What the eagle tells us
I gazed a lot at positions in the past in an attempt to make the eagle SEE some salient cues. But usually the cows came home long before a cue reported itself. GM Bent Larsen learned me that the eagle needs a little guidance.
 |
| Black to move |
1rb5/2P2pk1/3pp2p/qN2b3/2Q1P3/5p1P/4BPP1/2R3K1 b - - 0 1
[solution]
We tell the eagle to look for targets.
These are the salient cues the eagle might come up with:
Targets for black
- Nb5 B.A.D. (Barely Adequate Defended)
- Be2 I.D. (Inadequate Defended)
Targets for white
- Rb8
We tell the eagle to look for defenders.
These are the salient cues the eagle might come up with:
Defenders of Nb5
- Qc4
- Be2
These are the salient cues that are pretty easy to SEE. Just tell the eagle what to look for. Guidance of system 1 by system 2.
We tell the eagle to look for tempo moves.
Here it becomes a little vague. The logic starts to intermingle with the salient cues
- Be2 is under attack (threat)
- Rb8 is under attack (counter threat)
- Qd2 is double attack against Be2 and Rc1
- Qc4 is overloaded
1. ... Rxb5:
- steps out a threat (cxb8)
- steps into a new thread (Qxb5)
2.Qxb5:
- regains the knight with interest
- gives up the defense of Rc1
2. ... Qd2:
- double attack against Rc1 and Be2
Can we abstrahere a piece of logic here that is reusable for other positions?
The psychological difficulty is that in the initial position, we (usually) don’t pay any attention to relationships like the mutual defense between WQc4 and WRc1 [LoA: c4 <—> c1] because we don’t “SEE” that relationship as important. Instead, we “SEE the convergence of LoA on the b5-square because of the tension associated with a B.A.D. square, potential invasion square, or LPDO. A further associated diversion of attention is that the BRb1 is attacked with a promotion threat. Since that piece is part of the complex centered on the b5-square, it gets maximal attention because of the potential to do two things with one move: capture on the b5-square.
ReplyDeleteAs soon as we recognize the tension on a particular square (B.A.D. [2:2]), we tend to immediately focus on resolving that tension around that square in our favor, to the exclusion of everything else on the board. However, it’s important to “SEE” ALL possible points of tension BEFORE making a move, or even pursuing a specific line of thought into a tunnel. Once we recognize one section (local area of interest), we should STOP! and look around at the rest of the board. Perhaps there are other “twine” (note the implication of “two or more”) that we can weave into Ariadne’s thread to find our way through the maze of variations.
As a thought experiment, follow GM Davies advice to “move the pieces around.” That does NOT mean moving them according to the formal rules of chess, like strictly alternating moves! We can literally do anything we want — in our mind’s eye!
Simply “remove” the BRb1, WQc4, WNb5 from the board. SAY WHAT?!?
With that attentional distraction around the b5-square off the board, it becomes “obvious” that a double attack can be made by the Black Queen on the d2-square which cannot be mutually defended by either the WRc1 or WBe2.
But we already “SAW” in the first section that we CAN remove two of those three pieces from the board through an exchange on the b5-square! Additionally, we can now “SEE” that the mutual “defense” (I put defense in quotes because, in the absence of an attack or threat of attack, can we really speak of a “defense”?) between the WQc4 and WRc1 has been eliminated, so it is “as-if” the White Queen has been removed from the board!
My suggestion: SEE the various sections (local areas) in isolation and then the potential interconnections between them. Weaving the various threads together is the way to SEE the whole as more than the sum of its parts.
Sorry for another "word salad." Put some "dressing" on it and see if it’s tasty!
You touch upon an important point. Rc1 is NOT a salient point, and we should not try to SEE it initially. For the simple reason that if you don't prune the amount of targets to look at initially, you are going to lose on time anyway.
DeleteZoom out, zoom in. Only AFTER the exchange on b5 before the minds eye, we must zoom out again and notice that defense of Rc1 is gone.
We must trust upon the following logic: IF there is a tactic in the position than it MUST start with the salient cues we can see in the initial position. NOT start in the sense that it reveals the first move, but in the sense that the LOGIC starts there. Zoom out, zoom in.
