Opening PLAY
I have the idea, that I currently have a method to transform knowledge into skill. It's pretty simple, it starts with knowledge. The knowledge is molded into logical narratives. Recently, I added another step to the process. When the narratives are well known, I go through the solution of a problem while speaking out loud the things the move accomplishes. When every detail of the logical narratives is known, the task of system 2 is over. By going through the moves while reciting the knowledge, the lead is in the hands of system 1. So it feels at least. The order is reversed, first the perception, than the verbal description of the knowledge. As if the perception triggers the knowledge.
I accidently stumbled on this last step. Somewhat inspired by Robert. For the first time I not only have a sound theoretical base, but I seem to have found the practical way to apply it too. This should make it possible for me to absorb a solution at a speed of one to two solutions per day. Given the usual distractions and unnecessary side roads, 200 solutions per year annually should be a realistic and conservative estimation.
For you, my dear reader, this is of course all pure speculation of course. What I feel is no evidence whatsoever.
What will count as evidence?
The typical child prodigy improves at a speed of 100 rating points per year. Kasparov describes his progress until he was world champion. The strange thing was that his progress was pretty linear. I don't know how that worked out with other child prodigies. Maybe it was just an incidental anomaly.
MDLM made a progress at a speed that was about four times as fast as Kasparov. He accidently stumbled on a method to absorb solutions to a problem, but then totally mishandled his find cognitively. Which is not uncommon for system 2.
But at least, the above should give me something to compare with. My rating improvement from 1998 to 2008 was about 250 points, from 1500 to 1750, due to a first time exposure to tactics. Then a slow decline followed from 1750 to 1700, despite daily tactical exercises (in the wrong way). So my starting point is 1700.
Opening PLAY
Finding a method has freed my mental resources. The past 1.5 year I have worked like a madman to catch up on a backlog in positional knowledge. I neglected that part of the game for 23 years due to the saying "chess is 99% tactics". The description of the LoA (lines of attack) landscape has given me an unexpected tool to guide me through the middlegame.
But I cannot make that tool work for the opening. It took me four or five years to totally revise my openings. Which is a crazy thing to do btw. But I finally made my choices.
One opening family for white
- Colle Zukertort
- Barry Attack
- London System
- Classical Dutch
- French
- QG Vienna variation
- Nimzo Indian
- 1. ... b6
 |
| Opening |
A couple of things:
ReplyDelete(1) Your subjective speculations/feeling ARE evidence that you are on the right path. That you may not be able to verbalize an airtight logical case is not for lack of evidence. Instead, it is a fact that the perceptions occur first, then System 2 creates a "story" that serves as evidence when you try to convey that information to others. I recall an anecdote about GM Nimzowitsch in which, after one of his particularly brilliant games, he was asked how the idea of the combination came to him, because it seemed to violate his "System." He replied, "I don't know; I just SAW it."
As for dealing with unexpected opening moves: I struggled with that for a long time, mainly because I took any deviation by the opponent from "theory" as being a requirement for me to "punish" the opponent for his transgression. It took a long time for me to stop feelinging that. Instead, look at it as an opportunity to "boldly go where no man has gone before, to explore strange new worlds."
Instead of just throwing something out there at random in a panic, view it as reaching the end of your opening preparation; now you are on your own. At that moment of deviation, PERCEIVE the contours of the position (even as early as move 1) and decide how and where you want to develop your pieces.
Every single move in the opening carries information about potential weaknesses and opportunities for PoPLoAFun. It also does not matter if you don't play the best line according to theory. Mister Lasker opined that playing a less-than-perfect opening line combined with intense focused attention will often turn a slight disadvantage into an advantage. Play what the position wants to be played (as YOU perceive it), to the best of your ability, and things will (generally) work out for you. After all, even though it may feel like it at times, you are NOT taking a university exam—enjoy it!