What on earth took you so long?
It takes 3 hours to absorb a problem at average. This means, that sometimes I'm finished within a minute, and sometimes it takes me six hours.
I immediately admit that I use to opt for the lazy approach before efficiency. 30 repetitions of 6 minutes = 180 minutes = 3 hours.
Solely remembering the moves that lead to the solution is totally useless, yet the distance from there to absorption is usually not too far. 180 minutes of fiddling around is quite a lot, though.
The first worry was how to measure the absorption. I continued a problem until I was sure that I had absorbed it. And if that takes 3 hours, then so be it. But now it is time to see if it can be done more efficient. Usually a bit of new knowledge was unearthed every repetition and added to absorption.
Let's see. What needs to be absorbed in the first place?
 |
| White to move |
k7/p2q2pp/4p3/3p4/1Q4P1/1P4P1/Pr3P2/2R3K1 w - - 0 1
I already learned from other problems that you often should look first for the slow moving pieces and the pieces with little room to go to.
Here that means, that you can chase the king to a favourable place and to chase the rook to a favourable place.
Then you look for a double attack where you can attack both the king and the rook at the same time.
Chasing the rook with 1.Qa3
 |
| Black to move |
As you can see, the black rook can only go to d2 and c2 (the green squares)
You can give a check with 1.Qf8+ and chase the black king to b7 (the green square)
So the task is place the queen on one of the red squares, depending on where black places his rook (d2 or e2)
Then you have to find out what should you do first. 1.Qa3 or 1.Qf8+. The latter makes that a6 becomes unavailable for the queen.
If you fiddle around with Stockfish you will find that there are 11 different first moves that are winning. How far will you go to figure everything out? I go to a certain degree and will come back later. There is a lot to learn from this position. But what is the frequency of occurrence of every detail?
Try to figure out what it means that 350 positions will give you enough material to gain 100 points. What do you need to extract from those positions to make that happen?
ReplyDeleteI hypothesized that every position contains 3 patterns at average that need to be absorbed. Look at the position above. When you have a closer look at the 10 or eleven moves that are winning according to Stockfish, then you probably will find more patterns. Where will you draw the line?
ReplyDeleteFrequency of occurrence is key. Can you abstract the elements to a higher level and make them position independent?
ReplyDeleteThe amount of salient cues that you need to absorb is finite. So it doesn't matter how long it takes. Every absorbed salient cue is a step closer to your goal.
ReplyDeleteAfter 1.Qa3 Re2 2.Qa6 you threaten mate. Have you absorbed that cue?
ReplyDeleteIt is not rocket science. But it is silly to think you are ready with this position while you have not absorbed this cue. 1. ... Rd2 leads to double attack against R and K. While 1. ... Re2 leads to a double attack with R and mate threat.
These observations result from “solving” the problem. At first glance, the Black rook has only two "safe" squares after 1. Qa3: d2 or e2. In both cases, White can force a queen fork: (1) after 1... Rd2 2. Qf8+ Kb7 (forced) 3. Qb4+ forking king and rook; or (2) after 1... Re2 2. Qa6 forking rook and threatening mate on c8. In both cases, those are double attacks (based on GM Averbakh's extended definition of double attack to include threats as well as direct attacks). Black has no satisfactory duplo move in reply, so the loss of the rook is inevitable.
DeleteHowever, there is more going on, presuming Black intends to continue the game. Since either of the two moves which “make sense” result in the loss of the Black rook, the rook can be considered a DESPERADO and should take whatever meager compensation is available; Black should capture one of the 3 available pawns. [Going beyond just the “obvious” variations is what GM Beim referred to as a “resulting move” variation.] My preference would be to maximize compensation by capturing on f2. This leaves Black with two connected passed pawns in the center and opens up the White king’s position to possible checks by the Black queen. Since two connected passed pawn on the 6th rank are often sufficient compensation for a rook, this seems like the best available tradeoff.
If we SEE the ramifications at the end of our variations, then we may find additional things to file away in our storehouse of scenarios. Unending curiosity is the way to approach “boring” (obvious) positions.
Is White still winning after 1. Qa3 Rxf2 2. Kxf2? Yes, of course, but not as easily as if Black just rolls over and gives up the rook for nothing. Again, this presumes that Black is willing to continue fighting a rook down in material. Some of the other possibilities suggested by GM Stockfish can be explored by expanding what we consider to be acceptable alternatives: not necessarily the best alternatives, but still within the realm of possibility if our opponent does not play at GM Stockfish’s skill level. And at our human level, NOBODY plays at GM Stockfish’s level!
That brings up an interesting training aspect. “Gumption” [mental toughness?] shows up when we are faced with inevitable defeat. It is vitally important to offer maximum resistance at every turn, especially when at a significant disadvantage.
For a classic example:
LINK: https://www.flickr.com/photos/60045363@N07/12364211385
Recall the accumulation of small advantages taught by Steinitz? If you accumulate a sufficient number of them, the combination of them can turn out to be very significant over time, perhaps even eventually turning the game result around.
Nobody ever won or drew a game by resigning, or by giving up because the result is [EVENTUALLY] “inevitable”!
For a prime example, recall the game Popiel-Marco, Monte Carlo (1902).
The more I think about it, the less three hours seems to be excessive. I might be able to do it in two. But that might well be at the cost of the quality.
ReplyDeleteI never found "no pain, no gain" or "out of your comfort zone" sound very convincing when it comes to brains. I never heard child prodigies about that.
Why are grandmasters fiddling around? Because they are curious. Not because they are disciplined.
ReplyDeleteSo what is the point? I do recognize that I need to add some extra energy here and there. Just like the priest needed to add some energy to learn his prayer by heart.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, that is a bit out of my comfort zone. And yes, it feels even a wee bit painful. It might actually need a bit of discipline.
As long as it is fuelled by curiousness, it doesn't feel that way.
I realize that I need to take a bit MORE time per repetition. That I must slow down a bit even more. And take some extra time to get to the essence.
In the end that might even be faster because I need less repetitions. But that is irrelevant.