Depreciation of the simple
The biggest hurdle with building tactical prowess, is the unawareness of the simple. We know all tactical themes well, or motifs, or whatever we call it. For the non native English speaking folks: a motif and a motive are different things. By knowing the motif, we are unaware of the fact that our knowledge is rather superficial. We recognize a pin when we see one, but the implications of a pin are only theoretically known. If we are lucky, we can drum up the possible ways to exploit it. But since that is a system II activity, we are already 30 seconds further on the clock.
Seeing the ramifications of a pin, is a whole different animal. I have learned 500 tactical positions by heart, but only now I try to dive a bit deeper into these positions, the details of the positions emerge. It is better to know 500 positions thoroughly, than 1000 positions superficially. With hindsight, 500 is way to much. Chop it up in chunks of 75. We talked about that before. And I did do that. What I didn't know by then, though, was that the work isn't finished by rote memorization of the positions and their solutions. The training just begins after the rote memorization.
At average, in every position are two or three patterns hidden. Which only emerge after thorough inspection. The task is to make those patterns visible in a geometrical way.
After 62 days of training, the education of system I is underway for a day of 10. At least so does it feel. I cannot stress enough that the actual training of system I starts only AFTER the rote memorization.
PART I:
ReplyDeleteI have been very careful (in previous comments) to distinguish between MOTIF and tactical device/THEME. Unfortunately, too many authors utilize these terms as synonyms, often interchanging them within the same work. I won't bore you with a repetition of previous definitions by various authors. It is my humble opinion that the distinction is important for long-term improvement.
IMHO, the "vulture's eye view" is about FIRST "seeing" what lies on the surface. In every position, there will be visual "cues" which (if "seen") can focus the attention toward and on the critical details which constitute the essence of each position. It does not take much "vision" to "see" an unprotected piece, or a back rank weakness.
However, having "seen" the obvious, we then have to move down a hierarchy of abstractions from the more abstract level(s) toward the more concrete level(s). Unfortunately, as we move closer toward the concrete level, we tend to lose sight of the forest for the trees. As a result, we often take only a few localized factors under consideration and thereby miss critical details that may change the assessment completely. It is useless to fixate on a "loose piece" (knowing that Nunn's dictum "Loose Pieces Drop Off" is true and applicable) when there is a killer counterattack on our unprotected back rank.
PoPLoAFun provides a framework for considering multiple levels of abstraction across the entire board. It also provides a mechanism for "seeing" multiple moves into the future, similar in nature to the order of contacts (direct attack, 1st order threat, 2nd order threat, etc.) described in GM Averbakh's Theory of Contacts.
However, PoPLoAFun does nothing to cause us to "see" everything that needs to be "seen". That is a function of SKILL. Instead of forming an "impression" based on a hasty consideration of the obvious, we have to work diligently to stay focused on understanding ALL the myriad relationships that already exist or can potentially exist within a few moves (usually, fewer than 5 moves [10 ply] into the future).
I'm glad that you persist in making your point clear concerning the difference between theme and motif. It is only a matter of lack of time and laziness (read 'karma') that prevented me from getting your point. When you tell me the difference, I have no time to dive deeper, and when I have time, I'm too lazy to look where you wrote it. But some day, I will get your point. I admit that it must be important.
DeletePART II:
ReplyDeleteIt is very difficult to maintain focus on a given position, and to continually search deeper for underlying factors, once a problem has been "solved" satisfactorily. The usual goal is to "solve" the problem; once that goal has been reached (at least once), we tend to lose our ability to maintain focus. As a result, we do not build the SKILL to actually "see" deeper.
Chess SKILL is as important (if not more important) than chess KNOWLEDGE. Memorization of tactical problems, endgame positions, and opening moves will not confer SKILL. Skill does not consist in mechanically following a "thought process". I am confident that you can memorize any particular chess author's suggested "thinking process" and apply it by rote in each and every position, move by move - and still not have the skill to "see" everything that is hidden in every position.
Your assessment that "quality is more important than quantity" is correct. Seeing the "solution" is not nearly as important as the SKILL to QUICKLY move through the levels of abstraction to the core of a given position. That System I "process" is much more important than logically working through a position using System 2.
One of the things that I am finding useful is to find and play over the game from which a tactical problem is extracted, and observe carefully how the tactical "shot" emerged. Was it a result of good planning and logical play, or was it merely taking opportunistic advantage of a blunder or mistake by the opponent? At my level, too often my tactical shots are not the result of logic but mere chance. I assume (with considerable evidence from games) that as skill increases, the ratio of opportunistic tactics to purposeful tactics decreases (but does not disappear entirely, even at the highest levels).
Again, you make a point that you have already made a few times. The importance how tactics come about. I have heard you, and the day is not far away that I will follow it up with more research.
DeleteSkill is automated "thought process". Many rules i was told in my youth are now automated and done without conscious thinking.
DeleteMy training is currently: Weakness, Method, Thought Process
When i fail a puzzle, one of these factors was wrong
Either i did not see/know the weakness, or i chose the wrong method/ did not find the right method, or i did not think the right way.
It starts with the appreciation of the simple. We can acquire no skill for things we think we already master. A closer look will reveal that we fail with the simple things. The method of drawing the essentials with some paint like program works. I can guarantee you that. If we fail to appreciate those essentials, it will not work, though.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is, as is stated often before, transfer. How often does the element you are learning occur in different positions? If we learn a vocabulary of another language, it is important to learn the words that are very common. If we learn the word supercalifragilisticexpialidocious, we will find that it is seldom used in daily life. Maybe five times in your whole lifetime.
An essential element like loading a battery, has a frequency of 2 per 100 problems or so. That pays off in the long run.