 |
| 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
- memory of (already analysed ) positions ( related to board vision ) ok? CHECK
- memory of own thought process and won insights ok? COMPROMISED!!
- hyper fast pattern recognition ok? CHECK
- knowledge ( to be able to judge the final positions )ok? CHECK
So why did I forget the already analyzed line 1. Qxh8+ Qxh8 ?
I cannot formulate it better than "I failed to appreciate the importance of the fact".
Normally, I exercise under standard conditions. When there is no time pressure, the error isn't made, since there is enough time to administer a blunder check. In blitz mode, you don't have that luxury. The error isn't made, so there is no feed back.
In blitz mode, I dismiss the error as being not something I can learn from. The blunder is so simple, I will not make him again. At least, so I think. So again, such errors get no feedback.
Since feedback is the only way to learn something from the past, it is obvious that I condemn myself to make these kind of errors over and over again.
I'm pretty sure that the data set of 164 problems that I gathered yesterday, is full of such overlooked flaws in the trial and error process.
How to repair these flaws? Did I already mention feedback?
Only by precise feedback we can overcome our repetitive errors!!
after counting material (2 sec?) the first thing i was thinking about was QxRe8+ . While i was counting i saw that black is threatening to some extend e1D, so i started looking for a checkmate and saw the Mate - Triangle pattern : W:Qd8,Rd6 B:Ke7,Pf7 more or less at the same time as looking for the check, which is also a take ( which is.. in a fuzzy way.."double forcing") . https://chesstempo.com/tactical-motifs.html#mateTriangle
ReplyDeleteso in a way i think that the "board vision ok? CHECK" and/or "hyper fast pattern recognition ok? CHECK" can be discussed.
I think your framework how to look for weaknesses and improvement chances is ok though, i put my hopes in an intense aftermath too, just that i orientate directly at my thoughtprocess and detect my weaknesses from there.
ehh and that Qh8 dont work.. is board vision too, the vision of : the Qb2 makes Qc3 moves along the a1-h8 diagonal not very plausible. ( not that i would have that vision )
ReplyDeleteIm not shure if i realy dismissed Qh8 because of that or was it just, that i focused my attention right away at the direct surrounding of the other king..?? Most of the thinking remains unconcious.. we only think that we think ;))
I saw the impossibility of 1. Qh8# due to 1. ... Qxh8 right away. So no problems with board vision or hyper fast pattern recognition in that department ON THAT VERY MOMENT.
ReplyDeleteSo WHY didn't I see it the SECOND time around after 1.Qxe8+ Kxe8 ?
The answer is very simple: BECAUSE MY ATTENTION WAS STILL FOCUSING AT e8.
It is exactly the same as:
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.
Without attention, system I can't do its job. No matter how good it is in that very job.
Remains the question: WHY wasn't I focusing on Qxh8 the second time around? As I said, I can't formulate it better than: I failed to realize the importance of the fact that Qh8# isn't possible THE FIRST TIME. I saw the fact, but not the IMPORTANCE of the fact. Which is kinda silly. So it is a system II thing. System II needs to learn to appreciate the importance of the fact that a square is inaccessible. When system II learns that, system I will store that fact in Long Term Memory and not in Short Term Memory.
When that fact is stored in LTM in stead of STM, it will still be around when considering move two. In my case, it was stored in STM, and it was vanished from there.
Funny. . . I usually think "defensively" FIRST, then consider offensive moves. Too much Nimzovich and Petrosian in my formative years, I guess. Or it could be that I HATE losing more than I enjoy winning. (Lots of "food for thought" for a psychologist rolling around inside my cranium, I guess.)
ReplyDeleteIn any event, after the "preparatory" first move 1. ... fxe2 (before the real puzzle begins), I "saw" that Black threatens immediate checkmate, so I gained a sense of "urgency" regarding the solution that White must find in order to win. The Black King must NOT be given any respite.
The first "pattern" is obvious: the Black King is "in the box" - totally immobile, with a potential checkmate on h8. I "saw" that "pattern" (checkmate on h8 after 2. Qh8#), then immediately "saw" that Qh8 would be captured by Qb2 - there would be no checkmate. That was instantaneous - because of lots of conscious practice "seeing" LoAs all the way out to the edge of the board.
The next System 1 "try" was capturing the Re8 with 2. Qxe8+ and "seeing" where that could lead. I did NOT "forget" that Qh8# was a mirage, so the second Queen on c3 has to take a different route to get to the Black king. There IS an alternative route available after 2. ... Kxe8 3. Qc8+. It is then trivial to "see" that after 3. ... Ke7 (forced) 4. Qd8#.
