Modelling clay
The result of my investigations during the latest tournament is twofold. I devised a method to educate system 1 by letting system 2 create a PoPLoAFun based logical framework for the middlegame. I haven't created that framework yet, because it takes a lot of time, But I expect that within a few months or so, I will have a logical framework ready for the middlegame that is usable for the Colle-Zukertort. Since I have adopted five new openings, it will take five times a few months to cover the spectrum of all openings that I play.
I'm quite happy with the PoPLoAFun system now, since it is perfectly suited for the gap between the opening and the moment that Vukovic kicks in. I'm sure it will earn me a lot of points.
The second discovery that I did, was that there is another gap in my chess education besides the battle of the LoA's, and that is the tempo battle. I wrote about that here. The PoPLoAFun system is not very suited for describing the tempo battle, so I'm going to preserve that term just for the battle of the LoA's.
I'm going to develop a totally new framework for the tempo battle. I have no idea how that will look like, but I'm going to do it anyway.
When I made these discoveries, I was convinced that I cracked the method for adult chess improvement. Especially when I manage to tackle the tempo battle, I suspect that that will lead to an enormous improvement.
Are we there yet?
I'm not quite sure. The methods still have to be proven. And I have a track record of being too optimistic, and to let details surprise me at the last moment. I have found an answer to all important questions that accumulated during the past 23 years. Hence I must be pretty close. But adult learning is not the same as child prodigy learning, and I cannot predict where exactly the differences lie.
Since my illness I walk with a cane. Before, I used to walk every weekend about 20 kilometers. All my hobbies were outdoors, and every excursion I did required a reasonable physical condition. Now I have trouble to walk the 400 meters from the bus station to the tournament hall.
So I had to reinvent my hobbies, since I could not do the old ones anymore. Hence I took chess from the backburner, and placed it upfront. But since both my day job and studying chess require a lot of sitting in a chair behind a computer screen, I decided to look for a hobby that is more physical and that does not require an enormous brain effort or screen. Hence I started a course clay modelling. Which is really fun.
When I made a model of a face, I noticed that it always looked like a grumpy old man. I decided to dedicate a few lessons purely to try to model a female face, but somehow I always end up with a grumpy old man. I realized that something weird is going on. Although I perfectly can recognize a female face, I cannot describe what it is what makes it feminine. Apparently I know it with system 1, but I cannot translate it to system 2. And since I cannot do that, system 2 cannot give my hands the commands to make a female face. And even after trying for a few lessons, I cannot do it.
How has my system 1 learned to recognize feminine characteristics so well with my system 2 being so ignorant about it? It seems to have a lot of resemblance with chess prodigies who learn to play chess without knowing how they do it.
I don't know whether this has any meaning or adds any restrictions to adult chess improvement, but I'm sure I'm going to find out.
After that, I will try to change the age.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMuOsMa8mQc
ReplyDeleteFrom bardAI [searching for “difference between man and woman face”; obvious, of course]:
ReplyDeleteThe differences between male and female faces are influenced by many biological and non-biological factors in complex interactions with the genome. Due to the biological differences between men and women, foreheads, eyes, eyebrows, noses, chins, jawlines, cheeks, and lips generally develop differently in the two genders. For instance, men generally tend to have stronger foreheads, higher, broader, and more protruded due to the shape of their forehead frontal bone. Women, on the other hand, tend to have a more rounded face, with bigger eyes and higher eyebrows.
It’s important to note that while there are some general differences between male and female facial features, it’s not that simple to generalize all facial features to a specific gender. Many of us may have one or more rather similar facial features to those of the opposite sex, which is pretty normal. Yet, a combination of these features and their relation to each other can usually give a person a feminine or masculine look1.
If you’re interested in learning more about the differences between male and female facial features, you can check out this article [Note 1] which reviews the 8 parts of the face that mainly differ between males and females. It also explains how artists use these facial differences to better depict and differentiate a male or female portrait. Alternatively, you can check out this article [Note 2] which describes the general differences between a masculine and feminine face, focusing on specific features, including the nose, eyebrows, lips, forehead, cheeks, and chin.
[Note 1] — https://ariamedtour.com/blogs/male-vs-female-facial-features/ = What Makes Our Faces Look Feminine or Masculine?
“Due to the biological differences between men and women, foreheads, eyes, eyebrows, noses, chins, jawlines, cheeks, and lips generally develop differently in the two genders. These differences are observed in size, shape, structure, proportions, and the relations of the different face parts to each other.”
