Promotion example
The promotion problems at Chess Tempo aren't the casual promotions that occur in your average endgame study. The promotion forms an integral part of the tactical combination at hand. The promotion usually immobilizes the enemy because his pieces are bound to stop the pawn. This series of posts is intended to investigate how the promotion helps to make a combination possible.
Have a look at the following diagram:
1R6/P2R2kp/6p1/8/8/5p1b/r6P/7K b - - 0 1
[solution]
Feel free to comment already.
I will update this post later.
Have a look at the following diagram:
 |
| Black to move |
[solution]
Feel free to comment already.
I will update this post later.
That's funny, I got it right rather quickly but did not notice Black was in check, or that White was promoting too. Even if White could play rook back to stop the pawn (it allows Black to checkmate), White would have to give up the exchange for the pawn, and that is still a losing K+P ending. An aesthetically pleasing problem, for sure, even if not too big a deal from a practical point of view.
ReplyDelete2083.3 - That was a surprise!
ReplyDeleteThe first thing I saw was that Black is in check. That makes the first move obvious, but there is still the potential Black checkmate threat by the Black Rook. Promoting the a7 Pawn covers that possibility for White. Things get a little more interesting after Black chops off the new White Queen on a8. At first glance, I thought of BBc6, threatening the White Rook and checkmate, allowing Black to pick up the Rook. That fails because the White Rook can check first, saving the Rook, and then move the King to g1. So, the Black Bishop doesn't go to c6 first; the BP advances to f2, threatening promotion to a Queen with checkmate. White does not have a way to prevent promotion and also save the Rook. That took less than 30 seconds total to "see".
I was wondering if the study of endgame problems could help to improve the "promotion-skills". Pawn promotion is the! main question in endgames.
ReplyDeleteAs premium member at chesstempo i can see a detailed statistic of each member sorted by the different tactical motives.
So i did look at some high rated endgame - theory puzzler at chesstempo for their tactic performance in "advanced pawn" and it was high. None of the endgame puzzler i was looking at had a relative advance pawn weakness ( in the lower 50% ).
On the other hand your advanced pawn and your zugzwang performance is relative low. I think you simply did focus on "tactics" and did forget your "endgames" lately ;)
http://chessendgames.com/
ReplyDelete@ Aox:
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link to Chess Endgames! I had not seen that site before.
What I can confirm is the degradation of the tactical skills... when you do not practice it at all. Sometimes it is very painful because you lose games one after the other simply because a very stupid and simple tactical mistake.
ReplyDeletePlaying solid chess requires at least having a solid tactical eye. Otherwise all the skills and knowledge in the world... is simply useless :(
The garden is calling. So there is little time for pondering chess. That will change when the weather becomes worse.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1259463. An interesting pawn promotion.
ReplyDeletePART I:
ReplyDeleteWith Temposchlucker engaged in the garden (and hopefully far from the Atlantic hurricanes), I thought I'd post this line of thought for consideration.
While studying Dr. Betty Edwards’ book Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain: A course in enhancing creativity and artistic confidence, I began “drawing” analogical parallels to basic chess skills. (Quelle surprise!)
Dr. Edwards describes the transfer of perceptual skills learned through drawing to general thinking skills and problem-solving skills. She asks:
What are the skills you will learn through drawing, and how do they transfer to general thinking?
Drawing, like reading, is a global skill made up of component subskills that are learned step by step. Then, with practice, the components meld seamlessly into the smoothly functioning global activities of reading, and drawing.
For the global skill of drawing, the basic component skills, as I have defined them, are:
The perception of edges (seeing where one thing ends and another starts)
The perception of spaces (seeing what lies beside and beyond)
The perception of relationships (seeing in perspective and in proportion)
The perception of lights and shadows (seeing things in degrees of values)
The perception of the gestalt (seeing the whole and its parts)
The first four skills require direct teaching. The fifth occurs as an outcome or insight—a visual and mental comprehension of the perceived subject, resulting from the focused attention of the first four. Most students experience these skills as new learning, seeing in ways they haven’t seen previously.
. . .
Turning to reading, specialists in teaching reading list the basic component skills of reading, mainly taught in elementary school, as:
Phonetic awareness (knowing that alphabet letters represent sounds)
Phonics (recognizing letter sounds in words)
Vocabulary (knowing the meaning of words)
Fluency (being able to read quickly and smoothly)
Comprehension (grasping the meaning of what is read)
As in drawing, the last skill of comprehension ideally occurs as an outcome or result of the preceding skills.
I am aware, of course, that many additional skills are required for drawing that leads to “Art with a capital A,” the world of artists, galleries, and museums. There remain countless materials and mediums along with endless practice to achieve mastery, as well as that unknown spark of originality and genius that marks the truly great artist of any time. Once you have learned basic drawing skill, you can move on, if you wish, to drawing from memory, drawing from imagined images, and creating abstract or nonobjective images. But for skillful realistic drawing of one’s perceptions using pencil on paper, the five skills I will teach you in this book provide adequate basic perceptual training to enable you to draw what you see.
