence).
its funny. odd. but not surprising. i dont get into my blog comments at all, but was surprised to find four to be approved. i dont get noticed or if i do, doesnt flow the way i want. but last night, i visited your blog, and today, a recent comment from you.
love to you DS, and may this year find you safe, sound, solid, and creative.
i miss you, i really do.
love, dk
PS wormwood is still at icc, we all go back a few years now!
Pattern recognition: This check mate will be found by most players (CT Blitz rating = 1361.8). The average solution time is 60.4 seconds. However, if you know the pattern, I would not wonder if you find it below 10 seconds. It is typical, and probably it is not sooo seldom. I could imagine it is often missed during OTB play, because OTB you dont know that there is s.th. to be found. And in the puzzle it still takes people a minute, even though they know there is a tactic. The guidance is probably well known, too: 1) "You need to find s.th. quick, most probably a check, otherwise white will start with a series of checks, and puzzles in the easy range never go 10 moves deep". 2) the black pieces are hanging around the black king. Since 47% of all CT Puzzles are check mate puzzles, it might be a check mate?
I bet, the guidance here is not the problem either why people need a minute to find the solution. I believe the problem is: The underlying pattern is not known well enough. But the good thing for all readers here: know you will learn it and win some games with this knowlegde. I bet there are games of yours where you could have played this tactic or at least could have threatened this tactic.
@Munich, I took quite some time to get Rxg2 to work. Then I realized "yeah, but Munich does only easy puzzles and this takes too many moves for an easy puzzle. From then it only took me 10 seconds to find the mate.
So pattern recognition made me spend time on the wrong move. Only guidance of my attention by logical reasoning made me change the focus of attention. Induced the change of context.
And that is our problem. Attachment to a strong but wrong recognized pattern makes us slow or makes us miss the correct move alltogether.
My puzzle was not an attack against guidance, nor was it against pattern recognition. Nevertheless, it makes me wonder why it takes a minute to solve this easy puzzle. What you describe is what happens often: once you find the right idea, the solution does not take long to be found. In the above CT puzzle example, pattern recognition might hurt. Then again, I would say that the right pattern to be applied here is pretty common. Nothing extraordinary. I took me 43 seconds to solve it, and most probably it was not even my first time that I have seen it, but it was already a repetition-puzzle. I believe, that one of the difficulties could be, that the black queen move is a backward move. For Queens a backward move is not sooo hard to find, but if the puzzle had involved a bishop going from a typical good square from b4 to c5 to give check, then it makes the puzzle very hard to find. And indeed, I remember 2 such puzzles with a bishop sitting on b4 moving back to c5 in order to give check. And guess what: both are around a CT Blitz rating of 2000! That I remember theses 2 puzzles is a co-incidence. I discussed with Uri Blass, if there are typical tactics (patterns) at high rated puzzles, or if high rated puzzles are high rated because they are complicated or are made of several patterns. Since I dont do training with 2000 CT Blitz rated puzzles, I cant find them for you here, but at least I know they exist.
Your guidance training in the difficult range, and my pattern training in the easy range - I start get the feeling, that the range is not that important* as long as you follow the simple rule formulated by you: - add intelligence - then automate it
Whenever I learn s.th. from a puzzle it is good. If I am able to derive a general rule from it (guidance) or if I am seeing a typical tactic (pattern) in it, then this is helping to automate the new learned stuff.
*Note: I cant really tell so much about the "right" rating range, unless I have the experience of different rating ranges, which I have currently not. Due to the statistical relevance, I would like to stick to the 1300-1500 CT Blitz range, since here most puzzles can be found (they happened in games where both players had an average of around 2200 fide elo). I think the statistical relevance for finding the right range is a good idea. However, I am already at approx. 2000 fide elo, and the typical range suffers the problem, that I cant learn so much from it anymore, since the range 1300-1500 is too easy for me (I solve too many puzzles correct and fast). I still stick to this range at the moment, because I want to finish it "clean". This means I need to do this range for another month or so, before I dare to continue. Yesterday I was playing some blitz games and did very well. If it continues like this, I seem to have improved even further?! But one good day does not say so much.
