Wrong way around
While I was busy to build abstract ideas from concrete positions, some familiar framework emerged. I was doing the same thing as I was doing in 2017. I was erecting my tree of scenarios again.
Do you recognize the box from the previous posts?
Back then, it didn't work out as expected. But now we have discovered the mechanism behind transfer, it is clear that I used the tree of scenarios the wrong way around.
I had build the tree of scenarios within a few months by system 2 (conscious thinking). When I considered it ready, I tried to use it in my training as a guide to inspire system 1 to work up some miracles. But that is the wrong way around. The training must not be to try to solve the puzzles with the aid of a thought process (the tree of scenarios in my case), but to refine the tree of scenarios during the feedback phase of the puzzle. Which means, after the puzzle is solved.
The right way is:
- Solve the puzzle
- Generalize the puzzle to find how it fits in the abstract coatrack
Here’s the first three analogous positions from munich’s post on Chess Tempo starting “a collection of puzzles that belong together (have the same/ similar pattern).”
ReplyDelete1. LINK=”https://chesstempo.com/chess-problems/65030”
2. LINK=”https://chesstempo.com/chess-problems/51849”
Note that the “piece(s)-on-square(s)” approach totally FAILS at capturing the “pattern” in these first two problems.
Here’s munich’s description of the third problem:
“Edit: I just came across a similar pattern. Not exactly the same, but obviously it is a relative of the above:”
3. LINK=”https://chesstempo.com/chess-problems/73411“
Note that the same “pattern” underlies this problem as the first two, but it is obscured by having more moves to “set up” the common sequence, ad with more than 1 variation.
We can only understand the common “pattern” by using analogy and abstraction. This is why memorizing the specific positions and associated moves is a total waste of time for improvement. We must THINK and “SEE” the commonality in all three problems in order to store something useful into System 1 for future reference.
The all-important question FOR TRAINING is:
“How is THIS position like THAT position?”
“SEEing” the commonality and making it consciously EXPLICIT is the very crux of getting the required “patterns” crammed into our LTM so that System 1 can (later) have a “database” from which to extrapolate.
“The WHOLE is greater than the sum of its PARTS.”
If we focus on the individual ants and their actions, we will never “SEE” an ant colony and its meta-activity.
This same TRAINING process is REQUIRED in all three phases of the game.
ASIDE: I used to be able to use the HTML tag to embed hyperlinks. Now Blogger will not accept either http or https tags. Any suggestion as to how to embed a hyperlink? TIA!
The "clue" that we want System 1 to be triggered on is that the King is (essentially) immobilized on the back rank. So, at a certain level of abstraction, these three problems are "back rank mates".
ReplyDeleteNow try to abstract the commonality of all three positions given above to a very high level. I think you will eventually find that all three positions illustrate the (very abstract) concept of "King in the box".
The higher we go in the levels of abstraction, the more generalized our knowledge becomes. Eventually, we arrive at the "general chess principles" so dearly loved by teachers. Unfortunately, we CANNOT just memorize the most general level of abstraction, because we would then not possess any experience of the more concrete levels below the general principle, making it difficult (if not impossible) to "SEE" the applicability of the appropriate general principle (highest level of abstraction) in a given concrete position.
Think of our knowledge of the various levels as rungs on a ladder. It's impossible to use a ladder that only has the highest rung available. We must CONSTRUCT our own ladder, in order to climb the Mt. Improbable of chess improvement. Some of us may go up one path; others may go up by a different path. Ultimately, the different paths will inevitably grow closer together as we ascend toward the summit.
test link
ReplyDelete<a href="https://www.google.nl/">link title</a>
ReplyDeleteMy test (wuth the HTML wrapper around the following information):
DeleteLINK=https://chesstempo.com/chess-problems/65030
I preceded the URL with the openng hyperlink tag, followed by the URL in quotes:
https://chesstempo.com/chess-problems/65030
followed by the closing hyperlink tag.
It would NOT take the link. The error message I got is:
Your HTML cannot be accepted: Reference https: is not allowed: A
I looked up the error - Mixed content error (mixing HTTPS and HTTP gadgets). No idea what to do on my end to fix this.
I went to an HTML training site and entered the information there:
https://www.w3schools.com/html/tryit.asp?filename=tryhtml_attributes_link
I enetered my link with no problem, and had no problem activating the hyperlink to Chess Tempo.
seems to work though
Deletethis is a copy and paste from my previous comment: link title
DeleteI copied your HTML directly to this comment box without modification:
ReplyDeleteseems to work though
Attempting to Publish the comment. . .
WTH?!? The only difference I see is the tag rel="nofollow" after the URL.
ReplyDeleteHere's an attempt without the "rel=" tag:
seems to work though
Trying one last time. . .
I give up: that worked too!
ReplyDeleteWhat blogger accepts
ReplyDeletePART I
ReplyDeleteFEN=”3rr1k1/ppq2pp1/2p1b2p/8/3P2n1/2N3P1/PP3PBP/R2QR1K1 w - - 0 1”
I found this position on the excellent tactics site “Predator at the Chessboard” by Ward Farnsworth. It is the introductory position for the tactical theme/device “removing the guard.” In your mind’s eye, look at g4 FIRST, then look at e6. An IDEA will spring readily into your mind, along with the appropriate response. You don’t have to figure out which side is to move, what the material balance is, who has the better Pawn structure, who has the safer King position, make a list of candidate moves, and work your way through the Tree of Analysis. In short, you don’t “calculate” a response, you just “SEE” it!
Mr. Farnsworth has this to say in his introduction to the topic:
Suppose you make a threat against one of your opponent’s pieces; perhaps your knight attacks his bishop, and the bishop is loose. He can respond either by moving the bishop or by guarding it. If he guards it, you now have a second offensive focus besides the bishop: the guard itself. Undermining it can become your immediate task or can hover as an ongoing issue in the game. With time, more such issues come up: at any given moment several of your pieces may be aimed at pieces, pawns, and possible mating squares belonging to your opponent. A critical question in every position is whether those points you have under attack can be made vulnerable; they all may have guards, but can the guards be captured, or blocked, or driven or lured away?
This section is devoted to methods for achieving those aims: ways of removing or disabling the pieces that guard targets in the enemy camp. It covers material that has been labeled in a wide range of ways in the literature, including terms such as destruction, deflection, diversion, decoying, damming, drawaway, driving off, breaking communication, blockading, overloading, attraction, interference, interception, and obstruction. While some of those terms have useful meanings, on the whole the proliferation of jargon is unfortunate. All of those devices can be assimilated under the heading of “removing the guard”; we can then subdivide this theme into four methods—four ways to loosen a piece or square you would like to take. (a) You can capture the guard; (b) you can attack the guard (i.e., threaten it so that it becomes obliged to leave its square); (c) you can take something else the guard protects (distracting it, or demonstrating that it is “overworked”); or (d) perhaps you can interpose something between the guard and its protectorate, interfering with the defensive work the guard is trying to do.