For chess, consider size to be relative material, structure to be the pawn structure and piece placement, proportions to be the distribution of forces in a local area of the board, and the relations of the different face parts to each other to be PoPLoAFun. That is my own interpretation; you may “SEE” those ‘analogies’ quite differently.
[Note 2] — https://bingedrawing.com/portrait/drawing-male-vs-female-faces/ = Drawing Male Vs. Female Faces
Thanks for the links.
DeleteWhat surprised me was that I perfectly recognize the differences, while I cannot name them with system 2. The recognition is pure subconscious. And I don't remember that I learned them.
Going WAY out of a limb here. . .
ReplyDeleteTemposchlucker wrote:
“Although I perfectly can recognize a female face, I cannot describe what it is what makes it feminine. Apparently I know it with system 1, but I cannot translate it to system 2. And since I cannot do that, system 2 cannot give my hands the commands to make a female face. And even after trying for a few lessons, I cannot do it.”
And also:
“What surprised me was that I perfectly recognize the differences, while I cannot name them with system 2. The recognition is pure subconscious. And I don't remember that I learned them.”
This “recognition” functionality is “built-in” to System 1; you had no need to formally learn or name the differences. “Naming” is of no significance with regard to SKILL; only in relation to KNOWLEDGE. One of the insights I got from Douglas Hofstadter is that there are a vast number of categories that are unnamed – and we operate using them with no difficulty, indeed, without giving them a “second thought” [System 2nd]. (Sorry, I’m in a “pun-ny” mood.)
Relax and stop trying to force System 2 to do all the work. System 2 has NO need to be involved in a right-brain activity and really has nothing that it can contribute. A very strong (possibly contradictory) statement, I know, but consider this: if you tried to use System 2 to control how you walk, you will not walk very good, if at all. Do you remember and can name all of the motor movements necessary to walk smoothly? I certainly doubt it!
This “problem” points back to some of the insights gleaned from Dr. Betty Edward’s book Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain: A course in enhancing creativity and artistic confidence.
System 2 wants to take control; that’s what it does, because it is much “louder” than System 1 AND we trust it explicitly (for reason’s sake). Unfortunately, as long as System 2 is allowed to stay in control, System 1 cannot provide the “inSIGHT” that is necessary for drawing/shaping/whatever that is needed for artistic [right brain, intuitive, artistic, etc.] endeavors.
Relaxing System 2’s dictatorial control and allowing System 1 to produce what it already knows how to do requires a leap of faith. It runs counter to everything we “think” should happen via our “thinking” process.
Instead of using System 2 to “command” your hands to make a female face, try to “SEE” in your mind’s eye (System 1) what you want to create and then allow System 1 to control what you do with your hands. This requires “trusting” that System 1 CAN do the job without your direct conscious (System 2) control. Simply “LOOK” at the evolving shape and adjust it to match what System 1 tells you looks “more feminine.” [Yeah, I know: a lot easier said than done!]
The insights from that Edwards’ book significantly improved my drawing ability – and, I think, my ability to be more creative while playing chess. It also enhanced my ability to improvise music “off the cuff”, without any sheet music or preplanned riffs, on multiple different instruments (but NOT playing all instruments at the same time – i.e., walking and chewing gum simultaneously; I can’t do THAT!). I just play the music I “HEAR” in my head (which is just another form of “SEEing”) as the music progresses, without trying to anticipate where it is going and without trying to force the music to follow what System 2 [knowledge] says it “should” sound like.
There is no doubt in my mind that the logic of system 2 must guide system 1, preventing it from wandering around cluelessly. That is simply based on my observations. Although I know that that is right, I also know that it doesn't provide the complete picture. Hence this post.
DeleteI don't look at system 2 as dictatorial or too loud. Yet it has its issues. One issue is its tunnel vision, which I no longer consider to be a problem. It is just a signal that system 1 isn't educated in that area yet. The other issue is its habhit to sabotage all mental activity when there are insufficient explanations. I can't shut up system 2 by just saying ÿou can't know that". But after any reasonable explanation, it will shut up and accept that it can't do or know something.
Yesterday I modeled my first female face. And it is exactly as you said. I saw the face before my minds eye, and my hands sculpted the face accordingly. Without any interfering of system 2.
The observation of how it worked was very clear. So the question is, what, if any, is the role of system 2. Again I found that the role of system 2 is to guide system 1. Without guidance, system 1 might recognize an ape in the clay, and starts to model apes. Or an hippopotamus, for that matter.
In the next post, I will try to explain what I mean. And how that looks in chess.
Sorry about that deleted comment: I left something out.
