Slow blitzing
I have trained 138 days in a row now. So where am I standing?
Evidently, my used method didn't get the stamp of approval from Mr. Glicko. Now what?
I found the following:
- system 1 is susceptible for geometric patterns
- only 5% or less of the problems were holes in my bucket
- the remaining 95% being familiar patterns with a system 1 being drowned in the noise of system 2
- no need for a thought process
- no need for themed problem sets
- no need for repetition of problems
What to try next?
Here must lie the accents:
- the quality of feedback (= attention vs autopilot)
- replace calculation by seeing whenever possible
- replace thinking by seeing whenever possible
Solving a problem has three stages where I can work on educating system 1:
- pondering the problem with the aid of the vultures eye
- drawing squares and arrows of the solution
- imagining the helicopter view of the solution before the minds eye
So I'm doing problems in blitz mode, but I do it slow. Implementing the three stages above.
What I didn't express in the post is that I'm fairly optimistic that I'm heading in the right direction.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your assessment of your direction; I'm doing something similar. A few things that I'm doing:
ReplyDelete1. Stop "testing" to see if I'm making progress. Progress must become evident in GAMES. I know I'm susceptible to wanting to measure ongoing progress regularly (too often) by playing against Mr. Glicko on Chess Tempo. However, my focus is on gaining SKILL, not rating, under the assumption that SKILL will (eventually) influence rating. If I'm studying and improving my ability to "SEE" more, then that increased ability will become apparent when I play. I may not "feel" I'm stronger, but (somehow) the same opponents don't seem as strong as they once were.
2. To some extent, I try to mentally "settle down" prior to tackling each specific problem, especially if I'm doing more than 1 at a time. In a sense, it's to allow System 1 sufficient time to shift away from whatever was "seen" in the previous problem, allowing that image to fade. I'm finding that just looking at the position without trying to recognize anything specific will often start System 1's motor running. Allowing that time to get System 1 working is crucial for getting a good "first impression" of the important/significant features of the problem. In almost every case that I fail to solve the problem, I've observed that System 2 jumps in too soon, wanting to get on with the "If I go here, he does this, and then I do that, ...." logical reasoning, down in the weeds. If I resist that urge, the position begins to resolve itself into meaningful patterns.
3. I've stopped trying to complete a marathon number of problems in one sitting. Several masters have urged solving only a few problems (usually, less than 10-20) at a time. "Don't be a greedy pelican." As a result, I have much more time to contemplate what I "saw" as well as what I overlooked. I then try to figure out WHY I didn't "see" the appropriate triggering pattern.
4. I've started looking up the stem game for each problem (if I can find it). I then go over the moves, looking for clues as to HOW the tactics/combination came into existence. This sometimes leads to interesting anomalies. I just solved one problem from Test Your Chess IQ - Master Challenge. To me, the answer was "obvious". I GOT IT WRONG! I couldn't "see" what I missed until I played through the game score. SURPRISE! A Black Bishop had "magically" been converted to a Black Pawn in the book. As soon as I saw the Black Bishop, I KNEW why my solution was wrong, and the book solution was correct. I would have learned NOTHING had I merely taken the book solution as gospel.
Good luck!
In your previous description of the training method, you said you first learned the solution by heart, and only then did the POPLOAFUN annotations. How does that work if you are no longer repeating problems? Can you be more specific about what you do and when and how often you do it, with the current training method?
ReplyDeleteAre the "vulture's eye" and "helicopter view" the same thing? I've misplaced my Temposchlucker glossary. --mfardal
There are a lot new insights. What I try to do is to minimize the activity of system 2 (thinking) whenever possible. Since when system 2 is hyperactive, system 1 is not educated.
ReplyDeleteThe vultures eye is looking at the position for characteristics by system 1. The problem is not solved yet.
The helicopter view is used after the problem is solved and after all colored squares and arrows are drawn. The intention is to get the big picture of the essence of the problem. Why is it working. Which tactical elements are in place. Which lines are opened and why. To abstract something that is reusable for future problems.
Very interesting examples of System 1 and 2 in "Brain Hacking", but in german https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BreKdM7CKnY
ReplyDelete