Btw, you said BRb1 a few times but I guess you meant BRb8
DeleteCorrect..
DeleteSofar, the scenario stuff I try to concoct with system 2 seems to go nowhere. What seems to work though, is that I limit the activity of system 2 to just guiding the attention. That way, the logic is treated as a salient cue by system 1. System 1 just retrieves the logic that is appropriate for the position. The task of system 2 seems only to be to prevent that system 1 goes haywire.
ReplyDeletePART I:
ReplyDeleteRather than beating a dead horse, let’s look at a very famous game and “SEE” if we can intuit anything useful from it regarding the application of logic.
Chess Tempo:
Lasker, Emanuel (2720) vs Bauer, Johann H (2460)
Date: 1889-08-26
Event: Amsterdam I, Amsterdam
Round: 1
Result: 1-0
Opening: Bird Opening, Dutch Variation (A03)
Problems: 118016216, 120746456, 158903388
Near Duplicates: 2793474
1. f4 d5 2. e3 Nf6 3. b3 e6 4. Bb2 Be7 5. Bd3 b6 6. Nf3 Bb7 7. Nc3 Nbd7 8. O-O O-O 9. Ne2 c5 10. Ng3 Qc7 11. Ne5 Nxe5 12. Bxe5 Qc6 13. Qe2 a6 14. Nh5 Nxh5 15. Bxh7+ Kxh7 16. Qxh5+ Kg8 17. Bxg7 Kxg7 18. Qg4+ Kh7 19. Rf3 e5 20. Rh3+ Qh6 21. Rxh6+ Kxh6 22. Qd7 Bf6 23. Qxb7 Kg7 24. Rf1 Rab8 25. Qd7 Rfd8 26. Qg4+ Kf8 27. fxe5 Bg7 28. e6 Rb7 29. Qg6 f6 30. Rxf6+ Bxf6 31. Qxf6+ Ke8 32. Qh8+ Ke7 33. Qg7+ Kxe6 34. Qxb7 Rd6 35. Qxa6 d4 36. exd4 cxd4 37. h4 d3 38. Qxd3 Black resigned
The two Bishop sacrifice was first discovered and deployed in this game. 25 years later, Tarrasch executed a more difficult version against Nimzowitsch [see game score below]. The tournament brilliancy prize was NOT awarded to Tarrasch because the tournament committee deemed it an unoriginal idea that had already been demonstrated by Lasker. When Tarrasch complained to Lasker, Lasker (in his usual understated way) dryly observed that such a combination was very rare and only occurred once in 25 years – which was the length of time back to Lasker’s game. I suspect Tarrasch missed the irony.
Chess Tempo:
Nimzowitsch, Aron (2620) vs Tarrasch, Siegbert (2610)
Date: 1914
Event: Szentpetervar, Szentpetervar
Round: ?
Result: 0-1
Opening: Queen's Gambit Declined, Tarrasch Defense, Pseudo-Tarrasch (D30)
Problems: 136988
Near Duplicates: 2878411
Near Duplicate Of: 2878411
1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 c5 3. c4 e6 4. e3 Nf6 5. Bd3 Nc6 6. O-O Bd6 7. b3 O-O 8. Bb2 b6 9. Nbd2 Bb7 10. Rc1 Qe7 11. cxd5 exd5 12. dxc5 bxc5 13. Bb5 Ne4 14. Bxc6 Bxc6 15. Qc2 Nxd2 16. Nxd2 d4 17. exd4 Bxh2+ 18. Kxh2 Qh4+ 19. Kg1 Bxg2 20. f3 Rfe8 21. Ne4 Qh1+ 22. Kf2 Bxf1 23. d5 f5 24. Qc3 Qg2+ 25. Ke3 Rxe4+ 26. fxe4 f4+ 27. Kxf4 Rf8+ 28. Ke5 Qh2+ 29. Ke6 Re8+ 30. Kd7 Bb5#
PART II:
ReplyDeleteBringing ancient history into the present, let’s look at the logic of discovering this unique combination. Was it the brainchild of a genius, or a logical conclusion based on the surface-level clues (or perhaps both)?