PART II:
ReplyDeleteDr. Edwards then goes into a short explanation of the two modes of the brain: R-mode (System 1; visual, perceptual; right-brain) and L-mode (System 2; verbal, analytical; left-brain).
These two cognitive twins are not equal. Language is extremely powerful, and the left hemisphere does not easily share its dominance with its silent partner. The left hemisphere deals with an explicit world, where things are named and counted, where time is kept, and step-by-step plans remove uncertainty from the future. The right hemisphere exists in the moment, in a timeless, implicit world, where things are buried in context, and complicated outlooks are constantly changing. Impatient with the right hemisphere’s view of the complex whole, the competitive left hemisphere tends to jump quickly into a task, bringing language to bear, even though it may be unsuited for that particular task. . . . When writing the original book, I needed to find a way to keep this from happening — a way to enable the right hemisphere to “come forward” to draw. This required finding a strategy to set aside the left hemisphere. . . . I laboriously arrived at a solution and stated it this way:
In order to gain access to the right hemisphere, it is necessary to present the left hemisphere with a task which it will turn down.
In other words, it is no use going up against the strong, verbal, domineering left brain to try to keep it out of a task. It can be tricked, however, into not wanting to do the task, and, once tricked, it tends to “fade out,” and will stay out, ending its interfering and usurping. As a side benefit, this cognitive shift to a different-from-usual mode of thinking results in a marvelous state of being, a highly focused, singularly attentive, deeply engaging, wordless, timeless, productive, and mentally restorative state.
Dr. Edwards teaches a 40-hour course in basic drawing, 8 hours per day for 5 days. (Think of Dr. Lasker's proposed curriculum for developing an expert chess player in 200 hours.) The difference between the drawings prior to and after this instructional course is amazing! Rather than work from simple to complex, she has the students tackle some of the most difficult subjects (like drawing hands and self-portraits) through a series of exercises that are designed to utilize the right brain directly.
Here is my first attempt at categorization of the basic components of chess playing skill is:
The perception of contacts
The perception of motifs
The perception of tactical devices/themes
The perception of combinations
The gestalt perception of strategy—“seeing” the whole as more than the sum of its parts
The next step is to figure out a way to cause System 2 to “drop out,” allowing System 1 to do its massively parallel “magic” of pattern recognition and intuition.
All suggestions will be greatly appreciated!
well,idont get your thought completly. The idea to do a training of the subskills and create this way an improved main skill we already had. We did not find enough improvable subskills to connect them to a usable main skill.
DeleteThere are at least 2 possibilitys to get rid of System 2
-Use a strict time limit( not enough time to think )
-make it way too complicated
Maybe our wich to understand chess, to find reasons and lines and pattern and verbalisations does block us older folks from getting better? Kids copy and accept and play and dont reason, adults reason and dont copy, dont accept, dont play ( that much ).
@ Aox:
DeletePART I:
Sorry for putting too much information into the post, obscuring the point I was trying to make. Let me try again, with only a small subset. Please refer back to the original post if the context seems to be missing. I've capitalized the points I think are most important.
What are the skills you will learn through drawing, and how do they transfer to general thinking?
Drawing, like reading, is a global skill made up of component subskills that are learned step by step. Then, with practice, the components meld seamlessly into the smoothly functioning global activities of reading, and drawing.
For the global skill of drawing, the basic component skills, as I have defined them, are:
The perception of edges (SEEING WHERE ONE THING ENDS AND ANOTHER STARTS)
The perception of spaces (SEEING WHAT LIES BESIDE AND BEYOND)
The perception of relationships (SEEING IN PERSPECTIVE AND IN PROPORTION)
The perception of lights and shadows (SEEING THINGS IN DEGREES OF VALUES)
The perception of the gestalt (SEEING THE WHOLE AND ITS PARTS)
The first four skills require direct teaching. The fifth occurs as an outcome or insight—a visual and mental comprehension of the perceived subject, resulting from the focused attention of the first four. Most students experience these skills as new learning, seeing in ways they haven’t seen previously.
First, the skills emphasis is on PERCEPTION, "seeing" as opposed to "knowing." We've already arrived at the conclusion that we don't "see" as we should when we play chess. Instead, we substitute incomplete knowledge and logical thinking for skill, thereby consuming valuable time and (often) arriving at a logical (but erroneous) conclusion. As Ayn Rand was fond of saying, "Check your premises" if you arrive at a faulty conclusion.
PART II:
Delete"SEEING WHERE ONE THING ENDS AND ANOTHER STARTS" - In drawing, this means "seeing" that an edge has two sides, not just one. It is "easy" to conceptualize an edge as a line. Since we are "drawing," we initially "see" an edge as a line to be drawn: monkey "sees" a line, monkey draws a line. But the perception of an edge as a line is self-limiting - and wrong. If we shift our perception to "see" this and that (i.e., as an edge between two different things), then we have a truer perspective from which to draw BOTH things accurately, at the same time.