The four different methods are the reason for the differing terminology used in the classifications of this TYPE [abstraction!] of problem.
PART II:
ReplyDeleteHowever, I’d like to look at it from the perspective of PoPLoAFun, with a more abstract viewpoint. Note that Farnsworth’s four methods are at one level of abstraction; the “idea” of “removing the guard” is at a more abstract level. )When we see terms associated via “subsumes,” then we know that the broader category is a more abstract concept. Keep in mind that perception and conception are a virtually automatic process that requires no training.
There are some background things implicit in the concept of “removing the guard”. The guard must be protecting/defending something that is located some square other than the square of the guard. Guards CANNOT protect the square on which they sit. The very notion of “guard” means that the piece so designated has a Function to be performed vis-à-vis the protected/defended piece/square. The requirement for a “guard” implies that the protected piece is immobile for some reason; WHY it is immobile may have an impact on how we can take advantage of it.
Let’s follow an abstraction up another level, using Mr. Lasker’s insights regarding MOTIFS.
“The most usual of all MOTIFS is the weakness of a piece of little or no mobility. SUCH A PIECE INVITES ATTACK.”
We “know” to look at unprotected pieces (LPDO) and pieces which are attacked and defended an equal number of times (B.A.D.).These are potential PoPs. We also “know” the methods for dealing with these situations. If we have trained properly, we can “SEE” these opportunities along with the appropriate methods to be used in one fell swoop of the vulture; System 1 enables us to take in the entire view at once.
“Often a piece that has strayed too far into the hostile camp is cut off and falls helplessly. Often many hostile pieces concentrate their attack upon a blocked Pawn and win it by force of numbers. Often a pinned piece, often the King itself, after having been surrounded and made immobile, becomes the target for the united effort of the enemy’s pieces.”
“To name this MOTIF, let us emphasize the two ideas underlying it: the IDEA of “superior force at a given point,” and “that of immobility.” WHAT IS IMMOBILE MUST SUFFER VIOLENCE. The light-winged bird will easily escape the huge dragon, but the firmly rooted big tree must remain where it is and may have to give up its leaves, fruit, perhaps even its life. Let us name it the MOTIF of ENCIRCLING, since in this term the two ideas of violence and of immobility are blended.”
Once we understand the ENCIRCLING MOTIF, and the different ways it can manifest itself on the chessboard (including in the “removal of the guard” with its four methods), we have arrived at a very abstract conceptualization which can trigger System 1 in many different, quite varied circumstances.
PART III:
ReplyDeleteThis distinction based on differing levels of abstraction is my reason for insisting on distinguishing between MOTIFS and tactical THEMES/DEVICES. They are NOT at the same level of abstraction; MOTIFS are more abstract (and thus more broadly applicable) than THEMES/DEVICES. Neither level is strictly required logically in order to play good moves; “if you “SEE” a good move, look for a better one.” What these various levels of abstraction do is to encapsulate/conceptualize what we need to store in LTM as PATTERNS. System 1 is quite adept at moving up and down various levels of abstraction in order to find the most applicable level for the situation at hand.
Dr. Lasker gives advice regarding these abstractions as patterns:
“ The MOTIFS of a combination, in themselves simple, are often interwoven with each other. What is it that unites the multiplicity of MOTIFS? We call it the “idea.” MOTIFS, as for instance, a simultaneous attack against several pieces or the ENCIRCLING of the hostile King, are tricks of the trade, technicalities. The IDEA which links the MOTIFS is artistic, it creates something that had never before been there. MOTIFS can be taught, ideas must be discovered by original effort. Ideas come from nowhere, they are sudden inspirations; the place of MOTIFS is definite: the [LTM] memory [as abstracted PATTERNS].”
SKILL, IMHO, is encoded in the various levels of abstraction as conceptual patterns. As has been shown many times, novices do not have the same levels of abstraction as experts. As Dr. Kahneman stated, “What You See Is All There Is (WYSIATI)”. If you can’t “SEE” it conceptually based on your perception of what is right in front of you, then the “clues” may be there on the surface but we are effectively blind to them.
Good starting point. Can you give a few examples of themes and of motifs, just to make sure we use the same terminology?
ReplyDeleteI'm currently overhauling my tree of scenarios. I feel it is possible to simplify matters a bit.
ReplyDeleteJust so I make sure I’ve understood your request, here are some examples primarily based on the “removal of the guard” theme. Each of the examples was used as an illustration in the tactical theme definitions in books or on chess Web sites such as Chess Tempo, chess.com, and Farnsworth’s Predator at the Chessboard. The examples are relativity simple, in order to keep the definitions easy to comprehend.
ReplyDeleteThe important thing is to not just stop with solving the problem. We MUST compare and file away the common abstracted concept(s) in order to gain SKILL.
1. FEN=”r2qr2k/6pp/pp1p4/3Pn1N1/8/1P4P1/P2Q3P/R3R1K1 w - - 0 1”
White to move. Material is even. The f7 square is B.A.D. The tactical themes are “Knight fork”, kingside weakness, and removal of the guard. The GEOMETRICAL, FUNCTION and “King in the box” MOTIFS are applicable. The geometrical relationship is between a Knight on a specific color and two potential targets (Black King and Queen) on the same color within reach of that Knight in one move. The Black Knight is guarding (FUNCTION) the f7 square, preventing the White Knight from forking the King and Queen. 1. Rxe5! White has won the Knight for free; recapturing is out of the question because of the potential fork on f7 of the King and the Queen.
2. FEN=”2qrn1k1/pp3ppp/2p5/8/3B2Q1/2P4P/PP3PP1/4R2K w - - 0 1”
White to move. Material is even. White threatens a Queen and Bishop mate on g7. g7 is B.A.D. The “King in the box” MOTIF is applicable. The ATTACK MOTIF says that we should not “shilly-shally”; if we delay for even one move, then Black can exchange the Queens, eliminating any possible attack on g7. The tactical themes are Queen/Bishop mate, king weakness (insufficient defenders and lines leading into the “box”), CCT, and removal of the guard (eliminating one of the defenders by capture). 1. Rxe8+ Rxe8 (forced) 2. Qxg7#
3. FEN=”8/4kp2/1r1p2p1/1p2p1bp/n7/R4P2/PP2B1PP/1K5R w - - 0 1”
This is from the game Kramnik-Topalov, 2004; it’s in the Chess Tempo database. White to move. White has an Exchange for a Pawn, almost material equality. a4 is B.A.D. White can remove the defender with 1. Bxb5! If 1. … Rxb5 2. Rxa4 and White is ahead by an Exchange with two passed queenside Pawns. The tactical themes come into play if Black is not content to just lose a Pawn without a fight. The DESPERADO MOTIF comes into play for Black; since he will lose the Knight anyway, he can try 1. … Nxb2. If White concurs with 2. Kxb2?, then 2. … Rxb5+ restores the relative material balance to what it was at the beginning. Unfortunately for Black, White can play the Zwischenzug theme 2. Rb3!, dominating the Black Knight; it has no safe squares because of the White Bishop, which is now protected by the Rook.
