Wednesday, October 24, 2018

Tagging a label or labeling a tag

I'm trying to walk the walk lately, which means it is not a good idea to talk the talk at the same time. Since walking the walk is a system I activity, and talking the talk is for the satisfaction of system II. But anyway, here is some talk.

The different attitude towards chess seems to be beneficial. Being no longer impressed by the complexity and trying to take the lead of my own line of thought seems to work.

I remember that we (I) speculated in the past about the progress of Munich being caused by his labeling activity. By labeling the problems, you build a framework of understanding. Now I'm a premium member at Chess Tempo again, I can define my own labels, based on PoPLoAFun and the initiative. This gives me much more freedom to label a problem. I can tailor the labels just to my needs.

Ok, 'nuf talk.

14 comments:

  1. btw, I haven't seen Tomasz for a while. Is he still lurking out there? I can imagine that this approach isn't exactly his cup of tea. Stuff should be materialized a bit more for him, I guess.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Tempo

      I have been all the time here. I try to read all the articles and comments even if I do not reply to most of them.

      There are two reasons recently (for at least a few months) I remain "silent". The first one is the workload (duties) I have and second one is the lack of interest of the concepts you have described for some time. They are too abstract for me and I do not see any progress - even if everyone can feel and see it clearly.

      Anyway I read all the stuff even if I do it more seldom than last year.

      I hope I cleared up all the speculations :)... at least for now ;)

      Tomasz

      BTW. For a few months I could not post anything at all for a few months as my comments were stucked in your spam folder. Nowadays I simply stay away from comments as I do not have anything reasonable to say. And I simply do not like to spam your discussion unless I have a valid reason to do so.

      BTW2. If the stuff materializes more - it may attract my chess mind a way more. However I have limited chess (studying and playing) for a total minimum since November 2017. Nowadays I devoted all my energy to create good explanations to maths and help kids and teachers to teach this subject in a fresh way.

      Delete
  2. PART I:


    The initiative is undoubtedly one of the most important aspects of modern “dynamic” chess. GM M. Euwe (and H. Kramer) in the two-book series The Middle Game, Book Two: Dynamic and Subjective Features, Part Six, The Initiative — Introduction, pg. 1, G. Bell and Sons Ltd., 1965 has this to say about the initiative:


    What do we really mean by the initiative in chess? We can make it clear by comparison with the concept of attack. An attack has a specific target, which has already emerged from the peculiarities of the position. The Initiative has as yet no definite object, but only general aims, such as gaining control of manoeuvering space, maintaining tension, keeping the opponent busy, and reserving plenty of attacking options for oneself. This means that the idea of initiative applies mainly to positions in which the balance of material has not yet been upset, as it usually is in the case of a direct attack. Initiative may arise for instance from a lead in development, or from having one’s pieces placed more actively than those of the opponent; but if the initiative is successfully followed up it can grow into a full-scale attack. One can liken it to the phase of reconnoitre, before the real battle is joined.


    A considerable amount of opening theory can be acquired by diligent study; endgame technique can be learnt up to a certain point, and so can the technique necessary for the conduct of various attacks, such as the minority attack, and a number of standard methods against the castled king. But in the handling of the initiative the native ability of a player comes to the fore. It is largely a matter of creating difficulties for the opponent, and giving him chances to go wrong.


    This explains why it is that this phase of the game runs away with so much time. As soon as one passes from the initiative to the attack far less thought is called for, for the position itself dictates the direction and the manner of the attack, so that quite suddenly the number of possibilities to be examined becomes much more restricted.


    The amorphous nature of the initiative contrasts the concrete nature of a direct attack. In light of this, I don’t think it is accurate (although it can be useful from a practical viewpoint) to consider the loss or end of the initiative to be somewhat synonymous with the concept of quiescence, i.e., absence of checks, captures or threats (a VERY BIG category). That said, in the context of solving tactical problems, I think it IS useful to consider the end of the initiative to be signaled by the end of CCT.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I look forward to the day that I'm so good in tactics that I can focus on the more subtle sides of the initiative.

      Tactics are about points of pressure, lines of attack,B.A.D. (Barely Adequate Defended)pieces, function, lack of space and multiple function moves. It is hard to imagine that positional play is about something different.

      To get an edge in positional play, the multiple function move is probably the most important tool in your toolbox. If you meet two purposes with one move, and your opponent has only a single purpose move as an answer, there will come a moment he cannot keep up with you.

      Delete
    2. But first you need awareness of positional goals, of course.

