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!
About SEEing the logic of a combination and say it out loud, I remember that Munich made his biggest progress while he was tagging the problems at ChessTempo. I assume that THINKING it out loud in your head will do either.
ReplyDeleteThe crux seems to be that perception precedes the thinking. Or system 1 precedes system 2.
So the absorbing AKA the skill formation starts with perception and is followed by describing it verbally. Perception before description, SEEing before naming, system 1 before system 2.
ReplyDeleteTo see MORE, you use system 2 IN THE STUDY ROOM in order to discover new salient cues. No matter which framework is used or which word salads are brewed, as long as it unearths new salient cues, all is good. Since at the end, the work of system 2 goes down the drain, and the SEEing is cemented followed by the verbal description of the logic. This way, we get a cooperation of system 1 and system 2.
OTB, the first work is done by perception, triggering the logic that is related to it. "The scenarios".
The next tournament I intend to use to gain more clarity about the opening phase. In order to force a breakthrough, I bought the following Chessable course My First Opening Repertoire for Black from GM Jon Ludvig Hammer. It is aimed at 1000 - 1300, which might look ridiculous at first sight. But the goal is to get more clarity, and the repertoire doesn't contradict the repertoire I already try to play, and I can learn it in two weeks.
ReplyDelete“Chess books should be used as we use glasses: to assist the sight, although some players make use of them as if they thought they conferred sight.”
ReplyDelete- José Raúl Capablanca y Graupera
Your observations demonstrate the backwardness of the “logical” approach to training almost exclusively used by adult chess improvers (definitely NOT by child prodigies). The “proof” of that assertion is the inordinate number of books and videos that each of us own—that in most cases we have never actually studied at all, much less studied intensely. Instead, we make a cursory pass through the table of contents, look for the “interesting” stuff, and then make a superficial pass through that material, becoming “familiar” with the concept(s) while “nodding and approving.” Little wonder that our “study” does NOT (usually) result in any appreciable increase in SKILL. Oh, we might become quite adept at regurgitating a canned response whenever questioned because “we are familiar with the concepts”, but whatever it is that we “studied” does not become part of our subconscious System 1, and thus, remains as isolated chunks of KNOWLEDGE but never become an integral part of our SKILL set.
In the words of Nassim Nicholas Taleb [The Black Swan and other books in the Incerto series {HIGHLY recommended!}], we become Intellectuals Yet Idiots or, as a very famous old book stated:
… always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
— 2 Timothy 3:7
I hope soon to have more to say about PERCEPTION, the role it plays in the child prodigy “trick” AND THE ROLE IT CAN PLAY IN ADULT CHESS IMPROVEMENT. I’ve had several insights as a result of this ongoing conversation.
I encourage all of the “watchers” to join in the conversation.
That question definitely crossed my mind today. Can we do without the word salad in the study room?
ReplyDeleteMy first rating progress before 2008 of 250 points was due to the first time exposure to certain tactics.
My conclusion of what the Knights Errant proved has been that everybody increases about 250 points due to first time exposure to tactics, no matter the method.
What my system 2 does now in the study room is brewing some word salads that leads to a first time exposure to new cues.
Leaving open the question "can that be done in a more effective way?
Since I have found an effective way already, the question is not pressing. Yet it is interesting to know.
Do top players run out of new areas or do they fail to explore them?
Looking at the games of the world championship lately I'm inclined to suppose the latter. But I don't know.
What does the word salad accomplish? That I look again at things that I thought I already knew.