4. FEN=”2r5/p6p/1p1n1k2/4r1p1/2PKp1PP/4B3/P1R2P2/2R5 b - - 0 1”
White to move. Material is even. The ”King in the box” and ATTACK MOTIFS are applicable; the White King is immobile. The “removal of the guard” theme is applicable: if the Black Knight could go to b5 without being captured, the White King would be checkmated because the Black Knight would control c3 and attack the King on d4. The tactical themes are CCT, removal of the c4 guard on b5, and thus replacing one of the obstructions in the corner of the White King’s “box” with a more accommodating piece – the Rook. 1. … Rxc4+ 2. Rxc4 (forced) 2. … Nb5#.
I hope that helps!
MERRY CHRISTMAS!!
ReplyDeletePART I:
I’ve referenced Emmanuel Neiman’s book Tune your Chess Tactics Antenna: Know when (and where!) to look for winning combinations in previous comments. It is the most up-to-date treatise on MOTIFS and associated tactical THEMES currently in print, to the best of my knowledge. (If you know of a more recent treatment, PLEASE let me know!)
I HIGHLY recommend purchasing a copy!
The book does NOT directly address any of the meta-training issues we have addressed here, concerning how to get needed information into LTM so that System 1 can work efficiently. Instead, it is focused on practical application of some ABSTRACT chess concepts. He specifically focuses on MOTIFS (which he calls “signals”) and the tactical THEMES associated with those MOTIFS. The book is not intended to be an encyclopedia; it IS an excellent training manual.
Here’s a comment I made on 13 AUG 2016; I’ve added some information to it in response to your request for more information regarding the THEMES associated with the various MOTIFS.
I also note that Dr. Lasker’s explicitly identified MOTIFS are somewhat different from IM Neiman’s set. This does not surprise me, because the identification of MOTIFS is a generalization from an abstraction, and it is very likely to be somewhat unique to each individual who bothers to think long and hard about the subject.
Another suggestion is to spend some time "seeing" the MOTIFS that hint (or loudly announce) the possibility of tactical THEMES/devices and the subsequent combination of them. Neiman's book gives a generalized process of reflexion ("thinking process", what we sometimes call a ‘plan’ or what Weteschnik calls the ‘status examination’) composed of 5 steps:
(1) Global vision (what we have referred to as the "vulture's eye view")
(2) Analysis of the position (generally detecting tactical possibilities and looking for "signals" [MOTIFS])
(3) Looking for the tactical THEMES
(4) Looking for candidate moves
(5) The calculation of variations
BTW, Neiman introduces a tactical THEME/device called the "swing door" which I have not seen elsewhere. It is a very specific tactical device, and not as generally useful as the "reloader" idea (identified by Weteschnik).
Neiman's book is broken down into four parts.
Part I: The Seven Signals [MOTIFS]
1. King position
2. Unprotected piece(s)
3. Alignment (the GEOMETRICAL MOTIF I learned from Dr. Lasker)
4. Knight fork distance
5. Trapped piece(s)
6. Critical defender/Overloaded defender (the FUNCTION MOTIF I learned from Dr. Lasker)
7. Impotent defense/Defense too far away
PART II:
ReplyDeletePart II: Find the Relevant Theme – (How to Respond to the Signal)
[I’ve added more information here from the book that was not in the previous comment.]
We have analyzed the different elements, now we must concentrate on the important point. Strategically, this may mean that we must look for a desirable exchange, or a change in the central structure, for example.
Tactically, we have noticed a signal, or two, that will allow us to ASSUME that a tactic is available. Now we have to LOOK FOR THE WAY TO EXPLOIT THE OPPONENT’S WEAKNESSES, but before the exam of the candidate moves (phase 4) and the calculation (phase 5) WE MUST FIND THE MAIN IDEA. [Refer to my previous recent comment regarding Dr. Lasker’s view of MOTIFS.] This IDEA will be the consequence of the signal that we have just noticed. It means we must look for a tactical THEME (a tactical THEME is a mechanism) that is suited to the previous examination and identification of the signals [phases 1 and 2]. So we will try for each signal [MOTIF]to point at the relevant THEME(S) that will help us find the right combination.
But first I will present a number of standard combination THEMES and MATES for less experienced readers. [He provides an example of each.]
A. Standard Combination THEMES
1. Double Attack
2. Pin
3. Skewer
4. Discovered Attack
5. Line or Square Clearing
6. Line or Square Closing
7. Elimination of the Defender
8. Deflection
9. Decoy
10. Extraction [of the King from his “safe haven”]
11. Swing Door [A Rook self-pins with a simultaneous attack elsewhere, followed by a discovered attack]
B. The Basic Checkmates
1. The Shepherd’s Mate
2. Legal’s Mate
3. Fool’s Mate
4. Back-rank Mate
5. Arabic Mate
6. Smothered Mate
7. Epaulette Mate [the Dovetail Mate is a variation]
8. Gueridon Mate
9. Damiano’s Mate
10. Boden’s Mate
11. Morphy’s Opera Mate
12. Anastasia’s Mate
13. Pillsbury’s Checkmate
14. Bishop and Knight Mate
15. Bishop and Rook Mate
16. Two Bishops Mate
[Note that neither of these two lists is exhaustive. The purpose is to illustrate the most common ideas.]
PART III:
ReplyDeleteChapter 8: KING POSITION
The King’s position is the MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR in the evaluation of a position, both from a tactical and a positional point of view. This is the consequence of the modern rules, which state that the game is usually won thanks to a checkmate (certain earlier rules stated that stalemate or taking all the opponent’s men were also ways to win). Chess is ‘Shah’, the king!
There are two possible defects in the king’s position: either it is too tightly covered [the ‘box’], or it is too exposed. In both cases, the king may catch a bad cold.
Usually the king castles. After that it is standing in the corner, which eases the task for the attacker [because of the reduction in mobility]. However, usually the king is well protected by a shelter of three pawns. The base method [tactical THEME] of attacking the king is EXTRACTION, which means that you pull the king out of his castle with some sacrifice in order to draw him towards your men.
[Other tactical THEMES mentioned are: line clearance, destruction of the enemy king’s shelter such as the Greek Gift and Lasker’s Two Bishop Sacrifice/Mate, deflection, etc.]
Chapter 9: UNPROTECTED PIECES
This signal [MOTIF] points to the most natural tactical THEME: the double attack. In his book TACTICS FOR ADVANCED PLAYERS, Yury Averbakh states that most of the combinations are based on a double attack, meaning attack on two different sectors. From a STRATEGIC point of view, this THEME is also known as the DOUBLE WEAKNESS PRINCIPLE: if a player has only one weakness, and his opponent is able to attack it, say, four times, he should be able to defend it four times. But if in the same position there is another weakness, then the attacker should win by alternating threats on BOTH weaknesses.
