 |
| Diagram 1. Black to move |
[Solution]
White is currently saddled with:
- no task
Black is currently saddled with:
- no task
Balance = W - B = 0
1. ... Nxd3+ (first thing system I comes up with)
White is saddled with:
- recapturing a piece
- resolving the attack on the king
- resolving the attack on bishop a3
Black is currently saddled with:
- resolving the attack on bishop
Balance W - B = 3 - 1 = 2
2. Bxd3
Performs the following tasks:
- recapturing a piece
- resolving the attack on the king
- resolve the attack on bishop a3
Saddles black with:
- resolving the attack on bishop e2
- resolving the attack on bishop c4
Balance W-B=1-2= -1
So this is evidently not good.
1. ... Bxd3 New branch. Black has entered the longest line of captures (d3 - e2 - d1)
Saddles white with:
- recapturing a piece
Balance= 1-0=1
System II
This is an orgy of lists and counting. Just what system II is fond of, but at which it is not good, due to a shortage of memory slots in the Short Term Memory.
But can it be of any value for system I, which has nothing with lists or counting whatsoever? Maybe. We have already developed a method for backwards thinking that is very powerful in pruning the tree of analysis. If we can combine that with tempo awareness, which works forward, we might hit the jackpot.
If we can find a simple method for reasoning based on tempo logic, system I might jump in.
UPDATE
I assume that everybody starts with looking at the discovered attack 1. ... Nxd3+
Normally this would work. The reason that it doesn't work here, is that 2. Bxd3 is with additional punch. By starting with 1. ... Bxd3, the problematic bishop is traded first, thus depriving the opponent from the additional punch. It is all very logical, but the patterns are new to me, in a sense.
This is the question around which everything revolves:
You can't learn patterns with system I without being aware of them. During learning, you are aware of them with system II. After learning the patterns, the conscious awareness of system II is no longer needed for retrieving them from memory.
Is this true?
Update in blue.
ReplyDeletePART I:
ReplyDeleteTemposchlucker asks: Is this true?
YES!
The entire process of learning to play better is to shift from explicitly logical step-by-step SLOW System II "thought processes" to subconsciously generated FAST "intuitions". System II should only come into play AFTER System I has done its "magic" pattern recognition, functioning as the Popper falsification mechanism to identify where System I MAY have made an incorrect intuition. Your assessment of the problem associated with making exhaustive "lists" (or "trees") and then trying to process them step-by-step is correct. Making lists and processing them like a bookkeeper MAY be something that works in an academic setting (or inside a computer), where time to "solve" is (usually) not a factor, but it is the WRONG approach for both solving problems and playing a skilled game of chess. This may explain why Einstein was a mediocre chess player while concurrently being a genius and a brilliant scientist.
The problem is that System II is "lazy" and (in the absence of "threats" which trigger the "flight or fight" response) will generally just accept System I's "recommendations" without bothering to check them. The player must force System II to focus and to investigate the ramifications of the “intuitions”, not to confirm but to DISCONFIRM any and all System I intuitions. As adults, this is an extremely difficult thing to do, because we have been trained through the educational process and personal experience to generally ignore System I's intuitions and rely almost exclusively upon System II's step-by-step logic.
If the answer to "is this true?" is "YES!", then it has quite a few ramifications. It implies that there is no difference in young and adult learning in regard to the method.
DeleteThe discovered attack 1. ... Nxd3+ popped to the mind. Indicating the activity of system I. It makes no sense to start with the king because I always start with the king. After all, we need to save time where we can, and working trough a predefined thought process while system I has already sprung into action is a sure way to spill your time.
After the popping up of the discovered attack at the initiative of system I, I falsify it by making use of system II, which tells me that the discovered attack doesn't lead to the gain of wood due to 2. Nxd3
After the falsification, I fall in sort of mental sleeping state, though. It is a bit what see when a boxer throws a few punches, and then leans back to enjoy what he has done. In these moments a boxer is the most vulnerable.
In the state of mental sleeping, I'm easily distracted, and before I know it, I find myself in trial and error mode, trying all sorts of moves which bear no relation with what I just have discovered.
What I NEED to do though, is asking myself "this is not working, but can I MAKE it work?"
Since this extremely logical question isn't asked, I continue to spill a lot of time, until I stumble BY ACCIDENT on the move 1. ... Bxd3
It is interesting to see how the problem is rated. 1800 in blitz mode, and 1600 in normal mode. In blitz mode, the answer is given four times faster than in normal mode.
Indicating that a lot of blitzers play 1. ... Nxd3+ without falsifying it. Those who verify it, need 4x more time.
