Margriet has not been well, lately. At a certain moment she weighted only a mere 45 kg after a weight loss of about 32 kg in a year. . They have found the cause, and with medication she is doing reasonably well now. According to the doctor, she had walked along the edge of the abyss. So understandably I had a lack of energy and focus to write about chess the past months. I hope that I can pick up the thread again now she is doing better. I started this post long ago, so maybe certain sentences are outdated.
Robert has painted a broad overall picture of the problem we face. I'm glad he did. The sheer amount of facts is overwhelming, and by sorting it out already, my mind is freed from the looming clogging up. I can focus solely on the important details now. Thanks for that!
The square of the knight method (SOTK)
We talked about the transformation of knowledge into a pattern. When your king is chased by a knight, you can gain a tempo by putting the king on the same diagonal as the knight, with one square in between. For convenience, I call this move the square of the knight. (Like the square of the pawn who wants to promote).
The shifting of gears method (SOG)
We talked about the fine art of shifting gears. System I seems to make use of mathematics of its own invention when calculating when to shift gears and when to push the brakes. These mathematics bare no resemblance with the mathematics of system II. Analogies seem to be an important ingredient of the working of system I.
Comparing SOG to SOTK
In the beginning there was only the SOG method. While we are learning how to drive a car, system I peeks over our shoulders, and assists the attention by adding its magic when needed. It is system I in its purest form.
SOTK on the other hand, needs some preliminary work to be done by system II. System II invents the pattern, and system I stores it under the appropriate cues.
I hypothesize that we do best by first extending system I by using the pure SOG method. That way, we maximize the added magic.
After system I is optimized in its own realm, we can start with the SOTK method. Meaning pimping knowledge into patterns with added intelligence borrowed from system II. With which system I can show off its own magic.
A little something about system II
Somewhere I described system II. While writing, I noticed already a few particularities. We talked about slow verbal thinking. And we talked about attention. I reckoned they both belong to system II by then. Thinking and attention seem to be very related. Even so, that some guy in the past thought that he was, just because he was thinking (cogito ergo sum).
Since we don't know that we are thinking when there is no attention, we supposed that there is a relationship between the two. But the peculiarity that I noticed, was that attention and thoughts function at total different speeds.
In the Vedantic world, there is a part of the mind that is called the Buddhi. We might call it the center of discrimination. For the xenophobes among us, we maybe should call it simply system III. System III represents the flight of the vulture.
Everything system I does, must be under surveillance of system III. The same holds true for everything system II concocts. There is no intelligence in thinking. Intelligence is added by system III, the quiet center of discrimination. Logic thinking is destructive by its very nature. It can only work by falsifying matters. It is not creative. System I is creative. But since there is no intelligence in system I either, everything must have the sign of approval of system III, the center of attention. The center of intelligence. Without the intelligence of system III, we are surrendered to the mercy of mere chance. Are the solutions which system I and system II come up with fit for the situation at hand or not.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
SOTK --> I know this is just an example of a pattern, in order to explain the systems.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I want to point out that this pattern is useless unless you are in severe time trouble like you are typically in a bullet game. What really matters when considering knight movements is: coverage of key-squares. There is no worry about receiving a check from a knight if you can calculate that this wont lead to anything, but rather misplaces his knight and let's your king advance to key-squares.
In Knight/pawn endgames, usually the best place for a knight is behind the pawns. If you have a pawn on e4 and a knight on f3, then your pawn/knight-duo cover the squares d5/d5/f5/g5 - impenetrable for the opponent king, who is naturally somewhere on the 6th rank. So SOTK is not important, but fending the opponent king is.
In the middle-game, the knight is the best defender of you king. Many tactcs suddenly dont work because your knight is preventing them. If you sense an attack against your king, and you want to prepare for this (but it is too early to calculate any concrete tactics) --> consider to shift over a knight closer to your king. If you want to attack your opponent king with a sac - consider to get rid of his knight (for the same reason). If he has 2 knights around his knight, dont go into the attack, unless you can calculate for sure a benefit of any sorts.
Unless you play bullet or are in sever time trouble --> checks are nothing to fear, but they may enable future tactics, so yeah, occasionally you do a pre-cautious move and get your king out of the check, especially in the middle game. In the endgame this is rather useless. Sometimes giving a check can be bad if it is not part a tactic (and especially given by a knight), so why should you prevent it? It is much more about coverage of squares, coordination of pieces, knowing that knights are best defenders, rooks are far distance weapons (and dont belong in the center) ... and so on.
(...and actually, here I just played a bullet game, where my opponent did not know that a sac is likely not leading to success if I have both knight close around to my king. When I played ...h6 attacking his bishop, I was aware of a possible check. I played it anyway, because I knew I had a knight on f6, and I can get my other knight over easily. So I was able to decide in a second that ...h6 can be played and I do not need to worry if he sacs his bishop with 9.Bxh6? --> I will only gain material and can be sure I dont need to worry at all.
ReplyDeleteI think this is an important key-knowledge, not only in a bullet game like here. But People below A-class level hardly know this, and even A-Class players are often enough not really aware of this, but rather have kind of an instinct not to sac here - but would not be able to explain it.
Just look at the game, it is a bullet game I just played (and think it is a typical case of sac-consideration when knight are close) and convince yourself how powerless his attack was. Even with an engine, you can not find any gains: with 2 knights I am totally safe, even in a bullet game where attacks by tendency rather good because the defender usually needs more time to think than the attacker, and thus the defender loses on time (thus - gambits are more powerful in bullet games than in classic games).
https://lichess.org/N4OQXjfs/black#16
I was thinking about this king vs knight trick to put the king at the same diagonal than the knight...
ReplyDeletehttps://chesstempo.com/chess-tactics/104962
I did "know": if i want to win someting, i have to take back with the Rg3 (Rd8 is weak but nothing at the g file ) So i did not calculate anything here.
@ Temposchlucker: I'm sorry to hear that Margriet has been so ill, and very glad to hear that the cause has been found and is being treated. I wish you both good health and the best life possible together!
ReplyDeletePART I:
ReplyDeleteHow did you learn to play CHESS?
If you learned from someone else (through verbal descriptions and instruction), then you had to use System II verbal skills to understand the descriptions and instructions.
If you learned from a book, then you had to use System II verbal skills to read and comprehend the instructions.
If you learned solely from observation (watching other people play), you did not use verbal skills (at least not directly, unless you asked someone to explain what you saw). However, you did categorize (differentiate) between the various piece types on the basis of color, size, shape, and movements.
Buddhi (feminine; or Buddha, masculine) involves attention, focus, and most importantly categorization. In order to learn how the pieces move, we must first differentiate the types (categories) of pieces - King, Queen, Rook, Bishop, Knight, and Pawn. This is based on visual (or tactile, for blind persons) physical attributes: shape, size, and color (to differentiate which pieces are ours and which are the opponent's). We then learn the piece attributes associated with each piece type by the formal rules - how the individual types of pieces move (King, Queen, Rook, Bishop, Pawn - rectilinearly; Knight - circularly) and special attributes (castling, Pawn promotion, en passant, etc.). I did not connect the Knight move with circularity until a long time after learning to play. Until these fundamental distinctions are firmly grasped, it is not possible to learn how to play a game of chess in accordance with the rules. The ultimate objective of the game (to checkmate the opponent's King) is just "noise" until there is a connection between the individual piece movements and the formal rule for attacking the King (via the piece movements) and the requirement to eliminate the 3 possible ways of evading checkmate (capture the checking piece, interposing a piece or moving the King out of check). Higher level knowledge and skills (such as tactical themes/devices and positional considerations) are out of the question initially until these fundamentals are absorbed.
The rapidity with which we absorb this fundamental knowledge is amazing! It takes very little time (a half hour or less, in most cases) to impart all of the fundamental rules to someone with no prior knowledge of chess. We don't struggle with it, we don't try to logically analyze it ("Why DO knights move in that 'funny' L-shape?"), we just accept it, internalize it, and move on to more abstract issues. We pick up this knowledge and internalize it without considering how much is actually going on in our minds "behind the scenes" (System 1). Once this phase of learning has been completed with the knowledge firmly "cemented" into LTM, we no longer consciously think about these aspects of the game.
Long ago, we talked about a priest who read a certain prayer three times a day. I'm not sure whether it was at this blog or at the forum of Chess tempo. After 25 years he got sacked, because he still didn't knew the prayer by heart.
DeleteIt shows, that knowledge can't be transferred to system I on autopilot. You need a certain extra effort of attention in order to make it stick.
