Five areas of improvement
The following rant is a summary of my experiences of the past 1.5 years and especially the last tournament. It might sound a bit vague because it is partly based on my gut feelings, and not hindered by common beliefs. Since it sketches a realistic view of what might be needed to improve in the following years, I think it is useful anyway.
There are five areas of improvement.
Technique
- tactics
- positional play
Strategy
- endgame
- opening
- king assault
From these five areas, I have only developed tactics to a certain degree. To what degree?
Ad tactics
I have absorbed:
- 389 mates
- 208 knight moves
- 122 other tactics
These numbers are problems. One problem is inhabited by 3 patterns, at average. I estimate that I have absorbed 36% of the tactics that are necessary to become the tactical wizard we all want to be.
Currently, the absorption of tactical patterns has as effect that my my view changes from pieces to the cooperation of pieces.
It turns out that the PoPLoAFun system is especially useful for checking the found variations for completeness. When you know what you want to play, you can use it to check how the opponent can possibly intervene with the lines of attack you intend to use. It is not used for finding the variation lines.
Ad positional play
It may sound weird to share positional play under "technique". But technique is everything that is strategy independent. It is used in each and every game, regardless the strategy you are pursuing. The sub areas are:
- increase piece activity
- restrain your opponents pieces
- exchange the right pieces
The absolute minimum amount of problems for positional play to absorb is 400. I have absorbed 0%. Yet it didn't came out as a major cause of losing points during the last tournament. It is indispensable, though. The problem set I gathered is ready to absorb.
Strategy
The last tournament showed that I suck at all three areas of strategy. All three sub areas have a totally different taste over them. This means that the approach to become better in these sub areas will be very different. Furthermore, a lot of preparation is needed to get the right problem sets.
Ad endgames
I reckon that I can make the fastest progress in this area. I have invested a lot of time in the past in endgame study. But due to the helter-skelter approach of chess authors, that was mainly a waste of time. The most difficult task is to get an idea of priorities. What to study first?
Don't start with the endgame compositions of Grigoriev, since it are freak positions that don't occur in real games. Don't start with B+N vs K, since you will get it only once in a lifetime. And when you get it and fail, you will have the perfect motivation to do it well the next time.
I think it is a good idea to start with pawn endings. Since they underpin all other endgames. The pawns dictate the strategy, the pieces are only the docile servants to get them forward.
There are the theoretical and practical endgames, and you need to know them. But they form only 20% of the area. There are two sub areas that form the remaining 80% and that are usually totally neglected:
- endgame strategy
- endgame tactics
As Robert pointed out:
“I know at sight what a position contains. What could happen? What is going to happen? YOU figure it out. I KNOW it!” - Jose Raul Capablanca
And that expresses the feeling that emerges lately. The amount of scenarios is finite. The basis must be the pawns. I guess that we don't need an enormous amount of positions. It suffices to study a few positions (like the Trebuchet 😋 ) but they must be studied deeply and thoroughly.
Ad openings
The opening is a totally different animal. The narratives are geared around squares. Which squares do you want and which squares do you give up? I assume the amount of narratives is finite, but I deem that it is huge nonetheless. It is the art to prune the possibilities without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I have no concrete plan yet.
Ad king assault
The big surprise of this tournament, which gave itself away by a sudden increase in time usage. I thought naively that doing tactics would make me better in the assault of the king. But that is not the case.
The assault of the king is terra incognita. I must invent the wheel myself here. Every suggestion is welcome. That means that I'm far away from absorbing the patterns that govern the king assault. Since I have no patterns nor an adequate problem set.
 |
| Sucking at chess |
PART I:
ReplyDeleteTemposchlucker wrote:
Don't start with B+N vs K, since you will get it only once in a lifetime. And when you get it and fail, you will have the perfect motivation to do it well the next time.
If you will only get it once per lifetime, then there is no need to study it after you fail because you will not ever get it again. I’M TEASING!
“Experts” diametrically differ in their opinions regarding the importance of learning the technique of this specific endgame.
I consider IM Mark Dvoretsky to be a higher level trainer than IM Jeremy Silman, but that is only because Dvoretsky generally trains GMs and IMs, and Silman generally is focused on training much lower skilled club players. That said, both have valid opinions. The essential difference is the justification for those differing opinions.