I would say, just an other pattern. Black did see this pattern, why? I did look at the game, the last move of white was a blunder. The thinkinmethod of ICS did come to my mind. This method is looking for the CHANGE by the last move. What possible NOW. Saves a lot of thinking time and lets find blunders quicker i think
guys you do pattern recog want it or not. it is the general way how we think, and for this reason scientists came up with an explaining concept. I repeat It is not a practical aim, it is an explanation.You do patten recog right now as you are reading this. You are a human, and you think like that, there isnt any relevancy after this. i suggest we use the new term "bogushalfelitewittiness" instead of "pattern recognition". you will see they are interchangeable enough and help your progress similarly. mazza pushed this term without realizing what i means and the misunderstanding continues to this day. z
I wonder if it was a good idea to filter for puzzles with high average time, only. It would find puzzles, where most people have enough knowledge to find the solution, but most people did not automate it. Only getting some experience of these kind of puzzles will tell, if it is worth to especially look for this kind of puzzles (=puzzles, that are solved by most people but only slowly). I would expect to find a lot of patterns, that are quite forcing. The reason why the puzzles are solved is, that there is on one hand no good alternative good looking move (nothing that could mislead you), but the one and only move is very hard to find if you dont know the pattern.
You and your readers are invited to submit items to the The Best Of! Chess Blogging Carnival. Deadline is January 27. Hit the link for more details, and please post a link on your blog or chess forum.
(you need to chose the game Nakamura - Giri in the drop down menue).
The tactic starts in move 32. I think this is really amazing, because with the good looking move 34.b3 it looks like black is going to lose a pawn. So black needed to see what happens after he moves 32...d5-d4. I would say the move b3 is difficult to find, but if I had seen it as black in a game, I would not have moved 32...d5-d4. For me it is really an amazing tactic. You need to find all the sub tactics here to see that 32.d5-d4 is a good move. You need to see that 38.Kd2 is not possible because of 38...Be3+. And you need to understand as black, that the position will be a sort of zugzwang for white. White cant move and the positions stays stable for black. He can wait till white is running out of good moves and can simply promote a pawn on the kingswing.
Or was it coincidence? Maybe Giri did not see 34.b3 and the rest he got forced to find s.th.?
In contrast to this amazing piece of tactic above, I look at the game in round 7 Vitijugov vs Ivanchuk. It is amazing how Ivanchuk lost. If it was a puzzle I guess it was around CT Blitz rating 1000? http://www.ippogrifoscacchi.it/tornei_capodanno/54/games/turno7.htm
How can a super GM like Ivanchuk fail to count properly? The last of Vitjugov just guarded the square c4 once more. Can it be more obvious? I dont think it would help if Ivanchuck did another 100.000 easy puzzles. Probably errors like this just happen from time to time (= "shit happens").
Thanks for the Christmas wishes. Happy New Year to you!
ReplyDeleteThanks for the Christmas well-wish. Happy New Year to you!
ReplyDeleteIf you mean by tagging to sum up the charistics of a position and therefor knows that it is related by such and such tactical or strategic device then yes.
ReplyDeleteHowever, one first have to get such database into your head before one can compare. So I guess its creating the database that will add intelligence. Which means its the plain old school technique of remembering that adds intelligence.
Btw, happy new year!
ReplyDeleteTagging in CT:
ReplyDeleteI created my own tags:
- "pattern"
I use the pattern-tag for puzzle I believe show s.th. typical (typical tactic) which I did not know before.
Puzzles that are tagged with "pattern" are probably of great value, and hence I repeated them often. (On the other hand: most of them I did wrong or very slow anyway, so I would have repeated them anyway).
I divided the pin tag into for further sub-pin-tags, because I felt the tag "pin" is too general.
- "pin: leaving a piece uncovered behind"
- "winning the pinned piece"
- "Defence flops due to pin"
- "pinned to square"
There exist a 5th pinning-sub-tag, but no need to create it, because it already exists: "unpinning".
And there is the tag:
- "reloader"
see example in diagram 3:
http://empiricalrabbit.blogspot.com/2011_06_01_archive.html
CT does not really have such a tag. These puzzles are rather seldom, and till now I have not tagged any puzzles as a reloader so far. Probably they hardly exist in the easy range.
