I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.
Mate in 2 compositions
Get link
Facebook
X
Pinterest
Email
Other Apps
In order to train the relation between chess logic, visualisation and system 1, I'm looking for a (digital) dataset with hard to solve chess compositions of mate in two problems. Think of this caliber:
The idea is to focus on the absorption of chess logic in system 1. Compositions don't appear in real games, but it are hard nuts for chess logic and visualization.
Finding a solution to this problem is irrelevant to the request for assistance; I acknowledge THAT.
That said, the salient visual cues are the abundance of opportunities for applying either the Gueridon, Epaulette or Dovetail Mate, depending on Black's initial move. The essential "problem" is figuring out how to get the White Queen to "jump over" the White Rook—or some other way to enable the Queen to reach the needed focal point (hint! hint!)—AND prevent the Black King from slipping out of the box. Since the Queen must reach one of many potential focal points, the initial move is (severely?) constrained.
Fascinating hypothesis regarding the training of System 1 to "SEE" the cues! If the cues are named themes (already stored in memory), it makes the process of anchoring the cues into System 1 easier and more likely to succeed. In other words, it supports the natural “story-telling” of System 1.
We were talking a lot about analogies, categories and a higher level of abstraction in the past as the base for pattern recognition.
If I remember well, it was Silman in HTRYC who said, that if you are playing a game, and somebody draws you away from the board, you must be able to give a lecture about the position during ten minutes.
You remember that I complained that I could not apply my usual logical thinking to chess. That it took me ten minutes to realize that I had to look for the defender of a B.A.D. (Barely Adequate Defended) piece after I had realized that the piece was BAD.
We talked a lot about narratives as the nec plus ultra guide for visualisation in blindfold chess.
This all and more combines to the hypothesis that we need to absorb the little stories that belong to tactical motifs in system 1. So we can concoct a logical story for any tactical position AT LIGHTNING SPEED. The stories are branches hanging from the tree of tactical scenarios.
With the narrative as our guide we can both calculate and visualize the subsequent positions. Imagine the gain in speed when we absorb the standard stories that belong to the tactical motifs in system 1 !!
The eye of the spiralling vulture is limited. It cannot see three different endpoints at the same time In order to do that, you must guide the vultures eye by a little narrative, so it can see the three endpoints one by one.
https://sites.google.com/site/edusadier/theartofdirectmateintwomoves
ReplyDeleteThanks!
DeleteThe idea is to focus on the absorption of chess logic in system 1. Compositions don't appear in real games, but it are hard nuts for chess logic and visualization.
I suggest sorting them for number of peaces, which is almost identically to sorting for length of pgn
DeleteFinding a solution to this problem is irrelevant to the request for assistance; I acknowledge THAT.
ReplyDeleteThat said, the salient visual cues are the abundance of opportunities for applying either the Gueridon, Epaulette or Dovetail Mate, depending on Black's initial move. The essential "problem" is figuring out how to get the White Queen to "jump over" the White Rook—or some other way to enable the Queen to reach the needed focal point (hint! hint!)—AND prevent the Black King from slipping out of the box. Since the Queen must reach one of many potential focal points, the initial move is (severely?) constrained.
Fascinating hypothesis regarding the training of System 1 to "SEE" the cues! If the cues are named themes (already stored in memory), it makes the process of anchoring the cues into System 1 easier and more likely to succeed. In other words, it supports the natural “story-telling” of System 1.
We were talking a lot about analogies, categories and a higher level of abstraction in the past as the base for pattern recognition.
ReplyDeleteIf I remember well, it was Silman in HTRYC who said, that if you are playing a game, and somebody draws you away from the board, you must be able to give a lecture about the position during ten minutes.
You remember that I complained that I could not apply my usual logical thinking to chess. That it took me ten minutes to realize that I had to look for the defender of a B.A.D. (Barely Adequate Defended) piece after I had realized that the piece was BAD.
We talked a lot about narratives as the nec plus ultra guide for visualisation in blindfold chess.
This all and more combines to the hypothesis that we need to absorb the little stories that belong to tactical motifs in system 1. So we can concoct a logical story for any tactical position AT LIGHTNING SPEED. The stories are branches hanging from the tree of tactical scenarios.
With the narrative as our guide we can both calculate and visualize the subsequent positions. Imagine the gain in speed when we absorb the standard stories that belong to the tactical motifs in system 1 !!
The eye of the spiralling vulture is limited. It cannot see three different endpoints at the same time In order to do that, you must guide the vultures eye by a little narrative, so it can see the three endpoints one by one.
ReplyDelete