IM Silman’s view from Silman’s Complete Endgame Course: From Beginner to Master:
[EXCERPT]
Some of you might be wondering when I’m going to teach you Bishop and Knight vs. lone King. The shocking (almost heretical) answer is, “Never!” My reasoning is very simple: I personally have had this position once in my whole career. That’s right, just once! My good friend (and well known chess author) IM John Watson has never had it at all! On top of that, Bishop and Knight vs. King is not at all easy to learn [at least not in the way it is traditionally taught], and mastering it would take a significant chunk of time [that’s not necessarily true either]. Should the chess hopeful [that would be US!] really spend many of the precious hours he’s put aside for chess study learning an endgame that he’ll achieve (at most) once or twice in a lifetime?
In general, every position I give in this book will happen fairly often, or understanding it will allow you to solve other positions with similar themes. [KEEP THAT JUSTIFICATION IN MIND!] I don’t feel Bishop and Knight versus lone King falls into this category, but then, two Bishops vs. King is also a rare bird in tournament play. So why should I insist you learn two Bishops vs. lone King? There are three reasons for its inclusion:
---> I find the need to use all three of your pieces in a balanced team effort to be quite instructive. [The same reason applies to the B+N vs K endgame.]
---> Seeing how powerful two Bishops are when working together can be enlightening.
---> It’s very easy to learn and only involves a small expenditure of time to fully understand. [It remains to be seen if that is applicable to B+N vs K. I do know that the training method can be used to reduce the complexity and shorten the time required to learn the logical scenarios. Yes, there are (at least) two different logical scenarios; more about that later.]
[END EXCERPT]
Wow, you always find many ways to complicate things. Ofcourse one must learn the N+B vs K mate. The question is how to prioritize things. Should I learn the trébuchet first or not. And if B+K is not on top of the hole in my bucket list, should I learn it in this life or the next?
DeleteFrequency of occurrence is leading. And motivation. There are two good motivations:
- when I lose a game with it
- when I become a chess coach and want to show off
With motivation it is easy.
Besides motivation I need time. Next year I will retire, so we will see how it goes.
This post gives an indication what it takes to become better with my new method. There are five holes to be plugged. And I plugged only one hole for 36% in 1.5 year. Furthermore, there are three holes where I haven't done the preparation yet. For one hole I haven't even a plan yet.
“Everything must be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” – Albert Einstein
DeleteThe math above adds up to 22.5 years study to plug all five holes. That is ofcourse a worst case scenario. I needed a lot of time to make my theoretical method practical the past 1.5 year. And since I still work full time, there is not so much time for study at this moment.
DeleteIt is just a way to temper unrealistic expectations somewhat. I think that a progress to 2000 in the next 3 - 5 year is a more realistic scenario. If I manage to get to 2000, I consider that as a proof that my method really works,
The coming time I will be busy with concocting a plan to prepare for the 3 strategy holes. And preparing is not absorbing.
DeletePART II:
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, IM Dvoretsky’s view from Dvoretsky’s Endgame Manual, 2nd Edition regarding B+N vs K as a “blue” (mandatory to know) endgame is:
[EXCERPT]
Checkmating with Bishop and Knight
I was unsure whether this subject should be included in the book, because the mating technique with a bishop and a knight against a lone king is explained in every tutorial for beginners [obviously not: see Silman above]. However, my experience as a chess trainer finally put an end to these doubts because I have seen how many chessplayers, including very strong ones, either missed learning this technique or had already forgotten it. [Forgetting it is no different from never learning it.]
Therefore they risk presenting their opponents with a half-point (and this has happened more than once), particularly under modern time controls when checkmating must often be performed in severe time trouble.
A king can be checkmated only in a corner of the bishop’s color. The plan for the stronger side is obvious: first the enemy king is driven to an edge (this stage is simple but the king naturally aims to reach a safe corner). Thereafter the kind is forced to a “proper” corner where mate is possible.
Diagram 14-1—Mate in 11
FEN: 8/1k6/8/1B1N4/4K3/8/8/8 w - - 0 1
This is the type of position that the stronger side aims for. Notice that White’s pieces have built a barrier that holds the black king in the corner. What remains is only to drive the king into the corner.
1 Ke5 Kc8 2 Ke6 Kd8 3 Kd6 [Zugzwang!] Kc8 4 Ke7 Kb7 5 Kd7 Kb8 6 Ba6! Ka7 7 Bc8 Kb8 8 Kd8 Ka7 9 Kc7 Ka8 10 Ne7 Ka7 11 Nc6+ Ka8 12 Bb7#
PART III:
ReplyDeleteAnd this is how the king is driven to the “proper” corner.
