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?
Suggestion: consider (again) the "idea" of looking through intervening pieces to potential targets. As long as the intervening pieces can be moved (same side pieces) or diverted (opponent's side pieces), the path remains "open" to that target. If multiple (additional) attackers can be brought to bear on a target, so much the better!
ReplyDeleteQg3 is "attacked" by Qe5 AND is unprotected (0:1) on g3. LPDO! Since the White Queen is unprotected, look for a "discovery" against that target - with check, if possible AND with a "double attack", if possible. Both conditions are met with 1. ... Ne2+. It appears that WRa2 is preventing this move, but that is an illusion: Qg3 is unprotected and gets a higher priority than just preventing the Knight fork. Because the fork also creates a double attack on g3, the White King cannot defend adequately (1:2 after White moves) because White is a tempo behind. The issue of the attack on the Black Queen is also an illusion, since it is Black to move, and as long as Black can make a check, ANY CHECK, White cannot capture the Black Queen. So, in accordance with the Tal Rule, "They can only capture ONE piece at a time, regardless of how many of my pieces are en prise."
The fork is obviously the most forcing move. The "loose piece" (Qg3) is NOT as obvious as a target, since there is the mental illusion that (in the starting position) the White King can adequately defend against the Black Queen's attack after being checked. Alas, that does not take into consideration the increase in number of attackers on g3 after 1. ... Ne2+ 2. Kh2 Qxg3+ (saving the Black Queen) 3. Kh1 Qg1#. Or 2. Kf2 Qxg3+ 3. Kxe2 Bxg4 4. fxg4 Qg2+ 5. K moves Qxa2.
41 sec... way to slow too.
ReplyDeleteMaterial =
No checkmate
Ne2+ is the most forcing move
and the Queen is the only thing to be won
But i did need ages to see that i have to take the queen with the queen and not with the forking checkgiving knight while! i was aware of the fact that my queen is under attack of Ng4
The signal Q <-> Q was too low
Exactly the way I took too much time.
DeleteI have thought for long that the signal Q<->Q was too low too. But that puts you one the wrong foot. I have tried to pump up the signal. But the signal isn't too weak, the attention is in the wrong place. I was absorbed by the knight and the counter attack against the black queen and the white rook. Once the attention shifts to the right spot, the signal is immediately picked up.
the attention has to be on the changes of the situation at each move, even if its "only" calculated.. but.. when i have enough time to pay attention to "everything" i solve "everything" it just takes "for ever". Awareness without contious attention and thinkingprocess...thats a/the goal
DeleteThe problem is not that the gorilla isn't big enough. The problem is that we gave our attention the instruction to focus elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteAnd where our attention is, there are system I and II. System II is the big time spender. What instruction should we give our attention to focus on? The problem is not that we dive into a tunnel. Since that is what system II does best. The problem is that we never get out.
Did I see the discovered attack 1. ... Ne2+ against the white Q? I sure did.
Did I see the double attack 1. ... Ne2+ against the white K and Q? I sure did.
Was I aware of both attacks at the same time? No I didn't. I didn't deem the discovered attack to be important enough. If I did, I would have transferred it from STM to LTM. Since I didn't, the discovered attack disappears from memory when the double attack arrives in STM.
and vice versa
DeleteThere is an interactive feedback loop between System I and System II. System I "throws up" EVERYTHING simultaneously, based on the primitive "lizard brain" - "fight or flight" is its most important priority. System II is then tasked with making "sense" of all those signals - one at a time. If the situation is too chaotic, System II asks for more refined (focused) impressions from System I, but in a linear fashion based on System II's priorities. System I responds to the highest priority with more detailed information and directs attention toward that highest priority feature. System II then narrows the range of possibilities to just the highest identified "problem area", spinning a narrative around it - and we become unaware of anything else that is happening - i.e., the 900-lbs gorilla in the room (which was NOT given ANY PRIORITY, much less a high priority) is "invisible."
ReplyDeleteConsider what would have happened in the invisible gorilla situation if the subjects were told to look for just one unusual thing that will be happening while you are counting the number of passes by the white team. Anyone care to speculate on how many subjects would have been "blind" to the gorilla?!?
This is why the "vulture's eye" view (avoiding focused attention on the first significant impression) is so important. We have to train ourselves to avoid "premature excavation" in the tunnel. (How's that for mixing metaphors?!?)
Perhaps Dr. Lasker's aphorism "If you 'see' a good move, look for a better move." has another layer of meaning. Maybe it should be stated differently (admittedly less succinctly):
"If you immediately 'see' a good MOVE, STOP LOOKING AT THAT MOVE IMMEDIATELY AND START LOOKING FOR AT LEAST ONE DIFFERENT GOOD MOVE before jumping into an analyzing/calculating 'tunnel' based on the first good move you 'see'."
The two different "moves" can be related (such as the Knight fork AND the Queen-vis-Queen 'attack' in the given example position), or not, as the case may be. This should help keep System II from prematurely starting excavation down the tunnel. Over time, with focused repetition, this should help (I think - WTH: I'm a practical applied 'psychologist', not a practicing licensed psychologist). If you want a chess analogy, think of it as Nimzovich's "prophylaxis" for your "thinking process" (whatever that might be).
I would formulate it a bit differently. When you see a good move, STORE IT CONSCIOUSLY IN YOUR LTM, before you move on. The tunnel effect is powered by FORGETTING EVERYTHING YOU HAVE ALREADY SEEN. When you remember the important things you have already seen, YOU ARE NO LONGER IN AN ISOLATED TUNNEL.
DeleteLearning speed (remember the important things you have already seen ) is important, no doubt; lines, functions, positions, evaluations, weaknesses, tricks.. all that need to be stored an recalled
Delete"Learning speed (remember the important things you have already seen ) is important, no doubt; lines, functions, positions, evaluations, weaknesses, tricks.. all that need to be stored an recalled"
DeleteDuring solving time. I'm not talking about study time.
Learning is the process of acquiring new, or modifying existing, knowledge, behaviors, skills, values, or preferences.
Deletethe process of solving is a process of learning too, you need to understand the problem first to be able to solve it. You teach yourself: where are the pieces, what are they doing, what happens in this line, what in that line. After you have learned sufficient many and relevant informations about the position, a problem is usually easy to solve.
We where busy to "learn" the interactions Ne2->Qg3, Ra2->Ne2, Q->e2 , Ng4->Qe5 .... Ne2 Rxe2 Qxe2 Nf6+, Ne2 Kg2 Nxg3 Nxe5... that we did not realise Ne2+ = Q <-> Q
A master is faster in chess learning: not only where the pieces are but what they do , lines, evaluations asf too. They can skip many thoughts we still have to make.