Slow down
What have I learned from the past few posts and their comments?
There is little competition on the way to chess improvement. If guys even in 60 years don't absorb the patterns that belong to the removal of the guard, this means that everybody who is plateauing will not overtake you anytime soon. And even the slightest progress will set you free from the crowd.
Only youngsters will be making progress faster than you. But as soon as they hit the wall, you will be catching up, no matter how slow. Nobody so far has found the holy grail of making progress after plateauing. When the competitors are plateauing too, there is no man overboard.
How many subjects like removal of the guard are there to be mastered in the area of tactics? Not so much. Somewhere between 30 and 100, I suppose. Since even grandmasters make errors in this area, I think it is save to say that nobody masters them all perfectly. The fact that 100 blitz games by GM John Nunn against a 2300 player resulted in a 88-12 score, mainly based on LPDO, shows how many progress you can make by just absorbing the essentials well.
Hence you can take your time and master them one by one. So what's the method to absorb those skills?
Fist a bit of good advice.
- Slow down! There are only 30-100 subjects to be mastered, and nobody so far has found the holy grail to convert knowledge into skill at will. Everybody who is plateauing wastes his time with woodpecker-like methods and opening study by memorization of variations.
- Avoid complexity. You must master the simple subjects first. You will know when you are ready for more complex stuff. Nobody absorbs a subject by accident once they plateau.
- Fiddle around. The devil is in the details.
- Be especially aware of the additional punches. They make a combination work.
- Be aware of the additional punches of your opponent. They make a combination NOT work.
- Be especially aware of the duplo effect. Hitting two birds with one stone. That doesn't only work for tactics, but for every stage of the game. Think of the Reti manoeuvre, for instance.
- capture it
- exchange it for a piece that is less suited for the defense
- attack it
- distract it
- block it
- overload it
The new SEE---- Slowly Exam and Evaluate. 8)
ReplyDeleteThat's the study phase. The SEEing itself is lightning (blitz) fast.
ReplyDeleteAlthough there are only 30ish topics there are fine and long nuances to each. Pinning and Obstruction come to mind.
ReplyDeleteThere are several ways to count it, of course. Do you count the removal of the guard as 1? Or do you count the 6 described methods too? These methods are not limited to the removal of the guard. And the tempo methods are pretty universal as well. I'm pretty sure that it will be below 100, when you remove all doublings. And if it were 400, it doesn't change the conclusion.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, now a skill learning method starts to emerge, how can we generalize the method for other stages of the game than tactics alone? I'm pretty sure that the conceptualisation phase, the inventorisation of the methods and the ensuing patterns that need to be absorbed will have a universal application.
It all begins by the salient cues that are hidden in plain sight.
ReplyDeleteIf at first you don’t succeed, try, TRY again. (I’m still looking for that ‘cigar’.) I’ll use the Trebuchet concept (in the chess context) as an example of the difference between the visible salient cues and the hidden salient cues. The actual position itself is NOT important; ALL of the unwritten ‘rules’ about correctly playing for and against the Trebuchet ARE important.
ReplyDeleteKnowledge of what constitutes a Trebuchet is part of the visible salient cues. “I KNOW it when I “SEE it:”
FEN: 8/8/8/3Kp3/4Pk2/8/8/8 w - - 0 1
It doesn’t matter if White or Black is to move—it is mutual Zugzwang: whoever moves first LOSES (or at least, SHOULD lose: “There's many a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip”—English proverb).The overall takeaway (a ‘rule’) is that we should strive to get into this position when it is our turn to move; otherwise, we should avoid it. This is where hidden salient cues come into play.
There are several nuances (‘rules’) for properly assessing various King positions relative to the two blocked pawns, and deciding on the best way to play. NM Dan Heisman has an excellent tutorial video explaining all of the various (correct and incorrect) ways to play around with the Trebuchet position.
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZW9DaPpmGRQ
I won’t bore you with all of the positions from the video and the explication of the ‘rules’.
It is possible to LEARN ALL of the tactical subtleties if you ‘bend’ the position of the two Kings and SEE the implications as “When you see THIS, do THAT.” However, any one (or more) of the subtleties that are ‘hidden’ (ie, do not immediately spring to mind when playing) may cost a draw or a win. NM Heisman tells of a Class B student who lost a Trebuchet endgame that could have been drawn because he was unable to CALCULATE the consequences due to being short of time. The salient cues were hidden—for him.
Hidden salient cues would be any one (or more) of the nuances (‘rules’) that we don’t KNOW (or don’t remember) which allows us to play without having to laboriously calculate the consequences. In essence, it is “Smyslov’s ‘hand’.” Smyslov was said to have a ‘hand’ that just moved the right piece to the right place at the right time, without long and involved calculations.
I like Heisman’s mnemonics for encapsulating some of the required technique: “dance around” and “¡Ole!” are helpful ways to trigger the appropriate ways of playing.
I have not decided yet about the hidden cues that are clearly visible in the CURRENT position and the hidden cues that are only visible when you imagine a FUTURE position.
ReplyDeleteTake for instance the post from april 16th (hope that the link works). There the cue becomes only visible AFTER imagining a Queen on b7. I'm talking about the pinned knight and the overloaded rook.