Tactically, the double attack is simpler: it simply means to simultaneously attack two unprotected [LPDO] (or insufficiently protected [B.A.D.]) points. The study of the MOTIF is very important, and IT SHOULD GIVE A SERIOUS CLUE TO THE SEARCHER. Additionally, we can spot possible weaknesses, which we will turn into undefended points by sacrifices.
Most of the time, the second THEME that is linked to the double attack is the DECOY, which means luring a piece to a specific square on which, in our chapter, we will be able to deliver a double attack.
[Other tactical THEMES mentioned are: traps, double threats, and forks.]
Chapter 10: ALIGNMENT
Alignment is a very common MOTIF, which will enable you to realize many tactical THEMES: the pin, the skewer, the discovered attack/check and line clearance being the main ones.
[The examples provided are: pins, discovered attack, decoy/discovered attack, line clearance/discovered attack, and skewer/discovered attack.]
PART IV:
ReplyDeleteChapter 11: KNIGHT FORK DISTANCE
The main thing is to drive two enemy pieces, preferably king and queen, into forking distance. The usual trick to achieve this is the DECOY: once we notice that one piece is at forking distance, we must force the other to go to the MINED SQUARE. [A very useful “visualization aid” is to note the color of the Knight’s square, and the color of the squares on which one or the other of the two targets is sitting on; if it is the same color, then there MAY be a square of the OPPOSITE color from which a Knight fork is possible. This is a form of ‘short’ calculation, to determine if a common square exists within the next two moves.]
[The examples provided are: decoy, Knight distance + alignment, decoy + fork, Super Knight, Building up to a forking combination, alignment + fork, Knight fork, and various tactics (THEMES), Pawn fork, and King fork.]
Chapter 12: TRAPPED PIECES
The main thing is to identify the signal (MOTIF). The DOMINATION has to be spotted.
Once the MOTIF of a ‘trapped piece’ has been noticed, the main [tactical] THEMES in order to use it efficiently are:
- Line/square closing (in order to keep the prisoner from escaping)
- Line clearance (in order to open the line for attacking the piece)
- Elimination of the defender (of the trapped piece)
[The examples provided are: Knight trapped/on the rim, Trapped Queen, elimination of the Defender, locked-in piece/square clearance, piece out of play, trapped piece, and self-stalemate.
Chapter 13: CRUCIAL DEFENDER/OVERLOADED DEFENDER [FUNCTION MOTIF]
This MOTIF is perhaps THE MOST IMPORTANT SOURCE OF COMBINATIONS. One player is attacked, he has to defend urgently against some danger, so he uses one of his pieces as a defender, whose duty will be to prevent certain threats.
This important defensive piece can become subject to various combinational THEMES:
- elimination of the defender;
- deflection
These are the two basic THEMES, but nearly every THEME can be used: decoy, line/square clearance and line/square closing, pin, skewer, domination, double attack. . . .
[The examples provided are: deflection, Elimination/mate, deflecting the main defender, prominent defender, elimination and deflection, attraction and deflection, and overworked piece.]
Chapter 14: IMPOTENT DEFENSE/DEFENCE TOO FAR AWAY
A strong MOTIF is the absence of defensive forces [generally, in the vicinity of the king]. For example, if the players have opposite-colored bishops, the dark-squared bishop is unable to defend against attacks on light squares, and vice versa.
[Examples provided are: lack of coordination between one’s forces, especially in the opening, tempo differences, geometrical resources, blockade, and defense too far away.]
Part III: Looking for the Right Move
Part IV: Final Test
For the terminally curious (like me!), here's a link to a YouTube video series by Douglas Hofstadter:
ReplyDeleteMix - Douglas Hofstadter: The Nature of Categories and Concepts
Here's a couple that are apropos for our discussion of how to train via categorization and abstraction using analogies:
Analogy as the Core of Cognition
Douglas Hofstadter: The Nature of Categories and Concepts
Just my suggestion for exploring Hofstadter's ideas on cognition, in case you don't have the book. (What do you mean - you don't have the book?!? LOL!) I think his ideas are very applicable to the issue of chess training for pattern recognition and "feeding" the appropriate information into the subconscious (System 1) using analogies.
If your eyes glaze over and your mind wanders at the thought of doing anything other than another 100,000 tactical puzzles "solved" while traversing the Seven Circles of Hell, you probably should just skip this suggestion altogether.
PART I:
ReplyDeleteLet me try to make the training concept a little more “concrete.” Consider the two following positions (chosen at random for illustrative purposes only).
1. FEN=”2r5/p6p/1p1n1k2/4r1p1/2PKp1PP/4B3/P1R2P2/2R5 b - - 0 1”
2. FEN=”k7/8/P1N5/8/2K5/6p1/5bB1/8 w - - 0 65”
The question is NOT how to “solve” these two tactical problems, but to “SEE” how abstraction can improve our pattern recognition. Keep in mind that “pattern recognition” REQUIRES an abstraction in order for it to work. There is nothing “special” about these two problems in and of themselves. It is the method that can be universally applied.
At first glance, there is nothing in common visually between the two positions. I consider this lack of visio-spatial similarity to be at the heart of why we don’t significantly improve when doing massed practice at high speed. Under those circumstances, since there is NO visio-spatial similarity between the two positions, we don’t feel any need to find a possible abstraction that would summarize what we should “SEE” as an abstract concept. Research shows that a period of reflection that is at least 12 seconds long is required for consolidation of any pattern. Staring at a position for more than 12 seconds is no guarantee that a pattern will be formed in LTM. The monkey mind sees only what is there (WYSIATI), but has no comprehension of what factor(s) is/are important and WHY.
Let’s take a look at various categorizations associated with potentially relevant tactical THEMES.
Annihilation of defense – applies to position 1 but apparently not to position 2.
Back rank weakness or possible checkmate – the Black King IS on the back rank in position 2, but not in position 1.
Capturing a defender – perhaps in position 1 but definitely not in position 2.
Clearance (sacrifice) – Applies to position 1, but not to position 2.
Defense elimination (Removal of the guard) – Applies to position 1, but not to position 2.
Destruction of king’s cover – Somewhat applies to position 1, but not position 2.
Exposed (vulnerable) King – Seems to apply to both positions, so it looks like this might be a good starting point for recognizing abstract similarities. The Black King in position 2 doesn’t seem to quite as vulnerable as in position 1, but the degree of vulnerability is not as important as the similarity for getting our conceptual process working on a common pattern.
Mate Threat – This one seems to have some commonality with the exposed (vulnerable) king! However, it’s harder to “SEE” a mate threat in position 2 than in position 1. Let’s make this one the “king of the Hill” for our search for an abstraction.