A stronger player solves a puzzle faster, Empitical Rabbit and i made a lot of calculations about that. My results where that a player with 140 elopoints more solves at average in ~~~ 1 / 2 of the time. The effect, that a stronger player is quicker than a weaker player, is true even with so simple tasks like: to say if the black king is already checkmated.
DeletePART I:
Delete@ Temposchlucker: ". . . the discovered attack doesn't lead to the gain of wood due to 2. Nxd3" (I presume that was meant to be 2. Bxd3.)
Please reexamine your thoughts. When you “saw” 1. … Nxd3+, were you concurrently cognizant of the unprotected status of the WBa3 and trying to take advantage of it? If so, that would be System I at work: BOTH possibilities occurred essentially simultaneously.
Concurrently (or following almost immediately), you “saw” that 1. … Nxd3+ (a “forcing” move) followed by 2. Bxd3 countered the possibility of gaining the WBa3 for free because of the vis-a-vis between the four Bishops – and you rejected 1. … Nxd3+ without further logical analysis. GREAT!
I speculate that all these instantaneous and almost simultaneous notions were generated by System I, not System II. In this case, System II had no falsification to do; you simply “saw” that this line should be rejected.
What should have been triggered is a DIFFERENT way to take advantage of that hanging WBa3, which also involves the d3-square. After all, LPDO is a key motif!
GM Beim's old Soviet Union aphorism comes to mind: "If it doesn't work, but you really want it to, then it must work!" But then, you have to FORCE yourself to stay FOCUSED on the target!
You wrote “. . . working through a predefined thought process while system I has already sprung into action is a sure way to spill your time.“ You are absolutely correct, BUT . . .
During TRAINING (while driving a process into System I), it WILL take a considerable amount of time to work through each problem. After repeating this process over and over ad nauseum, eventually the process steps should RECEDE from System II (foreground) into System I (background). IF THE PROCESS IS NOT ENTIRELY SUBCONSCIOUS, THEN THERE HAS NOT BEEN SUFFICIENT TRAINING IN USING THE PROCESS. Or, there MAY be insufficient reliance on the process and System I. This is understandably murky psychobabble.
PART II:
DeleteI may have given insufficient explanation for Popper falsification using System II. This is NOT intended to be a formal logical process as is usually conducted in the sciences.
System I is (generally) reliable in its intuitions in most situations. However, it will churn up the answer to a SIMPLER question, if one is readily available. It cannot differentiate between the applicability of the questions that trigger it, and therefore cannot judge whether the answer(s) it provides are actually appropriate for the given situation. Dr. Kahneman gives many examples of this in his book; I won’t try to give them here. It becomes the responsibility of System II to determine if the answer(s) are appropriate for the original question. It is only in this sense that I speak of falsification.
One of the major psychological difficulties is trying to “falsify” System I’s FAST intuitions. The usual interaction between System I and System II is that System I proposes and System II accepts and concurs with the proposal. It runs “against the grain” for System II to be used to falsify (counter) System I’s proposals, especially in situations like chess in which there is no threat of potential harm. I think this conflict with our ingrained habitual interworking of System I and System II may be the major reason why adults have such a hard time improving at chess. We are predisposed to NOT trust System I! Kids do not have the ingrained adult habit of relying on System II for “thinking”; they simply allow System I to churn up possibilities and they accept them without questioning or overriding them using System II. Over time, they become accustomed to using and trusting System I as they progress in skill.
Your statement “It implies that there is no difference in young and adult learning in regard to the method.” is CORRECT.
Please think about what I wrote regarding reliance on System II almost exclusively as ADULTS. We have done this for so long (with such success) that it is actually embedded in our System I!
System II is also responsible for “jumping” out of the thinking process (to a meta-level; the “vulture’s eye view, if you will) whenever it determines that System I has not answered the original question. Unfortunately, System II is also “lazy” in the sense that it will accept System I’s recommended answer(s) unless System II is FOCUSED on getting the correct answer. Yet, the very fact that System II can be “focused” in one direction makes us “blind” to other possibilities in alternative directions. (Reference: the “Invisible Gorilla” experiment)
PART II:
ReplyDeleteFred Reinfeld, in his introduction (”Emanuel Lasker: An Appreciation”) to Lasker’s Manual of Chess, gives (perhaps) a unintended critical “clue” in his discussion of Dr. Tarrasch versus Dr. Lasker. Tarrasch’s strength resided in his logical ability to conceive broad general principles [BASED ON SYSTEM II THINKING.] Tarrasch himself related that he excelled in every academic subject, except mathematics. Mathematics requires imagination and exactitude. Tarrasch was able to conceive the great plans, but he was inclined to be pedantic in execution. A great mathematician who had trouble with the details can work at a solution step-by-step, by making lists and taking as much time as needed to work through the lists, or by handing off the “trivial” calculations to an assistant. In chess, the master must do everything for himself, within the prescribed time limit. “The moral of Tarrasch’s play, at its ideal best, inheres in its LOGIC [SYSTEM II], and was therefore readily transmitted in books of instruction.”