Diagram 14-2—Mate in 27
FEN: 7k/8/5K2/5BN1/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1
1 Nf7+ Kg8 2 Be4 [Shifting the move to White so he cannot go back to the corner] Kf8 3 Bh7 Ke8 [Forced, and attempting to get back out to the center of the board] 4 Ne5 [Keeping the Black king confined to the edge] Kd8 [Continuing to try to get around the barrier]
[The alternate plan is to try to get back into the wrong corner. This is how to handle that major subvariation.] 4...Kf8 makes White’s task easier: 5 Nd7+ Ke8 6 Ke6 Kd8 7 Kd6 Ke8 8 Bg6+ [Forcing White to head back toward the correct corner] Kd8 9 Nc5 [Repositioning the White knight to be able to confine the Black king again] Kc8 10 Be8 [Changing diagonals] Kd8 11 Bb5 Kc8 12 Bd7+ Kb8 13 Kc6, etc. [That “etc.” might prove a little less than obvious.]
5 Ke6 Kc7
The king has broken loose from the edge of the board, but only for a while. White, with two accurate moves, creates a barrier, and locks the king in the corner.
Nd7! Kc6 7 Bd3! [Preventing the king from escaping] Kc7 8 Bb5 Kb7 (8...Kd8 9 Nf6 Kc7 10 Nd5+) 9 Kd6 Kc8 10 Nf6 (10 Nc5!? Kd8 11 Nb7+ Kc8 12 Kc6) 10...Kd8 11 Nd5 and we have come to the position of Diagram 14-1 [after 3. Kd6 [Zugzwang!]].
[END EXCERPT]
This is the first logical scenario.
Remember the “rule”:
A king can be checkmated only in a corner of the bishop’s color.
Consequently, when forced out of the center, the lone king should head for a corner of the opposite color of the bishop, where he cannot be checkmated.
The easiest way to do this scenario is to force the king to the back rank (or one of the side edges) and then slowly force the king down into the wrong corner. Try not to focus on checking the king and instead try to focus on surrounding the king, and limiting his moves.
The stages are:
Stage 1: Centralize the superior king, then push the lone king out of the center and into a corner.
Stage 2: Take away the corner square so that the lone king is forced to move toward the correct corner. This will involve a waiting move with the bishop so that it can eventually control the square next to the corner square and prevent the lone king from getting back into the corner.
Stage 3: Utilize the “W maneuver” with the knight to keep the lone king in a box as it moves across the board. (Sometimes, it does not resemble a “W”; I don’t utilize that mnemonic.) The movements of the knight resemble a “W”, moving back and forth between the 5th and 7th rank. (Obviously, appropriate changes must be made to the verbiage if trying to move the lone king along one of the vertical edges.)
Stage 4: If the lone king tries to get back to the wrong corner, control the squares the same way as when forcing the king out of the corner.
Stage 5: At the appropriate time, make another waiting move with the bishop, then tighten the box so that the lone king cannot escape from the correct corner.
Stage 5: Checkmate the lone king.
The second logical scenario is called the Delétang Triangles method.
I’m not going to give that logical scenario. Here is a link to a video of the method:
LINK: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3EqM17jvOc
If you want to increase your “feel” for coordination of and cooperation between minor pieces and the king, this is an excellent training endgame. I repeat: if you are solely concerned with winning in game positions that will likely occur in your own games, learning this logical scenario is NOT the way to do it!
I have decided to focus on only two of the five areas: tactics and endgames.
ReplyDeleteQuality is more important than quantity.
I did a search for "Silman" and found your post about endgame training on 25 December 2012, titled “Connecting endgame patterns by technique.” Based on that post, I assume the first five chapters of Silman’s endgame book were and remain "absorbed."
DeleteGiven a reduced number of pieces on board, the factors you mentioned in that old post become paramount:
- opposition [Zugzwang]
- outflanking [Getting to key squares ahead of the opponent]
- triangulation [Utilizing more space to shift the onus to move to the opponent, resulting in Zugzwang]
- outside passer [Fox in the Chicken Coop]
- square of the pawn [Counting?]
- draw tendencies of rook-pawns [Stronger side getting the king trapped in the corner]
- trebuchet [Zugzwang]
[TREBUCHET??? ;-)]
Zugzwang is a very important factor in a lot of endgames. As Munich pointed out in a comment, Botvinnik’s Rule about knight endings being like pawns endings rests on the awareness that knights cannot gain or lose a tempo.
I think the idea underlying the Réti maneuver is also important.
Beyond these relatively simple techniques, what else have you figured out that needs to be studied in more depth?
Yes, I spiralled a lot in this blog. I learned the dots, but I didn't connect them. Now I know how to connect the dots, it is time to do so. I look forward to it!
DeleteThe past week I won from a 1900 guy and drew a 2000.
I offered the draw against the 1900, but luckily he declined. I haven't offered (or accepted) a draw the past year, I think. I realized that I offered the draw because I was uncertain about my endgame skills against a higher rated player.