IMHO (I'll forgo this caveat throughout the rest of this post; just remember that it is always present), this component skill has to do with the demarcation BETWEEN contacts, motifs, tactical devices/themes and combinations. A particular piece may be simultaneously involved in several "edges" (two or more). This is NOT the same as having definitions and knowledge of the elements. We can recognize (linearly; one at a time) the elements, without PERCEIVING the boundaries between two (or more) elements (more than one simultaneously). Instead of trying to “see” ONE specific element clearly, we should try to “see” where one starts and another ends as the boundary between them.
SEEING WHAT LIES BESIDE AND BEYOND - In drawing, this means to add a third dimension to what is “seen.” Drawing is considered to be two-dimensional. However, to draw accurately requires us to “see” that some things are at the same “depth” in the picture, and other things are at greater depth. This enables us to accurately draw things that are near and things that are farther away from the focal point of the drawing.
This component skill has to do with “seeing” what is close to hand, both spatially and with regard to time. Some things are “near” to the critical points; other things are farther away from the current critical points, in essence becoming critical points at some future point for consideration.
SEEING IN PERSPECTIVE AND IN PROPORTION - In drawing, we have to be aware of vanishing points, sometimes more than one or two in a given picture, so that we maintain the proper perspective. As a result of this, we can allocate the proportions properly across the entire drawing.
This component skill enables us to “see” the contours of what is really happening in a specific position, with an evaluative function that keeps the elements in perspective and in proportion.
SEEING THINGS IN DEGREES OF VALUES - In drawing, this requires us to be aware of which parts of the drawing are illuminated and which are in varying degrees of shadow.
This component skill enables us to be aware of what can be clearly “seen” and what is obscured to varying degrees. It is an awareness that clarity of the position (i.e., what are the “requirements of the position”) varies, and allows the mind to work out which elements are the most important at a given moment.
SEEING THE WHOLE AND ITS PARTS - In drawing, it is insufficient to focus attention on one specific aspect (a single part) to the exclusion of the whole intended drawing. Doing so will inevitably cause distortion in what is drawn.
This overall gestalt occurs as a result of perceiving based on the previous four component subskills. It happens because we can simultaneously be aware of ALL elements and how ALL of those elements blend to create the unique position in front of us. This gestalt continues from one move to the next, in essence giving us the basis for a “plan.”
This analysis is by no means accurate or in-depth. It is just my preliminary thoughts regarding these ideas. This is why I requested thoughts from others.
As an aside, my drawing has improved considerably since I started training my mind using these ideas. I’m not what I would consider to be an “artist” by any means. However, I “see” things much clearer than I did before, and I can “see” how to draw much more accurately.
PART III:
DeleteRegarding your observations about System 2:
There are at least 2 possibilitys to get rid of System 2
-Use a strict time limit( not enough time to think )
-make it way too complicated
Attempting to do the same thing (a knowledge and logic based thinking process) in less time will usually result in a feeling of panic. My hypothesis is that such a feeling is NOT conducive to improvement in skill.
Attempting way too complicated positions will NOT cause us to abandon knowledge and logic based thinking processes. Instead, we will flounder (spilling time), still trying the same old approach, and getting totally confused because of the complexity.
My suggestion is to train the skills of PERCEPTION rather than adding knowledge and training the thinking processes. We already know that PERCEPTION occurs in System 1. It is extremely fast because massively parallel. It is NOT a step-by-step thinking process based on using logic.
The question is simple: How do we train PERCEPTION?
training of Perception ist that not a training of board vision up to more complex tasks?
DeleteThe comparison of chessability to drawing is irritating for me.
In drawing is "to see" well .. a "to see" ( and to recognise objects , to create a 3 dimensional model of the reality and then: simulate the "model" with the methods of this art )
While chess , or better tactics is recognising of pieces ( 2 dim model ) and their contacts ( now the dimensions explode ;) but thats only a fraction of what is to do
Here a realy simple puzzle where i was too slow to gain points
https://chesstempo.com/chess-problems/64788
The start position is a check with a bishop , so its easy to find the candidate-moves
-King moves out of check
-Own piece moves between King and bishop ( interference)
-capure of the check giving piece
And now we have to look which of the potential candidates work and are good by calculation
You see very fast that you have to take the bishop
Now you have to see that the Knight cant take the bishop because its defending the queen
and you cant take with the rook at f1 because its defend the knight at e1
Instead of looking for other candidate i was so shure its either "Rf1 takes" or "Ne1 takes" i did not see "Ra3 takes" for many seconds.
Here seeing is recognising andyou dont see an object you see a "line" or at least a weakness ( which is something like a line with null moves for the opponent. I think this seeing is a form of recall and a combination of recall. The Ra3 is needed for nothing.. better its attacked and has to be moved anyway. Ther rook can take the bishop. You have to take the bishop. you cant do this job different. The rook a3 has no other job to do at a3... all recalls of stored information.