ReplyDeleteAnother (simple) example from lichess.org [Problem #PgCV1]:
FEN: r2qr1k1/4bp1p/p1p2np1/3p2B1/8/2N2Q2/PPP2PPP/R3R1K1 w - - 2 16
The f6-square is B.A.D. [2:2]. The e7-square is not B.A.D. [1:2]. The e8-square is not B.A.D. [1:3]. Everything will revolve around these squares and the LoA running to/through them. This is a STATIC assessment.
The PoP is the B.A.D. f6-square. The DYNAMIC assessment (based on tempi) is that a capture on the B.A.D. f6-square will capture a piece and force open the LoA e1-e8 [multi-functional move] because otherwise Black is just down a piece with no compensation. A White capture on e8 is with check (an intermezzo overriding any other consideration) as well as forking the Black king and queen [multi-functional move]. The Black queen will be forced to capture on e8 (leaving the BBf6 undefended). Spotting the overloading of the Black queen is important but it logically follows from the dynamic assessment.
The guiding principles are:
(1) Start with the worst B.A.D. PoP.
(2) Look at the LoA related to that PoP.
(3) Look for multi-functional moves and intermezzos.
(4) Allow System 1 to propose IDEAS which will be automagically triggered by the first three steps.
A LOGICAL IDEA significantly narrows the candidate move list and guides the calculation of variations.
Mister Lasker sums it all up in his Manual of Chess:
“The MOTIFS of a combination, in themselves simple, are often interwoven with each other. What is it that unites the multiplicity of MOTIFS? We call it the “IDEA.” MOTIFS, as for instance, a simultaneous attack against several pieces or the encircling of the hostile King, are tricks of the trade, technicalities. The IDEA which links the MOTIFS is artistic, it creates something that had never before been there. MOTIFS can be taught, IDEAS must be discovered by original effort. IDEAS come from nowhere, they are sudden inspirations; the place of MOTIFS is definite: the memory. Even the few simple MOTIFS above discussed breathe art when they are used in a manner to conquer points apparently in the firm grasp of the opponent.”
I would add TACTICAL THEMES/DEVICES to the arsenal that must be placed into long-term memory along with the MOTIFS.
All of this talk regarding unique, artistic IDEAS is nothing more (or less) than acknowledging the role that System 1 SHOULD play in the logical process of determining the next move(s). The System 2 “training” of System 1 consists of working logically from the surface to the essence, identifying the elements that are unique to the given position [PoPLoAFun, tempi, multi-functional moves, intermezzo, etc.]. System 1 gets indirectly trained by osmosis, silently watching over the shoulder of System 2. The ultimate goal when playing [NOT WHILE TRAINING!] is for System 2 to ask a simple question at the beginning of the move search: “What are the important elements in this specific position?” and allow System 1 to (eventually) scream “I KNOW! I KNOW!”
One other task of system 2 is to prevent that system 1 goes all over the place and repeats itself endlessly. To prevent trial and error. Since trial and error doesn't work when thickets are added to the bush.
DeleteIn your list another idea should be added. When you decided on which piece is BAD and worth investigating, it is logical to have a look at the defenders first. That is the same idea as in the last post (=next post). There are several ways to eliminate a defender. 1.Rxe7 is one of them. The other way is to make use of the fact that Be7 is "kind of" pinned. Why is it pinned? Because Qd8 is overloaded. And being overloaded is a tempo issue.
What is artistique, original and unique is the artistique, original and unique of ideas. Yet I'm prepared for some disappointment in the future. ChatGPT has shown that our intelligence might be a bit less artistique, original and unique than we are inclined to think when it is put to the test.
Anyhow, all multi function moves must be seen, since that is where the tempo's reside.
Why are the BAD pieces interesting? Because they are the closest to disturbances of the balance of tempo's.
"What is artistique, original and unique is the artistique, original and unique of ideas." should read as "What is artistique, original and unique is the COMBINATION of ideas."
DeleteAnother (more complicated) example of the tempo battle:
ReplyDeleteFEN: q1r2bk1/r2n1ppp/5n2/P1pb4/3p3N/BN4P1/4PPBP/R1R1Q1K1 b - - 0 1
[The Enigma of Chess Intuition: Can You Mobilize Hidden Forces in Your Chess?; GM Valeri Beim, pg. 165]
LOOK and SEE!
Material is even.
King safety is not an immediate issue for either side.
There are myriad attacks and defenses.
The c5-square is B.A.D. [3:3]. The a5-square is B.A.D. [2:2] but indirectly controlled by White [3:2] (if the White Bishop captures on c5 or moves to b2). The d5-square is controlled by Black [1:2]. The g2-square is B.A.D. [2:2].
