His tactics surpasses the seniors he plays with. But we seniors still can keep him at bay by more experience in practical play. For now.
What I noticed, is that his tactical database is crispier than mine. In the opening he plays at lightning speed. But in the middle game he uses more time when there is a possibility to ambush me. He is not much faster in seeing tactics than me, but his database with tactics is less contaminated than mine.
And that is the main message from my tactical training, lately. My knowledge of the very basics is too poor, and my database is contaminated. So far, the training seems to work. But it is a time consuming process to cleanse my internal database with tactics.
An example to show what I'm talking about.
 |
| White to move |
1r3rk1/1b3p1p/p2qp1p1/2Nn4/1b1P4/1B3Q2/P2B1PPP/2R2RK1 w - - 1 1
[solution]
It took me 3:30 minutes to find the solution. Yet it is very simple. Look at my picture in paint:
 | ||||||
| White to move |
What was the contamination here?
What I didn't realize, is that after 1.Bxb4 Nxb4 my bishop isn't on b4 anymore. So I tried to find a winning line while preserving my bishop on b4. A time consuming and senseless endeavor, of course.
But creating the picture in paint helps me to see that matters are actually very simple. If it is enough to cleanse the contamination in my inner tactics database, we will find out in due course.
Now that this is off my chest, I finally can write about Nimzowitsch. Yeahhh!
The game with the prodigy showed me what I can expect from better tactics. Not so much as I thought! But Nimzowitch will help me out, I'm sure!
I initially toyed with the idea of trying for a mating attack based on the weak black squares around the Black King. Unfortunately, White seems to need one additional tempo to make it work. So, back to basics using PoPLoAFun.
ReplyDeleteThe two PoPs are b7 [2:1] and b4 [1:1] (B.A.D.). But, as you noted, the BNd5 is "pinned" (LoA: f3-b7) because of that [2:1} attack on b7, so, in reality, b4 is NOT protected [1:0]. The only question is: can the White Knight escape from b7 after 1. Bxb4 Nxb4 2. Nxb7? The answer is YES, because (1) the Black Queen is attacked (gain of tempo) AND (2) the Knight has a "safe" retreat square on c5, "protected" by both d4-Pawn and Rc1. Black can grab the d4-Pawn but still has lost a piece after 2. ... Qxd4 3. Nc5.
PoPLoAFun really does focus attention on the important issues in tactical situations!
I played through the source game for this problem 71405. Black ended up winning because White missed his chances tactically - and Black didn't see them either! I no longer feel so bad about messing up my recent game where I had a significant (winning?) advantage, if two IM/GM level players can miss relatively "simple" stuff!
DeleteGreen square = target, Red = function. What I discovered, is that a pin is a special case of overloading. It has the same characteristics. Two green squares and one red.
ReplyDeleteOur only hope to get better is to learn to see simplicity. Which looks like magic for he who sees only complexity.
Re: "... a pin is a special case of overloading."
DeleteI've also been re-reading My System and discovering lots of good stuff. (This is similar to my experience in re-reading Lasker's Manual of Chess - over and over again.) Nimzovich (in Part I - Chapter 8 Discovered Check) considers the discovered check to be analogous to the pin (covered in the preceding chapter). As was previously noted here, the pin, the skewer and the Roentgen (X-Ray) are (in essence) identical. I had not considered the similarities between pins and discovered checks (and discovered attacks in general).
It is not surprising that overloading (like overprotection) has a much broader applicability than its narrow definition. What is surprising is that we don't seem capable of "seeing" that broader picture without special "glasses" (instruction by someone else) or reading the source material over and over again. Thanks for that insight!
3:30 is a good enough solving time. Besides: tactics usually are hidden by the fact that the fight was going on at something different (whatever that was). There is some logic behind why we move our pieces, and the tactic does often enough not follow that very logic but is simply just "there". It co-incidently is possible to win material here. Whoever did this blunder was not aware of this tactic one or two moves before the blunder actually happened. We tend to steer the game to positions where we have overlooked a tactic. When the position (where the simple tactic) is finally appearing, we have good chances to still miss it.
ReplyDeleteFor that reason: simple tactics are the most important tactics. Especially in the CT Blitz range around 1500. The Chesstempo tactic database has most tactics (blunders from Masterplayers) around the CT Blitz 1500 range.
However, training this range a lot has helped me only a little bit. Still, I guess my efforts were worth more than 100-150 real Fide elo rating points.
It is tough. There seem to be too many patterns to be able to recall them all.
A different approach is possible, too:
What is most important to know in chess?
In endgames, the statistically most relevant endgame is Rook endgames. And Pawn endgames. Those pawn endgames actually do not happen that often, however they are important to know in rook endgames, because in rook endgames you might make a rook-move that makes a rook exchange possible. You place your rook on a square, where his rook could capture your rook, however, this would mean you are left with a better pawn endgame. Thus you often offer rook-swaps because you know he should not swap. So pure pawn endgames and rook endgames go hand-in-hand, and are very, very important.
