Temposchlucker

On December 3rd, 2016, I abandoned the salt mines and all other unproductive idea's for chess improvement, and started to build a logical framework where I can put my knowledge on. I finally found the tree of scenario's as a potential framework. I even heard myself say in the previous post something like "there is a limited amount of scenario's and a limited amount of questions that need to be asked to interrogate the position". Since December 3rd, I have analyzed about 40 positions extensively. A lot of little gems were unearthed. Now it is time to go back to these 40 positions, in order to derive a decent tree of scenario's from it. Only with such coherent framework of chess knowledge, I can hope to begin some serious tactical training. The first step will be to erect a complete tree with all crude observations hanged in it provisionally. The second step will be to optimize all observations, so that the tree will act as a handy summary of adequate and re

What do the three types of immobilization have in common? Lack of space When a piece is under attack and has lack of space, it has a lack of time too. Imagine that your opponent was allowed to do a few moves in a row, while you had to pass and wait, then he could free himself. Function When a piece is immobile due to its duties it can't abandon, it is comparable to a lack of space. Imagine that your opponent was allowed to do a few moves in a row, while you had to pass and wait, then he could free himself. Lack of time time When two target pieces are placed in an unfortunate way, they can be both attacked at the same time with a duplo attack. Imagine that your opponent was allowed to do a few moves in a row, while you had to pass and wait, then he could free himself. What these three times of immobilization have in common, is that they are temporary. They all lack the time to do all necessary actions. That is why special moves, aka duple function moves, are paramount. Bo

We made a quantum leap in understanding Tals adage in the previous post. His adage is based on hanging pieces, and I didn't realize how important that is. Despite I have postulated that in earlier posts, where I made a distinction between action moves and postponement moves (although I didn't call them action moves back then). Only now I start to appreciate how this distinction prunes the tree of analysis drastically. Postponement moves don't alter the outcome of the combination. They just postpone it. Postponement moves are normal moves on a tit for tat basis. A CCT-move followed by an answer in order to neutralize. The normal moves don't need calculation. We must be aware of the special moves. The moves with a duple function. Since they do change the outcome of the combination. The tour the force I am trying to accomplish, is to merge the plf system with Tals adage. To that end I am going to investigate a few positions of which I think it should be possible to u

There is a special breed of positions that gives me the feeling that I have a special talent to make the wrong choice. That is probably not true, but it certainly feels like it. The past investigations made me hypothesize that the prodigy in chess has learned some tricks how to prune the tree of analysis . My remedy based on this hypothesis, making a good habit of looking for the convergence squares of the second order when you are stuck, does certainly work. But not in every position! I will give an example of a position that needs another way of pruning. Diagram 1 black to move r1r5/4qppk/p1R1pn1p/1p6/2N1PB2/bN3Q1P/P4PP1/2R3K1 b - - 0 1 [ solution ] The title of this post is the adage of Tal concerning the pieces he left hanging. This adage tells me that he had a way to prune the tree of analysis in a drastic way. That must have made his calculations a lot easier for him. If you don't worry about things that don't need worrying, then the mind will be fried for mor

If I look at the diagram of the previous post, I find it difficult to express what is needed. After studying this position for quite some time, the moves are so evident that I simply cannot understand why I didn't see the simplicity of the position before. At the mean time, I fully acknowledge that there is no guarantee at all, that I will able to see the simplicity of similar positions in the future. I can impossible tell what I need to learn from this position that will be transferable to other positions. It seems that words are a too lousy vehicle to do that. Maybe that is a positive sign. When something descends from the conscious to the unconscious, we don't know how that happens, and words cannot express how it works. You learn how to push the breaks and to shift gears when you turn right, but you can't possibly tell how you calculate the right speed, how you judge the right noise of the engine and how you calculate the correct power to apply to push the steering wh

On my quest to organize backwards thinking, I already expected a few hiccups while proceeding. Choice between two ducks The first hiccup is formulated by Tomasz as " we have to find (work out) a small difference between BIG ducks " . From time to time, there is not one single immobile piece, but there are two. My impression is that that doesn't happen very often. But maybe, now my attention is triggered to look at it, there is a chance that I have to change my opinion, but we'll see about that. The ducks are deemed by their apparent size, which translates to chess as the value of the piece. Well, that shouldn't be too hard. In order of value: K, Q, R, B, N, p I look from the perspective of minimizing the brain load. When we have a king and a bishop that are both sitting ducks, we start with the king, and forget about the bishop. But that leads to the formulation of the second hiccup: When to abandon thinking about a sitting duck? There comes a moment wh

Luckily Robert doesn't get tired to repeat his good ideas. Given enough time and sufficient repetitions, good ideas tend to land sooner or later over here. He repeatedly put forward his idea of the king in a box, and now I see where that idea belongs. I'm building the Tree of Scenario's lately. I consider the plf-system mainly as a toolkit that helps you to identify the sitting duck. The sitting duck is sitting quietly at the end of the line, waiting for you to get him. When we know the end, we must identify the steppingstones in between. Those steppingstones can help us to find the whole line without any significant calculation. If you work from the end towards the beginning, all irrelevant branches of the tree of analysis are automatically pruned. Since you will only enter an irrelevant branch if you think forward while you don't know where you are heading. Step 1: identify the sitting duck A duck can be immobile in three ways: space (box!) time (duplo atta

As you might have noticed, I struggle a bit to continue. Not that I have no clear direction in which I must go, but there is somehow too much that need to be said, and the thoughts are too subtle and too faint to spit them all out at once without the chance to get struck in the details and loose the overview. So if you are willing to bear my incoherent gibberish for a few posts to come, I will be able to sort my thoughts out and make them materialize. I'm convinced they will become coherent and make sense in the end. Just have a wee bit patience when I seem to be kind of herky-jerky. Diagram 1. White to move R7/1r2b1p1/3p4/3PkpP1/2P1Np2/2K2P2/8/8 w - f6 0 1 [ solution ] It took me quite some time to screw up this position. Most immobile piece: the black king. First question answered. Sitting duck = black king. Second question: what is the weakest defender? Answer: wrong question. I already suspected that I needed more "second questions", depending on the type