Temposchlucker

It turns out that careful observations and a bit of logical reasoning has brought us a new way to look at potential chess improvement by adults. We found a less rigid way to look at STM and LTM.  We have to proof that it is actual viable by putting it to the test, of course. But for now we are in that pleasant state that we can make wild speculations based on the new ideas. A state that will last only until we have proven that it is NOT viable. Which hopefully will never happen, of course. What wild speculations, or to put it more dignified, hypotheses can we build on the new ideas? We have defined two ways of storage in LTM. Prestored memories and on the fly stored memories. I noticed for the first time the common origin of store and story, by the way. Ok, let's fire away. Prodigies are discovered, and coached by a coach. A coach let them explain their moves with a narrative. That's the reason why talentful youngsters make such fast progress. When narratives of the s...

As you know, this blog treats the same subjects over and over again. We are spiraling around and around. And every spiral brings us a bit closer to those very subjects. People that visit this blog only periodically, might even think that we just move around in circles. But that is only superficial. We talked about narratives, mumbling chess players and chess vision over and over again. And every time a bit of new knowledge has been added. The very fact that logical reasoning brings up the same subjects time and again, is a clear evidence that we are on the right track. The diary function of this blog has been a great help to stay on track. I formulated some specific flaw as follows: I see that my queen is protected, I see that my queen becomes a target of a discovered attack, I have forgotten that my queen is protected. Everything I know and have learned, is of no use when it is stored in Short Term Memory only during looking at a position . I have learned to recognize wether a ...

System II has been on a spree, lately, so I gathered the following list Total underestimation of my own attack Overlooking my 4th attacker Insufficient endgame knowledge/experience Total underestimation of my own promotion attack It took 3 minutes to see the magnet Didn't see that the square I wanted to put my rook on was protected Didn't see that a move was threatening prepared both a double attack and a discovered attack Overlooking that I needed a move that not only captures, but must defense too It took 1.5 minute to see the box around the king didn't see my knight protected my bishop too hasty I entered the wrong tunnel totally overlooking the discovered attack didn't see the box around the king overlooking that an attacking move cleared a square in its wake took ages too see the counter attack thread overlooking a hole in the box It took a minute to see that my queen was protected It took a minute to see that a check was an interruption too I...

In chess and in life, my diagnosis of a problem is usually rather to the point. But in administering a remedy, I tend to suck, frankly. Of the 169 problems I'm studying lately, there are 72 problems that costed me rating points. Either by being too slow, or dead wrong. From the first 3 problematic problems, I learned the following: I'm only partly aware of the changes that are caused by a move. I tend to focus on what a piece does on its new square, simply forgetting to look at what are the consequences of leaving the old square. I tend to store important stuff in Short Term Memory in stead of Long Term Memory. So that when I look at a new move, I'm totally forgotten the ponderings of the previous move. It is not hard to see, that these two flaws probably play an important role in the failure of all 72 problems. So these flaws must be fixed. Sofar the diagnosis. But what about the remedy? How to fix these flaws in trial and error ?  I already tried a few possibl...

Here a position that I didn't fail, I was only rather slow. 6k1/p2b4/1p1p4/2pPq1p1/P1P2n2/4NPQ1/R7/6K1 w - - 4 1 [ solution ] I saw the knight fork on e2 immediately. And I saw that the black queen was under attack. But then it took me an awful lot of time to realize that the white king couldn't prevent the white queen from being outnumbered. As you see, just as in the previous flaws, triviality all over the place. Yet it undermines my rating. Just because other people do it better or faster. So what do I have to learn from this position? It is a matter of attention on the wrong spot, apparently. But how to fix it?

The flaws sofar seem pretty trivial. Probably that triviality is preventing them from being addressed. The flip side being that it is probably possible to fix it. White to move 3qr3/Rb1nrpk1/2p2npp/1p1p4/1P1P3B/3BPP2/2Q3PP/2R2NK1 b - - 3 1 [ solution ] Two B.A.D. (Barely Adequate Defended) pieces and a point of pressure . Smells like a duplo attack in the making. But since the chess logic is underdeveloped, I start with the wrong capture. Chess logic should be so obvious, that you look at the consequences of the answer moves to both captures. Why isn't the obvious obvious to me? Due to a poor educated system II, I guess.

So what are we talking about? What are typical flaws in the trial and error process in dire need of repair? Here is an example: White to move 3Qrk2/5p2/p2R2p1/P5n1/8/2Q1pp2/1q2N1PP/6K1 b - - 2 1 [ solution ] First I considered 1.Qh8# Well, that isn't mate due to 1. ... Qxh8 Then I considered 1.Qxe8+ Kxe8 Well, that looks very promising! So I continued with 2.Qh8# Which isn't mate of course. Due to 2. ... Qxh8 So what happened here? This types of errors happen anytime. An important cause is the blitz time constraint, of course. In standard mode, it probably wouldn't have happened. But what has exactly happened? board vision ok? CHECK Sometimes we don't look at a certain part of the board ok? CHECK Sometimes we do look at a certain part of the board, but we fail to realize us the consequences of what we see ok? CHECK they are aware where the pieces are and what they ( potentially) do ok? CHECK memory of (already calculated ) lines ok? CHECK m...

Boy, this must be the most boring chess site ever. If you don't know what is going on. I become more and more convinced that trial and error is the most natural way to solve tactics. It is totally tailored for system I. At the same time, it has become quite clear, that  my trial and error process is full of flaws. But I must not abandon the process, I must repair the flaws. Since abandoning the trial and error process, means attempting to replace it by some sort of thought process based on system II. System II based thought processes don't work, as we have seen. Well, they kinda work, but at the cost of time, energy and added redundancy. Which means they don't work under time constraint. In order to find out what we are talking about, I have done 164 blitz problems today at Chess Tempo. Those 164 were needed for an estimated FIDE rating. This is the baseline: Blitz rating: 1683 All Time High: 1806 Estimated FIDE rating based on blitz: 1794 As you might rememb...

When I summarize the observations of both me and the commentators on my posts lately, I come to the following: Sometimes we don't look at a certain part of the board Sometimes we do look at a certain part of the board, but we fail to realize us the consequences of what we see The video of GingerGM seems to rehabilitate the method of trial and error . Are the two points above the reason why our trial and error fails so often? Sofar, the work arounds that we have invented to solve the two points above, were at the cost of introducing redundancy. That is to say, we put system II at work and we got more correct solutions at a slower pace. The use of extra solving time nullified the rating effect, overall. But now the problem is formulated so clear, we might find a solution. Both the tree of scenarios and the PLF (PoPLoAFun) system focus on realizing us the consequences of what we see. I'm pretty sure that we are on the right track. We tend to switch to trial and error...

I was rather surprised to see the rating of this problem. I considered it to be a fairly simple problem. Mainly that was because my system I was continuously shouting the first move. Black to move r5k1/p4pq1/1p2pn2/PP1p1P2/1P1B1Qn1/8/4BK2/2R5 w - - 4 1 [ solution ] After solving the problem correctly, I was surprised to see that I had used more than four minutes for the solution. Where had the time gone? Mainly I was busy to convince system II that this was the right solution. This story shows one important aspect of  what we try to accomplish. We must familiarize system II with the principles of this position. Why is 1. ... e5 correct and 1. ... Nxg4+ wrong? The difference lies in the move 2. Kf3. 2.Kf3 solves the check after 1. ... Ng4+ AND attacks the black knight on g4. It is a defensive move AND an attack. When I see the move 2.Kf3, I just see the the defensive side of the move. But I fail to appreciate the offensive side of the move. I see of course that my k...