My experiencewith learning of strategy 3.0 let me suspect that chessability is closly related to chess-learning-speed. "Analysing a position" =~ "learning a position", "finding the solution" =~ "problem understood" =~ "position learned"
Lately is was reading or better screaning some chess(auto)biographys especially to find hints how famous masters got from say 1500 to 2000. I think its not interesting what they tell us what would be a good method to get better, it should be more interesting what they realy did. Well hard to find details here, but i found a interesting pattern. Many of these Masters had a faible to learn "stubborn" thing as little kids ( of say 4 years ) like capitols of (all) countrys. Kasparov, Carlsen and many others did exactly this. There is no thinking involved just stubborn learning by heart. Carlsen made a gigantic leap in performance in a very short while after his trainer tought him in a small group a mastergame every friday. His performance did explode, the performance of the other kids not. 2 or 3 years later Carlsen was able to recall every position of every of his chess books and name player game continuation and so forth. So i guess that Carson did learn these books by heart. ( Maybe as side effect of deep study but.. why to learn player name, year and place of game too ? I guess he just learnd the games by heart )
Now i think the masters play better because they see more = recall "related positions".
And they learn quicker because they already learned many "chunks"
Well at least my learning speed ( measured in rating gain at strategy 3.0 per 6 month ) is way slower than the learning speed of player with an elo of 2200
@ Aox:
Delete(1) training of Perception ist that not a training of board vision up to more complex tasks?
Not as I perceive it. (Sorry, I couldn't resist. :)
(2) The comparison of chessability to drawing is irritating for me.
My apology - I have no intention of irritating you (or anyone else). If the analogy or comparison does not "work" for you, then discard it.
I derive and grasp universals by using analogies between disparate fields. Perhaps it is because of taking Dr. Lasker at face value when he suggests examining a large number of positions and deriving my own "rules" by which to conduct my play.
I am often surprised that what I "see" seems to be either trivially obvious to others (once a potential analogy has been pointed out but NOT before) and therefore of no value for improvement, OR to be totally out in left field (and beyond the comprehension of others) and therefore of no value for improvement. I'll forgo any examples in the likelihood that they might irritate as well. Perhaps it is merely a mental aberration or an illusion on my part. It is not for naught that I was referred to as "Crazy Bob" during my professional career.
(3) If chess ability is closely related to chess learning speed, and chess learning speed is closely related to learning many "chunks," then it seems to logically follow that cramming many "chunks" into memory for recall would seem to be the solution to rapid chess improvement. That seems suspiciously close to an endorsement of MdlM's Seven Circles approach, which (I thought) has been disproved as a valid chess improvement process by the Knights Errant experience. And that begs the inevitable question of how to define "chunks" and how to cram them into long-term memory (System 1) so that they can be used when required.
I suspect that the masters cannot tell us (individually) how to improve because genetic traits (like "stubbornly" working on something until it is mastered) and actual experiences combine into a requirement for a unique training regimen for each player which is not (and cannot be) consciously recalled, especially after the passage of time. Once the appropriate perceptions have been formed, there is no memory trace left of the actual abilities and processes involved, Papa Polgar notwithstanding. All that is left is the final skill set. We can "see" the result but not the details of how the result was achieved. Perhaps all we can do is fall back on the usual master aphorism to "study master games." If so, then these in-depth investigations and discussions serve only to distract us from doing what is actually needed to improve.
To repeat 7 times 1000+ tactic puzzles is surely not enough for an improvement from 1300 to 2200 elopoints, especially if it is done as MDLM suggested. His "space management" was not good and chess is way more than just tactics.
DeleteMagnus Carlsen for example did learn each position of 10 000 games by heart ( with name of players, tournament, year ), that should be ~~800 000(?) positions with move .
I guess from reading about the Polgar experiment ( from Papa and Doughters ) that Papa Polgar did teach more or less what is written in his books..thousands of fragments of mastergames sorted by theme. What i dont know is , if he used repetition.
I dont think that its possible for an adult brain to aquire such extreme chess memory abilitys, but i will continue to work along this idea. To learn Strategy 3.0 will take me all together like 2 years. I guess starting with endgames might have been better in the long run.
Robert,
ReplyDeleteI will adds some thoughts on this in a few days. Jim Takchess.
On the pawn promotion idea. Here is a pawn promotion push that beat Carlsen in a recent world cup game. http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1884908
Slowly progressing. The shed is no longer a lost place. In the garden a bombshell went off. (were could I else put the stuff from the shed)
ReplyDeleteIt is not that often there is no new article withing one month :). I hope your creative work is reaching a higher and higher levels! Good luck my friend.
ReplyDeletePS. I miss new articles as they are very inspiring to me :).
No worries, nights become longer and weather becomes colder. I'll be back!
DeleteAnother position with the potential for promotion being a factor (Link: Winawer vs. Kolish, Paris 1867:
ReplyDeleteSimon Winawer vs Ignatz von Kolisch
Paris (1867), Paris FRA, Jun-10
Sicilian Defense: McDonnell Attack (B21) · 0-1
FEN: 6k1/bp4pp/p4p2/5P2/1Nr5/4pR2/qPP3PP/3Q3K b - - 0 28
This position is Problem V in GM Andy Soltis' column Chess to Enjoy, Chess Life, September 2017, pg. 17.