A subtlety is that in the initial position, the Qc3 prevents the Black King from escaping from the "box." That leads to an "optical" (actually, mental) illusion that is fed into System 2 for consideration: that if the Qc3 is no longer on c3, then the Black King can escape via g7. So, that creates an (incorrect) impression that (somehow) the White Queen must remain on c3 in order to maintain the "box." Note that the first capture on e8 removes the possibility of the Black King escaping via g7 by forcing it to lose contact with g7 and a possible escape. That is another "memory" that must be retained as the variation continues. After the Queen check on c8, the Black King can only escape to e7. Now it has to be "seen" that the White Queen closes the "box" again on d8 - with checkmate. That seems fairly obvious to the mind's eye, because there are no more subtleties to distract System 2.
all true..
ReplyDeletebuut i suspect that looking at Qh8 is already bad. I ask myself : should our instinkt tell us to look for this move first? and i think : No. The Qb2 should make our NeuralNetwork (Patternrecognition) making beep, beep,beep, red alert and guide us to differnet concious thoughts.
But that is a wild guess.
Now about the forgetting of : Qh8 is bad and the problem with STM -> LTM -> STM
Super GM Wesley So solves three studies without a chess board!
It cant be just only about the size and quantity of chunks that they can work studys with this ease blindfolded. If the stm can hold 7 things then even with the whole position as a single chunk its hard to think thats all in his stm. He can push chessinformation with ease from stm to ltm and back, meaning : he can memorize positions, moves, lines, ideas, problems in fractions of seconds and recall them with ease too. I guess he can do that ( partly? ) because he already has stored 10 000s of games,positions,ideas,pattern in his ltm and can use them as Loki for a Method of Loki?
PART I:
ReplyDeleteI hazard a "guess" that GM So is NOT CONSCIOUSLY using the Method of Loci at all. I base this on my own experience of playing blindfold chess. In times long past, I gave simultaneous exhibitions (up to 10 games at once, with one game played blindfold concurrently). I did NOT ever use the Method of Loci (at least not that I was consciously aware of or trying to apply it; see more below for a counter-argument).
How was I able to do this? I was playing and studying chess every day, sometime for hours, but not consciously trying to memorize anything. As a result, I was able to "see" positions and recall typical patterns without difficulty while blindfolded.
Dr. Lasker stated that most players fail because they do not spend the time practicing to "see" the board. When I started trying to play blindfold, I spent a considerable amount of time just visualizing the empty board. I started with a mental image of just 4 squares, based on the pattern a2-b2-a1-b1 (White-Black-White-Black). That reduces the memorization to a minimum. You then shift that 4-square pattern to any one of the 16 possible positions in order to "see" the entire board (not all at once). Then I worked on "seeing" 4 groups of those 4 squares (a1-a4-d4-d1). From there you move up to "seeing the entire board, but NOT all at once. Again, you shift the largest pattern that you can "see" to the other quadrants. Eventually, you just "see" the board. If at any time, you lose "sight", you shift back down to a smaller unit and shift the position until everything becomes clear. The "chunks" are all groups of 4, so the cognitive load remains within the capability of STM (7 +/- 2 or 3 chunks of 3) until the patterns become so habituated that they reside in LTM.
One "trick" I used initially to learn how to play blindfold was to focus on changed piece positions only, rather than trying to "see" all of the pieces at once. If I ran into difficulty, I would just rehearse the locations of the pieces that had moved (by repeating the game score up to that point) until I could "see" them more clearly. Obviously, the pieces that had not moved remained on the original squares, which made it easy to "see" because the starting position is the one position that ALWAYS repeats itself in every game. That initial position becomes the clearest position to visualize because it is repeated every time.
I "guess" that IS a Method of Loci, in a strange (intuitive) way. There is always a "home" square for every piece, so that is the beginning location. The "journey" from "room to room" (move to move) begins from there. If, at any time, you lose track of a specific piece, you simply repeat the moves starting from the original position until you "recall" the location of that piece and can then "see" it again on its current square.
PART II:
ReplyDeleteI still occasionally play a blindfold game, usually at the request of someone who is not very good at chess. That is actually harder to play than against someone who knows how to play with some skill. As a result, a lot of the moves are "non-standard" (meaning: do not conform to standard patterns), which makes it more difficult to keep in mind. Perhaps there is a "hint" there that, normally, pattern recognition is at play.
Other than being aware of Simon and Chase's "chunking theory", I've never tried to memorize "chunks" of any kind. Typical (common) piece configurations (patterns? chunks?) just become part of the mental "furniture" if you play and study a lot of chess. A lot of chess "thought" involves shuffling the "furniture" (pieces) around the room (board). The room is totally familiar, the pieces are totally familiar, and (I "guess"), moving a given piece to a given location becomes an exercise of (subconsciously) using the Method of Loci. I've done it for so long that I no longer have conscious access to HOW I do it. This description is my conscious "best guess".
In an old post, I found that the narrative was the nec plus ultra method to visualize positions.
DeleteIt is easiest to play blindfold against someone who is about 300 points lower rated. You soon get the initiative, and a narrative is easy to tell when you are in the lead and your opponent follows.
I find that my chess logic is underdeveloped. Hence my visualization skills are poor due to the lack of a coatrack. A narrative is such coatrack.