This is another weapon in our arsenal. When we feel the urge to draw, we have tapped into an area where we can improve. Time usage and urge to draw are our highly sensitive sensors!
In searching back through the blog posts, I found that you were studying the endgame a lot back in the 2007-2008 time frame.
DeleteAfter going through Silman's first 7 chapters and the 100 endgames you must know, I'm surprised that endgames are still a problem area for you. That's a lot of information to absorb regarding endgames!
I'm not sure why that is. I need an awful lot of dots before I start to connect them. I whined for 23 years that I wasn't able to use my every day logic and apply it to chess. Since 1.5 years, I'm starting to connect the dots.
DeleteThere are five areas as mentioned in this post, and I started to connect the dots in only one area: tactics. Yesterday I noticed that CCT and B.A.D. (Barely Adequate Defended) are hopelessly primitive descriptions.
The pieces with the following characteristics are the most likely to be prone to a tactic:
- slow moving
- little amount of squares to move to
- can't move due to a FUNction
Maybe these three characteristics have all the same base: little options to escape the tactic. That is logical. And it took me 25 years to apply it.
I'm very optimistic, especially about the endgame. I gathered an awful lot of dots, and I feel that I am ready to start with connecting them.
Given the maths of the problem set you’ve collected (average: 3 patterns per problem), I estimate (correctly?) that you have about 6,000 patterns in that set.
ReplyDeleteAs you have absorbed patterns, you should have experienced a feeling of familiarity (IE, intuitive recognition of similarity to previously absorbed patterns) more and more often as your study progressed.
Has that been the case? If not, why not?
There is a lot happening in my mind the past 1.5 year that didn't happen the 23 years before. My mind is clearly being reconstructed, but since the changes are partly unconscious magic, it is not so easy to describe. I noticed the following:
DeleteDifferent problems have different effects.
Some problems reveal themselves as being two problems in one, while I recognize one of the problems.
Loose moves change into cooperative moves.
Seeing transforms into logic.
Mysterious moves change into clear logic.
Some problems need further investigation for the assault department.
Some moves remain mysterious even after the logic is clear. It feels like a short circuit in the brain.
The latter I find quite interesting. Everybody has that every once in a while, I guess. That you have lost a piece during your game and notice it a few moves later.
Yes, everyone has a brain fart occasionally.
ReplyDeleteOne of the things I've noticed as a result of applying your new method is a broadening (more abstraction) of the "known" set of patterns. A given trigger will fire in recognition even though the new position itself is different from what I studied as an example. It's not just that the pieces-on-square are different. It's more like a generalization or abstraction to a higher level. It's hard to verbalize because it occurs automagically in System 1.
Connecting the dots is some form of abstractification.
DeleteFurthermore, there are a lot of triggers and scenarios that have no name. And it is difficult to discriminate between right and wrong when you have no name for it, as Adam found out. You need some name or some verbal description of a thing before you can work with it.
Another thing I've noticed is that the increase in tactical skill has made studying other aspects of the game (including endgames) easier. That seems to lend weight to the aphorism that "Chess is 99% tactics."
ReplyDeleteThe essence of my method is to make goal-oriented moves. The goal can be positional, tactical or strategical. Tactics are a trading mechanism between different goals.
DeleteThere are two ways to make progress:
- A better judgement of the value of the different goals
- More skill to execute the trade mechanism
I associate the latter with tactics.
The goals are finite and in a sense straight forward. The trade mechanisms come in two varieties:
Delete- goal independent
- goal specific
In the previous post I showed a lack of specific knowledge: the endgame.
The skills are supposed to be triggered by the position. Just like Capablanca said. He KNOWS the goals once he sees the position, while we have to figure it out.
The tactics should emerge IMMEDIATELY from the goals.
"Chess is 99% tactics." is like saying "language is 99% combining words"
DeleteBut language alone doesn't tell a story. A story is at a higher level of conceptuality. The language is the "trick" as I often referred to. How far can the trick alone bring you? I heard GM Sipke Ernst say: below 2000 games are decided by tactics.
DeleteThe story of the 2300 player who lost 88% of his blitz games against GM John Nunn mainly due to LPDO seems to indicate that the trick might even bring you to a 2500 level.
So the answer is: tactics can bring you somewhere between 2000 and 2500. I don't know how much storytelling you need above 2000. Ernst said it to explain that you don't need to study openings below 2000 because openings knowledge doesn't decide the game.
Personally, I saw a lot of evidence that tactics will bring you to 2500, Above that, it is another "story". I guess Faustino Oro will show us the way. His stories originate from his coaches, I guess.