PART II:
ReplyDeleteThis gives us an important "clue" as to how to acquire higher level skills. We must first acquire KNOWLEDGE. We can't internalize something we do not know. This is a System II (augmented by System III) function. Once we are exposed to (made aware of) the knowledge, we can then begin the process of transforming the knowledge from conscious recall into unconscious skill. If the necessary (but not necessarily sufficient) knowledge foundation is only partially constructed, then (inevitably) we will reach a plateau at which higher (more abstract) knowledge and skill cannot be absorbed. It is proverbially “the house built on the sand.” This notion of a 'plateau' caused by insufficient knowledge is another 'clue' as to how to improve - the knowledge gap must be bridged. This is extremely difficult to do, especially after playing for a long time based on incomplete/inadequate knowledge. Very few of us possess the ability to analyze our shortcomings - in short, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WE DON'T KNOW - A-N-D WE (USUALLY) HAVE NO CLUE ABOUT HOW TO TRAIN/TEACH OURSELVES.
Yet the chess literature is filled with suggestions for HOW to go about training. (In this regard, I am reminded of the parable of the blind men and an elephant.) One guru strongly suggests studying endgames FIRST (not exclusively). Another guru strongly suggests developing a formal thought process and following it religiously. Another guru strongly emphasizes studying master games. Another guru strongly recommends always looking at forcing (CCT) moves FIRST in every position. And so on, and so on, and so on. . .
Here's a thought: perhaps each one of these gurus either found the particular aspect he is touting to be especially helpful to HIM, or he found that particular aspect to be the most important in helping him get past the sticky point HE experienced. Although each guru is offering helpful advice, it may (or may not) be particularly helpful to each of US. An applicable caveat: Your Mileage May Differ.
And, when we don't get the promised improvement, we settle back on the parable of the Fox and the Grapes - the grapes were probably sour anyway (the “improvement” didn't work as touted).
I certainly am NOT the one who observed that chess is a collection of miniskills, not a monolithic knowledge edifice. In fact, I have always resisted the notion that chess skill is a COLLECTION of miniskills. It has only been as a result of bashing my head against the wall (and observing others doing the same) that I realized how to go about improving in a continuous upward spiral. It is simple to state, and extremely difficult to accomplish: learn ONE miniskill at a time AND internalize it until it becomes embedded in the subconscious (System 1). The 'tell-tale' sign must be consciously observed (System II; System III) - "Hey, where did the idea of THAT come from? I wasn't even thinking about it." If I have to apply conscious thought (remembering) to it, then it is NOT embedded into my subconscious. If I (or one of my friends) can identify a knowledge “shortfall,” then I have to backtrack and acquire that knowledge/skill before attempting to move forward again. Fortunately, this does NOT lead to an infinite regress – we cannot regress beyond the fundamentals described earlier.
System III functions perpendicular to system II. There is no definite end to opening knowledge. Every day, new variations are found. But is is all on the same level. You can learn new openings until the cows come home. But it doesn't help us any further.
DeleteAlbeit system II can be very busy with acquiring knowledge at the same level, it is a kind of lazy at the same time too. To acquire new knowledge that stands perpendicular to the vast body of flat knowledge, you need to make conscious effort.
It is the difference between circling and spiraling. Between autopilot and conscious effort.
PART III:
ReplyDeleteI am as guilty as anyone else of touting "miracle cures" ("Doctor Bob's Miraculous Chess Cure For What Ails YOU"). The PoPloAFun approach (as articulated by Temposchlucker - many thanks!) solidified my personal investigation of Dr. Lasker's distinction between MOTIFS and TACTICAL THEMES/DEVICES. (I refer the curious to the prior discussion on this blog; read the comments as well as Temposchlucker's blog posts.) I can tell you "it works" with the caveat FOR ME. I identified my inability to "see" the tactical contours of a position as a missing SKILL, and set about trying to figure out how to rectify that specific deficiency. When playing, I had previously heavily relied on a KNOWLEDGE of positional 'principles' based on the theories of Steinitz, Lasker and Nimzovich to get me through a game without getting crushed right in the opening. Although partially successful (eventually reaching 1810 USCF), I realized that I couldn't "see" tactics with any clarity at all. I tried the usual manic attempts at massed practice of tactical problems for years, with very little improvement after 30,000-50,000 problems "solved." In short, that approach did not work for ME. I plateaued quickly without signficantly improving my skills. It was by going back to Dr. Laskers Lasker's Manual of Chess and rethinking his suggestions for improvement, AND interacting with Temposchlucker and the rest of you here on this blog, that I have seen definite improvement in the tactics area. Is this one skill sufficient to raise my overall skill level to master? In a word, NO; I didn't expect it to do that. However, I no longer dread tactical melees. In fact, I've been instigating them regularly at the chess club since I resumed playing there. I have been successful in tactical attacks and in using tactics to beat off attacks by higher rated players.
I cannot assume that you will experience the same benefit as me (or any benefit at all) from a consideration of PoPLoAFun. However, I assert (without proof) that I don't think you can improve to a high level without internalizing these concepts at some point in your study. YOU will have to identify your own shortcomings, and then figure out what to do to overcome them. As always, we will be here to make (hopefully "helpful") suggestions.
Tempo - frequent lurker here - I'm very glad Margriet is getting better. I noticed your posting frequency dropped after a mention of her health back in March, and it had me worried every time I dropped by here. Great news!
ReplyDeleteI am confused whether the flight of the vulture and the shifting of gears are actually the same thing. It seems to me they might be. Or is what you call System III the SOG of System II, in analogy to the SOG you mention for System I? It seems to me System II doesn't do anything without attention, the mental spotlight shining on a particular subject. Whereas I don't know if System I needs a spotlight, or needs to shift gears exactly - it seems capable of doing several things at once. - mfardal
Thanks for your concern!
DeleteThe term system III gives the false impression that it functions on the same level as system I and system II. It is not. It is from a quite different order.
I have been in a Sanskrit translation group for more than six years. Sanskrit is a much richer and sophisticated language than modern English. Or Dutch, for that matter. Especially when it comes to express the subtleties of the human mind. We simply don't have the words for it.
Buddhi is exactly the right term for system III. We don't have an equivalent word. So we must make use of a description.
The intellectual faculty and the power to "form and retain concepts, reason, discern, judge, comprehend, understand"
Buddhi (Sanskrit: बुद्धि) is derived from the Vedic Sanskrit root Budh (बुध् ), which literally means "to wake, be awake, observe, heed, attend, learn, become aware of, to know, be conscious again"
Off topic (maybe):
DeleteI'm reminded (again) of the book title "Buddhism Is Not What You Think: Finding Freedom Beyond Beliefs" by Steve Hagen. The Western mind logically infers that the book is about a mistargeted thinking process and how to "think" like a Buddhist; the Eastern mind simply accepts that logical "thinking" is not the essence of Buddhism; it lies in a totally different realm. The humorous thing is that a lot of Western writers attempt to explain Buddhism using a logical approach and typical philosophical step-by-step syllogisms. Sorry, but that totally misses the point. The beauty of Zen koans lies in the ability to stop the logical mind (system II). What IS the sound of one hand clapping?
I had an excellent night at the chess club. I played 3 of the 4 highest rated players (excluding myself), winning all four games. In some of the games (including the only rated game), I won because of the tactical complications in the middlegame after a lackluster (placid) opening; the other players overlooked a tactical shot every time. I've got several games pending the rating process, so I have no idea what my rating currently is, but I expect it to head toward 1700 or higher. Given the short time I've been playing again OTB, I'm pleased with the results so far. It remains to be seen where I plateau - I expect it to occur between 1700-1800 USCF. Then I'll have to change my focus and (probably) develop a sound opening repertoire. UGH! Until then, I have no intention of changing my training regimen - more PoPLoAFun!
Oh, I also did something different this evening prior to going to the club: I quickly ran through about 75 problems at the simplest level using CT-ART 4.0. The purpose was to "prime" System 1 to be alert for tactics. It seemed to help me.
System II leans heavily on system I. In order to create some verbal logic, system I must run around in order to retrieve the words and even the logic for system II. Maybe that's why system II is so slow.
ReplyDeleteIn the comments above, I formulated that there is one important condition for educating system I: a conscious focus of system III.
System I decides self what it learns from the subject which is under the conscious light of system III. Just how system I learns how to shift gears when our attention is simply focused on driving a car for the first time. We don't need to tell system I how to learn. Since we would use system II to try that, it isn't even possible. Since system I doesn't talk the same language.
So key is the conscious effort. Which sounds as deliberate practice.
The enemy is lazy approach. Not lazy in the sense of doing little work, but in the sense of omitting conscience. System I or system II on autopilot.
We are mislead by the fact that we think we work hard. We do work hard, but with no light of consciousness it doesn't yield fruit.
PART I:
ReplyDeleteA “stream of consciousness” approach [more correctly, all that I can consciously recall while solving this problem; there may be much more going on in System 1] may help illustrate how I am using PoPLoAFun.
