Positional play. Building a framework
I started with the-woodpecker-method-2-positional-play some time ago. As usual, finding the right beginning is the most difficult thing to do. In the criticism on the course, there are a lot of complaints about the completeness of the analysis. I highly disagree with that. The fact is that you simply have to put a lot of effort in it yourself. Furthermore, I think you can't do without the video.
The video is chockfull of little details. It takes a lot of time to work out all these details. In the video, GM Axel Smith is solving the problems himself. Other people have gathered the problems for him. And although this is the second time around that he solves these problems, he has forgotten most solutions. It gives a pretty authentic insight in how a grandmaster thinks when solving a positional problem.
The first task it to inventorize all details of what he is saying. The second step is to categorize these details. The third step is to build a positional framework from it.
As a computer programmer, I'm used to parametrize everything. One of the parameters is the state of the center. Is it closed? Can it be opened? Who benefits from the opening? Et cetera.
Followed by the preferred scenarios for every state.
It is too early to draw any conclusions. Other than that it is definitely going to work. Btw, I get the impression that GM Smith has never heard of MDLM.
I would be surprised if GM Smith (or any other GM) HAD heard of MdlM. Although it is not unusual for non-master players to write chess books (or books on any and every subject under the sun), it is rare for them to rise to the level of attracting the attention of the professional levels. What seems unusual (to me) is the apparent lack of knowledge of the tremendous body of work (developed primarily by the Knights Errant) involved in unsuccessfully attempting to make MdlM’s method work for others. There is also a large body of work regarding learning and thinking in general (such as Kahneman’s Thinking: Fast and Slow) and how to develop peak performance in any field (Ericsson’s
ReplyDeletePeak: Secrets from the New Science of Expertise) which also seem to be relatively unknown within the chess community.
Even at the professional level, independently derived duplication can happen in any field. Consider the (somewhat) independent development of calculus by Leibnitz (differential and integral calculus) and Newton (infinitesimal calculus). In spite of vitriolic charges of plagiarism, the modern consensus is that the two polymaths investigated and developed their theories of calculus independently. Even in the case of these two geniuses, it appears that they both “stood on the shoulders of giants” who preceded them.
Given the vital role that pattern recognition plays, it is not surprising that learning methods targeted to one chess aspect (tactics) could be tailored to work with other aspects (strategy; positional play). The “acid test” is: do they work in practice as opposed to merely working in theory?
A play on words: “De devil be in de tales.”
The woodpecker method is written in 2007. Tikkanen was not a grandmaster back then. Rapid chess development was written in 2002. The articles of MDLM were not behind a paywall back then. Heisman and others wrote about it.
DeleteNot that I care.
DeleteI completed the first task. From 50 puzzles I gathered 197 relevant points. The next step is to sort them out.
ReplyDeleteI have completed the second task, sorting out the 197 points. I decided to discriminate between the essential points and the points that are confusing matters. The essential points are gearing around the pawn moves and their effects on piece activity and restraint. Especially the pawn breaks.
ReplyDeleteOnce I have a solid base of a framework, I can add the confusing elements again one by one.
There are two preconditions:
- How well developed are the pieces
- Can the center be opened anytime soon
This effects how committal the pawn moves are allowed to be.
maybe usable as a trainings suite too?
ReplyDeleteThat is way too early. I must first invent the wheel myself a few times. Without a framework, there is nothing to test yet.
DeleteI'm now actually starting to digest the material of Smirnov, lately. It simply takes a lot of time (well, maybe it should not, but I'm using a lot of time anyhow). So maybe in a few years I'm ready to think about this as a test suite.
use it as a trainingssuite, for example: you know the pattern and you have to find the move
DeleteI have no lack of training material. But it need to be preprocessed before it gets suitable for absorption.
Delete