You can get to see those hidden cues only after some use of system 2. You need some logical reasoning as guidance before those hidden cues become visible.
I don't like to talk about visible hidden cues and hidden hidden cues. Yet there is a difference.
What came to mind is the following cliché:
Delete"In theory, there is NO difference between theory and practice. In practice, there IS a difference between theory and practice."
Or, phrased a different way in a different cliché:
"When faced with a difference between the map and the terrain, BELIEVE THE TERRAIN!"
Interested in your thoughts on this position. [Event "?"]
ReplyDelete[Site "?"]
[Date "?"]
[Round "?"]
[White "?"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "3rqr1k/3R1ppB/4p2p/4B3/4QPb1/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]
Where is the White King?
DeleteRobert, this is a 5x5 problem which is a hint for a harder problem for CtArt. So it is Black on move and the white king is irrelevant
DeleteI meant white on move
DeleteIt's been a while since I used CtArt. I usually solve problems directly from Blokh's book The Art of Combination. I loaded it into Chess Tempo's Chess Database so I could see the position. Chess Tempo "complained" at the lack of a White King. I just put it on h2, so there was no immediate check available to Black.
DeleteI wondered why all the pieces were scrunched up in a small space, but that did not trigger the logical conclusion that it was a 5x5 problem. Maybe this is an example of hidden salient cues [Tongue-In-Cheek].
[Event "?"]
ReplyDelete[Site "?"]
[Date "?"]
[Round "?"]
[White "?"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "2r2rk1/4Rpp1/p1p1p2p/8/4B2P/3QB1P1/q1P3K1/8 w - - 0 1"]
For context. This is the harder problem.
I quoted GM Aagaard regarding the purpose of calculation in a comment on 25 MAR 2024. I repeat it here (because of the change in context) with the suggestion to apply it to your notion of visible and hidden salient cues. In short, use System 1 pattern recognition to SEE as many of the visible salient cues that we can, and then System 2 logical thinking to "discover" the hidden salient cues. Training should be aimed at increasing what is visible while simultaneously decreasing the necessity for calculating what is hidden. That is the essence of gaining SKILL.
ReplyDeleteI think GM Aagaard's observations about calculation may be applicable:
Calculation = The process of finding what you do not "SEE" automatically. How is this done? SLOW DOWN the flow of variations running through your head and LOOK for alternatives. The purpose of calculation is to aid decision making, NOT to SEE everything.
If we think of calculation as a process for "giving sight to the blind (or at least enabling some insights "as if SEEing through a dark glass")," then this is a good explanation of the difference between the various levels of skill—and a pointer to what must be done to reduce that "blindness." Blindness is a combination of insufficient KNOWLEDGE of basic motifs/themes/PATTERNS and insufficient SKILL in using a reliable process that can make the hidden salient cues become visible.
From lichess.com, Puzzle #R6rdR, rated 1172.
ReplyDeleteGame 3+0 – Blitz
WFM MariyaYakimova (2499) vs FM Cresswell (2493)
FEN: 8/8/6p1/2kPp/2p1p2P/2K1P/1P6/8 w - - 0 1
Black’s last move was 0… Kc5. Evaluate White’s potential move 1. B4, as played in the game.
What is the hidden salient cue?
If you don't SEE the answer immediately, calculate it.
The potential White move should read: 1. b4. I hate automatic spelling corrections!
DeleteOkay, that was a total disaster - my keyboard dropped the numeral 3 from the string, but Chess Tempo took it anyway!
DeleteThe FEN SHOULD be: 8/8/6p1/2k3Pp/2p1p2P/2K1P3/1P6/8 w - - 0 1
Sorry about that.
b4 is already occupied in the FEN?
ReplyDeleteSee above; I've been having problems with my keyboard. It's not going to take much more until I buy another laptop.
Delete1.b4 loses due to zugzwang. 1.b3 keeps the draw. Easy to see, but easy to overlook too.
ReplyDeleteI just solved a series of 564 mates. According to spaced repetition it was time again. I could SEE the solution of 520 problems immediately, for 40 problems I had to calculate before I saw it, and I had 4 problems wrong. So I assume I have a solid base now for mates.
ReplyDeleteI suggest keeping records of the time required to solve each problem and what you ‘missed’ for the ones you calculated and also the ones you got wrong. On the next spaced repetition, you can compare to this list in order to see if you are retaining the successful ones and if you are still having to calculate those same 40. In theory, your practice should (eventually) approach zero calculated and zero wrong. If not, that would be cause for concern. Knowing your thoroughness, I’m sure you already do that!
DeleteMate in 1 or Mate in 2 ?
Delete@anon. In one year I absorbed about 470 mate patterns. At the start I had only 50 absorbed, now 520. Of the 564 problems I had done 564 problems correct for the 12th time in a row. This was the 13th time. I don't know how often I got them wrong before that streak.
DeleteThat might give you an impression of the total amount of work. Since I constantly are fine tuning my methods, exact figures can't be given.
In the same time I absorbed about 100 non mate tactics.
