Temposchlucker

  How do chess prodigies get their teachings when super grandmasters are not able to coach them? I stumbled upon this  serendipity and made this half serious and half with tongue in cheek statement. But the ensuing comments showed that I might try to develop a hypothesis from this. Basic tactics. Tactics with a name (black and white) Advanced tactics. Tactics with no name (50 shades of grey) Basic positional play. Manoeuvres with a name   (black and white) Advanced manoeuvres. Manoeuvres with no name (50 shades of grey) Basic knowledge. Knowledge with a name    (black and white) Advanced knowledge. Knowledge with no name (50 shades of grey) The first four points, I reckon to be skill. The last two are knowledge, evidently. I master points 1, 3 and 5 to a certain degree. And I assume that that applies to most adult plateauing club players. I have some black and white skills, and some black and white knowledge. I reckon that from candidate masters and higher, they master point 1 to 5 to

 Now I have decided on my openings, it is just a matter of time to master them. With daily exercise I suppose to be in a much better shape at the end of the year, when I projected a nine day tournament. On the other end of the spectrum, I do daily exercises with the nine most frequent occurring mates. I expect to master them too fully at the end of the year. So I'm closing in on the middlegame from two sides. There are only two works about the middlegame that I'm aware of that try to dive deeper in the theory behind the middlegame: My System of Nimzowitsch and the Art of Attack in Chess of Vukovic. My System seems to be gearing around blockading pawns and to encircle and undermine them. Be it in the opening (hypermodern), the middlegame (blockading the center) or the endgame (undermining the pawn blockade and creating a passer). While The Art of Attack in Chess is dedicated to the attack on the king, especially inspired by both Alekhine and Capablanca. The Art of Attack in Ches

 The first area of attention is the killbox. Is there already a killbox, or must you erect the walls first? Is the king already in the killbox, or must you chase him into it? Have you already access to the killbox or must you pry it open with a sacrifice first? All normal tactics can play a role. Like double attack, discovered attack, clearance, pin, blockade, lure, magnet et cetera. Tempo moves are extremely important. 80% are checks, the rest mostly threatening mate in one. Capture is irrelevant. What patterns and logic plays a role with a killbox? A few examples Diagram 1. Black to move. Mate in 3 6k1/1p4n1/8/2RPQ3/4p3/P3qbP1/7K/2R5 b - - 1 1  [ solution ] Here you must divide the killzone first. The white king must decide in which killbox he wants to be mated. The black queen  must split the killzone by a double attack, where the double attack means delivering mate in killbox 1 or in killbox 2. This splitting is a common theme. Diagram 2. Black to move. Mate in 3 3r2k1/2p2pb1/1p1r3

 On my quest to obtain chess logic I'm constantly experimenting. Can you describe the chess logic that leads to the solution of this composition? White to move. Mate in two. 8/5r2/7Q/R2q1b2/2pkpbR1/8/2P5/K2N2Nr w - - 0 9  UPDATE Escape room The first area of attention is the escape room of the black king. The only square he can escape to is e5. So the first question that arises is: Is there a move that covers both d4 (target) and e5 (escape square). There is no need to vulture around and write an essay about what we SEE in the rest of the position. Mate ends the game. Prof. Adriaan de Groot proved that a grandmaster considers way less moves than an amateur. Grandmaster are faster because they consider less. They can't be faster in another way. There are two pieces that can cover both d4 and e5. Namely Ng1 and Qh6. Line of attack The second area of attention are the LoA's. Let us start with the knight. 1.Nf3 does the job. Are there any obstacles on the line of attack? That b

 I finally completed a study plan for my opening repertoire. I'm not sure how long it took to develop it. Probably about four years or so. But finally I plugged the most apparent gaps. This is my choice: White London (53) Colle (83) Black French (99) Benoni (45) QID (40) Between brackets you find the amount of necessary variations (total 320)  These were the criteria: Consistent with the Art of Attack in Chess. In the sense that you have a decent chance for an attack. When I screw up the attack a chance to convert to a good endgame Not popular Underestimated Clear plans Low on theoretical lines Incomprehensible for lower rated players Openings must complement each other No overlap between openings Sound Playable for the rest of my life It was a lot of work to make all the choices. Now it's time to actually learn them.  In July and December I have a nine day chess tournament. I aim at to complete my preparation before the tournament in december. 320 variations in 220 dagen. Soun

 Take the following diagram Black to move. 5k2/8/7K/2rn4/1p5p/1R6/2p3PP/2R5 b - - 1 1  [ solution ] If you look at the move 1. ... Nf4, you see that this move accomplishes three logical tasks covering h5, which is a point of pressure covering g6, which is a wall of the box clearing the 4th rank for the black rook, which forms a part of the wall. Can you see how these logical considerations of system 2 might inspire system 1 to work its miracles?

 It is not very common that logic is used as the main source for moves. That may sound counter intuitive. But if you look around at club level, you will find lots of evidence that it is true. Take for instance the fact that everybody of adult age is plateauing for years, despite considerable efforts to get better. Why is that? In the first place, chess is so overwhelmingly complex, that the mind is easily confused. And a confused mind cannot think logically. Secondly, chess players are addicted to variations. They cannot walk alongside a chess board without their mind going haywire. The main technique that is used is trial and error. Which is not based on logic. Furthermore, logical reasoning requires a bit more effort than trial and error. The mind is so wired, that it avoids the use of mental resources that require higher energy. It prefers to assign lower energy. Even if the price is a vast amount of lower energy. Apparently, lower mental energy is cheaper than higher level mental

[disclaimer: boring stuff ahead]  When I start a post, often I'm surprised where it is heading. I just follow my logical reasoning as much as possible. The effect of this is that I'm always right. Since when I'm not right, I rigorously change my opinion. That makes life easy, chesswise. Although I apply this principle to every aspect in life. This approach has a few consequences though. It comes with obligations. The price of always being right is to act accordingly . If I conclude that the HAD is not in line with my newly acquired insights, I must look for another opening that is in line with these insights. You can't be always right AND lazy. My approach is always rather naive. It looks a bit like my lower rated opponents when I used to play the Kings Gambit. When I played 2.f4, you saw them thinking: "he offers a free pawn AND he is higher rated, so I better not take it". Usually after half an hour or so you saw them thinking: "hey, a free pawn on f4,