Realizing us the consequenses of what we see

November 04, 2018

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 automatically when we do not fight against it. Maybe we shouldn't fight it but embrace it, since it seems to be the most natural and energy and mental resource efficient method. Meaning that we must just take away the impediments why trial and error doesn't work for us. The impediments being the two points above.

Comments

Robert CobleSunday, November 4, 2018 at 2:44:00 PM GMT+1
Momir Raduvic (RoaringPawn) has an interesting Chess.com blog concerning Lines of Operation (very similar to Lines of Attack, but based on military strategy):

Lines of Operation: A Framework for Strategy Design in Chess, Warfare, Sport Contests
ReplyDelete
Replies
AoxomoxoA wonderingMonday, November 5, 2018 at 6:03:00 AM GMT+1
There are many masters at youtube solving tactical puzzles, ChessNetwork, kingscrusher, Daniel Rensch ,
chessbrah, Huschenbeth... might help to watch them too.
GingerGM is using Chuzakins HE's without knowing it ( at 1:26 ) then searching for a method to make use of it (at 1:34) combining it with the method of candidate
moves (Bxf4,...) he already have Bd4 in his mind (at 1:46) but he has a reason to pay attention to Bxf4 first ( looks like the natural move ..) and is then calculating it ( i have the impression he already knows here why its wrong ). He finds a refutation for Bxf4 2:04 and then choses Bd4 because he sees that the knight is "hanging" ( which is an other HE )

So he is combining the methods in a way, looking for the ( next dominanant ) weaknesss , (next) method to make use of it, (next) candidate moves, calculation, if refutation: next
It dont get way to complicated because he sees the main weakness , the main method, the most forcing candidate move right away
he can do it because he has a wonderfull "stack"; he can memorize where he was in the tree of thinking ( all the branches ) can get back with ease and continue
ReplyDelete
Replies
AoxomoxoA wonderingMonday, November 5, 2018 at 7:15:00 AM GMT+1
Pseudocode
for ( next dominant ) HE
  for (next ) Method to make use of it
    for (next candidate move
      calculate ( = some : if i make that then they make that, judgement, reasoning )
      If refutation continue
      If move good exit
    next candidate
  next method
next weakness
If good move found look for better move for a while
ReplyDelete
Replies
Robert CobleMonday, November 5, 2018 at 3:12:00 PM GMT+1
@ Aox: Nice "Pseudocode"!

That illustrates a "depth first search" algorithm, which may complement Temposchlucker's "trial and error" process, or a process of "elimination" based on prioritization of critical points. The primary issue becomes determining the order of the ply 1 candidates. I understand the idea of carefully working through all of the HEs in the position under analysis, but I don't recall that Chuzakin gave a prioritization scheme for the HEs, i.e., which HEs are more critical in a given position (or if it is even possible to determine priorities from the HEs alone).

Here's the first position given by GM Alexander Kotov in Think Like A Grandmaster, pg. 16. I remarked about this position in a comment here:

Tuesday, December 22, 2015 - An example

[FEN: 1brr2k1/1b3pp1/pp2pqnp/4N2Q/3P4/1B4R1/PP1B1PPP/4R1K1 w - - 0 1]

Questions:

(1) How many candidate moves should be considered in this position?

(2) On what basis (HEs? Motifs? ???) can the candidate moves be determined?

(3) Which candidate move is the most "natural" (or "most dominant" based on the HEs actually present in this position) to begin the investigation?

Total irrelevant - and "funny": I "remembered" that I had commented about this position (based on GM Stockfish's analysis), and searched my "comments" document until I found my comment. But there was an "itch" in the back of my mind that I had also seen some other GM's analysis of this position, refuting (actually extending) Kotov's proposed list of candidate moves. I was pretty sure it was GM Andrew Soltis in one of his books, but I couldn't remember which one. I did "remember" that the "refutation" analysis was at the top of the right hand page in the book. (That may seem "weird" but it is a phenomenon that I have had happen many times in many other situations.) So, I started searching through my Soltis books for the position. I finally went "brute force" and checked diagram by diagram. When I finished searching the two books on my library shelf, I was disappointed NOT to find the position. Surely my memory was not false, was it?!? That was yesterday. This morning, as I got out of bed, I spied a third book The Inner Game of Chess: How to Calculate and Win buried in a stack of books by my bedside. (I'm an avid reader, as should be obvious from my comments.) I found the passage I was looking for on pp. 77-79. The "refutation" WAS on the top of the right-hand page! WHEW! At age 70, I am so glad my memory was NOT playing tricks on me!
ReplyDelete
Replies
AoxWednesday, November 7, 2018 at 9:06:00 AM GMT+1
The candidate moves in a tacticsl position are 1.checks, 2.captures and 3.threats, so Nxf7 is a candidate move. In quiet positions its harder to tell which moves are the candidates, there they are dependend to the chosen strategies , a Petrosian would try to reduce our activity, a Tal would try to increase his activity...
ReplyDelete
Replies
Robert CobleWednesday, November 7, 2018 at 5:34:00 PM GMT+1
More from the GingerGM:

Tactic Training #3 Chess is 99 percent Tactics!