ReplyDeletePART I:
ReplyDelete“People put too much trust in words… They string empty words together to create an illusion of understanding. Everyone can spout generalities about the essence of a position, but nobody profits from it. – Simon Alapin
“We PERCEIVE. This is a hard fact. But what we perceive is not a fact of the same kind, because WE LEARN WHAT TO PERCEIVE.” – Carlos Castenada
“To put it more technically, we CONSTRUCT our understanding of positions, which means using what we have, however imperfect, to make sense of what we are given.” – GM Jonathan Rowson, Chess for Zebras: Thinking Differently about Black and White
“Chess concepts are learnt through examples [AND SO ARE PERCEPTIONS!], but they are expressed in words. … My impression is that words associated with the images cause problems in chess because they give, as Alapin puts it, “an illusion of understanding. … When we are playing a game of chess, our mental picture of the board is a picture of images, and moves are considered as shifts in those images. Chess moves, and the relationships between the pieces, cannot be reduced to a verbal description without distortion, and any verbal account can only ever describe what is happening in a position in very approximate terms. But who needs words anyway? It seems to me that the weaker you are the more likely you are to make more use of them.” – GM Jonathan Rowson, Chess for Zebras: Thinking Differently about Black and White
“If you are not confused, you are just not thinking clearly.” – Tom Peters
“Every time I see a kid making a mistake and ask him WHY he played that move his reply starts with the words ‘Well, I thought…’. ‘Don’t think’ I reply, ‘LOOK’.” – Richard James, author of The Complete Chess Addict and Chess Teacher
“At what level do we stop just repeating what we have remembered and genuinely start to understand WHY we’re playing the move? At my level, it’s almost entirely memory, mostly taken out of context.” - Richard James, Chess writer and teacher, rated around 2000
“I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand.” - Xunzi
“Skill to do comes of doing.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson
“We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence then, is not an act, but a habit.” - Aristotle
Credit where credit is due: the quotes above (except for the quote by Xunzi) come from GM Rowson’s excellent books.
I started with those quotes to establish a frame of mind for the following discussion regarding the child prodigy’s “trick.” I admit that this discussion is idiosyncratic and subjective. Take whatever you can from it, make it your own, and go your own way with your own opinion. There are many paths leading up toward the summit of Mount Adult Chess Improvement.
Enough with the aphorisms. Let’s start with a chess problem that you may have seen. Before setting up the position, try to get in the frame of mind to be aware of what you PERCEIVE the moment you see the position on the board.
FEN: 8/6p1/k1P2p1p/7K/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1
Does it seem somewhat familiar? If not, how would you evaluate this position with White to move: win, loss, or draw? What goal is White trying to achieve?
Do you PERCEIVE the underlying concepts for White to achieve his goal?
Let’s start with the goal for White. White is behind two Pawns in material. Black can stop the WPc6 and capture it. White cannot take the BPg7 without allowing two Black passed Pawns, each with a clear path to promotion. How can White stop both of those Pawns? Should White just throw in the towel and resign?
The goal for White is to draw. He cannot win with any reasonable sequence of moves; Black’s advantage is too great. His king is in the “square of the Pawn” (one of the underlying concepts).
PART II:
ReplyDeleteIf you have not PERCEIVED the general idea at this point, take a look at the nexus of attention [BKa6, WPc6] in isolation. Does that remind you of something from the famous endgame study by Richard Réti, 1921? Perhaps not; here is that endgame study position:
FEN: 7K/8/k1P6/7p/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1
Note that the [BKa6, WPc6] nexus is identical in the two problems. Does that trigger any ideas for what White might attempt?
The other underlying concept is the non-geometrical nature of the chessboard. The chessboard is divided into 64 squares, which are actually just points. There are no continuous geometrical lines on the chessboard. When we speak of traversing a “line” on the chessboard, we are seeing something that really does not exist. For this reason, the usual maths geometry “rules” do NOT apply. In terms of squares, the length in squares of the hypotenuse is exactly equal to the length of either side of a right triangle, violating the Pythagorean equation c^2 = a^2 + b^2 (where “^2” means squared). Adults, generally familiar with geometry maths, gloss over this distinction in the board’s design. Our “vision” (based on our stored knowledge) smooths over the step-wise nature of squares, PERCEIVING the length of the diagonal in maths terms, NOT in chessboard terms.
Since the child prodigy does not have these maths concepts through which to filter the chessboard (since geometry is NOT taught to 2.5-5 year olds), he does not filter out the possibility of traversing the diagonals as quickly as traversing the files and ranks. So, if his teacher exposes him to the famous Réti maneuver, it is a much closer mental “jump” from one problem to the other for the similar solution approach.
The presentation of either of the two puzzles can cause sufficient clues/patterns to enable immediate recognition of the other. It can be demonstrated visually with minimal verbal instruction: when you see this idea, consider this sequence of moves. It can be drilled by the teacher by playing it out against the student multiple times.
