Absorbing the tree of scenarios
With every tactical aim you purchase, there is a logical chain of scenarios that can be followed. What I try to achieve is to absorb that logic in system 1, in order to make it a skill. This is such attempt.
- One logical thing that you can try to achieve here is to mate the black king with Qh5-Qh7#.
- From the tree of scenarios it follows that you look for the defender of h5.
- Apparently that is knight Nf6.
- The next logical step is to look for a way to eliminate the defender.
- Bxf6 will open the path to Qh5.
- There is no time to take Bf6 back for black, Since white has already two attackers pointing to the point of pressure h7, and Qh5 is looming.
- g6 seemingly seems to stop two of the three pieces that focus towards h7.
- For mate you need two pieces, but three pieces are heading for h7, so you can sac one of them in an attempt to open lines so the other two can do their job:
- Qh5 gxh5 opens the diagonal d3 - h7, so Bh7# ends the game
All this simple chess logic can be seen.
- See the Qh7# pattern
- See the defender of h5, the invasion point
- See that there are 3 pieces pointing to h7
- See the second mate pattern with the two bishops, covered by a knight
Be only satisfied if you see all this in under 3 seconds.
Yes, a thinking process initiated by pattern recognition . I would not start with the pattern Qh7# but: 1. King safety ? Chuzakin-HE's h7,h8,g8 .. Methods: Removing defender, More Pieces (especially the Queen) to the attack..
ReplyDeleteThere are patterns to see, and things to think.
https://lichess.org/analysis/standard/r1r3k1/3nbppp/1q2pn2/1p6/3PbB2/N1R1QNP1/1P2PPBP/R5K1_b_-_-_0_1#1>/a>
ReplyDeleteKing-safety? Both are save
Promotion? Nope
->Its about material.
What pieces?
Ra1,b2,d4 not overprotected
Forks: b4, Nd4
Try attack the Qe3?
No chance
Try fork b4:
De-fork possible with Rc3xc8+
Fix problem with Rc8xc3
...
My problem with this puzzle;
Looking to much f or Ghosts like Bg2->Ra8, Qe3->Be4..
Did not see Be7->Na3
I ask myself: what do I want to learn from this position? What tactical elements must be salient to see this position as simple? What chess logic leads to the most simple narrative? I don't worry about complications. Since later is soon enough to worry about them. I'm concerned with the ABC. Words will follow as soon as I master the ABC.
DeleteThere are 3 tactical themes that jump in my eye: knight fork, pawn fork and pinned knight. All are easy to defuse. So the first question is: can I fix the unfork solution? By Rxc3 I get rid of my problematic rook and I replace the rook target with a queen as target. The problem of the pawn fork remains, the knight fork has disappeared. That is what I want to see easy. So I repeat this problem until I can see the solution within 3 seconds. Usually I investigate the position a bit more with the aid of stockfish, but I'm not bothered by complications. Only complications that I can alter in simplicity interests me.
I am wondering why do you think the solution need to pop up below 3 seconds (why not 5, 7, 10 seconds?). And how many moves the puzzles need to be to have this category. For example: when the puzzle is 6-7 moves deep, unless it consists very simple ideas, most often even yup to 60-90 seconds is needed to figure out the solutions.
DeleteHowever when you listen to the podcast with Logozar, he mentions that 7-8 seconds is the maximum time that you can distuinguish if anybody recall the patterns with super quick calculations or he simply start calculation process as the patterns are not the priority at these types of positions.
I highly recommend listening to this podcast (with NM ELIJAH LOGOZAR):
https://www.perpetualchesspod.com/new-blog/2020/6/9/episode-181-uscf-master-elijah-logozar-adult-improver-episode
His short bio/profile at lichess (NM ELIJAH LOGOZAR):
https://lichess.org/coach/logozar
The 3 seconds stem from Susan Polgar, who played a simul against 1700 opponents with a score of 96%. She used 2.6 seconds per move. To give you some slack, I rounded it to 3 seconds.
DeleteI gave it as the limit for recalling the visualization what the position is about. When you can do that, you can be sure that you assimilated the patterns in system 1. So I'm not talking about the time to solve a position for the the first time.
The story of Logazar and the woodpecker might well be deceptive. Pattern absorption seems to work different when you are under 20 or above 25. I didn't find an acceptable explanation for that, but it means that what works for Logazar doesn't necessarily work for adults over 25.
The woodpecker method is a variation of the MDLM method. We have found out, that when, as an adult, who has never seriously been exposed to tactics, you will gain 250 rating points due to an improved tactical prowess, no matter the method. But if you are over 25 AND you are seriously exposed to tactics AND you plateau for quite some time, then nothing works EXCEPT the method I'm talking about now.