Back in the days when they held World's Fairs, international or major national tournaments were often held at the same time. This summer marks the 150th anniversary of one of the most impressive events, Paris 1867. It was won by Ignatz von Kolisch, perhaps the greatest Slovak player of all time. Sam Loyd, the "Puzzle King," became the first American to play in an international tournament but finished 6.5/24. Eugene Rousseau, who finished last, had lost the first recognized U.S. Championship, a match in 1845.
GM Soltis' solution (and the continuation of the game) is:
28. ... Rd4! 29. Qe1 Rxb4! (30. Qxb4 Qa1+ and mates) 30. g3 Qd5 31. Kg2 Qd2 White resigns. Not 28. ... Rxb4? 29. Qd8+ Kf7 30. Qd7+ with perpetual check.
While studying this problem, I did not even consider 29. Qe1. Instead, I "saw" 29. Nd3! (which is still "winning" for Black at -3.11, according to later Stockfish analysis). It removes the attack on the White Knight, and prevents an immediate debacle.
There was a (bad) "fantasy" variation in this alternative line. 28. ... Rd4 29. Nd3 Qxb2 30. Nxb2? (30. Rxe3 is better, getting rid of that dangerous passed Pawn) Rxd1+ 31. Nxd1 e2! and the Black Pawn threatens to either capture the White Knight or promote on the next move. The White Rook cannot prevent this. Stockfish gives 32. Ne3 e1Q+ 33. Rf1 and Black is totally winning.
After figuring out this line, I loaded the position into Stockfish for a look for alternatives I had missed. Stockfish much prefers 28. ... Qa5 29. Nd3 Qd2 (29. ... Rd8 is preferred at -2.88, with alternatives 29. ... Rd7/Rd6/Rd5 slightly lower) 30. Qxd2 exd2 31. Rf1 Rxc2 with an evaluation of -7.45. I did NOT "see" this line at all!
Understanding Chess Tactics - Martin Weteschnik, pg 81, The Reloader
ReplyDeleteFEN: 4rk1r/3n1pp1/p2b2p1/1q1P2P1/Np1R4/3pBP2/PP5P/2KQR3 b - - 0 25
Black to move and win
I spent considerable time last night (a couple of hours!) calculating possible variations in my mind (without sight of board). The crucial variation is 25. ... Nc5! (White resigned) 26. Nxc5 Qxc5+.
White only has two viable choices: 27. Kb1 or 27. Kd2.
I "saw" the reason for Master Gofshtein’s resignation almost immediately: 27. Kb1 Rxe3 28. Rxe3 Qxd4.
What intrigued me (and what I spent over 2 hours figuring out) is an alternative attempt to hang on with 27. Kd2?!. Since the first alternative is obviously losing, what does White have to lose (other than the game) by considering moving his King out into the fray?!? I wanted to know WHY this was a bad idea (or at least why it is considerably worse than the main variation). One Master did not consider it [I’m sure that was on the basis of his intuition, or perhaps he was just disgusted by allowing an “obvious” tactic] and another Master failed to comment on it in a textbook for amateurs. Perhaps it would have diminished the pedagogical value regarding this example of the reloader “motif.” Regardless, this “inquiring mind” wanted to know WHY not at least mention it?!? I also wanted to prove (to myself) that I could finish off the White King in that variation. Something about being "stubborn," I guess!
27. Kd2 Rxh2+ 28. Kxd3 puts the White King in the thick of things – not a good sign even to this amateur! 28. … Qb5+ 29. Rc4 (forcing moves are always good with regards to chasing down a King). Simplest appears to be 29. … Qxd5+.
30. Bd4 allows 30. … Rxe1 31. Qxe1 Qxf3+ 32. Be3 Rxb2 and Black should be able to win this. I dumped a lot of time trying to visualize if White could conjure up something with Rc8+, but the Black King can step up to e7, and the checks end, unless White can unpin the Be3.
30. Rd4 Qf5+ 31. Re4 (forced) Rxe4 32. fxe4 Qb5+ 33. Kd4 Be5#
There are alternative possibilities that are intriguing, including 29. … Rxb2 instead of 29. … Qxd5.
This morning, I put the position into Stockfish for confirmation that I wasn't hallucinating or "seeing" mirages. For a change, I did “see” most of the alternatives while solving “blindfold.” Hopefully, I can learn something from this type of exercise and, at the same time, practice being "stubborn."
Here’s the entire game:
[Date "1992.??.??"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Gofshtein, Leonid D"]
[Black "Afek, Yochanan"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "D20"]
[WhiteElo "2550"]
[BlackElo "2365"]
[PlyCount "50"]
[EventDate "1992.??.??"]