      Delete
  3. PART II:


    While searching for additional tutorial information on the initiative, I found this annotated Alekhine-Yates game in GM Peter Romanovsky’s excellent book Soviet Middlegame Technique, Chapter 7: Manoeuvering — The Initiative, pp. 194-197, Quality Chess, 2013. I think it provides an instructive distinction between maintaining the initiative and a direct attack. I defer to GM Romanovsky:


    In the chess struggle, the initiative is the manifestation of deliberate activity, aimed at creating direct threats to the opponent, cramping his position, restricting his forces’ mobility and his overall possibilities. … Quite often, an initiative happens to be temporary —it evaporates or is wrested by the other side. … It is often said that the initiative grows into an attack. This is inaccurate. An attack is a direct assault. The initiative is often accompanied by threats and acts of aggression, but if an attack is always an initiative, the initiative cannot in all cases be equated with an attack.


    Romanovsky’s observations on the initiative in this game cover moves 20-60 approximately. Yates made some inconsequential moves early on (moves 6-11) which gave Alekhine the opportunity to maintain an initiative for a long time without any direct attack until very near the end of the game.


    For those wishing for something more concrete, figure out why Yates resigned when he did. The potential finish is quite illuminating!


    I learned something about my own thought processes by figuring out the finish. I’m inclined to be somewhat practical (or “lazy”): if I can determine one winning finish, I usually stop searching for anything better. It’s like that old saying, “Where do you find what you’re looking for? In the last place you look!” Once found, why do I need to keep looking?!?


    Final position: [FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]


    Alekhine vs. Yates, Semmering 1926


    [Event "Semmering"]
    [Site "Semmering AUT"]
    [Date "1926.03.15"]
    [EventDate "1926.03.07"]
    [Round "7"]
    [Result "1-0"]
    [White "Alexander Alekhine"]
    [Black "Fred Dewhirst Yates"]
    [ECO "A28"]
    [WhiteElo "?"]
    [BlackElo "?"]
    [PlyCount "125"]

    1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. d4 exd4 5. Nxd4 Bb4 6. Bg5
    O-O 7. Rc1 Re8 8. e3 d6 9. Be2 Ne5 10. O-O Bxc3 11. Rxc3 Ng6
    12. Nb5 Bd7 13. Bxf6 gxf6 14. Bd3 Kh8 15. Nd4 Rg8 16. Qh5 Qf8
    17. f4 Re8 18. Rf3 Rg7 19. Nf5 Bxf5 20. Bxf5 Qe7 21. Bc2 Reg8
    22. g3 Qd7 23. Rf2 Qe7 24. Kf1 Rd8 25. Rd2 b6 26. Qd5 Rgg8
    27. Qf5 a5 28. Ke1 Qe6 29. Qh5 Qe7 30. Kd1 Rg7 31. Kc1 Nf8
    32. Bf5 Re8 33. g4 Ng6 34. a3 Qd8 35. Bc2 Qc8 36. Kb1 Ne7
    37. h3 Ng6 38. Qh6 Qd8 39. Ka2 Ne7 40. Ka1 Ng6 41. Ba4 Reg8
    42. Bd1 Qe7 43. Bc2 Nf8 44. Rd5 Ng6 45. Rf5 Re8 46. g5 fxg5
    47. Rxg5 Qf8 48. Rh5 Qg8 49. Ka2 Nf8 50. Qf6 Nd7 51. Qd4 f6
    52. Bf5 Qf8 53. Rh6 Rge7 54. Rh5 Nc5 55. Rc2 Rg7 56. Rg2 Ree7
    57. Rg4 a4 58. Rh6 Rgf7 59. Rgg6 Nb3 60. Qc3 d5 61. cxd5 Re8
    62. e4 Qc5 63. Rxh7+ 1-0

    ReplyDelete
  4. PART III:

    Correction: the FEN should be for the FINAL position, not the starting position -

    [FEN "4r2k/2p2r1R/1p3pR1/2qP1B2/p3PP2/PnQ4P/KP6/8 b - - 0 63"]

    One of the humorous [I almost wrote "humerus" - you know, the "funny bone" in the upper arm] aspects of the final position is that after 63. Rxh7+, Alekhine announced checkmate in 6. IF you look closely, you can find at least one faster checkmate. This is why I said I learned something about myself. After ONE forced checkmate has been found, I lose interest in trying to find a faster solution. I learned a long time ago that the length of the game does not factor into the final score - win, draw, or loss. However, for purposes of IMPROVEMENT, I think I "should" at least try to find more than one winning line or at least try to verify that there is only one winning line. Maybe this is an area I should focus on in my training!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Replies
    1. He skips the circling of the vulture but dives immediately on the roadkill caused by the strongest thread. Thus pruning everything else and making the position simple for his mind. No general assessment beforehand, no material counting or other time waste we have invented whatsoever. Only when he gets stuck, he takes a vultures distance to the position.

