Change of plans
I'm always right. The reason for this is, that when I'm not right, I change my opinion. I don't cling to any opinion. I don't build my ego on any opinion. Which doesn't mean it isn't sometimes painful to let a beloved opinion go when I invested a lot of work in it.
This opportunistic vision comes at a price. First I must be prepared to endure the pain to let go a beloved opinion. I must not cling to the amount of work I have invested in it. Furthermore I must be prepared to invest even more work to synchronize my approach to the newly acquired opinion. Take for instance when I came to the conclusion that I needed more positional openings, it took me about five years to find five new openings that fitted my new ideas of openings and to adopt them to some degree.
And it is a bit scary. Now I have entered the realm of endgame strategy, it might well lead to different conclusions about the middlegame and the openings phase. So I'm mentally prepared to change my opening repertoire yet again, when my logical conclusions tell me so.
So my approach might be opportunistic, it doesn't mean it is free of obligations.
I can't say that my plan to engage in endgame strategy has been very attaching already. I felt a bit dubious about it. So I was pleasantly surprised that Chessable came with a new course today about pawn majorities and pawn minorities in the middlegame. I immediately felt that this is the way to go. So I change my plan to study endgame strategy in the endgame to studying endgame strategy in the middlegame. Luckily I hadn't invested much work into it already. And if my new study leads to the conclusion to change my opening repertoire yet again, then so be it. The sooner I realize that, the better.
But actually I expect that I only need to tweak some opening variations a little bit. I look forward to this new study!
Comment to a comment
Now let's have a look at a comment from Robert on the previous post. I divided the rules into two areas:
- endgame strategy
- technique that needs context
[F] = Fine
[B] = Benko[B] 1. Start thinking about the endgame in the middlegame.
[B] 2. Somebody usually gets the better deal in every exchange.
[F] 4. If you are one or two pawns ahead, exchange pieces but not pawns.
[F] 5. If you are one or two pawns behind, exchange pawns but not pieces.
[F] 6. If you have an advantage, do not leave all the pawns on one side. If you are one pawn ahead, in 99 cases out of 100 the game is drawn if there are pawns on only one side of the board.
[B] 7. A distant passed pawn is half the victory.
[F] 10. The easiest endings to win are pure pawn endings.
[B] 18. Not all rook endings are drawn!
[B] 19. Perpetual check looms in all queen endings.
[B] 20. Every move in the endgame is of the utmost importance because you are closer to the moment of truth.
[F] 13. Bishops are better than knights in all except blocked pawn positions.
[F] 15. The easiest endings to draw are those with bishops of opposite colors.
[F] 16. Rooks belong behind passed pawns. {The Tarrasch “rule”}
[F] 17. A rook on the seventh rank is sufficient compensation for a pawn.
I think I may have found a statement regarding “general” endgame strategy in The Tactics of End-Games by Jenë Bán. I think it is probably as useful [and useless] as any general directions for “DOING” anything in chess.
ReplyDeleteAccordingly, the transition to an end-game has been completed as soon as the player to move has an opportunity of demonstrating, by a sequence of forcing moves in all variations, his unquestionable victory or the absolute futility of his opponent’s efforts to win.
. . .
Forcing is the principle of tactics!
. . .
There is not always an opportunity in a game for effective forcing. Such opportunities must be carefully prepared and established by means of methodical play. The establishment and preparation of the play and the alignment of the forces before the decisive battle constitute STRATEGY. The strategically established possibilities or the unexpected chances resulting from some particular move by the opponent are exploited by tactical means.
This hints at what we should be looking for: the measures that must be taken in order to reach a position (the “initial position” of the end-game) from which we KNOW WHAT must be done and HOW to do it all the way to the end of the game. Fortunately, that does NOT mean we have to KNOW every variation of moves that must be considered all the way to the end before we take the first step. It is sufficient to clearly “SEE” one limited sequence of steps, then another short sequence of steps, etc. until reaching the final destination. (We are back in Botvinnik’s swamp, trying to get out before nightfall.)
IM John Watson has been a strong proponent of the general idea that modern chess play is “rule independent.” He considers the “rules” to be mere shorthand for encapsulating the specifics of what should be done and how it should be done in a specific situation, rather than killing forests of trees trying to nail down every nuance using words.
Chess “rules” have always been riddled with exceptions (i.e., the necessary context), in some cases to the point that the exceptions are so numerous as to invalidate the “rule.” Substituting other words for “rule” (such as “principle” or “suggestion”) does not seem to have much effect in preventing students from taking onboard the connotation that a “rule” is equivalent to an iron-clad “law” without (or with minimal) exceptions.