I personally find it extremely difficult to "trust" my System I intuitions because I am (primarily) a "left brained" person, having spent my adult life in fields (electronics, computers) that foster reliance on System II. I WANT to be able to PROVE (using logic) WHY the move I have chosen is the best move, and am very uncomfortable just "winging it" relying on non-verbal intuition. That is totally antithetical to the desired process, which can be summarized as:
TRUST (System I) BUT VERIFY (using System II).
Much easier said than done!
We will know we have succeeded when we are no longer conscious of the process by which we "see" promising moves. Until that point is reached, we must consciously follow a set of guidelines (a "logical" step-by-step thinking process) relying on System II. Some of us never make the transition because we come to rely on System II (consciously retrievable knowledge) and a step-by-step process exclusively. But we don't need more (deeper) KNOWLEDGE; we don’t need more check LISTS and associated step-by-step processes; we need more SKILL (using what we already "know" through our intuition). I think this may be one of the reasons why adult chess improvement is so difficult - and so rarely successful. We just can’t convince ourselves to trust our intuitions That manifests itself (sometimes) in our need to logically explain WHY we made our decisions.
The fact that this blog is still in the air after 13 years, means that I still have trust in my initial instinct.
DeleteI see your point. I'm going to experiment with it.
DeletePART III:
ReplyDeleteWhen I first became a manager, it was very stressful, because I was used to relying on my own skills, and not depending on anyone else. One of the things I learned (by studying a lot of managerial literature and then experimenting on unwitting participants in the workplace) was to trust my intuition, even when it felt uncomfortable. As an integral part of that process (which took several years), I had to (try to) avoid giving a logical explanation (even to myself) of WHY my intuition was correct. I don't remember who wrote it, but somewhere I read that the intuition itself would most likely be correct but the logical explanation would almost always be incomplete or just plain WRONG, and completely unsatisfactory to other people. After a number of years demonstrating both technical and managerial expertise, the people I worked with generally accepted it when I just said, "Trust me, it WILL work as I described it."
And yet, when it comes to chess, I still fight AGAINST relying on and trusting my intuition! The best game I've ever won (against a FIDE Master) was because throughout that game, I relied on my intuition to "see" what was needed, only using System II to check that I was NOT just hanging something.
How can you trust system I when it needs constant falsification? That sounds contradictory.
DeleteYou need a feedback, that can be done as an aftermath.
DeleteIf we would know how improvement is done, we would be better;)
What puzzles me the most is that better player are not only faster in doing chessrelated tasks ( like solving puzzles, telling if the king is in check, list all attackers ) they are better and faster in learning chessrelated things too ( repeating the moves of a game, recall of a position, improving on a large set of puzzles ).
Reliance on System I combined with System II "feedback" (a much better term than falsification) are not mutually exclusive nor contradictory. Word salads do not adequately convey why this is true. Only our adult System II thinks there is a contradiction.
Delete@ Aox: "What puzzles me the most is that better player are not only faster in doing chessrelated tasks, . . . they are better and faster in learning chessrelated things too . . ."
DeletePerhaps a consideration of the role of neural connections provides a clue. It has been demonstrated scientifically that the more "paths" (i.e., neural connections) that exist for retrieval of "memories", the easier it is to recall relevant information and to add new information to memory. Consider the classical method for memorization, the Method of Loci. Those who utilize this method find it easier to remember (memorize) alternative sets of facts and to readily recall them because the neural networks which support the memories is already in place. In essence the scaffolding has already been built and put into place; it is simply a matter of building on and adding to that solid foundation. The more connections, the more likely that the massively parallel operations will easily find and retrieve related information. Since there are already existing connections to related information, only a small number of additional connections are needed to "cement" in new information. This makes it considerably easier for the accomplished to add in new skills.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe "Method of Loci" might be a good hint. Maybe we just need to replace the typical "Loci" ( a room ) by a sufficient set of positions or a set of tactical motives or both? The standard "Loci" of a tactic-puzzle are the tactical motives.. fork, weak backrank..