Overloaded/overworked pieces – certainly applicable to position 1, but doesn’t apply to position 2.
So, we have a starting point for an abstraction which is common to BOTH positions. The mere process of trying to find a common abstraction already has imprinted a certain level of named pattern into LTM. (Once we “SEE” a conceptual relationship, we cannot “unSEE” it.)
PART II:
ReplyDeleteSo what do we do next? DON’T TRY TO “SOLVE” THE TWO PUZZLES (even if you already saw the solutions when you first glanced at them). These two specific problems and their solutions are IRRELEVANT!
Let’s see if we can make our abstraction a little more generalized, and then capture that more abstract level with a similar named category.
I already “baked this cake” [ABSTRACTION!], so I’m going to “jump” to my endpoint.
What is the COMMON name or phrase that we can use to categorize BOTH positions under the same umbrella abstraction whenever we “SEE” this PATTERN in the future?
My preferred “name” is “KING IN THE BOX”. (It is perfectly fine to come up with another name altogether; there is NO “right” or “wrong” categorization/abstraction/generalization. It is unique to YOU!)
Now let’s add in some features to our abstraction, so that System 1 will have some features to use to “solve” similar types of problems.
First, the King (presumed to be under attack or at least attackable) is IMMOBILE. AHA! Dr. Lasker’s encircling and attack MOTIFS are probably in play.
Second, we must have sufficient resources in the attacking vicinity. Note that long-range pieces can be on the other side of the board, or a Knight might be at least two moves away. Perhaps the “three piece rule” can be applied [“LOOK!”]: one to sacrifice and two (possibly only one needed) remaining to effect the mate. If we can’t attack the king (sooner or later), then the King may be in a “box” (immobile) but it is of no importance because we can’t take advantage of it.
Third, can we apply forcing moves (check, mate threat, capture or threat)?
At this point, we should already have some good ideas about how to go about solving the two positions. Now it’s time to “rock and roll!”
As a result of the preliminary considerations of the commonality (WHAT commonality?!?), we now have a pattern that is sufficiently abstract so as to be applicable to a wide variety of positions. The specific visio-spatial relationships have magically been erased, and only the abstraction remains as a useful pattern for the future.
Is this the exact process that occurs in every instance of forming a pattern? I sincerely doubt it! No two people go about this process the exact same way. However, it should give us food for thought in how to train ourselves using pattern recognition.
Note that pattern recognition is NOT limited to merely tactical patterns.
PART III:
ReplyDeleteSome of the things I have learned through this long process/discussion:
I think the ENCIRCLING MOTIF is connected to “points of pressure” (PoP); the GEOMETRICAL MOTIF is connected to “lines of attack” (LoA) and the FUNCTION MOTIF is connected to “functions” (Fun).
The MOTIFS are more generalized abstractions than the various tactical THEMES.
Pattern recognition can occur at many levels of abstraction. WHAT YOU “SEE” IS ALL THERE IS. If we get stuck at a certain level of abstraction (regardless of whether it is a very low or very high level) when we examine the position, we are effectively blind to other levels of abstraction.
So-called “general principles” are nothing more than abstractions (at various levels) of cumulative chess experience, gathered over many years (centuries!) and distilled by various authors. Unfortunately, simply memorizing these “general principles” as a shortcut to SKILL is no more effective for improvement than traversing the Seven Circles of Hell trying to memorize a set of tactical problems. We have to personally EXPERIENCE the process of abstraction/generalization; we cannot “piggy-back” on someone else’s experience.
If what I have surmised from our discussions is true (THAT is certainly debatable!), then the total number of tactical “patterns” that we need to burn into LTM for a quite high level of SKILL based on “pattern recognition” is relatively small (perhaps as low as the 2,000 patterns estimated by and attributed to IM David Pruess by NM Dan Heisman). For a very informative essay on chess improvement, take a look at this article (scroll down to the title of the link):
LINK=”https://www.danheisman.com/adult-lesson-guide3.html”
A post by IM David Pruess on a chess forum relating to how chess players respond to advice (good or bad)
I’m sure there are many other things that I’m overlooking at the moment. Please point them out as YOU “SEE” them!
A terrible lumbago is delaying my reactions. But I will try to read everything nonetheless
ReplyDeleteThis is tbe first time i use a smartphone to comment so please bare with me. The lowest level of abstraction are the targets. You need two of them, unless it is a trap.
ReplyDeleteTargets have states.
State of outnumbering.
Bad or lpdo.
State of mobilityy.
Lack of space
Duty
Overloaded
State of value
Further, there is a list of actions
Add attackers
Remove defenders
Prevent counter attack
Get rid of problem piece
Etc.
These actions don t work on their own. If you add an attacker, your opponent adds a defender. You need a tempo moveto make it work. A double whammy.
Theoreticallly we cracked the transfer problem. Now wd have to make it practical and prove it.
ReplyDeleteNicolay Yakovlev wrote a book about middlegame planning. Which is perfectly suited for this method.
ReplyDeleteFor those who do not have the book, here's a reference PDF:
DeleteChess Blueprints: Planning in the Middlegame
If you like what you see, then please purchase a copy to support good chess authors.
One of the tenets of the Deliberate Practice paradigm is to break down the skill to be developed into solitary, very low level tasks and then to drill those tasks over and over again.
ReplyDeleteThere are any number of books and online "tests" which are aimed at determining your tactics rating, i.e., Chess Tempo's tactics puzzles. However, I am unaware of any books or tests or tests which are aimed at directly uncovering specific weaknesses. I assume that the reason is most likely to be an assumption that if you miss a lot of problems of a particular type (as classified by Chess Tempo's tag system), then you "know" where your weakness is, and you can continue to drill that type of problem.
While thinking about this, I realized that I did NOT know what the actual weakness is whenever I miss a lot of the same type problem. It might be more than one thing. It's fine to say that I don't "know" or can't recognize a smothered mate situation (for example), but it is something else entirely to point out the specific reason(s) WHY I can't "see" that possibility in different positions.
So, I ask a simple question: does anyone have a reference book or link to a site where the focus is on identifying the specific weakness(es) that a player has? If not, do you have any ideas about how to go about building a set of such tests? I'm not looking for a collection of smothered mate problems (for instance). Such a collection would NOT identify the specific weaknesses I might have.
On the other hand, I could throw up my hands and assume that such a thing is impossible to develop. I learned a long time ago as a software developer that if you can imagine it, you can create it, so I'm pretty sure such a thing is possible to develop, although it might be a considerable amount of work.
TIA for your thoughts. . .
Sometimes I amaze myself at my seemingly unlimited ability to overlook the "obvious."
ReplyDeleteMy previous questions was triggered (somewhat) by Dan Heisman's The Improving Chess Thinker. In it, he details how different classes of chess players approach solving a small set of "problems", some from de Groot and some from Heisman. There is a "think out loud" protocol which attempts to capture the "thinking process" as the player works through a position.