I just began working through August Livshitz’s excellent 3-volume tactics training books: Test Your Chess IQ: First Challenge, Master Challenge, Grandmaster Challenge. The three volumes are bound into one volume on Amazon.
Consider First Challenge, Test 1, Problem 5, given below in FEN.
[FEN "8/6pk/2b2q2/pp5p/2p1P2P/2Pr1P2/P3Q1K1/2R1B3 b - - 8 43"]
(Try to figure out the solution before playing through the game score, given at the end of my comments. The “problem” occurs after White’s 43rd move, with Black to play.)
1. Black is to move.
2. Material is equal.
3. The puzzle is NOT about checkmate or Pawn promotion, so it IS about gaining material.
4. Vulture’s Eye View: White’s King is more vulnerable to attack than Black’s King. Potential LPDO: WRc1 and WQe2 but the White Queen is not vulnerable to the Black Queen, Rook, or Bishop. Obvious “double attack”: BQg5, forking White King and White Rook. Obvious defense against this “double attack”: WPh4. No obvious way to dislodge or capture WPh4, allowing the fork. The only other square to "attack" c1 is f4 square.
Intermezzo: Prior to investigating PoPLoAFun, I think I must clarify something – there is no particular order in which to apply PoPLoAFun for any given position. I use the Vulture’s Eye View to get a “feel” from System 1 as to what to “look at/for” (saccade; rapid eye movements) over the entire board. I don’t CONSCIOUSLY try to search for anything specific, motifs, tactical themes/devices, etc.; it is a “trial and error” process that I do NOT guide step-by-step. The order that I describe for this problem may be completely different in other positions. Caveat emptor!
I spent a short time trying to figure out how to get the Black Queen on the g5 square; nothing forcing came to mind. So, I proceeded to the next step.
5. PoPLoAFun: The most significant POTENTIAL PoP is the “loose” WRc1. At a bare minimum, Black can gain a tempo by attacking WRc1 from square f4. There is a LoA along the c1-h5 diagonal. Square f3 is another significant PoP because it’s transparently B.A.D. Square e4 is not B.A.D. [Q+P vs B], but the “protection” by Pf3 may prove illusory if Pf3 gets taken. There is a LoA along the entire a8-h1 diagonal. This changes the status of square f3 in Black’s favor [2:3] because the White King is “attacked” by BBc6, which means the Black Bishop is also “attacking” square f3, giving Black superiority there. (Remember my suggestion of "seeing" THROUGH all the way to the edge of the board for line-moving pieces.)
PART II:
ReplyDelete6. Start calculations, keeping in mind what has been uncovered so far. The first move that comes to mind is 43. … Qf4. Might as well “hit” that loose Rook on c1, and see what happens next. (Since this is all calculation inside my head, nothing (except some time) will be lost by considering it.) White obviously has to either protect the Rook or move it. WAIT A SECOND! This move by Black changes the status of PoP e4.– Black makes square e4 B.A.D.! [Q+P vs Q+B]! Is there anything that can be done to gain superiority on e4? Let’s just move the White Rook “somewhere” and then “see” what can be done. 44. Rc2. This mutually protects both the Rook and the Queen. Now let’s look at the f3 and e4 squares. 44. … Rxf3 forces White to recapture with the White Queen 45. Qxf3, otherwise Black has breached the White King position and gained material. LIGHTBULB!! The White Queen AND the White King are on the same diagonal as the Black Bishop! Line of Attack, baby! Black now has superiority [1:2] on square e4, so 45. … Bxe4 and the White Queen is pinned to the White King; Black is winning material!
Problem solved!
The game from which the problem was taken:
[Event "Amsterdam IBM"]
[Site "Amsterdam NED"]
[Date "1971.07.13"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "1"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Svetozar Gligoric"]
[Black "Vasily Smyslov"]
[ECO "D07"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "86"]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 Nc6 3. Nc3 dxc4 4. d5 Ne5 5. Bf4 Ng6 6. Bg3 e5
7. dxe6 Bxe6 8. Nf3 Nf6 9. Nd4 Bd7 10. e3 Bb4 11. Bxc4 O-O
12. Qc2 c6 13. h3 Qe7 14. O-O Bxc3 15. bxc3 Ne4 16. Bh2 c5
17. Nf3 Bc6 18. Bd3 f5 19. Rad1 Rad8 20. Be2 Qf6 21. Rxd8 Rxd8
22. Rc1 h6 23. Bd3 Kh8 24. Ne1 c4 25. Bxe4 fxe4 26. Qe2 b5
27. Bg3 Ne7 28. Qb2 Nd5 29. Qa3 a5 30. Kh2 h5 31. h4 Qf8
32. Qb2 Nf6 33. Kg1 Ng4 34. Qe2 Qf6 35. f3 exf3 36. gxf3 Ne5
37. e4 Nd3 38. Rc2 Nxe1 39. Bxe1 Rd3 40. Kg2 Qg6+ 41. Bg3 Kh7
42. Rc1 Qf6 43. Be1 Qf4 0-1
PART III (Addendum):
ReplyDeleteI think it is important to learn something from each problem solved. In this case, it is that there MAY be a subtle (or blatant) connection between PoPs or interactions between PoPs and LoAs and Funs, just as there is between motifs and tactical themes/devices. The PoPs, LoAs and Funs are generally at a simpler level than motifs and tactical themes/devices. Careful examination reveals the interconnections between the components and the levels.
However, playing/solving like a speed demon (quantity over quality) is highly unlikely to yield any long-term insights as to these subtle interconnections. It's important to extract every possible nuance from every problem solved. This can only occur with careful reflection, not just mindless repetition.
Temposchlucker said it best (above, in a couple of comments, and always a lot more succinctly than I can ever manage):
"It shows, that knowledge can't be transferred to system I on autopilot. You need a certain extra effort of attention in order to make it stick. ... So key is the conscious effort. Which sounds as deliberate practice. The enemy is lazy approach. Not lazy in the sense of doing little work, but in the sense of omitting conscience. System I or system II on autopilot. We are mislead by the fact that we think we work hard. We do work hard, but with no light of consciousness it doesn't yield fruit."
The example of the priest who read the same prayer three times per day for 25 years, and still didn't know the prayer by heart, and got sacked is a perfect illustration. I remember a long-term manager of a hardware support group who was touting his skills on the basis of having been doing the job for 25 years. He had made a rather ignorant technical comment and was called on it. One of my (rather blunt) employees asked him if he had 25 years of experience or merely 1 year of experience, repeated 25 times. The look of shock on the manager's face gave the answer.
When Tempo and I did lots of CT puzzles, we discovered a few patterns (I am not saying "lots of patterns") we were not aware of previously. And thus we improved pretty soon 50 CT rating points or so, and with a lot of more puzzles we discovered a little more patterns which we still were not aware of - and we improved a few rating points more. After that --> nothing.
ReplyDeleteI guess there are not many more patterns to be found. Very few patterns I still learned later, patterns I could not identify as a pattern before Aox opened my eyes and explained the pattern to me. These were then my last few CT Blitz rating points of improvement. Not much, but I noticed.
So I dont think more patterns will gain more. It is the recall speed of relevant pattern. Example in English language: Robert uses above the expression "subtle (or blatant)" - good words. I know them. I might come up with the word "subtle", but hardly "blatant", though I know (sort of) what that word means. In general, Robert uses lots of words, which I could use, too. I know (most of) them, but I dont use them. I guess in chess it is similar: knowing patterns, and using them is quite a different issue. Often I look hard at a puzzle, and if I find the solution, the key idea I just did a few seonds before I make my move. Which means that the key idea must be a pattern, otherwise (once identified) I would not be able to "know": Ah, yes, this is it, I am onto it.
Then just quick checking a few extra minutes, but I got it shortly afterwards.
Probably we are overloaded with too many patterns to think of. Others (better players) think of the right patterns sooner than I do.
I dont think I can find a way to speed this up. Just like I will never use the rich vocabulary Robert uses, despite I understand him, know his used words. Robert wants to express something, and finds fitting words fast. Robert is precise. It's a matter of precision, but how to be more precise in chess?
P.S. errr: "quick checking a few extra seconds" (of course not "few extra minutes")
ReplyDeleteMunich writes: "I guess in chess it is similar: knowing patterns, and using them is quite a different issue."
ReplyDeleteThis is the very essence of the problem we face in trying to improve at chess. It is a distinction between KNOWLEDGE ("know that") and SKILL ("know how"), described so eloquently by GM Jonathan Rowson in Chess for Zebras - Thinking Differently about Black and White which he, in turn, 'borrowed' from philosopher Gilbert Ryle, who in turn borrowed it from philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, who . . ., in a very long regress back to Aristotle (or beyond), who said, "We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence then, is not an act, but a habit.."