DeleteMaybe it would help to create a good "Loci" and make shure to store puzzles "there". The method for such a training seems to be clear: every puzzle ( or just the puzzle which is difficult for us ) needs do be categorised by a system until this process is automized. I will follow this idea for a while
1.categorize (formerly blundered) puzzles by tactical weakness
2.categorize (formerly blundered) puzzles by tactical motiv ( method )
3.create a further "loci" by exessive learning of all 5x5 motivs of GM A. Blokh and using this sytem too
4. Categorize the own blunder at this puzzle to
Shure, not all together at the beginning...
https://chesstempo.com/chess-tactics/98515
ReplyDeletethis is a puzzle which is rated 1779 at solvingtime =26 sec and only 977 at solvingtime 54 sec. It shows one problem at solving tactics : to see the whole board = the complete situation and shows how instincts can go wrong. In most situations where a tactics is available, the last move of the opponent was wrong, and when you an win something..
Weird ratings. The notion that queens don't get given away for free prevents me from seeing it when it actually happens.
DeleteRobert said "But then, you have to FORCE yourself to stay FOCUSED on the target!"
ReplyDeleteI can't imagine that the average grandmaster has such faster system I than us mere patzers. Where we differ is how often we waste time.
When I discovered that 1. ... Nxd3+ 2. Bxd3 didn't work, I mentally started to check my Facebook, so to speak (I don't have Facebook). I fell mentally asleep. My system II went to bed. I changed gears and started the autopilot.
It is this lack of discipline of the mind that is the problem. Doing 100k+ exercises has done me more wrong than good, in this department.
What I try to cultivate is a new interest in the game. Discovering new things about the initiative has sparked new interest. After all, the question "how can I make it work?" IS quite interesting. But the habit to lean back mentally when it becomes interesting is still getting the best of me.
PART I:
ReplyDelete@ Temposchlucker: "Where we differ is how often we waste time."
ABSOLUTELY TRUE!!!
Everyone's System I operates within a very narrow range (statistically insignificant) in terms of physical neuron speed and the number of neurons available as associative memory. Yet, masters DO "see" the KEY FEATURES of most positions much FASTER than lower rated players. A very strange conundrum - how can this be?!?
Dr. (and IM) Fernand Gobet has a new book coming out 21 NOV 2018 on Amazon: The Psychology of Chess. I think it will be eye-opening for some of us. Here's a small excerpt from Chapter 1, The Eye of the Master (emphasis added).
"It is AS IF masters SEE the board differently than weaker players. . . . When novices see wooden or plastic pieces, MASTERS SEE TRAJECTORIES, IDEAS, CONCEPTS, AND SEQUENCES OF MOVES [i.e., KEY FEATURES]. . . . one of the hallmarks of experts . . . is the ability to rapidly PERCEIVE the KEY FEATURES of a problem."
"[de Groot's research]. . . although grandmasters played better moves, they did not differ substantially from other players with respect to structural variables such as the depth of search, the number of moves considered or the strategies used when carrying out search (see Chapter 3 [The best move] for details). There WAS an important difference, however. The best players were able to PINPOINT PROMISING SOLUTIONS very rapidly, which allowed them to narrow down their search drastically. . . . the difference resided in the very first few seconds of SEEING a position: PERCEPTION IS CENTRAL IN CHESS EXPERTISE."
The masters spill NO time chasing rabbits (implausible variations) into the System II briar patch. Weaker players cannot recognize either rabbits or briar patches, and so must spend a considerable amount of time investigating totally useless possibilities, ending up stuck in the briars. If you cannot recognize KEY FEATURES [using System I to quickly identify motifs or "signals", themes, and potential moves], you cannot respond rapidly (using System I); you are stuck trying to use System II step-by-step logic as a substitute - and we already know that System II in comparison to System I is glacially SLOW, with limited Short-Term Memory slots available for retaining important information during the process. Consequently, the weaker player keeps "losing the thread" and has to repetitiously retrace his steps time and again. This is one possible explanation for the difference in APPARENT speed.