I "got it" that the Chess Tempo tags give "clues" as to what each problem is about. What I overlooked (silly me!) was that the comments, detailing what each player saw WRONG, give serious "clues" to the thinking process at play. Yes, it will take some work (what doesn't, in chess?!?) to decipher what was missing. Was it a "mere" oversight (if there is such a thing)? Was it a lack of specific knowledge or exposure to a particular type of problem? The overriding question is simple:
WHY DID YOU NOT "SEE" THE SOLUTION?
In Ericsson and Pool's book PEAK - Secrets from the New Science of Expertise, the authors state this:
"The main purpose of deliberate practice is to develop effective mental representations, and . . . mental representations play a key role in deliberate practice."
Deciphering our mental representations and changing them to be more efficient give us the opportunity to continually improve. HOWEVER, we have to be consciously aware of our current mental representations before we can figure out how to change them. Hence, my question above regarding tests for specific weaknesses.
I repeat myself:
DeleteThere are 2 possibilities to lose points, you are too slow or you went wrong.
You did not "think" right: King, Material,Promotion...
you did not recognise the right weakness(es)?
you did not judge them right?
you did play a wrong weakness?
you did not see the refutation?
you did not find the right method to make use of this weakness?
you did play the wrong method, what was wrong?
you made wrong thinking - reasoning
You did not calculate deep enough or too deep
Improvement can only go right if you address your actual errors
often the position is simply too complex, then you need to analyze it deeper. For example you dont know how to win the final position...
That is an excellent series of questions! Thank you for the repetition, Aox!
DeleteAox: maybe can add these to your list...
ReplyDelete- You calculated incorrectly, in other words making illegal moves in your head
(is this what you mean by wrong thinking? I found that category vague)
- You missed possible moves, like forgetting about a piece in a corner or not imagining a backwards move
- You calculated the right things and did it correctly, but didn't do it fast enough
(Can you tell that sometimes I have trouble with very basic things?)
Robert:
- Is the Heisman book any good?
- I bet Ericsson's "mental representations" is the key to getting better at chess. I think some of these representations are hard to verbalize and might not be captured well when players narrate their thinking process, as in Heisman's book. My list of representations includes: visualizing several moves ahead while looking at the board; calculating with the whole board in your head (not using the board); threat counting; the network of attacking and defending pieces; material balance; relative importance of different weaknesses (Neiman's "signals"); specific move patterns; the tree of analysis; and of course all the varieties of strategic (not tactical) advantage. Maybe there are more mental representations I don't know about. --mfardal
Heisman's The Improving Chess Thinker is an excellent book. Lots of interesting protocols at each level of chess expertise. A very in-depth look at thinking processes. NM Heisman has been a coach for many years, so he has valuable insights regarding how to teach someone how to play better. His focus has been on beginners and novices (hence the title of his column The Novice Nook on Chess Cafe), but he also IS a USCF Master, so he has personal knowledge of what it takes to get to that level.
DeleteHere is Ericsson's definition of mental representation (PEAK, pg. 58):
"Mental representations aren't just for chess masters; we all use them constantly. A mental representation is a mental structure that corresponds to an object, an idea, a collection of information, or anything else, CONCRETE or ABSTRACT, that the brain is thinking about."
There is a considerable amount of chess related information in the book. I highly recommend it!
One of my notes concerns the various levels of representation that may be used in chess. At the lowest level are the basic interactions between individual chess pieces - the so-called "contacts" from GM Averbakh and Momir Raduvic. The next more abstract level are the THEMES/devices, whether tactical or strategical. A still higher abstract level is the notion of MOTIFS as precursors or "early warning detectors" of weaknesses, and thus potential tactics. At very high levels of abstraction, we have overall tactical and strategical "patterns".
Those are merely examples of the various levels of abstraction that are possible. I make no attempt at completeness. It is also possible that we experience "frame blends" (a term borrowed from Hofstadter) which meld together two (or more) levels of abstraction into a new category.
As you noted, there are many "mini-skills" which depend on mental representations. I don't any one of them is the "magic panacea" for rapid and significant chess improvement. Rather, I think we have to explore and absorb ALL of them over time in order to improve.
We often get "comfortable" at a certain level of skill, and no longer seek for ways to improve. That's a natural thing, because we reach a point of satisfaction from our play, and have no burning desire to work hard to leave that level. There's nothing wrong with that.
I've read "Peak". It's certainly very relevant to the questions discussed on this site, and does have a bunch of chess content. But it's funny...he holds out chess as an area where you can do his gold-standard "deliberate practice". This differs from mere "purposeful practice" in that the field of chess has reached a conclusion about how best to improve. According to Ericsson (as I recall...going from memory here), that way is to play through and analyze master games, and if your move choice differs from what the master played, figure out what you did wrong.
DeleteNow if I go by what I've heard on the Perpetual Chess podcast, there's not that much agreement on the best way to improve at chess! Certainly there are some activities that get more endorsements than others. These include solving tactics puzzles, playing through your own games, playing slow time controls, in addition to playing through master games. Watching videos and playing speed chess aren't as favored though they do have advocates. But there are definitely people who think tactics puzzles are silly. One master said to just do whatever you feel like, and it will probably help. And as to the more focused question of how you improve at chess tactics...well, all of us here are still trying to figure that out right? Pretty sure there is no gold standard yet.
With regard to mental representations, I find some are a lot easier for me than others. Calculating the material balance in a series of exchanges is surprisingly hard for me, I often have to track it consciously (system II). I think I have a decent ability to visualize a few moves deep while looking at the board. But visualizing without the board is really hard. If I try to solve even very simple problems with few pieces entirely in my head, I need 3 minutes where the same problem with the board would take 10 seconds. I know that every good player picks up the ability to play blindfold even if they haven't worked at it specifically, so it seems like this skill is important. It would be interesting to have diagnostic tests that assess the mini-skills associated with these different mental representations, and training methods that target them specifically. --mfardal
There's more to Ericsson's "deliberate practice" regimen for chess improvement than just "to play through and analyze master games, and if your move choice differs from what the master played, figure out what you did wrong." This is merely the most significant finding from studies of chess masters. There (obviously?) is no "gold standard" training method for any and all chess skills, although the Steps Method developed by Rob Brunia and Cor van Wijgerden in the Netherlands seems to have a pretty good reputation for training amateurs up to Master level. Perhaps Temposchlucker or others might have some thoughts on that method.
DeleteMental representations are (in ESSENCE) patterns, chunks, templates, whatever term you are familiar with. It is composed of categorization and abstraction, coupled with analogies.
