The ABC of absorption
Evidently, we look way too complicated at matters.
First, transfer. How does it work? It is very simple. We must automate everything that we use in every single game. If an element doesn't occur once in every say 5 games, it is not worth to absorb. Until you have absorbed everything what is occurring once in every 4 games or less.
For tactics:
- Mates
- Gaining wood
- Preliminary moves
The ABC of tactics. Everything in this realm that is not seen a tempo is not absorbed. For me that is for instance:
4r1k1/2r4p/3p2p1/8/2bN2P1/Pp2qP2/1P1Q4/1K1R3R b - - 0 1
It takes me a few minutes to completely calculate what is happening in this position. Calculation is a system 2 activity. Meaning, the elements are not absorbed (system 1). I'm sure you can find your own positions where your system 2 is making overtime.
What are the elements you should see a tempo:
- The back rank mate
- The white Queen is overloaded (defending c1, c3 and Nc4)
- the interference of the defence of the Knight by Bd3+ (elimination of the defender with tempo)
- The chase of the white King by Bd3+, thus forcing him to abandon the defense of c1
- the overloading of Rd1 since it must defend both c1 and the white Queen
- The wood administration
- the move order
- whites possible defences and their refutations
Once you figured out which elements are present and how the move sequence should go, you visualize all these elements. Repeat the problem with spaced repetition until you see all these elements a tempo once the position is shown.
It is that simple.
Pattern: queen attacks queen protected by rock at back rank made me look for a check at the back rank
ReplyDeletehttps://lichess.org/analysis/2rr3k/4bpR1/p3p2P/4Pb1P/1pPq1P2/4Q3/3NK3/4N1R1_w_-_-_0_1
ReplyDeleteVery good. That is the idea. By associating themes with similar themes in other positions, you build the cues that help you to retrieve the patterns.
DeletePART I:
ReplyDeleteInteresting game (Chess Tempo):
Giroyan, Gary (2382) vs Fang, Yan (2289)
Date: 2012-11-16
Event: WY BU16 2012, Maribor SLO
Round: 9.9
Result: 0-1
Opening: Sicilian Defense, Accelerated Dragon, Modern Bc4 Variation (B35)
Problems: 82629612
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 g6 5. Nc3 Bg7 6. Be3 Nf6 7. Bc4 O-O 8. Bb3 d6 9. f3 Bd7 10. Qd2 Na5 11. h4 Qc7 12. Bh6 Nxb3 13. Nxb3 Bxh6 14. Qxh6 b5 15. O-O-O Rfc8 16. Rd2 b4 17. Nd5 Nxd5 18. exd5 e5 19. dxe6 e.p. Bxe6 20. Qf4 a5 21. Kb1 a4 22. Nd4 b3 23. cxb3 axb3 24. a3 Bc4 25. h5 Qe7 26. g4 Rc5 27. hxg6 fxg6 28. Rdh2 Re8 29. Qd2 Rc7 30. Rd1 Qe3 31. Rhh1 Bd3+ 32. Ka1 Qxd4 0-1
(I could not find problem 82629612 on Chess Tempo.)
While playing Puzzle Storm on lichess.org, I’ve tried to recognize the “essence” of the position and the solution rather than just calculating various candidate moves. After reaching the time limit, I go back over the puzzles one by one. Whether I solved the problem correctly or not, I try to summarize the clues that allow a quick grasp of the solution in its entirety. If I failed the problem, I go over the solution twice, looking for those clues and trying to understand how I could “see” them immediately. While doing this, it often feels like I am seeing common patterns that I have seen before. However, these “patterns” are NOT specific moves or named tactical themes (like fork, pin, skewer, etc.). For purposes of improving SKILL, the “pattern” does not require to be catalogued and named. This is why it is so difficult to pin down what the masters “know” in terms of patterns: the “simple” patterns translate fairly easily into descriptive terms, but the most USEFUL patterns (generally) do not. As a result, what we get in instructional manuals are only the simple stuff that is easy to verbalize. It’s left as an unstated goal for the student to translate from the “simple” stuff to the useful stuff. THAT usually does not happen.
You laid out the essentials of the solution to this example in your post. Unfortunately, a sequential list of key features to be seen implies [I’m NOT saying that is your intention] that the process occurred step-by-step; comprehension of all the factors occurs more or less simultaneously. Each of us my grasp the essence” but would describe what we “see” in a different sequential order. This is an inherent limitation of using words to describe the patterns – massively parallel comprehension (System 1) can only be verbalized via sequential terms. Not faulting you for the description – that’s all we have for describing the process.
PART II:
ReplyDeleteIt is somewhat similar to what John Watson said about the difference between Description Versus Reality (Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy, pg 103):
“Before entering into discussions of specific rules and principles, I should make a simple distinction which applies to my notes as well as anyone else’s. One must always keep in mind the difference between a description of play and the play itself. For all I will say about rejecting rules, it is still true that we must use them as tools when annotating a game.
[Here he gives a long and involved pseudo-annotation to illustrate his point.]”
“Naturally we don’t kill trees for the sake of such explanations, which in reality are usually even more complicated and qualified than the one I have given. Instead, we use abbreviated statements of principles as indicators to guide the reader’s thoughts in the direction of our own. It is very important to realize that a player’s use of such descriptions in written notes by no means implies he had given thought to them during the game. I think there is a great danger here for the student. He or she will pick up a book of annotated games by some world-class player and ASSUME from such general descriptions that “this is the way the great players think”. In reality, most players are unconcerned with giving exact descriptions of their though-processes; it is much easier [and far shorter!] to characterize a position generally, with hindsight, and ignore the gory details.”
