Trap/killbox related actions
- pry the box open
- squeeze the box
- squeeze the box until the target pops out onto a line of attack
- chase the target into the box
- plug a hole in the wall of the box
salient cue: the killbox
Tipping the balance
- add attacker
- plan adding attackers in the future
- clear the line of attack with tempo (= add attacker)
- eliminate defender
- cut off future defenders
salient cues:
- B.A.D. (Barely Adequate Defended) target
- overloaded defender
- pinned defender
Gain a tempo
- double attack
- discovered attack
- fork
- skewer
- trade defender
salient cues:
- insufficient defended target
- high value target
- low value attacker
- defender under attack
Maintaining the initiative
- move with additional punch
- postponing move
Salient cue: the need for a preparational move like
- clearing a line of attack
- chase the target to its demise
- bring your attacker closer to the line of attack
- exchanging the target for a more appropriate one
- exchanging the defender for a more appropriate one
Counter attack
- defend first
- defend with additional punch
- defend after your attack is finished
Salient cue: when your move is not forcing enough
Just to get the juices flowing.
The scenario itself is devised by system 2 by means of logic. It is supposed to bring new insight. Which takes the form of a new salient cue which you did not see before. The new salient cue is an element of the same set of salient cues which trigger a certain scenario. Hence it is expected that the salient cue that emerges from the scenario, triggers a new scenario. Ad requiem.
ReplyDeleteIn order to automate the scenarios, we must learn to see them before the minds eye. You can see a double attack. You can see an additional punch. and so forth.
Regardless of the scenario contents, the process will remain the same as you previously noted: ZOOM IN, ZOOM OUT. As GM Aagaard noted, the process must be focused on what to "SEE" and collecting the discovered information so as to insure that we accurately "SEE" the big picture. The scenario components can be at the same or different levels of abstraction. The details of the scenarios can be abstracted or as detailed as makes sense to each person.
ReplyDeleteI know you made a tree of Lasker's MOTIFS, since I still have a copy of it; it follows the same ideas. I think that a tree of positional motifs can also be created.
Eventually, we may be reach the point where there is nothing more to be gained from this approach — hopefully, that enable SKILL sufficient for mastery.
SEEing is believing!
Some evidence would be nice after 24 years. Until know I had to live on faith.
DeleteI tried to see the essence of the triggers of the scenarios. I found three: target, defender and line of attack. All scenarios can pop up by seeing these three subjects well. Furthermore, look at the killbox, balance, motif and additional punch in relation to these three subjects. That should be enough to trigger the right scenario.
ReplyDeleteThe "triggers" serve to guide the mind's eye in specific directions along the “lines of least resistance” toward resolution of tension (quiescence). By definition, a "target" or "defender" IS a weakness and this implies the presence of something which can "attack" that weakness directly or indirectly. The form of the "attack" will ALWAYS follow a series of salient points along a "line of attack."
ReplyDeleteMister Lasker opined that combination-oriented players look forward on the basis of violent forcing moves (revolution) toward a favorable position of tension resolution, whereas position-oriented players look backward from a favorable position of tension resolution on the basis of planning and non-forcing moves (evolution).
I “SEE” no problem intertwining these two directional viewpoints using the ZOOM IN, ZOOM OUT repetitive process.
EVERYTHING REVOLVES AROUND WEAKNESSES. When we “SEE” a weakness, that insight should draw our focused attention immediately to it AND HOW TO EXPLOIT IT. If the Ides of March do not auger for successful immediate exploitation, then do NOT try to force it. Instead, try to create a second weakness, perhaps in a different local area of tension. The underlying and overarching principle is to create a potential double attack (any combination of direct attacks and threats of various orders – Averbakh). As you have noted many times, moves with multiple functions are much more likely to overload the opponent’s ability to respond effectively. Sooner or later, a position WILL arise in which he cannot cover everything.
Ceteris paribus is NEVER EQUAL in any given chess position!