Tuesday, December 12, 2017

Simplifying the tree of scenarios

So how would a simplified tree of scenarios may look like?


  1. I like the simplification of the "test room!" I think it likely that this entire tree can be relatively easily remembered during position investigations.

    My only suggestion would be to add (perhaps) a "determine Function" to the "actions" branch. I'm uncertain if this is covered by the "generally applicable" -> "exploit immobility" branch. Obviously, any time there is a "function" to be performed, there is immobility (to some degree) of the piece performing that function.

  2. To uncouple the initiative and immobility from "the rest" is a major breakthrough. I'm still limping between different angles of attack though.

    The "actions" are activities of the mind while investigating the position. function should be added there again indeed. The list with actions is something different than the tree of scenarios.

    Neutralize counter attack before and defend against counter attack after, is in fact looking at the initiative from your opponents perspective. The moment you cash in, you usually loose the initiative. That is why it is said that the threat is often stronger than the execution. Can your opponent take over the initiative when you cash in?

    Actually, the core of the tree consists of only one branch: change the balance.

    Maintaining the initiative is a two headed monster: one heads keeps the opponent busy, while the other head executes the plan.

    In practice, I look at only two functions: does a piece attack or does a piece defend? If for instance a piece blocks a line of attack, it defends.

    The Lack of Space hangs a bit lopsided now. Since I wasn't redesigning it. I could prune a few branches, though.

    I must reshuffle the tree of scenarios until justice is done to all the points above.

  3. Here Munich:

    you can hardly think that complex in a chess game. Not even in a tournament game.
    However, short sentences you can handle. During my games (even blitz games) I used to keep telling myself
    "To take is a mistake" (actually shorter: "dont take" and
    "keep my options"
    (...until they really yield something: so to do (use) a discovery which does not gain anything is not sensible to do. Leave the discovery as a threat). This motto/mantra is also known as "the threat is stronger than its excecution", but I like "keep my options" better.

    Then, after I got used to telling me guidance rules like that, I implemented other new guidance rules.

    Your tree talks of determine an object.
    I used to tell myself the Starwars Yoda-like-witness:

    If a time advantage you have -
    an object to attack you must create.

    It is a bit too long to really keep telling you in a game, but when I saw that I am had a development advantage (tempo advantage), then I used "must create" and knew what I was talking about. And later I replaced it with "make it sharper" or "mess it up".

    Sort of that.
    Anyway, what players are often not aware: to be ahead in development is worth little if you can not use this time advantage. It is simply a temporary advantage, which will quickly fade away. But if you have open files, diagonals, rows, good spots for knights, and if you can create a weakness - then you often get something for this time advantage. Something that lasts.