What is it, that you need to learn?
In general, I'm pretty easy going when it comes to investigating the details of a puzzle. I consider chess to be a language, and I'm in the process of learning the words.
Learning words is about coupling the pattern of a word to its meaning. When there is a clear pattern, and a clear meaning, and the frequency of occurrence is high enough, the word is worth learning.
On the one hand this means that I reject complex Shakespearean constructions in archaic English, but on the other hand I try to make the most of simple constructions in plain English which show themselves when fiddling around. An example:
 |
| White to move |
r2qr1k1/1p2bppp/p2p1n2/5N2/N1P1Pp2/1PB4R/P3Q1PP/6K1 w - - 1 21
A typical Vukovic situation. 4 attackers versus 3 defenders, can I sac a piece and get access to the black king before the black pieces spring into action?
First the main line:
- 1.Nxg7 Kxg7
- 2.Qg4+
 |
| After 2. ... Kf8. White to move |
The black rook on e8 is excluded from the defense. The black king has stepped out of the pin. Yet, the black knight is still pinned relatively against the squares g7 and h8. What does that mean?
 |
| After 2. ... Kh8. White to move |
After 2. ... Kh8, the pin remains absolute, but the difference is that the black king does now defend h7, so 3.Rxh7 is no longer possible.
An excellent example with nicely-articulated tactical elements. This is exactly the level we need to fully understand these types of attacking positions, including what works and why (or why not).
ReplyDeletePART I
ReplyDeleteThis is a good example of the “three-piece heuristic.” (More below.)
This is also an excellent example of the “thinking process” at work. It is concrete, and crucially depends on the specifics of the given position. The order in which the elements are identified and assessed does not matter. Taking into consideration all of the SALIENT features does matter. The essence of the position (derived from the sequence of concrete moves and the consequences of each move) emerges from the surface features. It also illustrates Botvinnik’s simile of the paratrooper and the swamp, and how to get out of the swamp before nightfall. A “plan” emerges from concrete considerations of the position, taking into consideration all elements that can be “seen” in the near future (the next several moves).
Unfortunately, many adult chess improvers start with a memorized heuristic (developed by someone else and delivered in a textbook), assume that it is a “rule” or “law” that is always applicable, and then try to use it to make concrete decisions. That is totally backwards! One should NOT take a heuristic, assume it’s valid and applicable to the current position, and then play a move supposedly based on it!
The rule-making process (learning) is inductive: start with concrete specific positions and then tentatively formulate a POSSIBLE abstraction/generalization. Then find more examples that seem similar, and see if the “rule” still applies, As Lasker noted, if the “rule” can be bent and twisted, then it is probably not a good “rule.” It may take hundreds or even thousands of examples before a good “rule” (of thumb) can be generated. Once a reliable “rule” has been found, the result will ALWAYS be SKILL. SKILL does not reside in the “rule”; instead, it is completely dependent on the quantity and quality of the work that was been done to uncover it.
PART II
ReplyDeleteCopilot had this to say about the “three-piece heuristic” in general (a more abstract, generalized summary):
What is the three-piece heuristic regarding sacrificial attacks in chess?
The “three-piece heuristic” in chess suggests that when three or more pieces are actively participating in an attack, sacrificial combinations are more likely to succeed—even if the outcome isn’t fully calculable. It’s a practical rule of thumb, not a strict law, used to guide aggressive play.
Core Idea of the Heuristic
• Origin: Often taught by coaches and echoed in chess literature, the heuristic reflects a tactical truth: coordinated piece activity can overwhelm defenses.
• Typical phrasing: “If you have three pieces in the attack, you can sacrifice without calculating everything.”
• Purpose: Encourages dynamic play when attacking forces outnumber defenders or when the defender’s king is exposed.
Why It Works
• Piece coordination: Three attackers (e.g., queen, bishop, knight) can cover escape squares, deliver checks, and remove defenders.
• Defensive overload: Most defensive setups rely on 1–2 pieces plus pawns. Three attackers can stretch these thin.
• Initiative and tempo: Sacrifices often force the opponent to respond, giving the attacker control of the game’s flow.
Common Sacrificial Themes with Three Pieces
1. Greek Gift:
Typical Pieces Involved: Bishop, knight, queen
Goal: King-side attack via Bxh7+
2. Clearance sacrifice:
Typical Pieces Involved: Knight or pawn, queen, rook
Goal: Open lines for attack
3. Exchange sacrifice:
Typical Pieces Involved: Rook, bishop, knight
Goal: Dominate key squares
4. Deflection/removal:
Typical Pieces Involved: Queen, bishop, knight
Goal: Eliminate key defender
5. Double knight sacrifice:
Typical Pieces Involved: Two knights, queen
Goal: Deep mating nets
Caveats and Practical Advice
• Not a license for recklessness: The heuristic is a signal to investigate, not a green light to sacrifice blindly.
• Calculation still matters: Even with three pieces, you must assess whether the sacrifice leads to mate, material recovery, or positional dominance.
• Defensive resources: If the opponent has sufficient defenders or counterplay, the sacrifice may backfire.
[End Copilot]
This is the key: “The heuristic is a signal to investigate.”
This AI response hints at the abstraction and generalization process that must occur (from specific examples to a general heuristic) in order to build SKILL for handling previously unseen positions. It is vitally important to investigate many and varied concrete positions in order to derive a usable heuristic.
TANSTAAFL