Start with the following position [after Black’s 14… Nxh5].
FEN: r4rk1/1b2bppp/ppq1p3/2ppB2n/5P2/1P1BP3/P1PPQ1PP/R4RK1 w - - 0 15
What are the surface clues that trigger the search for the combination?
White’s two Bishops are bearing down on the Black king’s position. The BNh5 is LPDO. I am certain that Lasker instantly “SAW the simple gain of a pawn with 15. Bxh7+ Kxh7 16.Qxh5+ Kg8. That's obvious to even a casual observer – like me. BUT, then what? This is section one.
Mentally move the pieces in the mind’s eye to reach the first stepping stone position.
FEN: r4rk1/1b2bpp1/ppq1p3/2ppB2Q/5P2/1P2P3/P1PP2PP/R4RK1 w - - 1 17
Staying in this local area, we can now SEE that with two moves by WRf1 —>h3, White can threaten checkmate on h8. After mentally moving the pieces (visualizing): 17. Rf3, followed by 18. Rh3, Black is in a heap of trouble BUT has two tempi to come up with a counterattack. Black’s defensive resources are woefully inadequate.
Black has a counterattack based on the battery BQc6+BBb7 aimed at the g2-square. All that is needed is to open the LoA [b7<—>g2] with 17. Rf3 d4< effectively “pinning” the WRf3 to the g2-square, preventing the threat of WRh3.
The logic must be to proceed by way of EGT (equal or greater threats) [Lasker’s attack motif], not allowing Black the tempi needed to actuate a counterattack. The most obvious threat is a double threat: 17. Bxg7 threatening checkmate on h8 AND threatening to gain material by capturing the BRf8. Moving the Rook is useless, so Black MUST capture 17… Kxg7. This is section two.
Visualize another stepping stone in the mind’s eye.
FEN: r4r2/1b2bpk1/ppq1p3/2pp3Q/5P2/1P2P3/P1PP2PP/R4RK1 w - - 0 18
This does not prevent the counterattack IFF the WRf1 immediately goes to the f3-square. The same counterattack threat remains. I submit that the solution to THIS problem is the key to the entire combination BUT it is also the hardest to SEE!
PART III:
ReplyDeleteHERE IS WHERE THE GAIN OF TEMPO COMES INTO PLAY!
White can force the Black King to a square which will allow the move WRh3 WITH CHECK by moving the Black King to the h-file: 18. Qg4+ Kh7 19. Rf3. Black can still try the counterattack by opening the [LoA b7-g2] in response to the WRf3 move, but White now has a tempo-gaining move WITH CHECK. This is section three.
Visualize another stepping stone in the mind’s eye.
FEN: r4r2/1b2bp1k/ppq1p3/2pp4/5PQ1/1P2PR2/P1PP2PP/R5K1 b - - 3 19
Now the counterattack threat does not work. All Black can do is try to interpose his Queen on h6 to no avail. 19… e5 20. Rh3+ Qh6 21. Rxh6+ Kxh6. This is section four.
Now mentally total up the material lost and gained – visualize what left on the board.
Hmmm, Black has two Rooks and two Bishops for White’s Queen and Rook plus two extra Pawns.
Shall we abandon the combination at this point? NO!
Visualize one last stepping stone in the mind’s eye.
FEN: r4r2/1b2bp2/pp5k/2ppp3/5PQ1/1P2P3/P1PP2PP/R5K1 w - - 0 22
Is there anything that can be attacked? YES! The two Black Bishops can be forked by the White Queen. One of them will be captured, giving White a much more favorable material balance AND leaving the Black King vulnerable to a combined attack using the White Queen and Rook. Note that Black did not resign at this point.
I submit that Lasker did NOT SEE this possibility initially when looking for the surface-level clues. At each stepping stone position, he looked around the board, taking into consideration what he could SEE as additional surface clues as to what to play at each stage.
My apology in advance if I get any of the move numbers maladjusted. I’ve checked but never can guarantee that I SAW all the errors. In any event, use the game score if it doesn’t seem to make sense.
PART IV:
ReplyDeleteIn this post, you asked a very good question:
Can we abstrahere a piece of logic here that is reusable for other positions?