I've quoted extensively from GM Rowson in my comments here. I quoted GM Rowson in a comment back on 19 JAN 2016: "KNOW HOW is more important for good chess playing than KNOW WHAT." For those who are curious about the "what" and "how" of chess IMPROVEMENT, I highly recommend GM Rowson's books The Seven Deadly Chess Sins and Chess for Zebras - Thinking Differently about Black and White. Neither will add much (if anything) to your CHESS knowledge or skill, but that's not the direct focus of the books.
I make NO claim no originality here; these ideas are contained in GM Rowson's books, albeit separated by many pages and explanations. I merely "recognized" the pattern.
As for the "word salad" I so often serve up, I try to be as precise as I can be in expressing my thoughts. Unfortunately, just like endless acquisition of more chess "patterns," "more" words are often "less" useful. I don't have any other way to be as precise as I want to be; the resulting verbiage often obscures rather than clarifies my points. I'm sorry about that.
Words are (sometimes) useful for CONVEYING ideas, but we must be very careful to avoid the mistake of inferring or assuming that the words ARE the idea. If we have one (or more) words to convey a thought, we often mistakenly ASSUME that we “understand” (or KNOW) the thought itself, and can recognize that idea in any context.
ReplyDeleteTake the word SPLASH, for example. We “know” (in conceptual terms) what that means – at least, we “think” (System 2) we know it. We have a “pattern” of letters but we don’t (necessarily) have any skill with which to apply it in different contexts.
Let’s assume that the word SPLASH is in your vocabulary. Perhaps you remember it from a story you read when first learning to read. On first encountering the word, you didn’t know what it meant. So, you went to a dictionary and looked it up (or asked your teacher). The dictionary defined it as “a sound made by something striking or falling into liquid.” This is the abstract conceptual “knowledge” of a “pattern” of letters associated with a meaning – but you have no skill in using that word properly in different contexts.
Go out to a pond or lake. Take a small rock (or at least one you can pick up and throw) and toss it out onto the water. Listen CAREFULLY as the rock hits the water surface. The sound you hear is experientially SPLASH. You have an AHA! moment – you finally can use that AHA! “feeling” to properly guide your usage of the word in at least one context.
Now imagine you are reading a novel, and you encounter the following sentence:
“The rock star made a big SPLASH as he entered the room.”
Given the context of a “room,” we (automagically) “know” that the context is different from the dictionary definition or our previous experience at the lake – there is no literal “striking or falling into a liquid” involved (unless there is a big pool filled with champagne in the room, and he fell into it, in which case additional contextual information would be required). We now have an additional (metaphorical) context for SPLASH, which expands our capability to use this word. Note that the meaning in this second case is not literal.
I think this describes (by analogy) how we need to learn to USE the various chess “patterns”. It’s all well and good to acquire a vocabulary of words DESCRIBING various chess concepts (PoPLoAFUN, motifs, themes/devices), but what we need are abstracted contexts for applying those concepts (SKILL) in any situation. To me, “pattern” is not synonymous with the word PATTERN. Instead, it is the many and varied (perhaps infinite?) contexts which can be lumped under the word PATTERN. The word is an abstraction, a description of “this” as opposed to “that” – but it is NOT the same thing! I think most of us “think” we have acquired the SKILL to use a “pattern” when we recognize one (or at best, a few) of the many possible contexts in which it can be applied. However, when we are faced with a different context (and every chess position is a different context), we don’t recognize the pattern because the context is somewhat different. The ultimate goal is to recognize the “pattern” regardless of the context. Only then can we claim to have acquired the skill to consistently recognize and apply that “pattern”.
Ultimately, this is the value of starting from simple contacts (GM Averbakh), proceeding to PoPLoAFun (Temposchlucker), then upward to motifs and tactical themes/devices (Lasker), and so forth, in ever more abstract contexts, eventually without being able to define what is “seen” in a single word “picture.” Given the practically infinite potential contexts, we have to figure out a way to recognize the components which constitute the “pattern” regardless of context. Describing a “pattern” in a specific context is relatively easy to do, once it has been “seen” once. It is the “seeing” (recognizing the existence of the “pattern”) in any context that denotes skill. We need to avoid (if possible) trying to work backwards – we “know” the word and what it means (one instance), but we can’t recognize it except in very limited contexts.
ReplyDeleteFinally, circling back to Munich's observations regarding my vocabulary: I literally read hundreds of books before I finished high school. I read (by actual count) 80 books in the 4th grade alone, which came from the high school library. (My teacher did not believe me, until after she checked my recall by getting some of the books on my reading list from the library and testing me.) I have read literally thousands (that is NOT an exaggeration) of books since leaving high school. Not checked them out of a library or merely purchased them as shelf ornaments, but read them. As I read them, I often used a highlighter to mark important concepts and wrote my own notes in the margins. (Perhaps this experience is what lead me to propose using a highlighter to mark PoPs and LoAs on a chess diagram.) I also make analogies between seemingly unconnected categories. (That should be obvious from my comments!)
ReplyDeleteOne of the benefits is that I have a relatively large vocabulary from which to choose more nuanced words. I also have considerable comprehension and memory for abstract concepts while reading at a very fast pace. None of this was intentional; I simply wanted to learn more about many and varied subjects.
Given that, why am I still so poor at playing chess? I think it is more lack of disciplined time spent studying and playing than anything else. I "know" the conceptual "patterns" but I haven't spent enough time applying them in depth in different contexts (positions). As a result of the improvement ideas expressed on this blog, I am making progress (finally). I have been working for some time on ingraining PoPLoAFun into System 1. When I am satisfied with my skill in doing this, I will return to higher-level concepts (motifs and tactical themes/devices).
I improved without really playing any better (in the sense of calculating better). How comes?
ReplyDeleteWell, I thought hard about areas where I can improve, and found some:
Opening --> I looked at statistics and consequently switched my opening repertoire. If you want to safe time, you can trust my research and play/learn the following openings, which fit well together in many parts:
with white: 1.Nf3 - for instance 1...d5 2.c4, or 1...Nf6 2.c4
Then I often try into getting a catalan, a kings-indian (I am white against the KID), or a sicilian dragon with Maroczy-bind.
with black:
against 1.e4 I play 1...Nc6 (Nimzowich defense) or 1...O'Kelly sicilian.
against 1.d4 I play 1...d6 (Rat defense), typically I get a tempo ahead KID (cause I have not played early ...Nf6 and thus can move f7-f5 early without the tempo-loss of Nf6-e8, f7-f5, then back Ne8-f6), or it goes like this 1.d4 d6 2.c4 2.e5 3.dxe5 dxe5 4.Qxd8 Kxd8 - and despite the believe of many, THIS is better for black! (reason is subtle: after ...c6-c7, and Kd8-c7, the king is safe, and actually the king is taking part on the queenswing where black has thus a piece (the king) more, whereas the kings-wing gets white nothing if black has the pawn structure e5-f6-g7-h7.
Statistics proof these opening are very good for the player who plays it.
--> and my rating improved, I won more often. Good openings matter!
Endgames: you really need to learn rook endgames, as they are the most often to happen.
I also improved in other endgames, and my strategy is to gladly embrace endgames if I have the opportunity. Endgame knowledge does not require speed, it is ok to be slower than your opponent, and thus you can keep up with very strong players.
Time management: I was so fortunate to suffer from bad time management, thinking: "Oh, I have plenty of time" - until I didnt have time, and lost in time trouble. I could get my act together, promissing myself to not use more time than 10 minutes on a move. As soon as I am aware of using more than 10 minutes, I tell myself: "ok, I seem to have trouble to be reasonably sure. So what do I do now? How can I continue safely?" --> If I was thinking of a sac, but am not sure, I leave it. Is there a safe move? Can I reduce complexity?
I might miss a good chance, but I stay in the game, and wait for a better opportunity. In fact, I only lost 1 out of about 40 games. I drew many (instead of winning) and won only a few. And this was enough to propell my rating into 2200 range.
Even though, somehow, I still feel like I am not better calculating than an A-class player.
So what I did was basically: I made the most out what I have.
Unfortunatly, I polished every area, and now I can not improve further, because - like many others - I am not able to improve in tactics. (I improved about 150 elo points tactically, but overall I improved like 400, so most of my rating gains (400 - 150 = 250) stems from makeing the most out of my skill).
Most of us (adults) would be ecstatic to improve to the 2200 Elo range, regardless of what training we did to get there!