It is simple but not obvious at all.
You are way too ambitious. I'm talking about the ABC of tactics here. We don't have absorbed the themes. You can simple prove that for yourself. If you can't solve simple tactics like the one in the diagram above within 2,6 seconds, you haven't absorbed the basic themes. The ABC.
DeleteWhy 2,6 seconds? That was the average time Susan Polgar needed to make a move during her simul exhibition where she scored 96% against 1700 opponents.
There is a special task for system 2 and lists: the blunder check. Or better: the tree of scenarios check. I recognized a mate pattern during a game and I played it. But in the problem there was a rook on g7, so the king couldn't escape. In the game, that square was empty, so the mate attempt looked rather silly. That happened twice, so I lost two games by playing a move without checking what my opponent could do. Enfin, the patterns were absorbed, at least.
DeleteWhat about listing all the motifs/themes that contain this position?
ReplyDelete1) direct attack of the king (check move) and 3 possible methods to defend against this (after 1st move)
2) blocking the line of communication (d-file after 1st move) between Q and N
3) advanced pawn b3 (just 2 rank to promotion)
4) back rank checkmate (restricting the 2nd rank escape by the b3-pawn)
5) back rank potential (black major pieces still on the board and open files)
6) deflection and overloading (Rc1+ motif wins the Q)
7) double attack by the Queen (Qxd3+ attacking the K and N)
8) the control of c2 square after first move (3 attackers vs 2 defenders)
The clear tactical motifs (defined as theory):
1) back rank checkmate motif (without that the deflection and overload would not work)
2) deflection (when the Queen captures the Bishop, we deflect Queens defender by sacrificing the Rook)
3) overloading (the Queen cannot protect the N as the R defending the Q can be deflected)
4) blocking the line/interference (breaking the communication between the Q and N)
5) double attack by the Queen (2. Qxd3 Rc1+ 3. Rxc1 Qxd3+ 4. Ka1 Qxd4) winning the Knight
I am curious what do you think about that? From my perspective it means one needs to master at least BASICS of these motifs to be able to solve this puzzle correctly without missing any lines (winning moves). If you can comment on this position guys as deeply as possible, it would be great. I have the impression that we unconsiously skip some important parts of the complexity as we assume either: "everybody sees that" or "it is obvious". To me, nothing is obvious and I cannot see most of the stuff others can notice immediately.
Your starting point is good enough. But you have to worry about absorption, not about complexity. Learn first the ABC with your system 1. Only when you fully master the ABC, it is time to babble your first words. Use time measurement to guide the absorption. When you see all the themes above within 2,6 seconds, you have absorbed them. Are you slower? You need more exposure to the basic themes. Avoid speed in your training at all costs. Speed is a result, not a method of training.
DeleteThe promotion is irrelevant at the moment. Don't waste your time with that. When you use a themed set with specific promotion problems, it is soon enough to give it its due attention.
Your listing is quite complete, Tomasz!
ReplyDeleteThere is absolutely NO DOUBT in my mind that we each unconsciously skip one or more aspects that seem "obvious" to us when trying to explain what we consciously think is significant (more correctly, what is SALIENT) in a given position. We ignore it because we assume that everyone else "sees" what we see the same way we see it - and vice versa. Reality is never as simple as our (partial) description of it.
The creation of a complete list of motifs/themes is a System 2 activity. (I'm not being pejorative toward using System 2; the less skill one has in a particular area, the more likely System 2 must be used to compensate.) I think the point is to avoid using System 2 (as much as possible; there are times when we MUST use System 2, either because of our lack of skill or because of the extreme level of complexity of the situation) in favor of training System 1 to "SEE" the "essence" (the contours of the solution) without making lists of any kind. That does require mastery of the basic motifs/themes; more explicitly, the ABSORPTION of all those motifs/themes into System 1 (subconscious level). It is fundamentally thinking (massively parallel processing) without thinking (sequential step-by-step processing).
If analyzing and annotating, then an exhaustive listing of ALL potential motifs/themes may be a good thing to do to ensure that no possibilities (regardless of how remotely connected to the specifics) are overlooked. By all means, write the entire list down.
If playing, I think trying to identify and list EVERYTHING leads to a step-by-step process (System 2) which will inevitably be slow and error-prone, without ensuring that EVERYTHING that needs to be seen HAS been seen. Once you "see" the "solution," there is no point in listing everything; just execute it.
It is similar to Kotov's Tree of Analysis. Very few people are capable of holding the entire Tree in memory. Inevitably, some small portion of it gets pushed out of working memory, resulting (usually) in blunders that "should" have been obvious to "see". In all probability, the entire Tree could have been seen (at one point or another in the analysis).
For example, I think Chuzhakin's system of listing the Hazardous Elements is fairly complete. I also think that it is too long and complicated for practical over-the-board use. Any system that requires going through a long list of factors and keeping track of various numerical values will probably be too complex for the human mind to use under conditions of time pressure in critical situations. This is the idea behind research into natural decision-making processes (see Gary Klein, Source of Power). Skilled chess players use recognition-primed decision processes which depend on intuitive pattern recognition (System 1).