I think the answer is a qualified YES, but I may be wrong.
I reiterate GM Botvinnik's suggested approach in his book Computers, chess and long-range planning:
"A simile may help clarify this notion of the horizon and its determinants. Let us suppose that a parachute-jumper has come down in a bog [swamp] and wants to get to solid ground. The bog is wide; its edges are hundreds of yards away. How does our hero proceed, if he cannot find a clear path from where he is to where he wants to be? He cannot take in the whole plot at one coup and pick out the entire path . . . he must act soon . . . darkness is falling!"
"In all probability, he will inspect the bog in some given direction for the first five to ten yards, choose a path from hummock to hummock, as safe a path as he can find, and TAKE THE FIRST STEP. He will make the next step after a similar preparation. Our hero again inspects the five-to-ten yard horizon. It will already have changed because of his action. He accepts the solution to the second-step problem, and son on until he clears the bog."
"We could prove that ALL THE DEVICES USED IN CHESS WAR - attack (from both sides), blockade (by either side), and (mutual) retreat - CAN ALL BE ACCOUNTED FOR IN AN INITIAL MATHEMATICAL MAP CONSTRUCTED ON AN ATTACK CONTAINED WITHIN FOUR HALF-MOVES."
This approach is very similar to GM Tisdall’s concept of variation processing. The underlying idea is to choose one local area of the surface-level [most salient] clues and then explore it a few steps in one particular direction, identifying and resolving new issues “on the fly” as the exploration deepens. Purposely block out all other areas from consideration until it is necessary to take them into account.
Doesn’t this run counter to the advice to “Go wide before going deep?”
NO!
PART V:
ReplyDeleteStart in the initial position. Look for the obvious surface-level clues in various areas of the board. Do NOT attempt to SEE all of the interconnections between the local areas, or all of the ramifications. That is the way of madness using trial and error. Some details will become “visible” only after proceeding into the future in the mind’s eye.
The basic idea is to look around AT EACH STAGE and SEE the components associated with the local area [NOT THE ENTIRE BOARD], then proceed deeper from that new stepping stone position. If “problems” [like a threat or counterattack) arise (and they WILL!), deal with them when that time occurs.
I apparently do not view the Tree of Scenarios in the same way as you. I use it as a training map, detailing what things there are that I must learn. I do NOT reference it at all when working out the details of a specific position.
Here’s an analogy [for ME]. After getting my two-year degree in programming in 1979, I went to work in an engineering group responsible for making modifications to simulators. I realized that I needed a better grasp of engineering fundamentals [calculus and physics, in particular]. I bought a book titled Software Engineering by Jensen and Tonies, Prentice-Hall. (The book disappeared from my technical library a long time ago. I just have a “memory” for books that I treasure.) The last section of the book was an academic curriculum proposal for software engineering. (I don’t recall if it was from IEEE or ACM; that doesn’t matter.) It was laid out in a tree format very similar to the Tree of Scenarios. I used it to guide my self-training. I would traverse the tree down to a low level that I could either find a course at the local college for that subject or find a book exploring that low-level subject (perhaps in the context of other higher-level concepts). After studying that subject until I was satisfied that I knew it sufficiently, I would pick anther subject area and repeat the process. Over the course of several years, I managed to cover the entire curriculum to my satisfaction. At no point did I get any further academic credentials. Yet, as my career progressed, increasingly I was able to work up to the level of software engineer because I had a usable grounding in all aspects of SE. It was always amusing to have conversations with credentialed “experts” who would “guess” that I had either a Master’s or Doctorate degree – and who were totally skeptical that I could actually do any of the things that (usually) require an advanced degree.
That is a lot of stuff to digest. I excluded the traps in order to keep matters simple. And I consider a mate to be a trap. The double bishop sacrifice is part of my opening repertoire. And I already won a game with it. Albeit the sac was not correct with hindsight. It certainly helps if you know the pattern.
ReplyDeleteWhat we must keep in mind is the frequency of occurrence of the patterns we absorb. I'm not looking for the theory of all and everything. I just want to get rid of the ugly trial and error method and bridle system 1 a bit. Pun intended.