ReplyDeleteStudying positions on the basis of PoPLoaFun is having a beneficial synergistic effect on my playing. I can "see" more tactical shots (farther in advance), and I have a better "feel" for strategic issues (such as anticipating where Pawn breaks are available and need to occur). My modus operandi in the distant past was to focus on strategic issues almost exclusively (Nimzovich's My System, in particular), with minimal tactical study. Without playing more than 70 long OTB games, I managed to get to USCF 1810, and often was able to hold my own against 1800-2000 rated players. When I started studying and playing again, I have primarily been working on tactics, knowing it was my Achilles heel. I also worked through the appropriate sections (for my rating level and then one level beyond) of Silman's Complete Endgame Course. I periodically review everything in that book up to and through that level. I tried the MdlM approach to tactics (at least somewhat), but saw little improvement in my capability to "see" tactics as a result of massed practice; my tactics rating remained around 1450-1600. It has only been after religiously, dogmatically working on PoPLoAFun (after realizing that Lasker's motifs were NOT the same as tactical themes/devices) that I have been able to "see" more possibilities for both players in every position. I'm still a virtual novice in memorizing the latest opening theory, mainly because I don't think it helps me very much to improve overall (at my current rating level). If (or when, I hope!) my rating increases back up into the 1800-2000 range, then I know I will have to spend more time studying openings, and also have to choose an opening repertoire. Until that occurs, as the late SM Kem Smith said, "Until you reach 1800-2000, your first name is Tactics, your middle name is Tactics, and your last name is Tactics."
I'm curious: did you try marking (with a highlighter) the PoPs and LoA directly on a diagram? I marked up several tactics books (at various levels of difficulty) - until I began to "see" those pressure points and attack "lines" without having to explicitly mark them; I don't mark then at all now. I stopped using the highlighter when I realized that I was being "lazy" in my concentration on the entire board. It was becoming somewhat similar to writing down variations during analysis, without holding them in memory.
I worked with chesstempo. I marked a lot of tactics with tags, either the tags available, or my own tags, which identified patterns/typical characteristics of the underlying tactic. Example name of a tag-name: "take with a check". It is a pattern I was unable to identify until Aox opened my eyes. After that I saw it frequently in the 1700-1900 CT blitz rating range. Simple, but if you dont know the pattern, you have trouble solving it, and that explains its relative high CT Blitz rating, despite it is simple ones you are aware of the pattern. Now that I learned it I can see it in blitz games easily.
ReplyDeleteHere where I invented the tag "take with check" for this kind of pattern (and tagged many puzzles with that): https://chesstempo.com/chess-tactics/95440
The pattern works like this: "You can capture something with check, but before you capture it - you distract its defender."
In the puzzle you can capture the rook with check, but it is defended by the queen. So you distract the queen, and because your own queen is attacked this makes this puzzle even simpler (other puzzles with this pattern are up to 2000 rated).
So, yes, I marked my puzzles in a way. Still, I guess only 150 rating point stem from learning tactics. And most of that gain happens early. More of the same does not yield much more. Tempo improved a lot in his first weeks of tactical training.
And complicated stuff does not stick well in our mind. So my "trick" is: I avoid what I can not improve.
I avoid tactics, I avoid bad openings.
I embrace endgames (learning them is rewarding), I play good openings, I improved my time management.
Good players could easily beat me in complicating things, going into tactics - but they dont know my weak areas, so they dont. And I get away with it.
It is good to "know" yourself. I had a few chess students, and one of them almost always lost when he started to sacrifice something in his games. He just overestimated his attacking chances. He gladly played Bxh6, gxBh6, Qxh6 - getting only 2 pawns for his bishop. He didnt have enough pieces in reach to support his attack, his opponent easily defended, and thus my student lost miserably thereafter.
Just sticking to "I shall not sac" helped a lot for his chess improvement.
So "knowing" yourself can lead to big improvements. Find out why you lose games, sometimes there is something to be found. But sometimes not.
It is not easy to "look into the mirror", but others can sometimes see what you do wrong all the time.
You suffer often from timetrouble like GM Grishuk? I wonder why Grishuk can not get his time management under control. He really should work on that, everybody but himself can see that, and some GMs play him on time on purpose. Carlsen did recently. He played slow at first, too, but after ensureing Grishuk is in slow snail mode, Carlsen started to speed up and use only 1-3 minutes for every further move. Then Grishuk was behind in time by 30 minutes, and thus later Grishuk got into time trouble and Carlsen won easily. If you look at Carlsen's time usage, you can sense he played on time on purpose, in a subtle way disguised.
Knowing your weakness and work on it - if you can not improve, try to avoid positions that are bad for you. Your first name is not tactics, your first name is: Avoid tactics. your middle name is: simplify.
your last name is: offer draw when you can not avoid tactics.
Your very last trick up the sleeve is: stand up, look at his eyes from the distance: what is he thinking about? which tactics does he have in mind?
Sometimes you can not avoid, and you will most likely lose. But on the long run, your rating will rise if you know what you can do and what you cant.
@ Munich:
ReplyDelete'So "knowing" yourself can lead to big improvements.'
Hoe true! Yet most of us are not sufficiently self-aware (as you indicated with the example of GM Grishuk regarding time trouble). We don't analyze what's wrong (is it lack of knowledge or lack of skill?), and consequently don't know what to work on for self-improvement. Or, just as likely, we categorize our lack of knowledge and skill at such a broad general level (e.g., "I suck at tactics.") that we have no idea what to do to improve because the analysis is not specific enough.
Categorizing (encapsulating) generic ideas (such as "take with check") has the benefit of creating a "rule" and tagging it with a mnemonic device for later recall. It creates a "trigger" based on pattern recognition.
PoPLoAFun doesn't create mnemonic "triggers" (unless you tag a set of problems as you described). It's simply a way of training the eye to "see" what is actually in a specific position, based on weaknesses.
I looked at the example you gave above of "take with check." Obviously, the White Queen and the White Rook are attacked. My first thought (trying to apply your mnemonic) was to simply take 1. Rxf8+ (with check) Qxr 2. Qc1 (to protect the c-Pawn). But then (and only then) I realized that White is behind in material! At that point, I reverted to my usual PoPLoAFun approach.
(1) White to move. (2) White is behind in material. (3) The position is not about Pawn promotion; it MAY be about checkmate or material gain. Since the Black Queen prevents immediate checkmate, then the problem (likely) is about material gain. PoPs: f8 is B.A.D. BQC5 is unprotected. BRa7 is protected by the Black Queen, which also has the Fun to protect the BRf8 and prevent checkmate. Ignoring the PoP that WRd8 is unprotected (solely because it is White to move), an attack on the Black Queen seems to be the only possible approach (EGT - Equal or greater threat). 1. Qe3 "attacks" the Black Queen AND skewers the BRa7. Black cannot capture the White Queen because of 2. Rxf8#. Any retreat (to maintain control of f8) "unprotects" the BRa7, allowing White to gain material by first "take with check": 1. ... Qe7 (or 1. ... Qb4) 2. Rxf8+ Qxf8 3. Qxa7.
The difference (I think) is one method relies on a mnemonic "trigger" to recall how to approach the problem. The other uses the information in the problem to "figure out" what to do, using the method of elimination.
Serendipitously, we can use BOTH methods!
After posting my previous comment, I realized something important about the two methods. The method of creating 'tags" (mnemonics) to encapsulate an idea and thus make it more amenable to retrieval from long-term memory (LTM) relies on memory recall. Some pattern in the specific position must be "generalized" into a retrieval cue which (hopefully) matches the trigger for the correct action(s) to be taken. When a different position occurs, we still have to "generalize" THAT position in order to trigger the appropriate cue as to what to do.
ReplyDeleteOne method relies on an automated generalization process and imperfect memory; the other relies strictly on what is on the board RIGHT NOW in front of us.
The second method always uses the available information in the specific position to trigger the action(s) to be taken. Aside from having to remember what PoPLoAFun actually references (points of pressure, lines of attack, and functions of pieces and squares), none of the associated actions have to be retrieved from long-term memory. It's "nice" if such retrieval occurs, but it is not essential. The pattern recognition works from what is actually "seen" in each specific position, not what has been "generalized" and then recalled as a trigger to some other memory.
Perhaps it is a distinction without a difference (for most people). Perhaps it is like differentiating between motifs and tactical themes/devices. I think most of the literature and most people make no distinction between those two categories. Yet understanding the difference makes it considerably easier to trigger recognition of salient particulars and thus to formulate an appropriate response.
An objection to the second method (PoPLoAFun) might be that it requires logical thinking (System 1), which means that it is inherently s-l-o-w. It actually is a subspecies of pattern recognition. I have found the PoPLoAFun orientation to the important aspects of a specific position occurs rapidly, in a matter of seconds in most cases. In those cases where it takes more time, I am certain that the complications are such that they cannot be deciphered using any faster method.
Side effects are an increased ability to "see" both tactics and a strategic plan, all based on the notion of "the requirements of the position" - THIS SPECIFIC POSITION. One can glance at these relevant factors and "plan" backwards or consider "forcing" moves going forward.