[EventType "swiss"]
[EventRounds "11"]
[EventCountry "ISR"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. e4 c5 4. d5 e6 5. Bxc4 Nf6 6. Nc3 exd5 7. exd5 a6 8. Bf4
Bd6 9. Qe2+ Kf8 10. Be3 b5 11. Bb3 Bg4 12. f3 Bf5 13. g4 Bg6 14. O-O-O Nbd7 15.
Nh3 Qa5 16. Nf4 c4 17. Nxg6+ hxg6 18. Bc2 b4 19. Na4 Qb5 20. Rd4 Re8 21. g5 Nh5
22. Re1 Nf4 23. Qd2 Nd3+ 24. Bxd3 cxd3 25. Qd1 Nc5 0-1
FWIW: An interesting article that I have not previously seen, regarding "pattern recognition" and why many present methods of study will not seriously improve or develop chess skills.
ReplyDeleteLink: Mind Games: Who is Doing the Playing?
While looking at various sites for chess improvement, I found the following two problems. These first two are on YouTube. Chess Nerd Bird (David Blackwelder, USCF 1700) solves tactics using Chess.com’s Tactics Trainer. According to him, the Lessons Learned are: check your move order and pay attention to what your opponent's moves threaten. Good points! David’s USCF rating is currently 1700. What struck me as “odd” (for a 1700-rated player) was his commentary as he examined the problems. The two problems are not difficult, yet the things he “sees” (along with what he misses) and the way he analyzes are interesting from a pedagogical perspective.
ReplyDeleteLink: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0f9Z4Pk7XM
[DRAT! Blogger won't allow a secure HTTPS link. So, do a search for "Tactics Training (1414 to 1442)" on YouTube, author "Chess Nerd Bird".
Problem 1: 4:37 on the video
r5k1/2Rb1r1q/4p1pB/p6p/7P/8/3Q1PP1/2R3K1 w - - 0 2
Black’s last move was 1. … Qh7
Problem 2: 7:44 on the video
Bk2r2r/2qp1p2/1p6/7p/1P1Q4/2P1n1PP/6P1/R5K1 b - - 0 1
White’s last move was 1. Qd4
While studying Master Weteschnik’s book (again), I noticed how much easier it is to solve after becoming aware of PoPLoAFun.
Understanding Chess Tactics – Martin Weteschnik, Diagram 14, pg 105
Problem 3:
2br1r2/b4pk1/p1pq2pp/3pN3/7Q/2PB3P/PP2RPP1/4R1K1 w - - 0 1
It never hurts to try again and again to embed this tactics stuff into LTM. Maybe some day it will finally "stick"!
I've gradually moved over from the "7 Circles" camp to the "Deliberate Practice" camp. After all, the more complex combinations really represent a union, Venn-Diagram style between tactics and deliberate practice, even shading over more into the deliberate practice type of training, since there it becomes more computionational/calculatorial, in any event. The simpler tactics practice, in order to stay fresh, is better represented by easier problems on CT-Art or by playing bullet-chess.
ReplyDeleteI feel the main thing for my improvement forward is not simply tactics, but more calculation and retraining of common-sense by "guess the move" type study, which is backed up by the deliberate practice paper(s). Solving more "simple looking" positions this way is perhaps even more effective than trying to always solve problems where one has to be a "tactical deity", or "that" guy on "that" given day to see through all the queen sacs to mate.
I find these types of discussions on this site, amongst the rest of you, to be more interesting than anywhere else.
Speaking of embedding tactics into LTM. I blindfold memorized the Morphy Opera Game nearly two months back, and it has become a bit of a "hobby-horse" of mine since, occasionally retracing it to prepare my blindfold abilities (for calculating variations during games), and this has actually helped my OTB performance (not always in rating points because you still need to build the discipline ability to do this on every move, and etc.)
ReplyDeletehttp://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1233404
So, today, I counted out the moves, visualized them (done it before multiple times, but this is a practice). Each time, I've focused more and more on the logic of what's going on. This time, it occurred to me that 14.BxNf6 is another easy win, not that I didn't somehow know but it became noticeable while blindfolding. So I visualized mate to move 19, while sitting here and peeking at a board twice (just to speed it up and make sure). I've spent well over an hour doing this before, and each time it gets faster.
I can tell by watching the SpeedChessChallenge video (on youtube) that Magus is visualizing positions and going back to them (by looking at his eyes). When I look at the eyes of Rapport, I can see him calculating variations move by move with his eyes. Each player is different, Grishuk seems to look more for ideas, and his eyes can be comparatively still. I played a girl a few times back in the day, she would look at my shirt or the wall, later she became a Master (and teaches chess classes), and it's obvious to me now why.
