Temposchlucker

 System 1 educates itself by looking over the shoulder of system 2. This implies that the only thing that we have to worry about is to educate system 2 well. If system 2 occupies itself with useful chess logic with a high frequency of occurrence, both systems will thrive. How does that look like? Black to move 8/5N2/6P1/3p4/B7/3nPkP1/1r6/6K1 b - - 0 1 [ solution ] The first thing is that you have to see what the position is about. You need to have the checkmate patterns under your belt. Only when you SEE the salient cue "Arabian mate", you can build some logic around it. 3 movers are fit to learn the patterns. But after you master those, 4 movers are very good to build your chess logic.  Without the salient clue "Arabian mate", you will have to resort to trial and error. Which probably will fail which these 4 movers. The Arabian mate is usually in the corner of the board. But the walls of the killbox can be anything. As long as the enemy king cannot pass the walls.

 What's the role of logic? In order to educate the vulture, it must look over the shoulder of system 2. That only can be propitious when system 2 does something useful. The PoPLoAFun system is helpful for a logical approach to a problem by system 2. How does that work? Diagram 1. Black to play 4r1k1/pp3p1p/5Qp1/5n2/3B4/3R1K1P/P2R1P2/2q5 b - - 0 1  [ solution ] The king is in a potential killbox. As long as you are not in check AND you are able to give checks yourself, you can ignore your opponents static pieces. Only the dynamic pieces that can interfere with the lines of attack need to be considered. But I bet you aren't able to ignore the mate in 1 from white 😉 The first thing is to prevent the escape from the white king to g2. So you look for a check that covers g2 at the same time. There are two moves. 1.. ... Qc6+ and 1. ... Qh1+ White can have an influence on the former by 2.Qxc6, so let's consider the latter. 1. ... Qh1+ 2.Kf4 leads to a simple mate in two with 2

 The past 18 years quite a few facts have presented themselves. All facts need to be met by any theory about chess improvement. What do we know? Papa Polgar proved that talent is not needed when the right education is provided Ton Sijbrands was a champion in checkers, but a mediocre chess player. So it is not a brain thing. He learned chess at a much later age than checkers. So a brain change by aging might be involved. When you learn a Spanish word, you are inclined to forget the same word in German. So the age thing might be a replacement thing of a full brain. From Troyis we learned that you can learn to manipulate knight moves in the brain in a grandmasterly manner. When you plateau in Troyis you can go in two different directions: exercise to make your current skills better or develop a new strategy and make that a new skill. Susan Polgar's simul exhibition showed that it is a skill trick. There is no thinking involved. Mr. Z learned us that visualization must be guided by a l