"An objection to the second method (PoPLoAFun) might be that it requires logical thinking (System 1), which means that it is inherently s-l-o-w."
DeleteI assume you mean system II as the slow "one".
I adopted your method to mark the points of pressure and the lines of attack in a digital way. Firefox has an easy way to make a screenshot of the board and copy it to the clipboard. I paste it in paint, where I can mark the points of pressure and the lines of attack.
The function part triggers my system II, so I will train that separately.
"One method relies on an automated generalization process and imperfect memory; the other relies strictly on what is on the board RIGHT NOW in front of us. "
DeleteYou might well hit the nail on the head here.
I was too fast typing, trying to get done so I can resume work on a "chicken cage" around my raised bed with tomatoes. (I'm determined to protect our tomatoes from the squirrels this year.)
DeleteI started out initially using the Snapping Tool and Paint. I abandoned it because I just didn't want to spend the time copying diagrams. That's why I marked up a lot of tactics books with a highlighter.
Yes, I meant System II is the slow one. It's amazing, but after several hundred problems marking PoP and LoA (Functions are inherently invisible, because conceptual), I can "see" the PoPs and LoAs almost automagically - and FAST (System 1). Surprisingly, the Funs can be offloaded to System 1 also, but it does take consciousness to "see" them at first, and more training (I think) than PoPs and LoAs. I think it is more "awareness" rather than visualization that is involved. An accidental benefit is that motifs and tactical themes/devices become apparent without explicitly thinking about them. The PoPs and LoAs (and Funs) "suggest" (System 1) what should be done to connect them.
I don't really think it makes any difference as to "how" we begin to "see" what is actually there. The mechanism is flexible; the effect will result from deliberate practice, as you noted earlier. I think of it as training the eye to "see" exactly what is there - nothing more, nothing less. I don't think there is any "magic number" of repetitions; just do it MINDFULLY until you no longer think about doing it. At the point where you just "see" (become aware), you will have completed this aspect of training your vision.
There is an analogy to drawing. It is amazing how accurately you can draw if you draw EXACTLY what you see, not what you "think" (System II) you should see. For example, most people use symbols to represent objects, rather than observing and drawing the actual objects, or what is SEEN. It's a "safe" way to make sure that what you draw represents objects, rather than drawing the objects themselves, and thus no one will make fun of your "art." If you draw the sun, it's a round circle with lines radiating from it. A person's head is a round circle, with the eyes at about 1/3 of the distance from chin to top of the head, and the mouth at about 1/3 of the distance from the chin to the top of the head. (Think about the "smiley face" emoji - it's recognizable, with a defined meaning.
DeleteUnfortunately for artistic SKILL, those proportions are totally WRONG. No real person has a round head. (Charlie Brown in the Peanuts cartoon is FICTIONAL.) The proper location of the eyes is 1/2 of the distance from chin to the top of the head. And so forth. . .
Dr. Betty Edwards' book Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain starts out with a drawing exercise to "shut down" the left side of the brain (System II) so that the usually subordinate (and silent - nonverbal) right side (System 1) can take over reproducing what is SEEN. It's very simple exercise: you take a drawing (any drawing or photograph), turn it upside down, and then draw it. System II can't make sense of it, so it just ignores it.
Dr. Edwards has lots of cognitive psychology insights that are directly applicable to chess improvement. But, I think most chess players would pass her book by without a second thought, because there is nothing explicitly about chess in it. Another lost opportunity for "seeing" analogies!
I experimented with applying her "shut down System II" method to chess. I used Paint to reverse chess diagrams (I tried rotating 180 degrees horizontally, and then vertically; it didn't seem to affect the effect). It does take out System II, but (again) it took too long to make the diagrams, so I didn't continue doing it. I suggest you try it, just to feel what it is like for System II to be at a loss for words.
I made a lot of progress toward realistic drawing when I learned to simply "SEE" and to copy EXACTLY what I saw. I'm in the process of working with my granddaughter on drawing EXACTLY what is SEEN. Her drawings are improving rapidly as a result. After our last "lesson," she was thrilled to see how much more realistic her drawing of Snow White was.
I generated an Autohotkey macro with the aid of Pulovers macro editor. That makes copy and paste into Paint a breeze. Tomorrow I will add rotating to it.
DeleteHere's an excellent example for using PoPLoAFun to quickly figure out what to do in a real game position. It has all three factors, not just PoPs and LoAs.
ReplyDeleteFEN "r3q3/2p4k/p1p1bQrb/3p2n1/3B4/8/PPP2PP1/1K1R3R w - - 0 24"
The game is here:
Kurt Paul Otto Joseph Richter vs Friedrich Saemisch, Berlin (1934), ch
The position occurs after Black's 23rd move. It also features Weteschnik's "reloader" tactical theme/device.
Kurt: I used the tag "reloader" a lot, but I dont think this puzzle is a reloader, unless we dont speak of the same pattern. A reloader is: White gives check. When Black captures the check giving piece, white recaptures and by doing so, is giving chess again (reloading/renew the check).
ReplyDeleteThis puzzle would be a reloader if after 1.Rxh6+ black takes with something other than the black king, and then white captures again on h6 (with a rook or queen) and thus reloading the check.
In the puzzle this isnt the case: 1.Rxh6+ Kxh6 2.Rh1+ - which gives a check, but it isnt reloading the check on h6 but on h1.
A reloader would recapture on h6.
Typically, reloaders are pawns. After black takes a check givin bishop, white recaptures with a pawn, and the pawn is reloading the check.
@Robert: I am not fully aware of the PopLoAFun system. Where can I read about it? I only dropped into the middle of the discussion, where everybody is talking already of Pop, Fun, LoA - but I dont know what that is.
But as far as I understood it: it is a slow system that looks at various characteristics (vulnerable points) and thus a good system to derive a solution (in case a pattern is not triggering the solution, we could use such a system to find the solution in a OTB game within 10 minutes or so).
I sometimes encounter a puzzle where the solution isnt giving a clear winning material advantage, but to know that it is winning, you must be able to correctly judge that the resulting endgame can be won, even though it is impossible to calculate the winning way (until the queen promotion 20 moves ahead).
I doubt PopLoAFun would give me any clue here, as endgame knowledge is required?
Such as "you can not win if you have the h/a pawn and the bishop of the wrong color (bishop can not attack the promotion corner square). So even if the white "winning" side has K+B+h2-pawn (and thus a lot of material), and black has only his bare king on the promotion square h8, white can not win this. So a previous tactic leaving you with such an ending would not be the correct solution. But if there is an alternative tactic possible (in the same puzzle) that leaves you only with a won K+p vs K -(and the pawn can be promoted) --> that is the solution then, despite much less material is left.
I've been out of town for the last four days and away from Internet connectivity. My apology for the delayed response.
ReplyDeleteRe: Kurt
Perhaps I have overgeneralized the concept of the reloader beyond Master Weteschnik's original definition. The following description (although admittedly NOT EMPHASIZED in his book) is the source of my generalization:
"It is important to notice that the second piece that is reoccupying the square has to gain something, in our example the mate. The trick is that the sacrifice of the first piece, which your opponent is not able to turn down, enables the second piece to occupy a square it would not have been able to occupy otherwise."
In the Kurt case, the second Rook cannot get to h1 because it is occupied by the first Rook. By sacrificing on h6 (removing the defender and opening up the h-file for the second Rook to attack from h1), Black is forced into checkmate.
Mea culpa; I did not intend to confuse the issue.
Re: @Robert
PoPLoAFun (the acronym) evolved throughout the discussion here on Temposchlucker's blog. It began as a consequence of considering GM Averbakh's concept of elementary contacts (between pieces) and morphed into a discussion of Dr. Lasker's distinction between motifs and tactical themes/devices, way back in 2015. It really got primary attention beginning in (approximately) 2017 as one of the foundational step of an (informal) "thought process" which could be used to help "see" potential tactics in any given position. PoPLoAFun acts somewhat like a "trigger" for tactics - possibly by triggering a recognition of tactical patterns with which the player is already familiar.
B.A.D. (Barely Adequately Defended) pieces and LPDO (Loose Pieces Drop Off) pieces are examples of “points of pressure” which should be given attention when looking through the “vulture’s eyes.” Looking along “lines of attack” is a concrete way of “seeing” possibilities of utilizing the geometrical motif. Recognizing the “functions” that specific pieces are performing (relative to each other AND in connection with the PoPs and LoAs) is a concrete way of “seeing” possibilities of utilizing the geometrical motif.
I’ll leave it to Temposchlucker to provide a more helpful description for you. Absent that, I suggest skimming the blog (and comments, for discussion) from December 2016, coming forward. Or do a search, looking for PLF or PoPLoAFun. There is a lot of discussion here.