What else is important in chess games? saving time in the opening - know your opening. I did it like this: I look for complications early, and know the very beginning very well.
With white I play: 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 --> this is a complicated move (I seek complications early, so I can still learn them), because now black has a lot of possible moves: 2...Nf6, 2...e6, 2...c6, 2...dxc4, 2...d4
And I prepared all 5 of them thoroughly. The good thing - after these many possibilities, things become much more rigid and fixed. It seems to lead into the same few opening systems, which I learned very well.
Most importantly: KID, Catalan, Sicilian Dragon. These 3 make more than 50% of all my games.
As they happen so often, it is very rewarding to know them well. Because that is the approach to win more games: learn what is statistically more important for your games. Rook endgames and (in my case) those 3 opening systems.
There is simply too much to learn. the more you know, the better, but we can not even remember a new 4-digit pin with a new creditcard. True, isnt it?
Make the most of what you can realistically achieve. And you can not learn chess the same way as this little prodigy boy. He has a different brain.
Winning more games starts with informing yourself about your next opponent. Even if you can not find any games of your opponent, maybe other players played him before and can tell you something about him. And even if you know nothing - you can make conclusions just looking at him: is your opponent very young? He might love tactics. Is he old? He might be quite good in endgames. Does he have a chess-book? He might have an enormous opening knowledge. And during the start game: how long does he need for his first 2 moves? A lot of time? Play him on time, he might be a time trouble addict.
Adjust to your opponent and beat your opponent. If you agree to this idea, maybe now is the time to read Simon Webb's "Chess for Tiger":
https://www.amazon.nl/Chess-Tigers-Batsford-Book-English-ebook/dp/B00PPHG1XI/ref=sr_1_1?__mk_nl_NL=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91&keywords=chess+for+tigers+simon+webb&qid=1574523873&sr=8-1
https://chesstempo.com/chess-tactics/43329
ReplyDeleteTo see:
Qf2-f7-g8
Bd4-f2-g1
Funny indeed. It took me 10 minutes to figure out. An example of a "not so crisp" tactical database of mine.
Delete@ Aox:
ReplyDeleteThe problem you gave is taken from the following game:
Opening: Sicilian Defense Accelerated Dragon Maroczy Bind (by transposition), Breyer Variation (B39)
[Event ""]
[Site ""]
[Round "?"]
[Date "1997.??.??"]
[White "Andres, Albinana Jose Enrique"]
[Black "Granero, Roca Antonio"]
[Result "0-1"]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.Nf3 g6 4.Nc3 cxd4 5.Nxd4 Bg7 6.e4 Nc6 7.Be3 Ng4 8.Qxg4 Nxd4 9.Qd1 Ne6 10.Qd2 Qa5 11.Rc1 b6 12.Be2 Bb7 13.f3 g5 14.O-O h5 15.b3 Qe5 16.Bd3 h4 17.Nd5 Rg8 18.Rc2 Qd6 19.Qf2 Be5 20.f4?! gxf4 21.Bxf4?? Nxf4 0-1
After 19. … Be5, according to GM Stockfish (Chess Tempo), White can maintain a slight advantage with 20. h3 (0.58). This is the only positive move for White at this point.
The curious thing to me is this: What caused White to move 20. f4?
White may have counted attackers/defenders on f4-square (after advancing his f-Pawn) and noted that he would have at least an even number of “defenders” on f4 to balance Black’s “attackers”. However, there are some subtleties that must have been overlooked. Black has three possibilities that throw a monkey wrench into the calculations based on only the f4-square. The d3-square is unprotected by White ([0:1], from the Black Queen). Consequently, the WNd5 is “pinned” by Function; consequently, it should be removed from the count as a defender of f4. Additionally, presuming White does not recapture on f4-square immediately with the White Knight (having “seen” that WBd3 is “hanging” - and that the Black Queen can escape from d3 after that capture), the BBb7 can capture that WNd5 at any point during the general exchange on f4, thereby changing the count in Black’s favor. There also is a latent “pin” of the White Queen (via BBe5-d4) against the White King, especially if the White Bishop captures on f4 first and is removed. White obviously missed this "subtle" intermezzo.
After 20. f4? gxf4, White must have felt obligated to recapture on f4; GM Stockfish suggests 21. Kh1, since Black cannot capture 21. … fxe3 because of 22. Qxf7+ Kd8 23. Qxg8+ Nf8 24. Qxf8#. The WNd5 “seals” the mating net around the Black King.
Moral of this story: It is INSUFFICIENT to consider a single square and the relative “count” (evaluating exchanges on that square) IF there are other pieces/squares in play AND if some of the defenders can be eliminated during the exchange sequence.
An excellent example of the importance of centralized play and how NOT to “count” attackers/defenders on a PoP!