I became quite capable of playing blindfold chess long before reaching my highest USCF rating of 1810. Although I haven't practiced it, I can still play blindfold games whenever I want. My impetus for learning how to do it was an exhibition by George Koltanowski back in the 1970s. Koltanowski stated that he did it through aural similarities, not through visual similarities; he did NOT "SEE" the board in his mind. My own way of doing it is to "see" the piece relationships in terms of their interactions, not as what the pieces actually look like. I don't really "see" pieces and squares as they actually exist physically. Sometimes, during a blindfold game, I'll refresh my mental representation by repeating the moves in the game in my head. My best simul exhibition was to play 10 games at a chess club, with one game played blindfold. IIRC, I won the blindfold game and only allowed one draw in the remainder of the games. For me, it was simply a matter of practicing to extend the range of how I "see" moves and variations while calculating. One of the key things was to figure out how to "see" the entire board - I "see" it in 4 quadrants of 4 quadrants of 4 squares. I "know" where I parked my pieces (as well as where my opponent parked his pieces); there are "only" 16 pieces maximum on each side. I'm pretty sure that all of this information is stored in LTM, not STM, in patterns. I am neither a "genius" nor someone with a photographic memory, although I do have somewhat of an eidetic memory. That capability extends beyond chess, and I certainly cannot explain how it developed.
https://old.chesstempo.com/chess-tactics/176966
ReplyDeleteDid not see / calculate Bb2 with Qh3->h8# so I thought Ng3+ would be great and I did not see that after Qh3xQh4 BxQ the Re1 is attackt so i thougt Nxf4 is not a good move
https://old.chesstempo.com/chess-tactics/166135
DeleteDie take me 0.1:22 to solve it ( not! 00:22 )
Reason : i was not looking for Checkmate first, i was distractet by the contacts in the center
https://old.chesstempo.com/chess-tactics/34128839
ReplyDeleteDid not consider the mate thread 2.Ba3-d6 because I did not see Kb3 ends the checks of Black
PART I:
ReplyDeleteHere’s Ericsson’s analysis of education processes and how to “revolutionize how people learn.” [Emphasis added.]
The first way is pedagogical. HOW DO STUDENTS LEARN BEST? [In designing classes, talk to traditional instructors] to DETERMINE EXACTLY WHAT THE STUDENTS SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO once they finished the section.
[. . .] a major difference between the DELIBERATE-PRACTICE approach and the traditional approach to learning lies with the emphasis placed on SKILLS versus KNOWLEDGE — WHAT YOU CAN DO VERSUS WHAT YOU KNOW. Deliberate practice is all about the skills. You pick up the necessary knowledge in order to develop the skills; knowledge should never be an end in itself. Nonetheless, deliberate practice results in students picking up quite a bit of knowledge along the way.
If you teach a student facts, concepts, and rules [i.e., general principles], those things go into long-term memory as individual pieces, and if a student then wishes to do something with them — use them to solve a problem, reason with them to answer a question, or organize and analyze them to come up with a theme or hypothesis — the limitations of attention and short-term memory kick in. The student must keep all of these different UNCONNECTED pieces in mind while working with them toward a solution. However, if this information is assimilated as part of building mental representations aimed at DOING SOMETHING. the individual pieces become part of an INTERCONNECTED PATTERN that provides context and meaning to the information, making it easier to work with. [. . .] you don’t build mental representations by thinking about something; you build them by trying to do something, failing, revising, and trying again, over and over. When you’re done, not only have you developed an effective mental representation for the skill you were developing, but you also absorbed a great deal of information connected with that skill.
When preparing a lesson plan, determining what a student should be able to DO is far more effective than determining what a student should KNOW. It then turns out that the knowing part comes along for the ride.
[After you] put together a list of what things the students should be able to do [after the training is finished], [transform] it into a collection of SPECIFIC LEARNING OBJECTIVES. Again, this is a classic deliberate-practice approach: WHEN TEACHING A SKILL, BREAK THE LESSON INTO A SERIES OF STEPS THAT THE STUDENT CAN MASTER ONE AT A TIME, BUILDING FROM ONE TO THE NEXT TO REACH THE ULTIMATE OBJECTIVE. While this sounds very similar to the scaffolding approach used in traditional education, it differs crucially in its FOCUS ON UNDERSTANDING THE NECESSARY MENTAL REPRESENTATIONS AT EACH STEP OF THE WAY and making sure that the student has developed the appropriate representations before moving to the next step.
Generally speaking, in almost any area of education, the most useful learning objectives will be those that help the students develop effective mental representations.
PART II:
ReplyDeleteDevelop sets of questions and learning tasks that will help the students reach the learning objectives previously identified. These questions should trigger discussions that lead the students to grapple with and apply the concepts they are learning and, ultimately, to use those concepts to answer the questions and solve the tasks.
The questions and tasks should be designed to push the students outside their comfort zones — to ask them questions they’d have to struggle for — but not so far outside their comfort zone that they wouldn’t know how to start answering them.
The classes should be structured so that the students would have the opportunity to deal with the various concepts over and over again, getting feedback that identified their mistakes and showed how to correct them. The students should get immediate responses that tell them when they are doing something wrong and how to fix it.
[Summarizing,] begin by identifying what students should learn how to DO. The objectives should be SKILLS, not KNOWLEDGE. In figuring out the particular way students should learn a skill, examine how the experts do it. In particular, understand as much as possible about the mental representations that experts use, and teach the skill so as to help students develop similar mental representations. This will involve teaching the skill step by step, with each step designed to keep students out of their comfort zone but not so far out that they cannot master that step. Then give plenty of repetition and feedback; the regular cycle of try, fail, get feedback, try again, and so on is how the students will build their mental representations.
One of the highly recommended aspects of deliberate practice is to work with a teacher or coach who is familiar with how to teach the various mental representations that are required for expertise.
Hi Robert: in "Parts I/II" this is likely to be good advice, but it's all generic, not chess-specific. The only chess-specific advice I see in "Peak" is the assertion that studying master games is the most important thing (pages 56 and 160 in my edition). "Research has shown that the amount of time spent in this [guess-the-master's-move] analysis -- not the amount of time spent playing chess with others -- is the single most important predictor of a chess player's ability". Oddly, and in contrast with most of the book, he doesn't supply a reference for this claim. And the chess world as a whole certainly doesn't seem to have coalesced behind this point of view.
