Hummock view
We found three levels of observation:
- Swamp
- Hummock
- Eagle
Swamp
The swamp observation is guided by trial and error and candidate moves. It highly depends on coincidence and the complexity of the position. The best thing you can do is to swim to the closest hummock.
Hummock
Hummocks are ideas. You will find an explanation of what ideas are in the previous post. No matter where you are in the swamp, you start with the first hummock. Essentially you can work in two directions from your hummock: towards the beginning and towards the end. The power of it is that it prunes most other possibilities while you are thinking. It surpasses trial and error when the complexity increases. In an ideal world, you develop a sense for starting at the right hummock at the beginning of a sequence.
Eagle
The eagle gives you things like:
- Piece awareness
- Pawn structure awareness
- Color complex awareness
- Endgame transition awareness
It guides the overall strategy during the game, but it fails in the details. Trying to fill the Vukovic gap and the endgame transition fall within this realm.
Conclusion
Currently, the biggest chances lie in the development of our hummock view. We need to become fluent in the ideas as shown in the previous post. That is what we should want from our tactical training. Hopping from hummock to hummock must become as fluent as speaking our native tongue.
I think that it is safe to say that fluent hummock hopping is the illustrious "trick" which I have cited ad nauseam. Without that, you cannot do the following in an adequate and acceptable way:
ReplyDelete-visualize a line
-calculate a line
-play blitz
-give a simul
-let your hands do the work
-play blindfold chess
PART I:
ReplyDeleteWhile thinking about hummocks, I recalled something about a theory of “infinite resistance” but couldn’t remember where I had encountered that concept. A quick Google search for “chess infinite resistance” and then scanning down through the suggested links brought me to this link:
LINK: https://juntaikeda.substack.com/p/9-the-ultimate-guide-to-defending
The article is titled:
The Ultimate Guide to Defending Lost Positions in Chess:
The weapons, tools and frameworks you can use to turn the game on its head.
WTH?!? What has that subject got to do with the current “Hummocks” topic?
Please bear with me, and I’ll try to connect the dots.
First, a slight change in perspective.
I view the “hummocks” as the stepping stones positions proposed by GM Tisdall as part of the variation processing approach (or method, or technique, or whatever term floats your boat). The immediate tactical “idea” is what connects one hummock to the next one. The “movement” from one hummock to the next occurs in one jump (step).
The perception of the “idea” composing each tactical “jump” is complete in itself: a tactical sequence (usually based on Check, Capture, or Threat (the infamous CCT). For example, a check FORCES a response from the opponent that is constrained to a very small set of legal responses. A capture may initiate an involved sequence of multiple captures. A threat may unleash an avalanche of CCT.
BUT, at the end of that specific tactical “jump” (from one hummock to the next), it is very important to STOP and look around the entire landscape from this new perspective (hummock). What we SEE in this new position must necessarily be different, and it will require another careful look around (a new perspective) in the mind’s eye to find another tactical “idea”.
This switch from hummock to hummock should ALWAYS trigger a search for a fresh perspective, taking into consideration every potential “idea’ that is now available. Unfortunately, we usually fail to do this consistently, even in the limited circumstance of determining our next move. We reach an intermediate hummock (stepping stone), try to evaluate whether we are advancing toward our overall tactical goal, become discouraged (or outright panicked) because we do not SEE EVERYTHING from a fresh perspective, and without further ado we dismiss any further consideration of that new position. BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD—at the beginning position. In short, when we experience “difficulty” (unexpected resistance from the opponent, loss of clarity of the envisioned new position, whatever) we STOP looking around and fail to account for what is available NOW is this new envisioned position that (perhaps) we were not quite aware of when we first looked at the initial position.
That feeling of “panic” should be used as a trigger to force us to SEE everything that is NOW possible on the new hummock, including things that were not visible to us initially. Perhaps, at this point we can SEE the additional piece and its potential role that eluded us in the original position, which will allow us to “jump” to the next hummock.
I consider CCT to be swimming in the swamp in search for a hummock.
DeleteI'm inclined to think that grandmasters made CCT up, just to be able to explain it to us. But I doubt whether they work this way. I might be wrong though.
