The human mind is very economical with its resources. In stead of working with a perfect copy in the mind which represent an object, it works with the essence of that very object. An object is summarized as it were to its essential functions. If you imagine a coffee machine before your minds eye, you don't see a detailed copy of it. In stead you see the rough contours, the idea of a container for the water, the placeholder for the filter, the can for catching the coffee, the heat element and some kind of control panel. You don't see any details, but you know what each function does. So you can talk with anyone about it, and you both will understand what you are talking about.
If you take a chess position with a tactical combination, and you close your eyes, the same happens. You don't see the the details of the board or the pieces, but you see the roles they are playing. And you can perfectly manipulate the essence of the pieces and the board, without the need to see any detail. This way you can see the essence of the combination, without being bothered by the details. I think this is the stuff system 1 works with.
As the modern tendency continues to ‘move’ (pun intended) toward more salient concrete lines/variations/plans at every stage of the game, the mind (System 1) continues to abstract, categorize and focus on the essence (the crux, the gist, whatever term you prefer) rather than specific surface level (physical) details (the pieces, their shapes and sizes, the color of the squares, pieces-on-squares, etc.). The emphasis on "concreteness" (perhaps specificity rather than generality would be more accurate) of System 1 ‘thought’ is correct, but the terminology misleads the unsuspecting to believe that it's all about "concrete" moves. The actual moves are a mere manifestation of the result of grasping (or NOT grasping) the ineffable essence of each specific position and the appropriate means to an end. Demonstrate your mastery by your moves, but realize that mastery is (for all intents and purposes) incapable of being put into words. If it were, there would be a lot more masters than there are now, not just in chess, but in every field.
ReplyDeleteThat is the point of IM John Watson’s distinction in the section Description Versus Reality in his great book Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy: Advances since Nimzowitsch:
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. Thus, for example, there is no substitute for saying something like: “and Black stands better because of his two bishops and White’s backward pawn on the open d-file.” One simply has to bear in mind that such a statement has an implied subtext, for example: “Black stands better because, although there are many cases of two bishops being inferior, this is not one of them, since the knights in this particular position have no useful outposts and White can’t play the pawn-break that might force a transformation of the pawn structure leading to the creation of an outpost (or he could do so, but at the cost of allowing a strong attack against his king, as shown by this variation…., etc.). Also, although backward pawns are perfectly acceptable in many positions, the one in this exact position is actually weak because it lacks the protection of a bishop on e2 and White can’t implement the dynamic pawn-breaks by b4 or d4 which would normally justify taking on such a backward pawn. For example, 23 b4 would fail to …”, and so forth.
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. [Emphasis added.] I think there is a great danger for the student here. 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 payers think.” In reality, most payers are unconcerned with giving exact descriptions of their thought-processes; it is much easier to characterize a position generally, with hindsight, and ignore the gory details. For those who want something more revealing, although difficult, I recommend Jon Speelman’s excellent collection (see the Bibliography), which provides a refreshing dose of reality for those who think they can get by on general considerations alone.
Speelman, J: Jon Speelman’s Best Games, B.T. Batsford 1997
The problem is that GM's write books and coach with system 2, while they play chess with system 1.
Delete