Logical reasoning reinvestigated
After doing a lot of problems with my previous post about logical reasoning in mind, I can't help but wondering if logic reasoning is actually the best tool for the job. I remembered a lot of muttering reactions long ago when I proposed to exchange logical reasoning for something that you actually see. The most grumbling was founded by the idea that human thinking is so much more than pattern recognition, and chess is so much more than a simple game, that we need at least to engage the whole human mind in thinking about a chess position, with a big role for the human reason.
Albeit that might be true fore a complex middlegame position (I commit the heresy to doubt that), the battering of our human vanity by computers the last two decades, and the fact that chess tactics at CT with a below 2200 rating are simple in essence most of the time, gives me the courage to ask this question again.
I insist in calling the below 2200 problems simple, since that is how they look with hindsight. The fact that these problems are high rated is due to the fact that there are a lot of dumb counterparts out there that play chess like an idiot just like I do, and spoil the statistics in doing so. But the fact that broddlers can't solve a problem is no reason to call a problem complex. It is only a reason to call us broddlers. From time to time I get a problem that remains complex, even after solving it, but I make a note of that to study them later. If I was a master, I would see the problems as simple beforehand.
Think like a grandmaster
When you were of grandmaster level, most of the below 2200 rated problems would look quite simple. A grandmaster would apply very little logical reasoning, since most things are evident for him.
So if a master doesn't need much logical reasoning, why should I? When I took a closer look at the position of the previous post, I realized I could do well without logical reasoning. The missing tactical theme can very well be seen.
In fact, when I apply logical reasoning, I should be very suspicious, since it is a tell-tale sign that I'm in tunnel mode. I should zoom out and start scanning again at level 3 (total combination)
Robert Coble wrote a long article about applying the methods from training pilots and karateka to chess. I made a little survey of it for myself. It inspired me to start from scratch, and make a checklist that aims specifically at seeing the combination as a whole. I will let you know how it goes.