Some positions might look complex to me at first. But when I dig deeper, what remains is actually simple. Take for instance this position:
r3qrk1/1b3ppp/ppp5/2nBp1N1/P3P3/7P/1PP1QPP1/R2R2K1 w - - 0 1
- The first action is a forced series of exchanges on f7. Nobody gains or loses wood, but the black king ends up at f7 as a target. The other target is Bb7
- The second action is the elimination of Nc5, which is both the defender of Bb7 and of the invasion square d7.
- The third action is the execution of the duplo attack against king and bishop.
The art of simplification is helpful for the storage of the pattern in system 1. The three elements of the combination are easy to see. You are not bothered by where the white pieces exactly are, or which pieces it are, nor is it exactly interesting where the black pieces are or which pieces it are, as long as they are all in contact with f7, and a forced exchange results in a king appearing at f7 as target.
This type of simplification of a position is essential to see what is going on so it can be stored in system 1. The moves become much less interesting, while the scenario becomes paramount.
- Put the king in place by a series of exchanges
- Get rid of the defender
- Execute the double attack
PART I:
ReplyDelete[The Perceptual Cues that Reshape Expert Reasoning]
Such considerations suggest an important difficulty our cognitive processes are able to address: the total information contained in an environment is too vast to process using deliberative reasoning but the information contained in localised chunks of the environment is too focused to be useful by itself. What we would like to find are the small number of visual cues that make up the salient aspects of the environment and show how these cues change as a function of skill. One approach is to use a neural network that can automatically form ordered, compressed representations of sensory perceptions such as Self-Organizing Maps (SoMs). SoMs have been used as a model of neurological organisation as well as a tool for data-mining and they have the benefit of being unsupervised learners, that is to say they extract structural regularity from data without external guidance. This last point is significant, from a behavioural perspective human players implicitly learning relationships between game pieces are not aware of what is being learned, they are only picking up on the statistical regularities [without any awareness of statistical properties] in the task environment, this requires an unsupervised process.
How do we find the “Goldilocks zone” between ‘too vast to process’ (looking at the entire position plus the tree explosion while looking ahead several moves) and ‘too focused’ (mis-perceiving some salient aspect(s) of the position as the crucial aspect to focus on)?
In the given example position, what are the salient CUES?
I suggest the following process that readily comes to mind just looking at the position as-is:
(1) The white Queen seems poised to go to h5, simultaneously threatening mate on h7. After “seeing” this possibility, it MAY trigger the additional perception that f7 would then be B.A.D. (whereas before that move, it was “overprotected” by black). This also takes care of the ‘concern’ about the attack on the white Bishop; a mate threat is an Equal or Greater Threat that forces black’s reply.
(2) Kicking the black Knight off of c5 seems somewhat less salient at first glance. That might trigger the perception that the black Bishop on b7 would then be unprotected. It did not trigger my thoughts in that direction and certainly NOT connected to the concluding Rook fork.
(3) Perhaps it is here that the ‘idea’ occurs of lots of capture occurring on f7, leaving the black King sitting on f7, and vulnerable to a check by the white Rook.
(4) This may trigger the idea of dropping the white Rook on d7, forking the black King and Bishop.
(5) The idea of a potential fork on d7 might have brought up (again) the idea of kicking the black Knight off c5, leaving that Bishop unprotected.
This somewhat mixed (intuition plus logical thoughts) process seems similar to GM Beim’s idea of the examination [and assessment] of the position (the vulture’s eye view), supplemented by short-term tactics (1-3 moves, not more). That process is not a strict calculation of variations, creating a Tree of Analysis a la Kotov, religiously examining each branch of the tree without repetition.
PART II:
ReplyDelete[Herbert] Simon summarised his results in the following way: “The situation has provided a cue; this cue has given the expert access to information stored in memory, and the information provides the answer […]” whereby “[w]e are aware of the fact of recognition, which gives us access to our knowledge […]; we are not aware of the processes that accomplish the recognition.” [original emphasis]. The goal of this work, then, is to find the perceptual templates that amateurs and professionals have acquired through perceptual learning and that they implement as the basis of their perceptual expertise when playing . . .
For training purposes, we should factor out the simpler ‘patterns’, and then focus our attention on the relationships between those patterns. It is the recognition of the component element patterns AND the interrelationships between them that needs to be stored into System 1 by training.
Is there a guarantee that going through the examination/assessment process using short-term tactics to connect the elements via interrelationships will put these factors into System 1 in such a way as to trigger pattern recognition in similar (yet unknown) positions in the future? NO.
However, given a sufficient number of exercises that are similar in some salient way to the elements/interrelationships identified in THIS position is almost guaranteed to eventually create a generalized abstraction that WILL be recognized. That is how skill is developed over time – focused attention on the cues that are necessary to “see” the contours of the essence (spirit; demands) of the position, and the method(s) to be used to combine those elements into a coherent combination.
Unfortunately, we have no empirical data regarding how many exercises (or the combination of appropriate elements) which will be required in order to subconsciously create the cues that enable us to “see” almost instantly what the salient characteristics (chunks/templates/schemata) that are salient in an unfamiliar position. There are vertical (higher levels of abstraction) as well as horizontal (sufficient numbers of similar examples) dimensions to the training required to build skill.
Memorization of this specific position (pieces-on-squares) is highly unlikely to create a recognition template in LTM. The requirement is repetition of the process of “seeing” (identifying and focusing on) the basic elements/cues, not solving large numbers of problems at warp(ed) speed.
That learning process is not nearly as much fun as playing Puzzle Storm!
The practical difficulty in these types of positions is the "horizon effect" of calculation. In this case you need to see ahead 6 moves for the final payoff, which in turn requires you to fully analyze and spot the "removal of the guard" tactic (b2-b4 kicking the knight) in the position after 4 moves of calculation. Searching the full scope of your mental board at that point is no easy task and requires you to build up visualization and mental board sight abilities in order to effectively use any cues in the posiiton.
ReplyDeleteYou can't do that without having mastered the ABC of tactics.
DeleteA: the whole series of exchanges must be seen as one simple pattern. It is simply forced, and the opponent loses wood if he decides to deviate. The summary of the series of moves is one simple pattern. No matter how many pieces are exchanged, or where they originate. It all happens on one square, and the end result is an opposing king on that very square.
B: is a rook fork. A simple double attack of king and bishop by a rook. You can see that as one pattern. You have seen thousands of them already.
C: is the elimination of the defender. The knight defends both the bishop and the invasion square.
You can't find the solution when you haven't absorbed these three patterns A, B and C to the bone. If you can't see them, you will not be able to calculate this problem. That is where the work lies, absorb these patterns!
Once you see these patterns in this position, it is time to start your calculation. With the aid of system 2, you look for counter attacks and flaws. Can the opponent deviate because he has a more forcing move? In the study room that part is less important. The task at hand is the absorption of the patterns. You can check them with Stockfish, so you are sure the patterns are correct. Without the absorbed patterns, calculation is useless.