Correction:
ReplyDelete"Recognizing the “functions” that specific pieces are performing (relative to each other AND in connection with the PoPs and LoAs) is a concrete way of “seeing” possibilities of utilizing the function motif."
PART I:
ReplyDeleteA DIGRESSION – Tuck it away somewhere in the recesses of your mind.
A "rabbit" jumped out of the briar patch while I was away, and (of course) I had to "chase" it.
I was re-reading part of Douglas Hofstadter's seminal book Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid. As I usually do when re-reading, I stumbled across an "idea" which was not directly elaborated on by Dr. Hofstadter. It has to do with "levels" of meaning.
One of the recurring problems we adult improvers attempt to solve is the problem of inculcating chess "patterns" into LTM, along with appropriate "triggers" to enable recall of the patterns. The chess literature (particularly AI literature) is filled with notions like "chunking".
What does it mean to absorb a "chunk" or a "pattern"? We use the terminology rather loosely, without actually defining either term unambiguously. (The common viewpoint: "I don't know what a 'chunk' or 'pattern' is, but I know it when I 'see' it - HAH!)
In a discussion of levels or dimensions of meaning, Dr. Hofstadter mentioned "chunking" of chess patterns. I had (I think) sort of an epiphany.
There are at least four different dimensions that can be described accurately. There is a loose correspondence between these dimensions and the four dimensions of space-time. Note that these dimensions were arrived at via analogy. I make no claim for complete isomorphism between these different viewpoints.
The chessboard and pieces operate in a two-dimension plane. Those are the first two dimensions. The third dimension is a "vertical" hierarchy of detailed meanings. The formal rules of chess constitute the lowest, most concrete level. The next level up (in terms of increasing abstraction) is the "contacts" level (courtesy of GM Averbakh), which identifies the interrelationships between two pieces or one piece and a square. The third level if the level of PoPLoAFun. The fourth level is the level of motifs. The fifth level is the level of tactical themes/devices. The sixth level moves into the realm of strategic themes/devices. There may be other intermediate or higher levels of which I am unaware. The point is not to exhaustively enumerate all of them but to simply be aware that there ARE multiple levels.
The fourth dimension is time, in the chess sense of it taking time (tempo) to dynamically change any of the other three dimensions.
Given this idea, I was struck by a possible explanation for why we find it so difficult to "see" and absorb "chunks" or "patterns.
PART II:
ReplyDeleteIf my analogy makes sense, then there is a distinct possibility that "chunks" (or "patterns) simultaneously encompass one OR MORE levels (at a minimum) in the third dimension. In other words, rather than a "chunk" being composed on a single level (moves, contacts, PoPLoAFun, etc. - whatever level our focus is on at the moment), it could include multiple levels, all bound together with structural aspects (the pieces and their locations) of a position. However, we humans are usually totally unaware that we automagically transition between the various levels IMPLICITLY, with no conscious awareness that we are doing so. As a result, we ASSUME that we can improve by focusing our efforts on one level at a time.
What if that is NOT the case?
Suppose that we have to absorb "chunks" that incorporate multiple levels simultaneously in order to improve beyond a certain level. If that is true, then our approach of focusing on one level at a time is most likely suboptimal, at best, and eventually leaves us on a plateau with no way to improve. Think of the plateau as a local maximum, similar in notion to a "hill climbing" strategy. We simplistically try to always move in the direction of increasing our rating, as a sort of indirect indication of our playing skill. Unfortunately, if we are surrounded by other "hills" (on which to die), then such a strategy will guarantee that we WILL reach a summit, but it may not be much higher than a little hill. "Big fish in little ponds," so to speak.
i dont play chess that often.. i do mainly tactic puzzles. But when i get worse in my tactics rating almost allways a few blitzsessions help me to get "sharp" and "good" again.
DeleteMany many tactical good/best moves are positionaly good/best moves too. Sometimes i wonder: is a player geting better in chess when he improves in tactics first? or: if you have to get better in chess first to become better in tactics too?
Before you can do a tactic, you need to have active pieces. Then, when a tactic appears, your tactic-starting move is often a logical consequence of your positional buildup. Still, I guess this is a side-effect (tactics are also often "ground forward", and positional gain (gaining space advantage) goes then hand in hand with tactics).
DeleteTactics often involve captures (winning material) and thus are actually against Smirnov's "to take is a mistake" rule.
So captures are often positionally bad, unless you gain something with capturing. In this case, capturing is not bad, and positionaly you win not only a piece (there is no piece recapturing at the end) but also you win ground. But you would not win ground if the won piece (at the end of the tactic) had been defended.
To do tactics, you need (most of the time) more than just 1 active piece. The more active pieces you have, the more you can combine their forces into winning tactics.
Maybe a tactical training sharpens your eye to get your pieces into active places?
My positional play improved when I understood where pieces belong to.
Example: rooks and queen dont belong in the center, f-pawn pushes are more dangerous than the average club player is aware of, long casteling is also more dangerous as most people think, Smirnov's breaking stereotype helped me also to understand that bishops rather dont belong on g4/g5 or b4/b5 (and thus the Ruy Lopez bishop Bb5 is strictly speaking a mistake by white).
I looked at opening statistics, and found out what kind of moves are promissing and which are not.
It really holds true that an early ...Nf6 is rather bad. So not only is the position of your pieces important, but also when you can move your pieces onto their position.
Isnt it true that "The modern" is stronger than any other Bg7-Defense system with an early ...Nf6?
Take the KID for instance: At some point you move Nf6-e8-f6. In the Rat defense (1...d6) leading often to a KID-structure, you move f7-f5 first, and only then Nf6, and thus you safe 2 moves.
The Petrov has poor statistcs - I blame it on an early ...Nf6.
The thing about an early ...Nf6 is - this knight is often a target. Not developing the knight early makes an attack against it impossible. The Scandinavian is better with a delayed ...Nf6, too.
So I improved a lot in handling pieces by looking at opening statistics. I noticed effective set-ups, and ineffective set-ups. You need to look out for "when and where are pieces placed" when studying openings, and dont get distracted by many variations here and there. Rather look at the overall picture (the stats) and see if you can find out rules by thumb when and how to build up your pieces. As often in chess, this isnt always possible, but sometimes it is. Tactics are also not always easy patterns, but some are. And positional patterns exist, too - but you need to look out for them, and dont get distracted in the many little tactics, traps, gambits.
Repeating Dr. Lasker:
DeleteBy combination the Master aims to defeat the false values, the true values shall guide him in his position play, which in turn shall bring those values to honour.
Let's take an extreme position: suppose that a player was able to figure out how to play perfect positionally. His play would be "true" (in accordance with the requirements of the position, regardless of the position). He would NOT make any exploitable positional mistakes, and consequently would deprive the combinational player of any possibility to use tactics to win. (whether the positional player would be able to win by exploiting weaknesses in the combinational player's position is a different question.) Tactics might only be needed whenever the combinational player makes a mistake (creating weaknesses).
Is that a realistic scenario?
I don't know. (Munich has apparently progressed to ELO 2200 primarily on that basis). However, the vast majority of players do not progress to a very high level of skill on the basis of positional play alone. I postulate that there are several tactical situations that Munich can handle quite skillfully. As a generalization, I think it more practical to advance all aspects of skill, and to not limit oneself to one aspect in general. Jack of all trades, instead of Mastery of one.
An aside regarding GM Smirnov's dictum "To take is a mistake." I think he is referring to situations in which tension has increased significantly. To capture (FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF RESOLVING OR LESSENING THE TENSION) in that situation usually IS a mistake. I don't think it applies to situations where material can be won by exchanging (or where exchanging opens up lines of attack). That is merely my own observation, which is as likely to be wrong as it is to be right.
Chess is about multiple function moves. If you accomplish two things with one move, while your opponent accomplishes only one thing with one move, you get an advantage. No matter whether what you accomplish is tactical or positional by nature.
ReplyDeleteJust fort the FUN. What functions do we recognize?
ReplyDeleteAll functions which entail an "obligation" (constraint) placed on a piece must be included. In general, any DEFENSIVE obligation: protecting another piece on a point of pressure, blocking a line of attack, preventing a Pawn promotion, defending the back rank against a checkmate, forced recapturing (to avoid material loss), etc. At first, try to "see" the "obligation" independently of the means to exploit it (tactical themes/devices).
ReplyDeleteThink of each "obligation" as a weakness, which MUST be attacked (Steinitz). The attack can be directly on the weakness or it can be indirect, by adding an additional function to the defending piece (overloading it), diverting or decoying it away from its primary (more important) obligation(s) with an EGT, interposing (breaking its line of defense), etc. In short, all of the tactical themes/devices you already "know" come into play after the weakness(es) become apparent. A weakness should trigger System 1 to come up with one or more ways to attack it. There is a hierarchy of weaknesses in any position. Start with the most valuable (most important) and work down the hierarchy until you figure out what needs to be done. That may involve some "mini calculation" of short variations in a specific localized area of the board.