PART II:
ReplyDeleteWhat does "seeing" involve? PERCEPTION OF KEY FEATURES. We have to KNOW what FEATURES are, instantaneously, through System I pattern recognition. We can prune down to KEY features only AFTER we can recognize FEATURES. What are (some of) these features? Contacts, PoPs, LoAs, Funs, motifs, tactical themes/devices, typical move sequences in combinations, standard combinations and mating patterns, etc., in short, the very things that we have been exploring for so long. But it is important to note that it is NECESSARY BUT NOT SUFFICIENT to make lists of these features and to be able to NAME them. IDENTIFICATION and naming and listing of features are NOT the same as having the System I capability to RECOGNIZE THESE FEATURES INSTANTANEOUSLY! How do we gain this "magic" capability? By starting with ONE feature and FOCUSING on "seeing" that ONE feature repeatedly until we no longer have any conscious thought of "seeing" that feature. When we KNOW that even if we are NOT consciously thinking about that feature and NOT trying LOGICALLY to "see" it but it immediately comes to mind whenever it does exist, then (and only then) we can move on to the next feature. For training purposes, it does not matter in which order the features are trained into System I. However, it makes more sense (with more immediate payback) to first train the features that occur more frequently. Unfortunately, I think most of us are guilty of considering the training process completed when (using System II) we learn to identify a feature some of the time. We then move on without periodic refresher training (spaced repetition) while assuming that mere familiarity with the CONCEPT is all that is needed. We can "talk the talk" but we CANNOT "walk the walk."
Discipline of the mind is a KEY component of playing at a higher level. I've stated several times here that I don't think that merely sleep walking through thousands of tactical exercises is very productive pattern recognition training. The disciplined FOCUS that is needed to find and embed KEY FEATURES into System I is missing. FOCUSED ATTENTION on very specific features is one of the core elements of "deliberate practice". Without it, we are just "going through the motions" - and we do NOT gain in SKILL!
Yes,... but how and what now in concrete?
DeleteI will stay with my "Loci" method for a while, focusing on : what was going wrong
My advice (FWIW): Pick ONE FEATURE and stick with it until it becomes subconsciously triggered (without using System II to “remember” based on a checklist) whenever it appears in any randomly given position. For example, pick ONE category/approach given below, and then ONE FEATURE/aspect within that category and FOCUS on “seeing” that FEATURE/aspect in multiple problems/positions at random. Initially, looking for that one FEATURE will require effortful attention (focus) using System II. As much as possible, try to shift from using System II to just “seeing” instantaneously using System I. No checklist, no step-by-step, just “awareness” of that FEATURE either explicitly or implicitly in the position. Once the FEATURE has been recognized, go to the next problem/position. Spend NO time trying to “see” a solution (or worse, trying to logically figure out a solution), nor to “see” any other FEATURE. Only one FEATURE per customer allowed at one time!
ReplyDeleteSome initial possibilities for consideration:
AVERBAKH:
Attacking contacts
Blocking contacts
Controlling contacts
Defending contacts
Promotion (queening) contacts
Prevention of promotion contacts
TEMPOSCHLUCKER:
Vulture's eye view
PoPs - Points of Pressure
LoAs - Lines of Attacks (Auras)
Funs – Functions
Initiative
Tempo appraisal
FOCUS ATTENTION!
LASKER’S MOTIFS (Neiman's "Signals"):
Function
King in the "box"
Encircling
Geometrical
- Intersection
- Obstruction (and Removal of obstruction)
LPDO - Loose Pieces Drop Off (Nunn)
Desperado
Assault
Promotion
Tempo (Zwischenzug; Zwischenscach)
AoxomoxoA Wondering:
Method of Loci (classical memorizing technique)
As can be seen, there is some overlap between categories: for example, LoAs = Geometrical Motif. Different terminology but very similar ideas. The terminology is unimportant; just pick something YOU are comfortable with as a name for that FEATURE and then use that consistently during your training sessions. The NAME has no significance; only the perception of each FEATURE has value.
When you are TRAINING, realize when you do NOT recognize the FEATURE being trained, and then focus intently on WHY (in that given instance) you did NOT "see" it. I think in a very short time period you will begin to "see" more clearly.
Dr. Lasker opines that inculcating a very small number of these FEATURES into the subconscious will provide a rapid increase in playing skill. It is NOT important to know every possible FEATURE/motif/theme. Even a small number of them in combination with each other will give considerable opportunities for "seeing" and "chunking," and will result in improved tactical play.
What do you have to lose by trying this training regimen?!? Just your inability to "see" FEATURES!!!
I sign up for the "additional punch"!
DeleteOne additional thought, which is important.
ReplyDeleteDon't worry about "combining" various FEATURES (i.e., “seeing” more than one FEATURE simultaneously). Let System I do its "magic" - it WILL automagically bring ALL APPLICABLE FEATURES upward into consciousness simultaneously. This is the built-in “magic” of System I.
For example, in the problem given above, there is no need to separately "see" the "hanging" WBa3 (and try to remember LPDO) A-N-D "seeing" the opening of a LoA by capturing 1. ... BNxd3+; allow System I to give you both of those FEATURES at the same time. No fuss, no muss, no checklist to run down, no logical process to follow; just "SEE" concurrently!