But even for the pin-tags: I hardly used my created pin tags, though, because I am doing mainly easy puzzles, and I didnt have the patience to tag each puzzle (I do such easy puzzles maybe within 12 seconds on average, and tagging slows down my training). But I think I will use my created pin-tags later, when I do more difficult puzzles.
I did tag a lot of puzzles when I started my easy puzzle training. I already suggested previously, that maybe this was the "trick" that helped me to become considerably stronger: tagging puzzles, and arguing in the comments why this or that specific puzzle is/is_not a fork/discovery/pin/unpinning/capturing defender/skewer/x-ray/overloading/distraction...
After a while I stopped doing these tagging discussions, and hardly tagged any puzzles anymore. And coincidently I did not improve anymore. (But to be honest: that I did not improve could have an other reason: If I only repeat puzzle I already know, I get better in speed but do not add any intelligence).
its funny. odd. but not surprising. i dont get into my blog comments at all, but was surprised to find four to be approved. i dont get noticed or if i do, doesnt flow the way i want. but last night, i visited your blog, and today, a recent comment from you.
ReplyDeletelove to you DS, and may this year find you safe, sound, solid, and creative.
i miss you, i really do.
love, dk
PS wormwood is still at icc, we all go back a few years now!
http://westorangechessclub.blogspot.com/
Pattern recognition:
ReplyDeleteThis check mate will be found by most players (CT Blitz rating = 1361.8).
The average solution time is 60.4 seconds.
However, if you know the pattern, I would not wonder if you find it below 10 seconds. It is typical, and probably it is not sooo seldom. I could imagine it is often missed during OTB play, because OTB you dont know that there is s.th. to be found. And in the puzzle it still takes people a minute, even though they know there is a tactic.
The guidance is probably well known, too:
1) "You need to find s.th. quick, most probably a check, otherwise white will start with a series of checks, and puzzles in the easy range never go 10 moves deep".
2) the black pieces are hanging around the black king. Since 47% of all CT Puzzles are check mate puzzles, it might be a check mate?
I bet, the guidance here is not the problem either why people need a minute to find the solution.
I believe the problem is: The underlying pattern is not known well enough. But the good thing for all readers here: know you will learn it and win some games with this knowlegde. I bet there are games of yours where you could have played this tactic or at least could have threatened this tactic.
PS: did I give the link?
ReplyDeletehttp://chesstempo.com/chess-problems/70921
@Munich,
ReplyDeleteI took quite some time to get Rxg2 to work. Then I realized "yeah, but Munich does only easy puzzles and this takes too many moves for an easy puzzle. From then it only took me 10 seconds to find the mate.
So pattern recognition made me spend time on the wrong move. Only guidance of my attention by logical reasoning made me change the focus of attention. Induced the change of context.
And that is our problem. Attachment to a strong but wrong recognized pattern makes us slow or makes us miss the correct move alltogether.
See here the necessity of guidance.
My puzzle was not an attack against guidance, nor was it against pattern recognition. Nevertheless, it makes me wonder why it takes a minute to solve this easy puzzle. What you describe is what happens often: once you find the right idea, the solution does not take long to be found.
ReplyDeleteIn the above CT puzzle example, pattern recognition might hurt. Then again, I would say that the right pattern to be applied here is pretty common. Nothing extraordinary. I took me 43 seconds to solve it, and most probably it was not even my first time that I have seen it, but it was already a repetition-puzzle.
I believe, that one of the difficulties could be, that the black queen move is a backward move. For Queens a backward move is not sooo hard to find, but if the puzzle had involved a bishop going from a typical good square from b4 to c5 to give check, then it makes the puzzle very hard to find.
And indeed, I remember 2 such puzzles with a bishop sitting on b4 moving back to c5 in order to give check. And guess what: both are around a CT Blitz rating of 2000!
That I remember theses 2 puzzles is a co-incidence. I discussed with Uri Blass, if there are typical tactics (patterns) at high rated puzzles, or if high rated puzzles are high rated because they are complicated or are made of several patterns.
Since I dont do training with 2000 CT Blitz rated puzzles, I cant find them for you here, but at least I know they exist.