@Takchess, I used The Checkmate Patterns Manual from Chessable. Mates are between 1 and 7 ply usually.
[That Anonymous comment was from Robert Coble via his iPhone, on which he forgot to sign in to Blogger on Google.]
ReplyDeletePART I:
Repeating the problem:
FEN: 8/8/6p1/2k3Pp/2p1p2P/2K1P3/1P6/8 w - - 0 1
I speculate (correct me if I’m wrong) that you SAW the Zugzwang almost instantly in your mind’s eye, with little or no calculation. So did I, and I’m lower rated than you. I also speculate that White (rated 2499 on lichess) did NOT SEE it; otherwise, she would not have played 1. b4. She “blundered” — WHY?
There are virtually infinite reasons for a blunder. However, some knowledge of the “heuristics and biases” approach of Kahneman to System 1/System 2 can provide us with some likely ‘candidates’ as the cause of her temporary blindness.
In a blitz game, it is always easy (and convenient) to blame time trouble. I don’t think that was the case here. The “problem” seems too easy to have taken any time at all to figure out — without calculation.
I think it improbable that White did not “KNOW” about Zugzwang. I also think it improbable that White did not “KNOW” about the special case of Zugzwang called the Trébuchet. It also would be improbable that White was unaware that the Trébuchet is just a special case of the more general Zugzwang concept. I also think it unlikely that the additional two pawn islands had anything to do with her blindness, since both islands are ram formations; there is no possibility of gaining/losing a tempo to switcharoo the Trébuchet player to move.
The problem, IMHO, was that White apparently compartmentalized her knowledge based on specific contexts (as we all sometimes do), likely resulting from the specific example(s) she had encountered during training, with inadequate generalizing/abstracting the essence from the surface-level cues. As a consequence, she could readily SEE the Zugzwang IFF the context was sufficiently similar to trigger the appropriate recognition pattern; otherwise, the concept would be ‘hidden in plain sight’.
PART II:
ReplyDeleteConsider the “typical’ Trébuchet positions used in tutorials. The following positions are typical (from Dan Heisman’s YouTube video Chess Endgames - Trebuchet & Dance Around.
1. FEN: 8/8/8/3Kp3/4pK2/8/8/8 w - - 0 1 [Trébuchet position; the player to move loses]
2. FEN: 8/2K5/4p3/4P3/6k1/8/8/8 w - - 0 1 [Directly attack the opponent’s pawn but NOT from the Trébuchet square, forcing the opponent to take his Trébuchet square.
3. FEN: 8/8/8/4p3/2K1P1k1/8/8/8 w - - 0 1 [Three choices: (1) direct attack from the Trébuchet square; (2) indirect attack from the Trébuchet square; (3) Abandoning the pawn and working for a draw using the Opposition. You must KNOW {or calculate} which choice to make based on the King positions AND who has must move first! If you choose choice (3), you must also KNOW the “dance around” technique to draw and the “¡Ole!” technique to win.]
4. FEN: 8/8/8/2K1p1k1/4P3/8/8/8 w - - 0 1 [The shoe is on the other foot: now White can give Black an opportunity to go wrong.]
5. FEN: 8/8/6p1/2k3Pp/2p1p3/2K1P2P/1P6/8 w - - 0 1 [This is a slight modification of the original problem. Does 1. b4 work here?]
In order to play these endings correctly, we must KNOW that the Opposition is just another application of Zugzwang: the player to move does NOT have the Opposition. We also must have the SKILL to play out the entire ending correctly. Any deficiency in SKILL can be fatal.
In these positions, the context is the “ram” (Hans Kmoch’s terminology) between the two pawns. The two Kings can maneuver so as to reach or avoid the Trébuchet position. Nothing in the tutorials have anything to say about what to do if the pawns are mobile and the two Kings are stationary.
THAT change in context between the training problems and the actual problem is the ‘hidden’ salient cue in this specific problem: the Kings are stationary (momentarily) and the pawns are movable. System 1 may tell System 2 that it’s a totally different situation — and System 2 will likely believe it!
We MUST “move the pieces around” and SEE the core concepts in several different contexts in order to extract the essence and generalize it to other (potentially related) positions. This is the only way to convert hidden cues into visible cues.
There are other Zugzwang variations that utilize the same concept. Here is one of my favorites (which I gave in a comment on 6 JAN 2016):
FEN - 8/5rk1/5Rp1/4K1P1/5P2/8/8/8 b - - 0 1
The Zugzwang that occurs (provided Black can “SEE” it) has a lot in common with the Trébuchet position. However, I suspect that few players experience it (or something similar) during training. The correct solution was ‘hidden’ from the Expert playing Black—and he managed to lose a game that was relatively easy to draw. He had the requisite knowledge but not the necessary SKILL.
I could SEE how white could hold the draw immediately. I had to calculate the difference between 1.b4 and 1.b3 though. I can image that you are inclined to think that the moves will work out the same. To SEE the difference, you need more skill than I currently have.
ReplyDeleteOf course now I see it, but there is no guarantee that I will see it in the future. Before that, I need to fiddle around with the Trebuchet some more. Which now seems not the best time for it.