Paul Morphy vs Duke Karl / Count Isouard
ReplyDelete"A Night at the Opera" (game of the day Dec-02-2007)
Paris (1858), Paris FRA
Philidor Defense: General (C41) · 1-0
4kb1r/p2rqppp/5n2/1B2p1B1/4P3/1Q6/PPP2PPP/2K4R w k - 0 14
Stockfish (using the Olga interface on chessgames.com) gives:
1) +8.35 (26 ply) 14.Rd1 Qd6 15.Rxd6 Bxd6 16.Bxf6 gxf6 17.Qh3 O-O 18.Bxd7 Rd8 19.Bf5 Kf8 20.Qh6+ Ke7 21.Qe3 Ra8 22.Bxh7 Kf8 23.Bf5 Kg7 24.c3 Bc7 25.Qg3+ Kf8 26.Kc2 Bb6 27.f3 Rd8 28.a3 Be3 29.h3 Rd2+ 30.Kb3 Re2
2) +2.10 (25 ply) 14.Bxf6 Qxf6 15.Bxd7+ Kxd7 16.Qb7+ Ke6 17.Qd5+ Ke7 18.Rd1 Qf4+ 19.Kb1 f5 20.exf5 Qxf5 21.Rd3 Qe6 22.Qd8+ Kf7 23.Rf3+ Kg6 24.Rxf8 Rxf8 25.Qxf8 Qc4 26.Qd6+ Kf5 27.Qd1 Ke6 28.b3 Qe4 29.g3 Qd4 30.Qxd4 exd4 31.Kc1 g5 32.Kd2 Kf6 33.f3 Ke6
3) +1.37 (25 ply) 14.Qc4 Qc5 15.Qxc5 Bxc5 16.Bxf6 gxf6 17.Rd1 Bd4 18.Bxd7+ Ke7 19.Ba4 Rg8 20.g3 Bxf2 21.Rd7+ Kf8 22.b4 Rg4 23.Bc6 Bg1 24.c4 Bxh2 25.Bd5 Ke8 26.Rxa7 Bxg3 27.Kc2 h5 28.Bxf7+ Kd8 29.Bxh5 Rh4 30.Bf3 Bf2 31.Ra8+ Kc7
@ LinuxGuy:
This time, it occurred to me that 14.BxNf6 is another easy win, not that I didn't somehow know but it became noticeable while blindfolding. So I visualized mate to move 19, while sitting here and peeking at a board twice (just to speed it up and make sure). I've spent well over an hour doing this before, and each time it gets faster.
Would you be so kind as to give your analysis results (“ I visualized mate to move 19”)? I can see a clear win in line 2) above, but no mate on move 19. Or did that comment refer to following Morphy's "solution" (which abruptly ends on move 17)? I'm not "seeing" it.
One of the things that is becoming clearer to me regarding important factors of training is that IFF I force myself to work through ALL the variations in my head, I gain so much more than just by “reading and nodding” (quoting GM Nigel Davies). Far too often, when solving tactics problems, I’m guilty of just working out the main variation (LAZINESS!!! After all, I WAS a professional programmer ;-) ), then checking to make sure that I “got it right” (with a quick “pat on the back” if I d-i-d get it right) and then moving on to the next problem. I’m finding out there is not much long-term gain doing that, so I'm trying very hard to discipline my thinking more, forcing myself to consider everything I can think of before verifying a solution. It's not so much a "thinking process" per se, although I definitely follow the Vulture's Path through the "pie in the sky" variations.
Oh, my bad, I meant 15.BxNf6, and I was being lazy by only testing my blindfold analysis ability there after the ridiculous capture 15...QxNf6. But even the better 15...gxBf6, 16.BxR+ QxB, 17.Qb8+ Ke7, 18.RxRd7+ KxR, 19.c4 g6, 20.Kc2 Bg7, 21.Qxa7 is an easy win with three passed pawns. That line, at least I can say I visualized relatively easily, and I think it's because I try blindfolding something (even this game!) every once in a while (like practicing scales).
ReplyDeleteTonight, just before this, I was reading The Ragozin Complex by Barsky, top notch I'd give it 20 out of 20, and I was blindfolding the sub-variations not intentionally, but because I can and it wasn't necessary to break out a board or computer. Without a way of practicing blindfold, like with the Opera game, I never would have been able to do this without it being a useless strain. The blindfold exercise, along with occasional bullet-chess I feel has recently sped up my ability to analyze concrete variations.
However, and it's terrible how you can pick up skills in chess and still not improve a rating, I played a game last night, muffed a win, terrible, then had the easy draw but again went for a win and lost to an Expert. I'll post it to my blog in a little while, once I get the analysis up, at http://linuxguyonfics.wordpress.com . The main thing is having a sense of and understanding certain positions where there is no diagram of how to proceed. If someone told you which move to analyze it's one thing (and this could also enhance your confidence OTB in such a line, for example if a "genie" Master hypothetically nodded for you to look at it), but this particular opponent loves to not trade, back off, and give me lots of positions to analyze to hurt me on the clock. It's different than a tactics puzzle where there is this one monolithic line leading to a win, versus going from winning plan to winning plan, move after move, to get the win, depending on opponent's responses.
I like your comment on being a programmer, as I once was for a short time as well, and this is sort of how I am approaching improvement in this indirect/direct(?) way, and that is to try to strengthen my own abilities as if I were hardware (how many lines can I calculate and juggle in my head, OTB). Some of this ability is dependent on getting good sleep, and not being in terrible physical shape, like I sometimes am.
