The what and the how
Somehow the picture seems to emerge as if the what (what to do) is related to knowledge and the how (how to do it) is related to skill. I don't think that is the case. The what represents the stage of diagnosis while the how represents the stage of administering the remedy. Both diagnosis and remedy have two sides: knowledge and skill. The logical narrative represents knowledge, while the accompanying patterns that are absorbed represents the skill.
Diagnosis and skill have a N:M relationship. Because for every problem that you diagnose, there are a few different solutions. And there are a lot of solutions that can be applied to many problems.
In general it is difficult to deduct the problem from the solution. Especially in endgames. There are quite a few problems of which knowing how to handle the Trébuchet is the solution.
Most endgame books focus on solutions, not diagnoses.
I agree with you that there can be no sharp separation between KNOW THAT and KNOW HOW. I prefer your categorization as diagnosis and remedy with a N:M relationship between them.
ReplyDeleteTake a look at the following 8 positions which have something in “common” on the surface which points to the critical local area BUT the remedy varies significantly. [Solutions are given at the end.]
#1: FEN: 8/3Q4/p2b2p1/3pk1Pp/1P1qp2P/8/P1P5/2K5 w - - 0 1
Black’s last move: 0… K(f5)e5
#2: FEN: 4Q3/p4pkp/2p2bpq/3pB3/3P3P/8/P5PK/8 w - - 0 1
Black’s last move: 0...Q(c1)h6
#3: FEN: 8/8/3bb1p1/p1Bk1p1p/Pp1Pp3/1K2P1P1/4BP1P/8 w - - 0 1
Black’s last move: 0...B(c7)d6
#4: FEN: 4r1k1/R4p1p/6p1/3Pq3/3B1QP1/2P2PKp/4r3/8 b - - 0 1
White’s last move: 0. B(c5)d4
#5: FEN: r3k2r/1bp1qpp1/1pnb1n1p/p2p4/3P4/PP2PN2/1BQNBPPP/R3K2R w - - 0 1
Black’s last move: 0...Q(d8)e7
#6: FEN: 1r4k1/2qpnppp/2pbp3/p7/4PP2/P2BB3/2P3PP/2Q2R1K w - - 0 1
Black’s last move: 0...Q(a7)c7
#7: FEN: 5Q2/pp4pk/2n3np/8/3pB1P1/3P3P/PPP1pP1K/4q3 w - - 0 1
Black’s last move: 0...N(h4)g6
#8: FEN: 5k2/1R6/4p3/3pP1p1/2nPr3/2PK2P1/4N3/8 b - - 0 1
Black’s last move: 0...N(h4)g6
There is a common pattern of 4 squares that represent a “cul-de-sac” (or a narrow ravine with a bottleneck at one end) which restricts the movements of one of the pieces to (almost) Zugzwang. This triggers the idea for a tactical ambush. Two of the squares are either occupied or mined (controlled by one or more opponent’s pieces). There is a diagonal (the cul-de-sac) that provides the only square by which a defense can be made. The objective is to force the defender out of the cul-de-sac, thereby losing contact with the defended piece or forcing it into a checkmate.
This is NOT an analysis based on KNOW HOW; it is KNOW THAT. It is the recognition of a common structural pattern that can occur at any stage of the game. The tactical means [KNOW HOW] are as varied as the positions are different. Yet the diagnosis (if we can ”SEE” that common structure) is very similar.
[I almost slipped up and referred to the dreaded “T” word as being similar in nature during diagnosis, but caught myself just in time. ;) ]
Here are the solutions (refer back to the problem numbers):
#1: GM STOCKFISH: D21 +6.20 1.Qg7+ Kf5 2.Qxd4
Common pattern: Ke5-Qd4-Pe4-Pd5
#2: GM STOCKFISH: D27 Mate 2 1.Bxf6+ Kxf6 2.Qe5#
Common pattern: Kg7-Bf6-Be5-Qe8
#3: GM STOCKFISH: D28 +5.29 1.Bc4+ Kc6 2.Bxe6 h4 3.gxh4 Bxh2 4.Bf7 Bg1 5.Bxg6 Bxf2 6.Kc4 Bxh4
Common pattern: Kd5-Bd6-Pd4 (attacking e5)-Be6
#4: GM STOCKFISH: D25 Mate 10 1...Rg2+ 2.Kxh3 Qxf4 3.Kxg2
Common pattern: Kg3-Qf4-Pg4-Pf3
#5: GM STOCKFISH: D20 +3.52 1.Bb5 Kf8 2.Bxc6 Bxc6 3.Qxc6
Common pattern: Nc6-Bb7-Pc7-Pb6
#6: GM STOCKFISH: D18 +3.11 1.e5 Bxe5 2.fxe5
Common pattern: Qc7-Bd6-Pd7-Pc6
#7: GM STOCKFISH: D22 Mate 2 1.Bxg6+ Kxg6 2.Qf5#
Common pattern: Kh7-Ng6-Pg7-Ph6
#8: GM STOCKFISH: D25 +4.75 1...Re3+ 2.Kc2 Rxe2+ 3.Kd1 Rg2 4.Rh7 Rxg3
Common pattern: Kd3-Ne2-e3-square-d2-square (controlled by Black)
Can these problems be solved without any concept of that “common” structure? OF COURSE! However, I’ve found that I ”SEE” the IDEA much quicker in one big gulp now that I am aware of that specific diagnostic structure.
I suspect (no, I KNOW) there are many other common structures that provide diagnostic clues with standard scenarios associated with them.
The juxtaposition of diagnosis and remedy caused me to look for something other than the standard tactical clues (fork, pin, skewer, etc.) Yet there is nothing I have ever seen in chess literature about this idea.
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut (or IS a nut) occasionally.
Very good!
ReplyDeleteWhat is important is the frequency of occurrence of a pattern. That is my guide. First I must absorb all the patterns that occur in every game. Have a look on my next post. Only after absorbing the frequent occurring patterns I can gather the less frequent ones.
The eight examples you give seem to have the same pattern in common, albeit the methods to exploit them is different. When I hear pattern, I hear system 1.