Monday, March 16, 2020

LoA vision

I have a database with 931 tactical problems in the following categories:
  • Discovered attack
  • Double attack
  • Skewer
  • Pin
  • Overloading
  • Mate in 3
I learned the geometrical patterns by heart of 252 positions (27%) already. It took me 50 days.
I focused on PoPs (points of pressure) and Funs (functions) solely.
So far the method seems to work excellent. 

Now I have drawn a definite conclusion about the middlegame, I thought that it would be nice to extend my method to middlegame positions too. Hence I began a search for a database with positional problems. I couldn't find an acceptable one.

But then I realised the following: I now have a definite method of judgment for every middlegame move. Which is the following: how does this move alter the balance of piece activity? In the previous post, I called it the battle of the LoA's (lines of attack). Do I really need a problem set with positional problems?

The answer is: probably not. I just have to draw the lines of attack in the position. Any position. Since what I need is LoA vision. So why not use the database I already have? Who cares that it are tactical positions? When I know the points of pressure and functions already, why not draw the lines of attack in the same positions?
So that is what I'm going to do.

I had a sneak peek in endgame theory. I discovered that I don't need to learn so much positions, but merely that I have know how to devise an endgame plan. So that is what I'm going to focus on the coming time. 110 days to the first tournament. Still some time to work. I'm excited!


  1. Positional play is "built-in" - IFF you can "see" the PoPs, LoAs and Funs in each position as you play.

    I alluded to this in a previous two-part comment on March 25, 2017 at 5:49 and 5:51 (scroll down almost to the bottom of the comment area):

    War on Trial and Error - Saturday, March 11, 2017

    If you are eliminating tactical errors by "seeing" the available PoPLoAFun, you are avoiding the false values. Whatever is left as viable candidate moves must be the true values.

    Or, as master detective Sherlock Holmes said:

    "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

    That gives added emphasis to the old Soviet Union chess truism:

    "If it doesn't work, but you really want it to, then it must work."

  2. I need to solve one other problem before the tournaments in July. I'm a terrible writer of the moves. When I notate the moves, I seem to do that with another part of the brain than when I think about chess. Shifting between different brain parts is killing me. It feels whether I'm torn apart. It is lirerally painful. And I hate it. Especially in time trouble. Besides that, my notation sheet is usually unreadable with wrong and forgotten moves. When I'm allowed to lay down my pencil, my play improves with 200 points. At least, so it feels.

    Somehow, writing down the moves has never become automatic even after all those years. Any suggestions how I could train that?

    1. I need a pgn viewer with an automatic replay with adjustable speed.

  3. It is a matter of statistics. If you can access or occupy more lines of attack, you have a greater chance that there is something interesting to do.