Logical mini tasks
The past months have convinced me that I learn the right things in the right way. Which is:
- Tactics, for the moment focussing on mates
- 4 movers of the most frequent mates (after finishing the 3 movers)
- Focussing on the chess logic
I certainly make progress, but I'm not convinced that I use the most efficient way to absorb the knowledge, though. If you look at the progress of chess prodigies when they were 1700 rated, then an advance of 100 points per year is quite normal. That is not the rate at which I'm advancing yet. Of course, chess prodigies have their coaches, which help them to figure out to overcome their shortcomings. I must figure out everything myself. What are my shortcomings, what is the best training material, which openings to play, how to absorb relevant endgame knowledge et cetera. I will fill the gabs in due time.
But back to tactics,
 |
| Black to move |
4rk2/Q3b3/1B4p1/1N1B3p/2P4P/P5rq/5K2/5R2 b - - 1 1
[solution]
The first move is only clear when you see the logic behind it. With just trial and error it is difficult to find. 1. ... Rf3+ serves two goals:
- It sacs the rook which closes the f-line. So when the white king is chased into his coffin, it doesn't give an accidental discovered check.
- It clears the h4-e1 diagonal for the black bishop
It comes with tempo, which is a good habit.
The second move 1. ... Rf3+ 2. Bxf3 Qh2+ serves two goals:
- It chases the king into the discovered attack of the rook on e8
- It eyes towards the point of pressure d2, where it cooperates with the black bishop
It comes with tempo, which is a good habit.
The third move 1. ... Rf3+ 2. Bxf3 Qh2+ 3.Ke1 Bb4++ serves on goal:
- It chases the white king into its coffin
It comes with double check, which is a good habit.
As you can see, the logical mini tasks are pretty common. A sac to close a line of attack, clearance of a diagonal, positioning an attacker on a line of attack et cetera. All moves with tempo. All moves are geared around the PoPLoAFun system. Which is for mate extended with everything around the killbox.
I don't waste too much time with finding the solution myself, that is for later, maybe. The amount of logical mini tasks is definite finite. But is this the most efficient way to absorb them?
As you imply, devoting too much time to determining the exact solution is counter-productive for increasing skill. Instead, putting the emphasis on working through the logical process (while noting the salient features) is the best way to gain skill to be used when encountering new (to you) problems, whether separate from a game context or during a game.
ReplyDeleteIn a previous (professional) life, I learned a very valuable lesson regarding the salient difference between amateurs and professionals. This holds true across any and all fields of endeavor, including chess. In essence it is this:
Use the “work” you are doing as the basis for learning something from working on the current problem(s) that will be useful in future (unknown at the time) situations that may be solved by using similar process.
This idea of learning something useful in every situation that may be useful for solve FUTURE problems (as well as solving the current problem) comes from Gerald Weinberg's book, The Psychology of Computer Programming. He distinguishes between the amateur and professional programmer based on how they approach solving problems, NOT by whether they are paid to do it, which is the usual interpretation of the amateur/professional difference.
The amateur tries to solve the immediate problem as quickly as possible with the least amount of effort, with no thought given to how to apply that same process to future (similar) problems. The professional, on the other hand, tries to learn as much as possible from the current problem, with an eye toward learning the ESSENCE of the problem (developing a more abstract view based on principles rather than specifics) and an appropriate approach to the process of finding the solution so that (potentially) that same approach can be applied to future similar problems. It involves leveraging your effort NOW to gain FUTURE benefits.
For instance, many “professional” programmers are actually just “amateurs” who are paid to code “solutions”, but who do NOT practice professionally while doing their work. They never even consider leveraging the current work assignment as a learning environment for future work. Those who are real professionals inevitably develop a “toolbox” containing shortcuts that they use to reduce or eliminate the amount of time wasted “reinventing the wheel.” If they have solved a similar problem, they can usually generate a solution considerably faster and more accurately; the hard work was done the first time they encountered a similar problem. [An aside: I still have my “toolbox” of approximately 8,000 lines of code snippets from my programming career, in addition to my mental “toolbox” of how to approach solving various types of problems.]
So, my “answer” to your rhetorical question:
But is this the most efficient way to absorb them?
is a resounding
YES!
I was belatedly struck by something "obvious" (after my previous comment on this problem):
ReplyDeleteNeither of us followed Kotov's recommended process in arriving at a solution.
GM Beim boiled down Kotov's theory of calculating variations to four steps [How to Calculate Chess Tactics: A revealing look at the nuts and bolts of chess thought, pg 64].
"1) In beginning our calculations, we must first of all list all of the possible moves in the position — the ‘candidate moves’ — so as to ensure that we do not overlook some important possibility.
“2) Having done this, we then calculate each variation in turn. . . .
“3) All of the possible lines can be pictured as a ‘tree of variations’.
“4) The main rule in calculating is that the player must train himself during a game to go over each branch of the tree only once and must not be tempted to return to lines he has already looked at.”
I went back to Gary Klein’s excellent book on decision making, Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions to review decision making processes.
Kotov’s process follows very closely the classical [academically recommended] process for arriving at an important decision. Klein proposes the following generic four-stage model which closely approximates the traditional models of problem solving:
1. Define the problem.
2. Generate a course of action.
3. Evaluate the course of action.
4. Carry out the course of action.
[There are several problems with this approach, not the least of which is an ill-defined problem and insufficient time to solve it, but I won’t chase that rabbit at this point.]
We didn’t follow this Kotovian logical sequence of steps!
Instead, we more closely followed GM Tisdall’s process of ‘variation processing’ (which mirrors Klein’s ‘recognition-primed decision model’ in a lot of ways). In essence, based on patterns, experience and intuition, pick the most likely course of action and mentally simulate (in other words, calculate ahead) what the likely consequence(s) will be. If we perceive an insurmountable problem, pick a different course of action and try again. As soon as a satisfactory solution is found, execute it. At no point is there a direct comparison of two or more alternatives.
The ‘logical’ course of action led to a satisfactory solution of the problem without any consideration of all possible ‘candidate moves’.
As GM Anatoly Lein opined to GM Jonathan Rowson: “I don’t think like a tree; do you?”