DeleteWith regard to blindfold play, Ericsson seems to think skill arises mostly from the ability to encode multi-piece patterns and relationships, as in the famous Chase-Simon experiments. I'm not sure this is the whole story. The way masters rattle off moves when they talk through lines ("a4, a5, Ng5, Rxd1+...") suggests there's no "translation" needed between absolute positions and relative piece positions. (In contrast, imagine the effort involved in going through a piece of music by naming the notes.) You talk about breaking up the board itself into smaller pieces, which suggests at least part of your representation has more to do with the board than the pices. I've heard other people use similar board-splitting methods. Do you know the colors of the squares? --mfardal
mfardel:
DeletePART I:
When I mentally “look” at an area of the board, I “see” the colors of the squares. I started with the most basic group of four squares. I started with the colors of the four center squares: d5, d5, e4, e5. The coloring of that elementary group also applies if you break the entire board down into 16 groups of 4 squares each. Initially, I used that easily visualized 4-square pattern (given that there are only four items, 4 squares fit easily into short-term memory) as a moveable “window” to “look” at the entire board, 4 square at a time. After doing this for some time, I began working on consolidating 4 groups of 4 squares into a larger group. The last abstraction “move” was to visualize 4 groups of 16 squares. Sixteen squares at once is outside the short-term memory limits (7, plus or minus 2 or 3 groups of 3 items). I guess at some point those groups became encoded (through continued practice) into long-term memory. In general, I don’t “see” the entire 64 squares at once in my mind’s eye. I also don’t see all 64 squares at once when I’m actually looking at a physical board, so I don’t concern myself with that limitation. I know from various experiments in cognitive literature that higher skilled players use eye saccades (shifting attention from one area to another) when looking at the board, which tells me that they are not “seeing” the entire board at once either.
You are correct that the direct "chess-specific" advice in PEAK is to study master games. HOW TO STUDY CHESS is not explicitly elaborated in the book. I guess I have been "reading between the lines", trying to figure out in more detail how to apply the "deliberate practice" approach to chess training.
WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO “STUDY”?
One of the significant factors is focused attention. Without it, we are essentially just "going through the motions." It is very difficult to stay totally focused move-by-move when playing through master games. Although there are some who “study” chess for hours per day, most people can only manage about one hour of FOCUSED STUDY per day. Another aspect of studying master games is that we gain insight in all phases of the game (opening, middle game and endgame), rather than just focusing narrowly on one limited aspect (such as tactics). Studying master games provides so many different benefits for "free."
Consider study of tactics only. I know from my own experience (as well as from the anecdotal evidence from the Knights Errant) that “massed practice" (trying to go through as many tactics problems as possible in shorter and shorter times, i.e., the Seven Circles of Hell) does not significantly increase playing skill. There IS a short-term positive impact (varying significantly amongst players), but not a long-term benefit.
My most significant take-away from PEAK is even adults can improve with the proper approach to practice. The discussion of mental representations (what we call “patterns”) and the idea that our mental representations are the most significant focus of deliberate practice is of direct importance for figuring out a chess training regimen.
PART II:
DeleteI know that switching my focus from tactical THEMES to MOTIFS gave me much better insight as to what is important in any given position. When Temposchlucker proposed the PoPLoAFun paradigm, that provided another significant benefit because it made certain aspects of "SEEing" (i.e., the "vulture's eye view") much easier because it provided "clues" as to what to focus on initially in a given position (going “wide” before going “deep”). In essence (through analogy), it is like moving calculations from calculus down to algebra, or from algebra down to arithmetic.
I think about chess mostly by using analogies. I learned to use analogies early on in my life, and consciously try to apply that analogical "thinking process" to everything that I've ever learned or done. Most importantly, I try to cross the boundaries between various fields (the so-called "silos") using analogies. Often times, what is readily known and apparent in one field will be totally obscure in another field, although the principles in both fields are nearly identical. In spite of the similarity, few people take the time to map analogies across field boundaries. Obviously, there will always be areas where there is no analogical "map" from one to the other, but those cases are far fewer than most people think.
I recall some of Master Miyamoto Musashi’s aphorisms from The Book of Five Rings:
“From one thing, know ten thousand things.”
“You must understand that there is more than one path to the top of the mountain.”
“Perceive that which cannot be seen with the eye.”
“Do nothing that is of no use.”
“You can only fight the way you practice.”
Each of those aphorisms is as applicable to chess (and many other different fields) as to the Way of the Sword. The first one given is one of my favorites, because it “maps” the connection of analogies between disparate fields.
Aox:
ReplyDeleteRegarding your three Chess Tempo problems, and trying to apply your set of questions as to WHY you missed the problem (please note that I am "guessing"):
176966: Was this due to "wrong thinking - reasoning"?
166135: Was this due to "did not recognize the right weakness(es)"?
34128839: Was tghis due to "did not calculate deep enough"?
Thanks for posting those problems, and your reaction to and analysis of them! It's not quite as detailed as a deGroot/Heisman "thinking out loud" protocol, but it does help to understand what was missed - and may also be directly applicable to me.
176966 was to complex, so i did not see 2 pattern/weaknesses, so I did not calculate deep enough
ReplyDelete166135 I was distracted, I was not following my thinking process: 1!mate 2.material 3. pawn promotion
34128839 I was misjudging a pattern of : my king in the open and 2 rooks giving checks for ever.. so a ghost kept me from calculating deep enough
Here are 4 problems from Livshitz’s book Test Your Chess IQ: Master Challenge. The THEME is based on geometrical MOTIFS. The point is to find the common “essence” ( a higher level of abstraction) of the four positions using analogy, based on the surface-level “clues.”
ReplyDelete1. From the game Rein-Klish, Corr., 1962
FEN: r1r1b1k1/p3Qppn/4p3/3qN1R1/2pP4/4P3/P2N1P1P/2KR4 w - - 0 1
2. From the game Suta-Suteu, Bucharest, 1953
FEN: r5rk/1p3p1p/p2N1Pq1/5R2/4Q3/7P/1P5K/8 w - - 0 1
3. Chess Tempo Problem 57367
FEN: 5rk1/5ppp/p5r1/1p1p2q1/1PnBn3/PN2PB1P/5P1P/Q2R1R1K b - - 0 24
From the game:
Balanel, Ion (2420) vs Pytlakowski, Andrzej (2408)
Date: 1951
Event: Marianske Lazne zt, Marianske Lazne
Round: 1
Result: 0-1
Opening: Nimzo-Indian Defense, Classical Variation (E32)
Problems: 57367
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Qc2 O-O 5. e3 c5 6. dxc5 Na6 7. Ne2 Nxc5 8. a3 Bxc3+ 9. Nxc3 d5 10. b4 Ncd7 11. cxd5 exd5 12. Bb2 Nb6 13. Rd1 Qe7 14. Be2 Be6 15. O-O Rac8 16. Qb1 Nc4 17. Nb5 a6 18. Nd4 b5 19. Nb3 Ne4 20. Qa1 Qg5 21. Bd4 Bh3 22. Bf3 Rc6 23. Kh1 Rg6 24. gxh3 [Problem 57367] Qg1+
(The interesting thing about this game occurs after White’s 23rd move. Problem 57367 should be relatively easy to “solve.”)
4. From the game Alekseyev-Veksler, Liepaja, 1972
FEN: 4r2k/1q3ppp/1p2r3/p1bNPQ2/5P2/P5RP/1P4P1/3R3K w - - 0 1
Thank you for sharing this.
ReplyDeleteThinkChess US offers exclusive Online Instruction in Chess to students all over the US and Canada. We have been successfully conducting after-school chess programs, summer camps, and scholastic tournaments in public and private schools in Houston for many years.
Chess Training in Houston