Your guidance training in the difficult range, and my pattern training in the easy range - I start get the feeling, that the range is not that important* as long as you follow the simple rule formulated by you:
- add intelligence
- then automate it
Whenever I learn s.th. from a puzzle it is good. If I am able to derive a general rule from it (guidance) or if I am seeing a typical tactic (pattern) in it, then this is helping to automate the new learned stuff.
*Note: I cant really tell so much about the "right" rating range, unless I have the experience of different rating ranges, which I have currently not.
Due to the statistical relevance, I would like to stick to the 1300-1500 CT Blitz range, since here most puzzles can be found (they happened in games where both players had an average of around 2200 fide elo).
I think the statistical relevance for finding the right range is a good idea. However, I am already at approx. 2000 fide elo, and the typical range suffers the problem, that I cant learn so much from it anymore, since the range 1300-1500 is too easy for me (I solve too many puzzles correct and fast).
I still stick to this range at the moment, because I want to finish it "clean". This means I need to do this range for another month or so, before I dare to continue.
Yesterday I was playing some blitz games and did very well. If it continues like this, I seem to have improved even further?! But one good day does not say so much.
I would say, just an other pattern. Black did see this pattern, why? I did look at the game, the last move of white was a blunder. The thinkinmethod of ICS did come to my mind. This method is looking for the CHANGE by the last move. What possible NOW. Saves a lot of thinking time and lets find blunders quicker i think
ReplyDeleteguys you do pattern recog want it or not. it is the general way how we think, and for this reason scientists came up with an explaining concept. I repeat It is not a practical aim, it is an explanation.You do patten recog right now as you are reading this. You are a human, and you think like that, there isnt any relevancy after this. i suggest we use the new term "bogushalfelitewittiness" instead of "pattern recognition". you will see they are interchangeable enough and help your progress similarly. mazza pushed this term without realizing what i means and the misunderstanding continues to this day.
ReplyDeletez
I wonder if it was a good idea to filter for puzzles with high average time, only.
ReplyDeleteIt would find puzzles, where most people have enough knowledge to find the solution, but most people did not automate it. Only getting some experience of these kind of puzzles will tell, if it is worth to especially look for this kind of puzzles (=puzzles, that are solved by most people but only slowly).
I would expect to find a lot of patterns, that are quite forcing. The reason why the puzzles are solved is, that there is on one hand no good alternative good looking move (nothing that could mislead you), but the one and only move is very hard to find if you dont know the pattern.
Dear Tempo,
ReplyDeleteYou and your readers are invited to submit items to the The Best Of! Chess Blogging Carnival. Deadline is January 27. Hit the link for more details, and please post a link on your blog or chess forum.
Best regards,
Robert Pearson
I was watching the tournament "54th Reggio Emilia" from italy.
ReplyDeleteIn the 9th round there was an amazing tactic in the game Nakamura vs Giri:
http://www.ippogrifoscacchi.it/tornei_capodanno/54/games/turno9.htm
(you need to chose the game Nakamura - Giri in the drop down menue).
The tactic starts in move 32.
I think this is really amazing, because with the good looking move 34.b3 it looks like black is going to lose a pawn. So black needed to see what happens after he moves 32...d5-d4.
I would say the move b3 is difficult to find, but if I had seen it as black in a game, I would not have moved 32...d5-d4.
For me it is really an amazing tactic. You need to find all the sub tactics here to see that 32.d5-d4 is a good move.
You need to see that 38.Kd2 is not possible because of 38...Be3+.
And you need to understand as black, that the position will be a sort of zugzwang for white. White cant move and the positions stays stable for black. He can wait till white is running out of good moves and can simply promote a pawn on the kingswing.
Or was it coincidence? Maybe Giri did not see 34.b3 and the rest he got forced to find s.th.?
In contrast to this amazing piece of tactic above, I look at the game in round 7 Vitijugov vs Ivanchuk.
It is amazing how Ivanchuk lost. If it was a puzzle I guess it was around CT Blitz rating 1000?
http://www.ippogrifoscacchi.it/tornei_capodanno/54/games/turno7.htm
How can a super GM like Ivanchuk fail to count properly? The last of Vitjugov just guarded the square c4 once more. Can it be more obvious?
I dont think it would help if Ivanchuck did another 100.000 easy puzzles. Probably errors like this just happen from time to time (= "shit happens").