A critical LoA is a8-h1.
The WNb3 is undefended [LPDO]. The WNh4 is somewhat vulnerable as a defender of the g2-square.
Crucially, Black has the right to move first.
BBd5 is pinned at the moment but potentially can capture the WNb3 for free IFF the LoA of the WBg2 is blocked or eliminated.
Temposchlucker stated:
"What is artistique, original and unique is the COMBINATION of ideas."
In this position, the COMBINATION of ideas involves multiple factors: (1) The WNb3 [LPDO]; (2) The pinned BBd5; (3) The vulnerability of the WNh4 as a defender of g2. That considerably reduces what must be “SEEn” and focuses attention on what MUST be considered via calculation.
[It is interesting to see the difference in analysis between GM Beim and GM Stockfish.]
I found the game for this position in Chess Tempo’s database.
Miljkovic, Miroslav D (2406) vs Nikcevic, Nebojsa (2454)
Date: 2004-09-09
Event: TCh-SCG Men, Budva SCG
Round: 2
Result: 0-1
Opening: Kangaroo Defense, General (E00)
1. d4 e6 2. c4 Bb4+ 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. a3 Be7 5. g3 d5 6. Bg2 O-O 7. Ngf3 b6 8. O-O Bb7 9. cxd5 exd5 10. b4 a5 11. bxa5 Rxa5 12. Nb3 Ra7 13. a4 c5 14. dxc5 bxc5 15. Qc2 Nbd7 16. Ba3 Qa8 17. a5 Rc8 18. Rfc1 Bf8 19. Qd2 d4 20. Qe1 Bd5 21. Nh4 [PROBLEM POSITION] g5 22. Nf3 Bxb3 23. Nxd4 Bd5 24. Qd2 h6 25. Nb5 Bxg2 26. Nxa7 Bh3 27. f3 Qxa7 28. Bb2 c4+ 29. Bd4 Qa6 30. Rcb1 c3 31. Qd3 Qxd3 32. exd3 Bc5 33. Bf2 Bxf2+ 34. Kxf2 Nc5 35. a6 c2 36. Rb5 Nxa6
Given your recent interest in taking up clay modeling, (again) I strongly suggest getting a copy (presuming you don’t already have one) of Dr. Betty Edwards’ book Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain: A course in enhancing creativity and artistic confidence. You will be glad you did!
ReplyDeleteThe “two brains” are complementary, not in competition; each has strengths and weaknesses. It is the subtle blending of the strengths (interweaving their actions) that enable us to learn and improve – at ANYTHING.
r
FWIW, the title of the book can be interpreted multiple ways. “Drawing” could literally mean “the act of drawing” - or it could mean “utilizing” or “calling upon”. “Right could literally mean the physical “right” side – or it could mean “using the CORRECT side”. The terminology used is purposefully ambiguous. It illustrates that what we “SEE” is what we WANT to “SEE”, not necessarily what is intended.
I just had the oil/oil filter replaced in my ICE car. The owner and I engaged in a conversation regarding the book title. (I had taken it to review the insights I have previously put into comments here.) He gave an excellent example: “Replace the right front tire.” The “right” (correct) tire could be on the left front of the car.
Or a current dilemma: “It’s cold when electric vehicles and electric charging stations won’t charge.” “Cold” could refer to the outside temperature – or that you are left “out in the cold” (with no comfort) with no transportation after paying a premium for the EV. Oh well, nobody ever said that virtue-signaling was going to be free of “minor” inconveniences.
Regarding aging of your clay model: keep in mind that as we get older, Mr. Gravity is NOT our friend! In addition to sagging downward, substructures under the skin shrink, causing wrinkles in various places. You “KNOW” that, but you have to “SEE” that in your mind’s eye as you sculpt. It is EXACTLY the same process as “SEEing” in chess.
As Dr. Daniel Kahneman stated, “WHAT YOU SEE IS ALL THERE IS!” (WYSIATI). If you CAN'T "SEE" it, it doesn't exist (for you).
I ordered the book.
DeleteAfter about 6 hours of modelling, spread over several evenings, I accidently made a few female characteristics. From there I could imagine other characteristics (see them before the mind's eye). My hands simply modeled them in the clay.
This process is highly random. The task of system 2 is to steer the attention in certain directions, so that the process is not random anymore. For system 2 to do so, it needs knowledge of the differences between male and female faces. Now I have more knowledge of this subject, I am able to see it in portraits too.