DeleteI was imprecise; I am NOT advocating looking for CCT in "trial and error" mode. In a similar way, I do not advocate Kotov’s recipe of looking for ALL candidate moves prior to initiating calculation/looking ahead. Instead, look for the most forcing tactical "shots" (themes/devices, which may involve more than one move)—which will usually involve CCT in one form or another. SEE what is immediately available [NOT CCT], prioritize what you SEE (ranked by the intensity of forcing involved, the nearness of a favorable goal, etc.), and then explore that variation that you deem the strongest. As you go along the “path” from hummock to hummock, you will soon or later discover if you are following the wrong path; you will be farther away from the edge of the swamp (a favorable position). If this happens, back up until you SEE an alternative path that is more favorable. Sometimes your initial evaluation will lead you down the wrong path initially; “stuff” happens. Caissa does not always reward our intuition on every move. Apply Popper’s Falsification Theory as you search: you are not looking to prove yourself RIGHT but to prove yourself WRONG. The faster you can find a refutation, the less time you will waste following the White Rabbit down the black hole of endless trial and error variations.
DeleteIn the given example position, the intention behind the initial move is removal of the crucial defender: which simply IS a capture. Implicit in initiating the tactic is the recognition that a particular piece IS a defender preventing a different potential tactic (checkmate).
As Nimzowitsch declared in My System, Part I, Chapter 5: Exchanging:
Your urge to destroy should extend to ANY DEFENDER, in the narrower or broader sense of the word!
The “rule” is not to specifically look for a capture qua captures (and especially not all captures) but to look at the initiation of the tactic “removal of a crucial defender.” The end goal of tactical calculations for every move is reached when quiescence occurs, which is not as easy to determine as the word itself implies. Quiescence occurs whenever we SEE the final position (checkmate, stalemate or significant material advantage), or we can no longer SEE a subsequent tactical sequence (due to our limited ability to follow a path into the future), or when a favorable position is envisioned that we KNOW we can win or draw, or when the sequence ends in failure to achieve our starting expectation of the initial position (based on our judgment at the beginning of what we are playing for in the broadest sense: win or draw).
Obviously, I hope, we do not intentionally "play to lose."
PART II:
ReplyDeleteNow, back to the idea of infinite resistance.
[EXCERPT from referenced article]
GM John Nunn wrote in Grandmaster Chess Move by Move,
It is easy to become despondent when the game has not gone as you had planned, and then there is a tendency to just ‘go through the motions’, look only at the most obvious lines, confirm that they are all bad and play one of them at random.
[END EXCERPT]
THIS is also a very good description of what we do when we fail to STOP in each new stepping stone position (hummock) and really look at everything carefully for a fresh perspective. Note that this is a psychological failing, a lack of grit and determination, lack of a burning desire to SEE everything—and NOT a lack of knowledge. Learning a bunch of general principles will NOT correct this flaw!
[EXCERPT from referenced article]
Ask yourself these 3 questions:
What does my opponent want?
How do they plan to achieve it?
What’s good about my position? [This is the most important question!]
Combining these three points, you can think about what the best practical approach might be to put a spanner in the works.
[END EXCERPT]
There is nothing that prevents us from using this advice as we search for an effective (even if not the most efficient) path across the tactical swamp.
[EXCERPT from referenced article]
The Theory of Infinite Resistance, originally devised by Australian player, Bill Jordan. GM Ian Rogers:
It is a theory designed to encourage players to fully utilize the defensive resources available in a bad, or even strategically lost position. The theory postulates that when a player makes a serious mistake or reaches a bad position, if he or she continues to try to find the best possible moves thereafter he or she can put up virtually infinite resistance and should not lose…Of course some positions are beyond even perfect defence but their number is far smaller than imagined.
[END EXCERPT]
Change perspective on this advice: instead of using it only after getting into a bad or strategically lost position, USE IT WHILE JUMPING FROM HUMMOCK TO HUMMOCK!
PART III:
ReplyDelete[EXCERPT from referenced article]
Rowson’s 5 Frameworks to Stay Motivated
The Goalkeeper’s Glory: It can be depressing when your aim is to ‘avoid losing’. Reframe it in your mind so you’re fighting to draw rather than lose, and your opponent is fighting to win rather than draw. The ‘winner’ is the player who gets their favoured result.
Cause Some Trouble: Play on your opponent’s fears. Most player are prone to getting attached to the idea of winning, so complicate things—active pieces and even vague threats help. Make them worry and lose confidence.
