The only way to educate system 1 is via system 2. There is no other way. What does that mean?
Chess is too complicated to let system 2 solve problems on the fly during a game. System 2 is simply too slow for that. What we need is bite sized logic, ready to apply to our game.
These logical modules must be generated during study time. How does that look like?
 |
| Black to move |
Whites last move was 4.Nh4
What does white want? White wants to trade his knight for a black bishop. Why? Because that makes black weak on the white squares.
What is the follow up? Say that black plays 4. ... Bg6 5.Nxg6 hxg6. Now what?
 |
| White to move |
There are two ways to change the balance of a game in an irreversible way. Pawn moves and piece exchanges. After this trade, white must activate his light squared bishop. He does so by placing his pawns on the dark squares, and by loosening the black pawns on the light squares.
 |
| Black to move |
This idea stems from the Colle-Zukertort by GM Simon Williams (Chessable).
- c4 attacks the long diagonal.
- Qb3 does this too.
- g3 and Bg2 extend the reach of the light squared bishop.
- Nd2 prepares the break e4.
Everything is designed to make whites light squared bishop more active because he has no black counterpart to resist him on the light squares.
Of course this is not about whether you like to play this opening this way or not. It is about a logical idea that is actually position and opening independent.
In this way, we copy ideas from grandmasters and generalize them. This is done in the study room, and we trust that system 1 has paid attention and comes up with this idea during a game whenever it can be applied. Of Course system 2 decides during the game whether it is appropriate or not.
Our mind needs a database of these positional ideas. As mentioned, system 2 is simply not fast enough to invent these ideas during a game. The task of system 1 is to retrieve these ideas, while system 2 decides whether these ideas are applicable during the game.
I have read the Art of Attack in Chess of Vukovic a few times. What I felt was that I needed to fill the gap between the openings I play and the attack on the King. I have opening books of every opening I play, so I have all the positional ideas ready available on a grandmasterly level. The only thing I need to do is to generalize these ideas, so that they become variation and position independent.
That way I can play the openings based on ideas and not on variations. Which I tend to forget when I need them anyway. Or which become silly when I play them but don't know why.
Which positional ideas do we need?
We have two tools to find out:
The clock tells us when we need too much time to find an idea. Time usage indicates a system 2 that has no clue.
The same is true for tunnel vision. When system 2 has entered a tunnel, this means that system 1 is not educated in that area. These problems, excessive time usage and tunnel vision, can only be fixed in the study room.
The logical tree
After you have generated and generalized the necessary positional ideas, you have to design a logical tree which can be used to guide system 2 during a game. System 2 is too slow to invent that each and every time during a game. Only when system 2 is guided, system 1 can do its job and retrieve whatever it thinks that is needed.
.
ReplyDeleteThe game of your last post you lost because of a missing blundercheck. Positional Ideas you can find at HTRYC, My System, Euwes Middlegame. Valeri BronznikAnatoli TerekhinTechniques of Positional Play ...
ReplyDeleteI worked my way several times through HTRYC, My System and Euwes Middlegame. To no avail. The problem is not a lack of positional ideas, but how to make it your own. Take for instance HTRYC. With a long checklist of 10 imbalances it is not practical during OTB play. There is simply no time for that. In other words, system 2 is too slow. And if the position is about only one imbalance, the other imbalances are redundant. You can't permit to perform redundant checks during a game.
DeleteSystem 1 is the tool that you need for this. But you can't educate system 1 directly. This post is about educating system 1 via system 2. That needs an exact approach.
Indeed I need a blunder check. That is a good sign. I read a scientific paper lately that if you learn a new word in French, you tend to forget that very same word in German. I'm so busy with positional stuff, that I forget to check for tactical stuff. It is a matter of tunnel vision.
Just understanding is not enough. You need deep understanding. You will not find the positional idea of this post in HTRYC. You might be able to create this idea from the 10 imbalances, but that is an effort of system 2. Which you must do in the study room and not behind the board.
DeleteTemps said : "With a long checklist of 10 imbalances it is not practical during OTB play."
DeleteThere are 32 pieces at the board but we know allways how much we are up or down in material. Thats done by "updating". The critical moves for material change are promotion and capture. The critical moves for positional changes are pawnmoves and captures/exchanges. Positional thoughts can/should be done while the opponent has to move. So puting it together.. there is plenty of time
HTRYC is not going to help me in the position of the post. The imbalances have both a lot of redundancy and shortcomings which makes the system impractical for me. If it works for you, cherish it.
DeleteAfter an exchange Bishop vs Knight, the Owner of the Bishop attacks at the color of the Bishop without counterpart and opens the Center. Thats common knowledge
DeleteWhat I have seen thus far from the Colle, is that there are about 30 to 40 ideas that I can abstrahere from the Colle and generalize them. Only then I will be able to play the Colle without memorizing any variation. Simply because I understand what I'm doing. I expect that when I will do the same with the French, I will find many ideas that are already formulated in the Colle.
ReplyDelete