The second puzzle is interesting because of the "sting" at the end. Black can gain a piece, but in so doing, loses control over the mating squares. He states later in the video that he "panicked" on this one because of the timer. Sounds familiar to me!

The fourth puzzle is interesting. He begins with a "vulture's eye view" and (correctly) assesses that the Black King is "in the box" (back rank mate possibility) AND he immediately "sees" the vulnerability of the c1 square, skewering the Black Queen and taking the Black Rook. Then he goes astray, because he is "not so sure about that." He then switches to another alternative, threatening the back rank mate, and spends quite a long time on it, going deeper and deeper until he is convinced that it just doesn't work. He then goes back to the skewering idea and finally "sees" WHY it works. It demonstrates that even GMs (while working via trial and error and using the process of elimination can sometimes initially wander down the wrong path. The critical thing is that as soon as he "sees" that he is on the wrong path, he immediately abandons it and returns to an earlier idea that had been deferred. As Aox noted above:

"It don't get way too complicated because he sees the main weakness, the main method, the most forcing candidate move right away [although he does not investigate it deeply at first]; he can do it because he has a wonderful "stack"; he can memorize where he was in the tree of thinking ( all the branches ) [and] can get back with ease and continue."
ReplyDelete
Replies
Robert CobleThursday, November 8, 2018 at 11:23:00 PM GMT+1
I mentioned GM Tisdall’s “variation processing” method previously in a comment:

Wednesday, December 28, 2016 Modeling combinations

Aox wrote:

“He don’t follow his own rules ;)”

“what they say they do is not always what they really do.”

Some would think it is hypocritical to give advice that you yourself do not follow. Perhaps it would be more charitable (giving the benefit of the doubt) to look at it from the System 1/System 2 perspective.

System 1 proposes; System 2 disposes. Simply put, our subconscious “throws up” ideas that are based on pattern matching. System 1 does not just “throw up” ONE idea; it brings up ALL ideas which match the situation based on prior experience. It is then the task of System 2 to “make sense” of all the ideas. The way that System 2 does this is to construct “stories” (narratives) which match between the actual situation and the retrieved “patterns.” But there are problems with this two-system approach. System 1 focuses attention based on “fight or flight”; it makes no judgements concerning which idea is most appropriate. System 2 (being “lazy”) tries to create a coherent “story” out of whatever it has been told by System 1. It is this “story-telling” which is put down in writing by the chess authors.

They do not intentionally tell “stories” that are not true. They simply write down what their System 2 has fabricated as the “process” that they follow. That they do not follow this process is evident when comparing their “process” list with their annotations and verbalizations.

Paradoxically, the higher the playing skill level, the more likely it is that the player does not have conscious access to the actual process used, and thus is forced to “make up a story” that “fits” conventional wisdom. The lower the skill level, the more likely that the logical “step by step” process has been conglomerated from things that the person has seen others espouse, and the less likely it is that the “process” bears any resemblance to reality. Thus, we adults “study” and try to memorize less than optimal processes as lists, and fail to realize that is not the way higher skilled players "think" in reality.
ReplyDelete
Replies
AoxomoxoA wonderingFriday, November 9, 2018 at 9:55:00 AM GMT+1
Hmm.. lets try to summarize a little

the thinkingprozess is: patternrecognition to find the dominant weakness(es) , stepping through candidate moves, calculating, reasoning, judging

so what do we need
-board vision
as tempo said :
"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"
they are aware where the pieces are and what they ( potentially) do
-memory of (already calculated ) lines
-memory of (already analysed ) positions ( related to board vision )
-memory of own thought process and won insights
-hyperfast patternrecognition
-knowledge ( to be able to judge the final positions )

And i guess a good training should adress exactly these points
ReplyDelete
Replies
AoxomoxoA wonderingFriday, November 9, 2018 at 10:06:00 AM GMT+1
Example for a "correct" solution of a puzzle

https://lichess.org/training/61614

The solution is NOT! Nc3

but:

Weaknesses: Nightfork at c7, unprotected Nc4
Method: opening line to c4
Candidate moves Nc3,Nc1
Refutation of Nc1: b5

+ other things which had been in our mind and where wrong, unimportant and so on
ReplyDelete
Replies

Add comment

Search This Blog

Temposchlucker

Realizing us the consequenses of what we see

Comments

Post a Comment

Chessbase PGN viewer