This is an example of how we must shift across various levels as we try to understand the requirements of the position.
PoPLoAFun and Pattern Recognition
ReplyDeleteI just acquired a copy of GM Neal McDonald’s new book COACH YOURSELF – A Complete Guide to Self-Improvement at Chess. With such a title, how could I resist?!?
Chapter Contents
1 – Immunizing Yourself against Blunders
2 – Training Your Tactical Imagination
3 – Teaching Yourself to Calculate
4 – Judging the Right Moment to Use a Combination
5 – Supercharging Your Feel for the Initiative
6 – Know Yourself: Diagnosing Positional Mistakes
7 – Learn How to Shut a Piece out of the Game
8 – Getting Full Value from Your King
9 – Wearing Down the Opponent’s Pawn Structure
10- Practice Planning on a Grand Scale
11- Mastering Pawn breakthroughs in Endgames
12- Understanding the Essentials of the Endgame
13- Making Good Opening Choices
I haven’t read much, just the first couple of examples, featuring World Champion Magnus Carlsen. Here are the two critical positions. If you were the World Champion’s opponent, would you “SEE” the PoPLoAFuns?
Position 1: [FEN "2bqr1k1/1p3pbp/1n4p1/3P2N1/4p3/2P3P1/3Q1PBP/2BR2K1 b - - 1 20"]
Position 2: [FEN "r1bqr1k1/p5bp/2p3p1/3nppN1/2B3P1/4BP2/PPP4P/1K1RQ2R b - g3 0 17"]
What pattern did the World Champion apparently NOT learn to recognize/avoid?
Amazingly, Carlsen was able to WIN the second game. Perhaps he learned a few other “tricks of the trade” in the seven years between the two games.
I posted these two examples to illustrate the positive effect of “seeing” the PoPLoAFuns in a position PRIOR TO trying to make a list of candidate moves or trying to calculate concrete variations. The two positions share a common PATTERN at the critical moment: both illustrate how to apply tactical themes/devices (in these cases, the “idea” of intercepting/closing a critical line) AFTER identifying the relevant PoPs, LoAs and the Functions of the pieces involved.
Game 1:
[Event "Tata Steel Group A"]
[Site "Wijk aan Zee NED"]
[Date "2011.01.17"]
[EventDate "2011.01.14"]
[Round "3"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Magnus Carlsen"]
[Black "Anish Giri"]
[ECO "D71"]
[WhiteElo "2814"]
[BlackElo "2686"]
[PlyCount "44"]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. g3 Bg7 4. Bg2 d5 5. cxd5 Nxd5 6. Nf3 Nb6
7. Nc3 Nc6 8. e3 O-O 9. O-O Re8 10. Re1 a5 11. Qd2 e5 12. d5
Nb4 13. e4 c6 14. a3 cxd5 15. axb4 axb4 16. Rxa8 bxc3 17. bxc3
Nxa8 18. exd5 Nb6 19. Rd1 e4 20. Ng5 e3 21. Qb2 Qxg5 22. Bxe3
Qg4 0-1
Game 2:
[Event "Tata Steel Masters"]
[Site "Wijk aan Zee NED"]
[Date "2018.01.21"]
[EventDate "2018.01.12"]
[Round "8"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Magnus Carlsen"]
[Black "Gawain Jones"]
[ECO "B76"]
[WhiteElo "2834"]
[BlackElo "2640"]
[PlyCount "83"]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 Bg7
7. f3 Nc6 8. Qd2 O-O 9. O-O-O d5 10. Qe1 e5 11. Nxc6 bxc6
12. exd5 Nxd5 13. Bc4 Be6 14. Kb1 Re8 15. Ne4 f5 16. Ng5 Bc8
17. g4 f4 18. h4 fxe3 19. Qxe3 h6 20. Qc5 Bb7 21. Ne4 Re6
22. h5 Qb6 23. g5 hxg5 24. Qa3 Rb8 25. b3 Qd8 26. Qxa7 gxh5
27. Rxh5 Rg6 28. Rxg5 Rxg5 29. Nxg5 Qc8 30. Rg1 Ra8 31. Qb6
Ra6 32. Qc5 Qd7 33. Ne4 Kh8 34. Qf2 Qe7 35. Bxa6 Bxa6 36. Qh2+
Kg8 37. Qh6 Qa7 38. Qe6+ Kf8 39. Rg5 Ne3 40. Qd6+ Kf7 41. Nc5
Bc8 42. Rxg7+ 1-0
Jones must have been in shock after Carlsen’s 17th move!
Aside:
ReplyDeleteThere is an interesting article by Hugh Patterson on The Chess Improver blog (linked on the side here), titled Tension and Threats. The notion of "tension" is directly related to GM Smirnov's dictum "To take is a mistake."
Quoting: "Tension can be thought of as creating points of stress [PoPs!] within a given position. A point of stress can be a weakness within an opponent's position, such as having more attackers than your opponent has defenders. [This is a LOCALIZED material advantage.] These points of stress can occur anywhere on the board. There can be multiple points of stress within a single position. In fact, the more stress points you can create [for your opponent], the harder it is for your opponent to deal with them all at the same time. [Temposchlucker: "If you accomplish two things with one move, while your opponent accomplishes only one thing with one move, you get an advantage."] THE SECRET TO CREATING STRESS POINTS IS IDENTIFYING THEM.
Threats are directed toward weaknesses (PoPs) along LoAs. Eventually, either multiple threats will be created at the same time, or a series of moves will result in multiple threats occurring simultaneously. Either way, the one making multiple threats SHOULD be able to take advantage of it.
Hi Munich - if I remember right you used to advocate doing lots of easy tactics problems fairly quickly, to practice recall of basic patterns, and said this approach produced big ratings gains for you. Is this memory correct? Do you still advocate this approach? It sounds like you're now only moderately impressed with the results from your tactical study, but I'm wondering if that's just a change in perspective from "150 points, wow" to "150 points, no big deal". - mfardal
ReplyDeleteAoxomoxoA said: "Sometimes i wonder: is a player geting better in chess when he improves in tactics first? or: if you have to get better in chess first to become better in tactics too?"
ReplyDeleteI've wondered this too. I think that openings, and especially tactics, can masquerade improving as an analyst, which should be the true source of strength. The trouble is, many players never get past the basics, like with dropping pieces, mates, etc. so, this sort of more linear, underlying path of analysis toward improvement never becomes apparent. Also, quicker time-controls are a stern test of analytical efficiency, but for weaker players this can simply make chess a more obscure game than it would be at slower time-controls for them.
Guests on the Perpetual Chess podcast keep mentioning solving studies. I think some may fail to realize that it's not about solving studies or how applicable they are on regularly occurring percentage basis. Instead, it's about forcing the improvement of one's analytical process.
The notion of "I don't want to think during a game, so I'll just study patterns." does improve practical results up to some level, but only because when players break down late in the game, the pattern guy has a huge leg up. I've been the pattern guy at tournaments, and I'm probably not even as good as you guys at tactics. A lot of the discussion on this board has seemed like overkill on tactical patterns; just saying.
"A lot of the discussion on this board has seemed like overkill on tactical patterns; just saying."
DeleteWhether the emphasis on tactics is an overkill or not remains to be seen. Nobody knows for sure. As of yet. That's why this blog is important. At the end we will know. This blog will reveal which is true. It will revolutionize the way we think about gaining skills. And that will not be limited to the skill of chess tactics. It will have its effect on any realm where skills are to be gained. Or this blog will become an eternal monument of my stupidity. Reflecting the stubborn tenacity of a man who doesn't want to admit he is a stewed pear of a chess player, no matter what he tries. In the latter case this blog is like a ship on the beach that is a lighthouse to the sea.
Either way, it will prevent a lot of people from wasting their time.
For me, matters are quite simple. I go where the logic leads me. It has brought me here, and I want to see where it is going. To me, it is a very exciting journey!
I get your point, well made and valid.
ReplyDeleteMy weird thought of the moment is that it's important to understand the relationship between pieces, and space on the board. The pieces need space to operate. Chess is not a material-count, it's a spacial-count, or a configuration-pattern-of-pieces to their space.
All kinds of magical tactics happen when the piece-to-space-configuration is just right. Some tactics are based on looseness, where late in the game there are double attacks, and open-lines stretching across the board, because there are less pieces and pawns, and thus less real anchors of safety for the pieces.
So, when the board is still full of material, that space-to-pieces-configuration becomes important, and when the board is less full of material, then looseness becomes important, where few things can be adequately defended for long.