When I just write down all targets with their defenders and the status of those defenders, along with the tempo moves that PoP into my eye, I already get closer. Both system 1 and system 2 seem to need the same treatment: keep them on a short leash. Maybe we need a system 3 to do that.
Mister Lasker had this to say about differences in frequency of occurrence of various motifs:
ReplyDelete“ Of the above motifs [which we have cataloged here], some occur often, some rarely. The reason for this difference in frequency is the initial position. There the pieces have certain prescribed positions; the struggle in which they engage, though very varied, will follow a certain trend, and therefore certain types of combinations tend to occur.”
“1.—As a natural outgrowth of attacks against the Castled King, pressure on the Pawns round the King and sacrifices of pieces for them are frequent.”
“2.—Again as a means of attacking the King, control of the 8th rank where the Queen or Rook might Check the King becomes often the object of a combination.”
“.—For attacks against the King and also against Pawns the seventh rank is often utilized efficiently by Rooks and Queen.”
“4.—The Knights on c3 or f3 are frequently pinned by Bishops and a contest ensues round the pinned pieces.”
“It is not that combinations of the above type differ logically—not at all—only the frequency of such combinations causes us to pay them particular attention.”
Ordering the motifs and tactical devices/themes by frequency of occurrence seem like a very good idea!
Regarding “thinking” during a game, Mister Lasker writes:
“The combination is born in the brain of a Chess-player. Many thoughts see the light there—true and false, strong and weak, sound and unsound. They are born, jostle one another, and one of them, transformed into a move on the board, bears away the victory over its rivals.”
“Does a Chess-master really cogitate as just outlined? Presumably so, but with detours and repetitions. However, it matters not by what process he conceives an idea; the important point to understand is that an idea takes hold of the master and obsesses him. The master, in the grasp of an idea, ‘SEEs’ that idea suggested and almost embodied on the board. An idea does not arise accidentally in the mind of the master, who dominates the material, but has its raison d’etre on the board.”
Mister Lasker was a very deep yet practical thinker!
This seems to be a good approach: just write down all the salient points you see like: targets and their status like B.A.D. (Barely Adequate Defended), insufficient, invasion square, all defenders and their status like overloaded, pinned etc. and all tactical motifs you SEE like double attack, loading a battery etc.. Once you come not any further, use Stockfish to find the remaining salient points you missed.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the overall goal toward which this suggested approach is aimed?
ReplyDeleteIf it is to discover what constitutes salient cues and cataloging them for further future training study, I agree.
On the other hand, if it is to improve our SKILL at chess playing (or problem solving), then I disagree.
The difficulty, as I conceive it, is that it is simply too broad in scope. Our System 2 attention cannot deal with all aspects of a position in a “big gulp” manner because it is severely limited by working memory. We can only hold 7+/-2 pieces of information in Short-Term Memory (STM) at any given time. As soon as STM is overloaded, we are “off to the races” of trial and error. Confusion reigns!
Although not explicitly stated, there is an assumption that we can keep track of all these individual pieces of information and (somehow) make sense of all of them at once (the gestalt). I seriously doubt my capability to do this without losing a lot of it long before I get it all cataloged; perhaps that is only me but I doubt it. So, to keep track of all that information we must write down all these disparate pieces of information (perhaps in a tree-like form) and try to make sense of it all after “collecting” all the facts.
One of the centerpiece “maxims” I have acquired about learning about several totally disparate areas is the aphorism:
“Train like you play, and you will then play like you train.”
Because of system limitations AND the formal rules of chess, writing down all of the “features” of a position and then trying to make sense of them as a whole runs totally counter to what we MUST do while playing chess. As I’ve noted before, GM Tisdall’s idea of variation processing seems to utilize our human strengths while taking into consideration our limitations much more effectively in the context of a chess game.
This suggested approach reminds me of the traditional top-down systems analysis approach. Gather all information about the problem structures and behavior, documenting every requirement about the entire project prior to proceeding deeper into the details of design and implementation. That is a very time-consuming process and there is absolutely no guarantee that every critical requirement will be discovered by this process. There is also no consideration of whether the system can actually be designed and implemented. That was my experience using the traditional “water fall” life cycle system development process a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away. May the Force be with me and keep me far away from THAT!