Perhaps it would be better to consider the “rules” to be mere “hints” to be investigated with focused attention, mere “heuristics” rather than axioms.
Unfortunately, when we don’t KNOW what must be done, we are eager to take onboard the advice of “experts” (which may have come from other, earlier, “experts”) as a substitute for personal knowledge, skill and experience, with minimal hints (if at all) that there is an overriding constraint on all suggested “rules”:
IT DEPENDS ON THE CONTEXT!
Mister Lasker liked to caveat his “rules” with the Latin phrase: ceteris paribus – all other things being equal. He was also careful to note that in chess rarely (if at all) are “all other things equal.”
Rules are the lazy man's way to avoid thinking. But TINSTAAFL.
ReplyDeleteSystem 1 derives its patterns from logical narratives. Logical narratives are devised by system 2. A logical narrative is based on a goal. There are a limited amount of goals where you can strive for. There is a limited amount of scenarios.
We must learn these scenarios in the study room. There is no time for that during OTB play. If you grind someone down in 80 moves, then you have 1.5 minute per move at average.
Rules are useless, instead use scenarios. A scenario is the same as a logical narrative. Scenarios are accompanied by patterns. These patterns are the time saving salient cues which must put you on track. The heavy work during an OTB game is done by system 2 which has to decide between different possible scenarios.
PART I:
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that uncritically relying on “rules” [absent context] CAN be a lazy way to avoid thinking for yourself. Memorizing a bunch of “rules” (and thereby assuming that equates to SKILL) is obviously (or maybe not obviously) true.
My choice as an alternative word for “rule is “maxim.” A maxim is a short, pithy statement expressing a general truth or rule of conduct. Obviously, there is context (and potential exceptions) associated with a maxim.
“If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.”
—Isaac Newton
Don’t “reinvent the bicycle.”
—Mikhail Tal
Time spent investigating and abstracting (boiling down essential truths into easily remembered and applicable maxims) is not wasted time. Starting from a given maxim and trying to determine when/if it is applicable is not wasted time either. On the other hand, merely memorizing maxims without KNOWING the context in which they are applicable (or potential exceptions) IS a waste of time.
I’m not quite so sure that “rules” are useless. The easiest way for ME to determine if I agree with a “rule” is to apply the “rule”—to itself. Without trying to be a contrarian (which I am, naturally), consider that if ”rules” are useless is a ”rule”, then it is self-contradictory.
PART II:
ReplyDeleteConsider one of the “rules” for determining proper play in the simplest pawn only ending [K+P vs K]—the rule of the Square. The “rule” states that a passed pawn can be caught before promotion IFF the opponent’s king is in (or can move into) the Square of the pawn.
FEN: 8/8/8/8/8/P6k/8/1K6 w - - 0 1
It is fairly easy to confirm the truth or falsity of that “rule” for yourself without an infinite number of examples. Once you have “SEEN” WHY that maxim is true, it becomes an easily accessible permanent SKILL that can be applied with a glance: [“look” from the pawn along the diagonal to the 8th rank and create a Square based on the two end points; if the opponent’s king is in or can enter that Square, it can catch the pawn and capture it before or when it promotes], without any requirement to laboriously calculate out (“If I go here, he goes there,” etc.) the relative moves of the pawn and the king. It is simultaneously a mnemonic and a “shortcut” that encapsulates what has to be remembered and recalled in order to skillfully play that type of position. The “rule” enables us to talk about a specific geometrical relationship between pawn and opponent’s king in a more abstract way, simplifying the discussion involved in gaining or transferring skill.
That other moves (depending on the same side’s king position) also win just as quickly (1. Kb2; 1. Kc2; 1. Kc1: Mate in 14; see GM Stockfish) is irrelevant. Once ONE “maxim” is found that GUARANTEES the win IFF the “rule” is applicable (depending on the relative position of the pieces), additional ways to win (especially those requiring laborious step-by-step calculation) are redundant and not as efficient; Occam’s Razor applies.
There is at least one “wrinkle” to the Square “rule.” The Square does not start on the initial pawn square, but on the 3rd rank (if the pawn has not been moved).
FEN: 8/8/8/8/8/8/P5k1/1K6 w - - 0 1
Why is there an exception? Because on its first move, the pawn can move two squares instead of only one, “getting the jump” on the opposing king.
Lasker noted that the young men comprising the Hypermodern School were remarkable in their attitude toward the classical “rules.” They STARTED their investigations with the classical “rules” as given. He also noted the enormous work they put into bending/breaking/testing those “rules” in ways that had never occurred to anyone else previously. It was their unrelenting effort to examine the most minute details of the “rules” that enabled them to find so many exceptions—and entirely new ways of playing chess.