However, at the board, "what to analyze" I find is often much an issue that I spend too much clock time on. For example, what is the problem in this xyz position(?) I feel I spend a lot of time trying to figure out what the actual problems in the position are, and this actually hampers my ability to solve them to some degree. Here is the issue, people like to describe chess in a lot of books and such as if it were purely deductive logic. One of the reasons it seems so unreasonably difficult to succeed at chess is that there is some inductive logic in chess, particulary in compositions, for example, where you sort of have to figure out what the problem is! Then, OTB, when I am going in between inductive and deductive thinking this greatly hampers my efficiency. If the board lit up with arrows showing the threats for me, which is an example of the inductive part, then I could purely let my brain focus on the deductive part of solving those problems, but in chess you must do both! I think this is where the problem of ghosts or just mental fog, mental confusion, and other such phenomenon many players struggle with OTB, it's because one has to go back and forth between inductive and deductive thinking on the same move, and after the game act as if it were all a deduction, which in hindsight everything is. Okay, some players have more issues than that, but that's one of my biggest OTB issues at the moment. Now that I am aware of this issue, I think just knowing this will help me in my internal feedback loop (inner conversation at the board) for the next game I play.
Oh, my bad, I meant 15.BxNf6, and I was being lazy by only testing my blindfold analysis ability there after the ridiculous capture 15...QxNf6. But even the better 15...gxBf6, 16.BxR+ QxB, 17.Qb8+ Ke7, 18.RxRd7+ KxR, 19.c4 g6, 20.Kc2 Bg7, 21.Qxa7 is an easy win with three passed pawns. That line, at least I can say I visualized relatively easily, and I think it's because I try blindfolding something (even this game!) every once in a while (like practicing scales).
ReplyDeleteTonight, just before this, I was reading The Ragozin Complex by Barsky, top notch I'd give it 20 out of 20, and I was blindfolding the sub-variations not intentionally, but because I can and it wasn't necessary to break out a board or computer. Without a way of practicing blindfold, like with the Opera game, I never would have been able to do this without it being a useless strain. The blindfold exercise, along with occasional bullet-chess I feel has recently sped up my ability to analyze concrete variations.
However, and it's terrible how you can pick up skills in chess and still not improve a rating, I played a game last night, muffed a win, terrible, then had the easy draw but again went for a win and lost to an Expert - http://linuxguyonfics.wordpress.com . The main thing is having a sense of and understanding certain positions where there is no diagram of how to proceed. If someone told you which move to analyze it's one thing (and this could also enhance your confidence OTB in such a line, for example if a "genie" Master hypothetically nodded for you to look at it), but this particular opponent loves to not trade, back off, and give me lots of positions to analyze to hurt me on the clock. It's different than a tactics puzzle where there is this one monolithic line leading to a win, versus going from winning plan to winning plan, move after move, to get the win, depending on opponent's responses.
I like your comment on being a programmer, as I once was for a short time as well, and this is sort of how I am approaching improvement in this indirect/direct(?) way, and that is to try to strengthen my own abilities as if I were hardware (how many lines can I calculate and juggle in my head, OTB). Some of this ability is dependent on getting good sleep, and not being in terrible physical shape, like I sometimes am.
However, at the board, "what to analyze" I find is often much an issue that I spend too much clock time on. For example, what is the problem in this xyz position(?) - this is particularly true in the opening. I feel I spend a lot of time trying to figure out what the actual problems in the position are, and this actually hampers my ability to solve them to some degree. Here is the issue, people like to describe chess in a lot of books and such as if it were purely deductive logic. One of the reasons it seems so unreasonably difficult to succeed at chess is that there is some inductive logic in chess, particulary in compositions, for example, where you sort of have to figure out what the problem is! Then, OTB, when I am going in between inductive and deductive thinking this greatly hampers my efficiency. If the board lit up with arrows showing the threats for me, which is an example of the inductive part, then I could purely let my brain focus on the deductive part of solving those problems, but in chess you must do both! I think this is where the problem of ghosts or just mental fog, mental confusion, and other such phenomenon many players struggle with OTB, it's because one has to go back and forth between inductive and deductive thinking on the same move, and after the game act as if it were all a deduction, which in hindsight everything is. Okay, some players have more issues than that, but that's one of my biggest OTB issues at the moment. Now that I am aware of this issue, I think just knowing this will help me in my internal feedback loop (inner conversation at the board) for the next game I play.
About your time problems:
DeleteI think you should try to implement a "thinking process" like "When do i think about what".
For example: general thoughts like positioanl or strategical thoughts should be made (only?) while your opponent is thinking , concrete calculations should be made (only?) when its our turn to move. Here the method of candidate moves help to save time.
Strategical conciderations are only(mainly) to update when a pwan was moved or an exchange was done and so forth
GM Smirnov has some advice here : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVqgKnv37m4