More modern approaches do not take this total system approach. Instead, a piece of the overall system is defined, implemented and tested. After that piece works correctly, the next piece is analyzed and developed by the exact same process, with the addition of any required interconnections to the previous piece. Lather, rinse, repeat until the overall system is completed.
That is a gross simplification of both approaches, but should suffice to illustrate the significant differences.
To improve, we must learn how to play chess SKILLFULLY.
KNOWLEDGE of all those individual factors will NOT automatically translate into SKILL in comprehending them as a whole and using them effectively together.
I believe that digging out those factors one-by-one from a position, connecting the local area factors together with constraints, going deeper into the ramifications by investigating connections and constraints between the local areas is much more like what we need to do to improve our playing SKILL.
Mijn twee centen.
"This seems to be a good approach" should be read as "I noticed that it works but I might be wrong" and not as "I think that this might work".
DeleteI focused on the salient points and forgot about the logic behind it. I produced no word salads. I just wrote down what I saw. And when I SAW nothing more, I zoomed in with the help of Stockfish. And Stockfish showed me some other salient points that I missed, but recognized when I saw them.
AHA!! — Now I SEE what you intended.
DeleteFor some time, I have been doing something similar. I use the lichess.org Puzzle Storm and GM Stockfish as my training partner. It’s limited to 3 minutes of solving time. The stated ‘goal’ is to successfully solve as many puzzles as possible in 3 minutes. My personal goal is to simply SEE the salient clues and how those clues lead to the correct solution. I use variation processing as the formal process framework, without trying to religiously adhere to it at all times. If I get stuck on a particular puzzle, I just stay there looking for clues until the time runs out. After completing a run of problems, I go back through all of them, making sure that I understood and SAW what I should have, or spend some time investigating interesting alternatives to the main line. If the players of the stem game are rated above 2000, I bring up the entire game score and turn on GM Stockfish to watch over my shoulder as I step through all the moves. At any point, if I don’t SEE what is going on, I stop and think about it until I recognize WHY and WHAT I should have seen. Specifically, I try to recognize what is happening as I approach the start of the puzzle solution. What are the telltale signs that herald the approach of a combination? Most of the time, one or the other of the players will overlook something that (in hindsight) seems obvious to ME but was not obvious to that player during the game. I don’t try to assign a named category to the salient clues nor to the “logic” of the combination. I just emphasize the importance of the clues so as to help retain those clues in long-term memory. Since starting this training, I’ve increased the average number of correct solutions by approximately 50%, and there are a lot more puzzles where I recognize the salient clues almost immediately.
Several of the lichess.org example problems I’ve included in my recent comments are from this training process.
System 1 works by trial and error. What is wrong with that? The problem is that when the tree of analysis has a lot of branches, the random process of trial and error doesn't deliver usable results often enough, statistically. The problem is not the trial and error because that is how system 1 works. The problem is the randomness. The task is to guide system 1 a bit, so the results are no longer totally random.
ReplyDeleteMy humble opinion of System 1 is that it does NOT work by itself through trial and error. System 1 is a massively parallel processor with complete access to everything stored in long-term memory. It is associative, using weighted values in the neural connections in order to supply "answers" requested by System 2. Experiences, especially with strong emotional overtones, and repetitions of experiences under conditions of focused attention are strengthened by increasing the number of such connections and by mylenation, which speeds up the response time of axons by up to 100 times. If there is any ambiguity in System 2’s request, System 1 will compute all of the weights for every possible connection as it understands the question and return that single “best” answer (based on the weights embedded in the cellular structures. System 1 operates like a computer, returning ONE answer that most closely fits the System 2 question parameters with NO indication that a comparison by weighting has occurred. If the stored electrochemical potentials do not match exactly, System 1 will try its best to find a closely related question to answer—with no indication back to System 2 that it has answered a different question than the specific one System 2 “thought” it had asked. System 2 looks at the one answer and then decides if that was not the right question/answer and if it wants a different answer to a (slightly) different question. That is the cause of the trial or error cascade. System 1 is doing the best it can do with the question it is asked.