Keep the Third Result: No matter how bad your position, if you have even a remote chance of still winning, it can keep your opponent nervous and risk-averse. Don’t resign yourself to only managing a draw at best—when you’re only looking for options to survive, it’s easy to miss the golden chance to win.
Blackmail Technique: Most players want to win as quickly as possible. Giving them the option of going into an endgame which is technically winning but laborious can work wonders if they happen to dislike those scenarios.
What’s Good About My Position? Try to exaggerate the significance of the good aspects of your position in your own mind, and look for ways to impose these aspects on your opponent. Nunn and Smerdon also mentioned this so you can tell it’s an essential question for the defender.
Remember Rowson’s frameworks to stay motivated and fight.
When you’re more comfortable with and become better at defending [playing from hummock to hummock],
your results will improve, as you lose less often
even if you’re a bit worse, you’ll be confident that you can keep fighting
opponents will worry more if they know you won’t go down without a fight.
[END EXCERPT]
FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
Here’s an example from another source:
LINK: https://chessmood.com/course/save-lost-positions
FEN: k4r2/bp2p3/p7/B3q2p/4N1pP/2QPn1P1/4P2K/2R4R b - - 0 1
Looking cursorily at the position, White has an Exchange for a pawn. Both Kings are somewhat exposed to attack. What can Black do?
If you immediately looked for an attack on the White King, you are doing good!
If you mentally envision the BRf8 on g2 (with the White King on either g1 or h2), it doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to figure out what to do FIRST: KILL THE DEFENDER!
So, make that first move MENTALLY, “jump” to the next hummock (stepping stone position), and look carefully FROM WHITE’S PERSPECTIVE [infinite resistance] as to what sequence(s) can be done to counter the mate threat. You should SEE a sequence of “ideas” [moves (CCT)] that will carry you forward. If you repeat this process, you will find your way to the edge of the swamp and have the successful solution.
As noted previously, the time for each “jump” is virtually instantaneous. It’s how carefully you look from the new perspective of each succeeding hummock that will eat up your time.
Even after a fire where 42 meter (I don't know how much that is in weird units) bookshelf got lost, I already have a lot of chess books again. Albeit that most of them are digital now. I am almost never disappointed with chess books, since I usually can find something in them that suits me. Chess for zebra's is probably the only exception.
ReplyDeleteThere usually isn't much room in my head for psychological worries when I'm busy playing chess. Things like panic, disappointment, the state of mind of my opponent, impatience and the like take resources that aren't available when I play chess.
Rowson gives a lot of advice about that. But since there is no room for that in my mind, that is useless advice.
On the other hand, I'm not much of a fighter. I don't connect the win of a game to my ego. There are too much accidental forces involved to draw conclusions about myself. I'm often more a scholar who thinks "let's get over with this, so I can go to the study room to find out what I should have played". In the past I accepted way too much draws because of this attitude.
But the past two years, I have offered and accepted almost no draws. Other then repetitions. I'm just too curious and want to know how it ends.
I experiment a lot during games, which usually has a bad effect on the score.
ReplyDeleteBut don't tell my team leader.
DeleteYou are in good company: GM Richard Réti, apparently while playing a tournament game, would become so absorbed in figuring out how a particular position could be turned into a brilliant study that others would have to break his reverie and advise him to focus on playing the game to the end.
DeleteThe advice to switch to eagle mode between hummocks is probably a good idea. I'm going to experiment with that.
ReplyDeleteI use often the PoPLoAFun system to check a move. Since a tactical idea always uses a line of attack, I check all possible ways to interfere with that LoA.
ReplyDeleteThis is a perfect example of using Popper's Falsification Theory in chess.
DeleteThe first action is to learn to speak fluent hummocks.
ReplyDeleteLet's stipulate that the first hummock is different in one crucial aspect: we have to SEE the overall view using the eagle's eye, assessing the overall situation and choosing an initial direction in which to move.
ReplyDeleteHowever, conceptually one hummock is more or less the same as any other hummock; though perhaps more important details in one or the other. Consequently, it seems to me that the logical process of SEEing is a continuous repetition of the same process, with one or two details that have changed from hummock to hummock.
"To know ten thousand things, know one well."
“Perceive that which cannot be seen with the eye.”
― Miyamoto Musashi, A Book of Five Rings: The Classic Guide to Strategy
What am I not SEEing?