One example is usually never sufficient to store a chunk in a retrievable form by System 1; exceptions abound. My estimate is that it normally takes approximately 50 or more examples of a specific set of circumstances in order to establish a readily retrievable pattern consistently using System 1.
The key for the child prodigy is exposure to sufficient examples. Understanding the concept occurs intuitively; it is not KNOWLEDGE per se, but SKILL in the form of “when you SEE this pattern, do this sequence of moves.”
Patterns can consist consist of smaller, simpler patterns or not; the connectivity between various nexuses of attention usually must be conveyed verbally; at a minimum, the child prodigy must SEE the concept demonstrated.
The “trick” lies in demonstrations and repetition by doing, not by rote learning of KNOWLEDGE via lectures.
We adults have been trained to learn verbally through a lifetime of academia. In order to apply the “trick,” we have to UN-learn that verbal process, and learn (again) what we knew as children: how to learn VISUALLY starting with PERCEPTION.
Our brains (yes even our adult brains) have the marvelous capacity to form associations into patterns that we can readily PERCEIVE. We can “cement” those patterns by repetition. Tempo’s suggestion for verbalizing all of each scenario while studying a particular example is great advice. Verbalization without perception is essentially wasted effort.
Correction: the FEN for the Réti, 1921 position is:
Delete7K/8/k1P5/7p/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1
Vinger slip.
This is a typical position where you need to fiddle around for a few days before you get the hang of it.
DeleteNotice that I capitalized the word PLAY in the title of this post.
In between two clay projects, I use to fiddle around with clay for an evening in order to get the skill to create a female face and to change the age of a face. I tried the rules, but that didn't help. So now I just push the clay and see how the expression changes. Sometimes it becomes an ape, or an alien, or a chinese, or my aunt. But most of the time I get an old man.
Keywords: fiddling, playing, observe. feel.
“PLAY” - noted.
ReplyDeleteWhat I found fascinating about those two positions is that Reti found two different positions to illustrate the same concepts. Once the “idea” is emboldened, applying it becomes easier, even if not easy. (Robert is Anonymous; from my phone)
What I notice is that in order to visualize a complex tree of analysis, you can only do that when you have absorbed all patterns that form the branches.
ReplyDeleteIf I define calculation as the creation of a logical narrative, then calculation is an activity of system 2. You can only calculate one line at the time. If you try to do more, then you need to repeat yourself in order to keep everything in your mind. System 2 is sequential, while system 1 can work parallel.
Trying to imitate parallel processing with system 2 is error prone and will ultimately fail.
This gives a clear picture of what we need to learn.
In academia, theory precedes practice. In reality, practice precedes theory.
ReplyDeleteIn martial arts, whenever someone proposes using a (new or modified) self-defense technique, the answer is always, “Take it to the mat and let’s see if it WORKS. If it doesn’t work there, it most certainly will NOT work on the street.” I watched my son (a 3rd degree black belt instructor) eliminate much of the “flash” from the Chuck Norris karate testing system - because it did not work in reality, even though it was “demonstrated” many times on TV and in the movies, and Chuck Norris was one of the greatest karateka who ever fought in real life full-contact mode.
The biggest problem I’ve had (perhaps I’m not alone ;-) ) with all this theorizing regarding how best to achieve consistent adult chess improvement is finding the applied practical training implementation. If it works in theory, but not over the board for improving rating under tournament conditions, then it is just another useless serving up of word salads.
Placing perception at the beginning of the pattern recognition process is a practical application. Binding those perceptions together with logical scenarios into a coherent whole requires a logical sequential training process – DO this step to SEE this pattern, then DO THAT step to SEE this different (perhaps new, perhaps merely a modification of the previous SEEN) pattern, etc. Utilizing those bound perceptions subconsciously is the hallmark of SKILL.
I eagerly look forward to your next tournament results!
BTW: what is the date of your next tournament foray?
ReplyDeleteA gentle reminder: STOP and LOOK BEFORE you make every move! You won't regret the few seconds it takes to survey the board for gross oversights/blunders.