ReplyDeleteA humorous illustration of this “right brain/left brain” disconnect is this video clip of comedienne Jeanne Robertson on YouTube, titled “Do not send a man to the grocery store!”:
Link: https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=Jeanne+Robertson+YouTube+Do+not+send+aman+to+the+grocery+store&mid=E413F27471F2FE37B69CE413F27471F2FE37B69C&FORM=VIRE
[FWIW, my wife classified me correctly as “left brained” a long time ago.]
System 2 is completely bypassed by System 1 whenever a sufficiently urgent "flight or fight" situation requiring an immediate response is triggered. I assume that finding a good chess move generally does not trigger this response unless System 2 is "surprised" by an opponent's move, such as the start of an unanticipated combination that may cause you to realize that you might get "killed" in the game. Just imagining that result will cause it to be treated as if it is real, with all of the physiological effects resulting from a flood of adrenaline to deal with the “crisis.” GM John Nunn advised that when this occurs, take whatever time is needed to settle down before trying to figure out what to do.
This is another illustration that System 1 and System 2 cooperate to perform brain functions.
I suspect we mean the same but say it differently.
DeleteSystem 2 is always full. So if it goes to the grocery, there is no room or time for thinking. So logically it doesn't waste resources for a grocery list. Since there is no reason to number a grocery list, the numbers must have another meaning.
George Bernard Shaw (paraphrased): Two people, separated by a common language.
ReplyDeleteI wrote the comment referencing George Bernard Shaw, I did it on my iPhone, not realizing that it would be Anonymous as the author, since I didn't sign in to Blogger on my phone. Sorry about that.
ReplyDeleteFEN: 7k/1b1r2p1/p6p/1p2qN2/3bP3/3Q4/P5PP/1B1R3K b - - 1 36
ReplyDeleteThis position illustrates some of the ideas under discussion. I speculate that if you have ever seen this position, you will immediately recognize what should be played. Instead of glancing at it and dismissing it (“I already KNOW THAT!”), approach it from the perspective of “SEEing” it in terms of salient cues, Lines of Attack, and surface-level “clues” such as B.A.D. squares, local areas of tension, etc.
The first (and obvious) clue is the local area of tension revolving around the d4-square. White’s last move added the WRd1 attacker to the d4-square. The BBd4 is relatively pinned against the BRd7. The BRd7 and the WQd3 are “connected” by a potential LoA. [Most of us are “blind” to such reciprocal relationships because we do not SEE through the intervening pieces—and we also don’t SEE along the LoA in BOTH directions.] WQd3, WRd1, WNf5 are the attackers versus BQe5, BRd7 as the defenders. This looks very bad for Black because he does not have any additional defenders that can be added. Since that is the case, Black SHOULD have looked elsewhere for possible salvation in the form of an Equal or Greater Threat. He didn’t LOOK and, instead, threw in the towel.
WHY? Because of the psychological shock of realizing that he could not defend the BBd4 and would most likely lose it—and the game. Why waste more time on a hopeless situation? BECAUSE, as long as there is life, there is hope!
Where should he have looked? At a different local area of tension. THAT should be an automatic “trigger”! The h2-square is another B.A.D. square [1:1; WKh1—BQe5. Again, the logical process is to add an attacker or remove a defender. The WKh1 cannot be removed as a defender, so “add an attacker” is the only option. The BBd4 is the only potential attacker immediately available to attack the h2-square.
Here is where the connection between different local areas of tension MUST be SEEn. As previously noted, the BBd4 is relatively pinned against the undefended BRd7. BUT an Equal or Greater Threat takes precedence over a relatively pinned (undefended) piece! With the addition of the Black Bishop to the attack on the h2-square (36… Bg1), Black could have countered White’s threat to capture a piece for nothing on the d4-square.
The most important thing to do when faced with a shocking state of affairs is to STOP!, look at the entire board, and evaluate and exploit any and all opportunities to offer resistance to the maximum.
Nobody has ever won or drawn a position by resigning!
What You SEE Is All There Is – but you can’t SEE what you don’t bother to look for.