DeleteI guess at imitation is the ruling mechanism between coach and prodigy.
DeletePART I:
ReplyDeleteTemposchlucker wrote (in part):
The assault of the king is terra incognita. I must invent the wheel myself here. Every suggestion is welcome. That means that I'm far away from absorbing the patterns that govern the king assault. Since I have no patterns nor an adequate problem set.
There are some useful general “hints” in Thomas Willemze’s book The Chess Toolbox: Practical Techniques Everyone Should Know. Willemze began training with Cur van Wijgerden as a child after he passed Elo 2000; it is not surprising that he touts the Step-By-Step Method as the basis for his suggestions. Here’s the relevant section:
Part III: Attack and Defense
Chapter 6: The Greek Gift
Chapter 7: Lasker’s double bishop sacrifice
Chapter 8: Fighting for the entrance square
From the Introduction to Part III:
{EXCERPT}
Attacking the king
One of the golden rules in chess is that you can bring your king into safety by castling kingside or queenside. Once it is tucked away in the corner, sheltering behind three solid pawns, you can focus on completing your development, coordinating your pieces and, for instance, starting the fight for the centre.
Unfortunately, the safety of a castled king is often only temporarily. Sooner or later your opponent might feel confident enough to start an attack on the castled king.
The Step-By-Step Method distinguishes four stages for executing a successful attack on the king:
- Bring up your pieces;
- Get access to the enemy king;
- Eliminate defenders;
- Deliver mate.
Piece sacrifice
The first three stages can of course occur in different orders. Sometimes you opponent has even weakened his king’s position himself, in which case opening it up is no longer required. If not, there are generally two ways in which you can create access to the enemy king’s position: with pawns or with pieces. In this part, we are going to focus on the use of piece sacrifices to provide access to the king — to be more precise: access to the castled king.
Deliver the mate
In the previous part [Part II: Unleash your rooks we got acquainted with the principle of starting with the goal in mind and then reasoning backwards. The same rule applies here. Mating the king is of course always the last stage of the game, and the most important one. An attack on the king can never be successful if you lack an understanding of mating patterns. I already stressed this in Chapter 2 [Exploiting the seventh rank]. If you do not feel confident in your tactical skills, I highly recommend you to practise these topics in the Step-By-Step Method very carefully.
{END EXCERPT}
PART II:
ReplyDeleteIn the conclusion of the Introduction, there is a good summary.
{EXCERPT}
Conclusion
The following techniques for attacking or defending a castled king have been discussed:
Attack:
- Bring up your pieces;
- Get access to the king;
- Eliminate defenders;
- Deliver mate.
Defense:
- Bring in defenders;
- Exchange important attackers;
- 7th-rank defence;
- Central play;
- Evacuation of the king;
- Counterattack.
Keep these techniques in mind. They will return in the following chapters. This part will consist of:
Chapter 6: The Greek Gift
Chapter 7: Lasker’s double bishop sacrifice
Chapter 8: Fighting for the entrance square
Sacrificing one or more pieces to get access to the king is a central theme in each of these chapters. With regard to the other attacking techniques, Chapter 6 and 7 will focus on how you can bring up your pieces (with tempo!) while Chapter 8 puts more emphasis on the elimination of the defenders.
{END EXCERPT}
Willemze justifies his use of Lasker’s double bishop sacrifice as an example:
{EXCERPT}
The aim of this chapter
Before we delve into the details of this attractive combination, one warning: there is a chance that you will never actually encounter it in a real game. For that reason, do not consider this chapter as a ‘Lasker’s double bishop sacrifice course’ for which you will receive a certificate. The true aim is to be able to transfer the different techniques to completely different positions in order to boost your attacking and defending skills.
The following techniques will be discussed in this chapter:
Defending techniques:
- Returning material to save the day;
- The evacuation of the king;
- The 7th-rank defence.
Attacking techniques:
- Finding the right move order;
- The double rook lift;
- Preventing the 7th-rank defence.
Note that we already came across the majority of these techniques when we discussed the Greek Gift. If they do not ring a bell with you, then I strongly recommend you to repeat Chapter 6 before you move on.
{END EXCERPT}
IM Willemze includes Flash Cards with an associated position for each of the suggested techniques at the end of each chapter.
I was thinking in that direction too (Chapter 6: The Greek Gift
DeleteChapter 7: Lasker’s double bishop sacrifice
Chapter 8: Fighting for the entrance square)
Yet it takes time to make the narratives workable FOR ME.
The narratives of Nimzowitsch and Vukovic are incomplete. John Watson proposed to replace them by concrete calculation. Which might be an indicator that more tactics work better than more conceptual stories.
ReplyDelete