      Actually he is doing trial and error, but with a bit more guidance from his system II. He knows when to abandon a line, for instance.

      Delete
    2. well he is instantly aware of things, we mortals must look for first. But its funny to see him looking for the HE's first.

      Delete
    3. PART I:

      Aox provided one of the following links. I went back to the first video to see what tidbits of GM “wisdom” could be gleaned. I’ve tried to capture the essence of the GM’s advice, translating it (in some cases) into the vernacular of PoPLoAFun.

      Good stuff!

      Tactic Training #1 and #2 – GingerGM

      Tactic Training #1
      Tactic Training #2

      Instructions: Set a timer for 5 minutes and try to solve as many problems as possible within the time limit.

      Look at the most forcing move (Checks, Captures, Threats - CCT) FIRST.

      Calculate ONE variation at a time. If it “works”, there is nothing else to consider. Focus on a process of elimination – as soon as a “refutation” is found, abandon that variation for a different variation.

      [GingerGM “jumped” from 2100 to 2300+ just by focusing on tactics training. It is important to try to get the solutions correct 100% of the time.]

      When considering a particular move, ALWAYS consider the opponent’s BEST defense to that move. ASSUME that the opponent will ALWAYS play the BEST counter-move.

      Look “through” pieces and Pawns to “see” potential “attacks” by the line-moving pieces on the opposing King (and other pieces). Look along the Lines of Attack (LoA; “aura”) and “see” what you threaten. Extend the LoA from each piece all the way to the edge of the board, regardless of the existing obstructions along each ray of the LoA. This is very important when multiple line-moving pieces are “attacking” critical squares around the opposing King.

      Line-opening is an important technique for extending the force of the pieces. Checks, Captures and Threats (CCT) are the means to force the opponent’s replies while breaking open the appropriate lines. Double checks are particularly forcing, and allows for the attacking pieces to be under attack without the opponent being able to capture them.

      Be aware of your own potential vulnerabilities, such as a weak back rank, BEFORE grabbing an apparently “hanging” piece. Loose Pieces Drop Off is important to “see”, but you must check that the opponent does NOT have a counter-attack which takes advantage of your weaknesses BEFORE you grab the loose piece. Use the process of elimination.

      Look at the most CRITICAL move in the position FIRST. Examine the possible ramifications of that move before considering other possible “candidate” moves. Calculate as deeply as you can BEFORE switching to other possible “candidate” moves. Use depth first search, NOT breadth first search.

      Delete
    4. PART II:

      As you improve, the “patterns” will be recognized much more naturally, so that you “know” what to look for.

      Try to threaten TWO (or more) things with ONE move. Consider blocking moves which cut off the defense of a B.A.D. piece while simultaneously creating a forking threat against the opposing King (and possibly other pieces).

      Consider Zwischenzug/Zwischenschach moves (in-between capture or capture with check) BEFORE automatically recapturing, even if your Queen has just been captured.

      If the opponent has the possibility of moving without being forced (i.e., limited responses), it is highly likely that something else should be played. Maintain the “initiative” at all costs, even if it requires multiple piece sacrifices!

      Consider the Functions of the defending pieces to determine if one (or more) is overloaded. B.A.D. pieces are almost always defended by pieces which may have multiple Functions, or which can be given additional Functions to perform.

      When considering potential captures on squares that are NOT adequately defended, sometimes it may be necessary to capture with a higher value piece FIRST in order to have additional tactical themes/devices available later in the variation. Don’t automatically capture in order based on the material value (capturing with the lowest valued piece first).

      Once you have worked out a specific variation to quiescence, verify that you have considered everything BEFORE switching to the next variation.

      In a game (not necessarily while solving tactical problems), try to find ONE way to win. Don’t complicate things. [I LOVE THIS ADVICE!]

      It is critical to determine if a pin is relative (against any piece but the King) or absolute (against the King). When the opponent allows a pin, consider whether it is setting up the “Swing Door” tactical motif. If not, then pin and win the pinned piece. A specific “clue” is whether the target (behind the pinned piece) is protected or not. If it is NOT protected, and there is NO intermediate threat of check or checkmate by the pinned piece, then it is “safe” to pin.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. Tempo said : "No general assessment beforehand, no material counting or other time waste we have invented whatsoever."

      GM's count material.. when they dont "see" its even.

      https://youtu.be/AlSKPfqsqvs?t=585

      At this position the material balance not instantly clear for GM Gustavson ( usually its enough to recognise both sides have the same amount of pieces of each type ).. he starts counting.
      Interesting here.. he is partly calculating blindfolded without any need, showing that he memorized the position without effort within seconds.

      Delete