Chess Tempo:
Popiel, Ignacy (2559) vs Marco, Georg (2520)
Date: 1902
Event: Monte Carlo, Monte Carlo
Round: 01
Result: 1-0
Opening: Philidor Defense, General (C41)
Problems: 82629754, 130435642, 135051229, 135995870, 150827828
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bc4 c6 4. Nc3 Be7 5. d4 Nd7 6. Be3 Ngf6 7. Qe2 Qc7 8. Ng5 O-O 9. f4 b5 10. Bd3 a6 11. O-O Bb7 12. Rae1 h6 13. Nf3 Ng4 14. Nd1 c5 15. c3 exd4 16. cxd4 Nxe3 17. Nxe3 cxd4 18. Nxd4 Nc5 19. Nef5 Bf6 20. Bb1 Rfe8 21. Qf3 Ne6 22. Nxe6 fxe6 23. Qb3 Kh8 24. Ng3 Bd4+ 25. Kh1 Qc4 26. Qd1 Bxb2 27. Qxd6 Rad8 28. Qb6 Rd7 29. Qf2 Bd4 30. Qf3 Rf8 31. Rc1 Qb4 32. Qd3 e5 33. fxe5 Rxf1+ 34. Rxf1 Qe7 35. Nf5 Qxe5 36. Rd1 Black resigned
An apropos quote from Dr. Lasker:
ReplyDelete"Education in Chess has to be an education in independent thinking and judging. [NOTE: N-O-T acquisition of more and more KNOW THAT!] Chess must not be memorized, simply because it is not important enough. If you load your memory, you should know why. Memory is too valuable to be stocked with trifles. Of my fifty-seven years I have applied at least thirty to forgetting most of what I have learned or read, and since I succeeded in this I have acquired a certain ease and cheer which I should never again like to be without. If need be, I can increase my skill in Chess, if need be I can do that which I have no idea at present. I have stored little in my memory, but I can apply that little [Note: KNOW HOW!], and it is of good use in many and varied emergencies. I keep it in order, but resist every attempt to increase its dead weight.”
“You should keep in mind no names, nor numbers, nor isolated incidents, not even results, but only methods. The method is plastic. It is applicable in every situation. [SKILL — N-O-T KNOWLEDGE]. The result, the isolated incident, is rigid, because bound to wholly individual conditions. The method produces numerous results; a few of these will remain in our memory, and as long as they remain few, they are useful to illustrate and keep alive the rules which order a thousand results. Such useful results must be renewed from time to time just as fresh food has to be supplied to a living organism to keep it strong and healthy. But results useful in this manner have a living connection with rules, and these again are discovered by applying a live method: the whole of this organisation must have life, more than that — a harmonious life.”
Every time we encounter a “problem” (whether new or familiar), we should attempt to apply our “method” (thinking process, approach, whatever you want to call it) regardless of whether it is entirely new or has been encountered many times before. Approach each and every problem as if SEEing it for the first time. Because of what you have learned in the interim, you will SEE aspects that were previously invisible. You may be pleasantly surprised to find something new every time! In my previous comment, I used a very well-known position as an example—SEEing and describing it from the current perspective of salient cues, etc.
Most people compartmentalize their knowledge and practice, thinking that different subjects are totally separate and isolated fields with no commonality. (The American term for this is to “silo” our viewpoint.) When studying chess, one does not study programming—or vice versa. When practicing chess, one does not practice programming—or vice versa. This wastes a considerable amount of time and experience that is readily available at all times—IFF we can SEE the commonly applicable “rules” that bridge disparate areas of knowledge and skill!!
The method can be applied to EVERYTHING! Doing that, we can practice and improve our SKILL continuously, no matter what we are doing in a given moment.
Musashi and Lasker (both grandmasters of the various fields of endeavor that interested them) would agree:
"To know ten thousand things, know one well."
— Miyamoto Musashi, A Book of Five Rings: The Classic Guide to Strategy
"You learn no art by anxiously restricting yourselves to it; you have to seek its association, and its logical connections and analogies with the rest of things. Otherwise, you will learn no more than the craft, the technique of your art and never attain to a full comprehension or easy mastery of it."
— Emanuel Lasker, Lasker's Manual of Chess