When to count?
I changed DGF into DIG, since that put the tasks in the right order, and it is easier to remember than DFG. DIG = domination square, invasion square, guard. So now we get M WIMP DIG.
I always used invasion square (or convergence square) in stead of focal point in the past, btw.
When I tested the system we are trying to develop against practice, I noticed that we might count at the wrong moment. I started with counting right away when I look for domination squares. The reason for this is that I want to prune squares which there might be a contact, but which are not interesting. But look what happens in this position when you start counting:
5r1k/pp6/3bprqp/3p2p1/1P1P4/P2QPNPP/6K1/3R1R2 b - - 1 1
solution
Domination squares: f3, f1, d3, g3
Invasion square g4
If I count the situation on f1, then it is attacked twice and defended four times, so it scores minus two. But that score is irrelevant, since with two power moves, I can harass 3 of the 4 defenders. For instance: 1. ... g4 2.Nh4 Qxd3 3.Rxd3 winning the white rook at f1. This means it makes no sense to count before you consider the defenders and how to harass them. You can't prune anything based on counting for domination. Without counting for domination, you don't know whether you dominate a square. That makes the term "domination square" nonsensical. Maybe "contact squares" is a better term. That frees the D from Domination, which I can then use for Defender, the term that I am used to, in stead of Guard. Which reads M WIMP CID, which is a bit of a pity, since DIG is easier to remember than CID. But hey, it is a work under construction! We need to automate it anyway, so it is just a pair of training wheels.
I always used invasion square (or convergence square) in stead of focal point in the past, btw.
When I tested the system we are trying to develop against practice, I noticed that we might count at the wrong moment. I started with counting right away when I look for domination squares. The reason for this is that I want to prune squares which there might be a contact, but which are not interesting. But look what happens in this position when you start counting:
 |
| black to move |
solution
Domination squares: f3, f1, d3, g3
Invasion square g4
If I count the situation on f1, then it is attacked twice and defended four times, so it scores minus two. But that score is irrelevant, since with two power moves, I can harass 3 of the 4 defenders. For instance: 1. ... g4 2.Nh4 Qxd3 3.Rxd3 winning the white rook at f1. This means it makes no sense to count before you consider the defenders and how to harass them. You can't prune anything based on counting for domination. Without counting for domination, you don't know whether you dominate a square. That makes the term "domination square" nonsensical. Maybe "contact squares" is a better term. That frees the D from Domination, which I can then use for Defender, the term that I am used to, in stead of Guard. Which reads M WIMP CID, which is a bit of a pity, since DIG is easier to remember than CID. But hey, it is a work under construction! We need to automate it anyway, so it is just a pair of training wheels.
The first count I used was on f3 (+2/-2). The second count was on f1 (+3/-2); I didn't count the Nf3 as a defender of f1, although it does block the attack, because the Knight does not have the capability to "move" (attack) that square. Perhaps this is a personal idiosyncrasy of my own method of counting. The third count was on d3 (+1/-1). The fourth count was on g3 (+1/-2). Ergo, look at how to attack g4 (line of least resistance). There is an available duplo move: 1. ... g4! forking Nf3 and Ph3 AND (most importantly) allowing the line of the Black Queen to be opened to g4. White cannot guard g4 immediately in reply, so I investigated whether he could remove one of the attackers. Obviously he cannot remove the Bd6, so only the Black Queen is a target. If 2. QxQ, then 2. ... gxf3+ (Zwischenzug: check taking precedence over all other moves), and White loses the Nf3. An important consideration is the guard by Bd6 on Rf8. This allows 3. ... Rxg6, recovering the Queen.
ReplyDeleteAfter 1. ... g4!, moving the White Knight does not prevent opening the line on to g3 because 1. ... g4! is a duplo (double attack in the form of a fork). 1. ... g4! 2. Nh4 gxh3+ and the Black Queen enters the King's field with fatal effect: 3. Kxh3 Qxg3# or 3. Kg1 Qxg3+ 4. Kh1 Qxh2# or 3. Kh1 Qxg3 and White will soon lose material. 2. Nh2 might be temporarily better but (in the long term) will still lose material.
I guess the usefulness of "counting" depends on what is counted as important.
I don't question the usefulness of counting, but I found that there is a moment to count that is more logical. Hence the title of the post. It is not logical to start counting when you are only inventorying the contact points and the invasion points. If a piece is hanging, you will notice it anyway, even without counting. The logical moment to count is when you consider the defenders. Since harassment of the defender changes the outcome of the count. This way, you prevent counting twice. The outcome of the first count isn't necessary nor useful.
DeleteThere are only (4) tactical weaknesses :
ReplyDelete1) g3 which is attacked twice and defenden once and that by the kg2 ( which becomes that way weakness no 4 )
2) Nf3 which is attacked twice and defended twice AND is attackable by a pawn which is between the Black Queen and the white king
3) Qd3 which is attacked and defended once ( thats the only false altert )
4) Kg2 which is (x-ray) attacked by the Qg6 and squares around the king ate attacke by the black rooks and the bishop
All hints are saying :g5