In your quest for adult chess improvement, this statement is absolutely true:
“I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways [“rules”?] that won't work.”
PART III:
ReplyDeleteMister Lasker’s views on the subject:
The game of Chess has not been designed to serve as paradigm for very subtle questions and it happens not to express the above principle [of proportion] as well as it might. [The principle of proportion tells us that to the greater basic advantage should correspond the more ambitious plan.] So far as the end of the game is concerned, it knows only three values: win, lose, or raw, and this number is insufficient to allow of an accurate estimate to be made of the advantages leading up to the issues. . . .
A well-know example is that of “playing to win” which Dr. Tarrasch has renamed “playing to lose.” That always happens when the player overrates his advantage or for other reasons seeks to derive from a minute advantage a great return such as a forced win.
Another example concerns the way in which conclusions are drawn from examples. You must not draw too general a conclusion from too few examples. Unfortunately, this error is made far and wide. . . . Hence, a few words on how inductive conclusions should be drawn in chess.
A rule or law or stratagem pertaining to Chess does not come down from heaven but must have connections and analogies in Life; it must therefore by natural. For instance, the rules of development telling us to get the pieces out in the quickest manner compatible with safety reminds us of the setbacks that an inactive man suffers, and it appeals to us at once. After having discovered what presumably is such a rule, we must associate it with Chess as closely as possible. But not with purposely thought-out positions: with natural positions, which could, nay even assuredly would, crop up in well-contested games If the rule applies under such conditions, we hold a rough diamond. Then we have to cut it, so as to bring out its lustre, by trying to change the rule a little this way and a little that way. If the rule can be thus twisted abut and yet seem to apply, it is a bad sign. The right rule, right in wording and content, cannot be changed in the slightest manner without losing some of its power or application.
This method is not followed, nowadays, either in the act of discovery or in that of criticism. The so-called “hyper – modern” school almost lives by NOT following it, but by erecting magnificent structures out of flimsy material. For all that, this school has its good points. It has quickened our imagination, it has taught us to suspect mechanical Chess, it has insisted on the high value of the central Pawns, it has warned against their premature advance. But these accomplishments were due to a most diligent research of highly gifted young men who during the last dozen years have played many hard games—thousands of them, with passionate devotion. Nor are these rules new; but they had never been tested before nor applied within a range so wide as they have by these youths. The purely logical gain of the hyper-modern school cannot be viewed with too much suspicion. Its inductions, generalisations, constructions, even its definitions, are made with an insouciance that is enviable as a mood but un-business-like.
I haven't thought about rules very deeply yet. Rules are a simplification. Everything that is simplified loses details. It seems that rules are good for the technique (the how). What I'm more interested in is the what. That is the realm of standard scenarios. A scenario is neutral in itself. Technique is needed to work out whether a scenario is even possible. System 2 is needed to judge, to value the different possible scenarios.
DeleteWe need rules, since we need simplification. Without simplification, the mind is easily overwhelmed. Can rules be overruled? Of course. That is where concrete calculation comes in. Does that make us rule independent? I don't think so. I at least need that simplification. But before the how comes the what. I think that the what is described in the form of scenarios. I don't think that scenarios are described by rules very well. Nor do I think that the choice BETWEEN two different scenarios can be catched in rules.
It's a quandary. I think of maxims as an abstract encapsulation or an encapsulated abstraction. Even if we "know" a maxim, we have to know how to perceive the clues of it hiding beneath the surface of WYSIATI (What You See Is All There Is) AND the appropriate technique(s) associated with it. Making the transition from recognition of the surface-level clues to the essence of the technique(s) to be applied must involve both System 1 and System 2 (or maybe not).
DeleteI think your suggestion of using descriptions based on scenarios (instead of maxims or “rules”) makes a lot of sense. It’s much more memorable to have a “story” that emphasizes the essence rather than a “rule” with no context.
The amount of scenarios of PoPLoAFun is clearly finite. I suspect that the same will be true for the scenarios that accompany the pawn promotion. When we have described those scenarios and absorbed them, this discussion will be settled or become obsolete. For now I look forward to unearth the scenarios. I expect quite a few surprises.
DeleteInterested in reading this in full. Tempo & Robert, I'd like to let you know I have started blogging again as well . https://takchesschess.blogspot.com/2024/06/5x5-ct-art-is-inexpensive-chess-program.html
ReplyDeleteI don't know whether the RSS feed will work. So give me a notification when you post a new post.
Delete