Sometimes the salient cues are easy to see. The diagnosis seems to be more or less clear. But to see the remedy, you must first ask the right question. Which is a task of system 2.
 |
| White to move |
r1q2rk1/p4pp1/2B1nb2/2N1p2p/2Pp4/P2P2PP/4PP2/R2QK2R w KQ - 1 1
[solution]
The static salient cues of both sides' targets and defenders are clear enough.
- White's targets: Ra8, Ne6 with additional punch Rf8.
- Fighting the defenders Qc8, f7
- Black's targets Bc6, Nc5, Rh1
It might not be immediately clear what to do after 1.Bxa8 Qxa8
That is the moment to ask the right question: Is there a move that can save both the knight and the rook?
It turns out that there is a dual purpose move that does that very same.
The position is from the game [after 17… N(c7)e6] Jacobson, Brandon (2532) vs Liang, Awonder (2613), Date: 2022-05-02, Event: chess.com Junior Speed.
ReplyDeleteBlack won by checkmate on the 33rd move!
White had a distinct advantage after playing the puzzle solution. Unfortunately, it appears from his subsequent moves that he “forgot” the WNe4 was pinned to the WRh1, and he failed to take steps to either break the pin or to protect the WNe4 from the Black “assassin” lurking on f7. As a result, he lost the WNe4 and the game.
Even though the game was played as speed chess, I was surprised to see a 2532 player “miss” the obvious followup to his combination. It was as if he lost sight of the tactical possibilities – after successfully executing a nice tactical shot to win a pawn. Or, maybe he was intimidated by his opponent and shocked to find himself in a winning position.
“It ain’t over till the fat lady sings!”
That is hopeful. I noticed the same. Play is often far from perfect. Even by high rated players. There is enough room for progress. The story by John Nunn about LPDO shows that there is still a big difference in low level tactics between a master and a grandmaster in blitz play. I assume that it partly compensated in slow games.
ReplyDeleteI was struck by something “obvious” while looking at the game score. (I'm always amazed at how much I can miss while focusing on learning one aspect or another IN ISOLATION.)
ReplyDeleteIt did NOT cross my mind to apply a formal thinking process (IE, Kotov, Heisman, Silman, Znosko-Borovsky, even a more formal sequence of steps in Tisdall's variation processing). Did I "forget" to do it? I don't think so.
It just seemed obvious to "SEE" the two threats (BQxWRh1 and BNe6xWNc5) and the RCCM (System 1 + System 2) brought to conscious awareness the question "How can I deal with two simultaneous threats?" The eventual solution followed quickly (at neuron speed) by the process of asking and eliminating multiple additional questions and answers. I "think" (it happened so quickly that I cannot be sure) the sequence was:
"Can I capture the threatening piece BQa8?" Answer: "No."
"Can I make an Equal or Greater Threat against the Black King?" Answer: "No."
"Can the two pieces establish a mutual defense?" Answer: No, but this triggered the last question.
"Can I interfere with the LoA of the BQa8?” Answer: Yes, with WNe4.
Concurrently, I realized that WNe4 created a self-pin. White would need to eliminate that pin as soon as possible because of the BPf7, and the "obvious" way to break the pin is to play O-O, restoring mobility to WNe4 so that the BPf7 cannot attack WNe4 while it is pinned.
All of that flashed through my mind very quickly. I did NOT stop and consider any formal thinking process. No list of candidate moves, no summing up of imbalances, no "King of the Hill" process - NOTHING. I also had NO thoughts of applying variation processing, although the resultant process bears a strong resemblance to it (after the fact).
Somehow, I don't think I'm an anomaly…
There seems to be a missing link between “planning” and “SEEing”. Obviously (maybe), in tactical situations we should be “LOOKing” for tactical shots (our own AND our opponent’s). If there are NO tactical shots, we should be “planning.”
But, what triggers the two different modes of operation? Is the trigger for tactical shots the “fact” that it IS a tactical puzzle? If so, what do we use as the trigger in a game, where there is no explicit “clue” that we should be thinking tactically or planning? Is it merely absence of tactical shots that triggers planning mode?
I don’t think that’s the right answer, but I don’t have any answer, much less a good answer.
""There seems to be a missing link between “planning” and “SEEing”. Obviously (maybe), in tactical situations we should be “LOOKing” for tactical shots (our own AND our opponent’s). If there are NO tactical shots, we should be “planning.”
ReplyDeleteI noticed the same. Have another look at a few thoughts
The best answer for now I think is not to worry about planning. Just worry about salient cues. System 3 is the observer, the witness of what system 1 and system 2 come up with. Once you learn to see the salient cues, the rest will follow. I hope.