Point of contact between logic and patterns
System 2 is mainly babbling from memory. "Capablanca said this, so I must try to do that" It is logic in the parroting style without true understanding. On the other side, there are the well-known patterns.
We must guide our attention towards their point of contact, where the logic and the patterns meet, in order to glue the logic to the patterns, creating new patterns that can be absorbed along the way. What does that look like?
 |
| White to move |
rq3rk1/b1p2pp1/p1n4p/5N2/2b1PpP1/5Q1P/PBB2P2/3RK2R w K - 0 1
The first pattern is a double attack with 1. Qc3 to the mating square g7 and the loose piece Bc4.
How can black prevent the mate? There are two main ways black can try.
- 1. ...f6 blocks the long diagonal. But now it enables white to take the bishop 2.Qxc4+ with check.
- 1. ... Qb4 pins the white queen to the king.
Where are the patterns? It are just the well known tactical patterns double attack, mate in one, pin, providing a tempo.
Where is the logic? In the narrative.
The narrative glues the logical steps and the patterns to a string. The string in itself is unique. It is just one of the infinite possible combinations. Yet, from one step to another, there is finite logic and a finite amount of patterns involved. These glued logical steps and their patterns form new patterns, or chunks that need to be absorbed.
There is a limited amount of scenarios. Al logical questions need an immediate answer. What if
- 1. ... Bd4 the bishop can be taken
- 1. ... Nd4 the bishop can be taken
- 1. ... Bxf2+ 2.Kxf2 with no serious follow up
- 1. ... Ne5 gives a piece away
- 1. ... Qxb3 gives the Queen away
- 1. ... xxx mate in one
You don't have to worry about long strings (at least yet). But you must be able to generate the logical questions and their answers fast. Whenever you are slow, it is an indication that there is work to do. There is a pattern-step combination that need absorption. These are the mini-skills that Robert mentioned.
Finish the story and color the pictures.
Finishing the story by coloring between the lines:
ReplyDeleteFirst, a summary of the surface clues:
The g7-square definitely is a high priority target, since White already has superiority [2:1] on it. Can a White attacker be added?
The BBc4 is LPDO. Can a White attacker be added?
The WBb2 is LPDO. Can a White defender be added?
The BNc6 is LPDO. Can a White attacker be added?
The e7-square is B.A.D. This “loads” the BNc6 with a potential defensive function, which limits its defensive capability elsewhere.
Can White combine (as in “combination”) two or more of these threats?
If so, Black then has the onus of finding a solution that accomplishes more than one thing at a time; i.e., Black has a tempo deficit.
1. Qc3 is a typical double “attack” pattern (two simultaneous threats directed at two distinct targets on g7 and c4). An essential first step in pattern recognition is to “SEE” potential targets. (It also coincidentally “defends” the WBb2, which may not be important because one of the threats is a checkmate.)
As noted, Black can block the mate threat (taking care of the most important threat) with 1… f6, at the cost of losing the BBc4 with check, which gives White a tempo to protect the WBb2.
At first glance, Black CAN defend both targets—with only one move: 1… Qb4, using a pin on the WQc3. Given that it (temporarily) resolves the tempo deficit, there is no need to examine any of the other defense attempts in this main variation.
What can White do to continue the threat sequence?
The BQb4 is protected by the BNc6—which already has another defensive function on the e7-square as noted in the surface-level assessment. This triggers the encircling motif—shift attention from the primary target to the defender(s). 2. Ne7+ “throws an anchor to the SOB” on c6.
Now Black is faced with a very unpleasant choice: (1) move the Black King and lose the BNc6 after 2… Kh8 3. Nxc6 Qxc3 4. Bxc3 and the WNc6 cannot be trapped; or (2) capture the Knight and lose the Queen immediately after 2… Nxe7 3. Qxb4.
OH CRAP! I FORGOT TO MAKE A LIST OF ALL THE CANDIDATE MOVES! Forgive me, GM Kotov!
The point is that by first investigating the most promising line deeper, there may be no need to investigate alternatives. Alternatives that appear weaker on the surface do not need to be investigated/calculated unless the main variation runs into a dead end before reaching a satisfactory conclusion.
Side note: After writing all of the above, I loaded the position into GM Stockfish to see what I missed. It started out with 1. Qc3 Ne5 2. Qxe5 f6, but then started alternating that variation with 1. Qc3 Qb4. I guess since it determined that it’s going to lose the Knight anyway, it might as well retain the two Bishops for at least a small amount of compensation. It finally stabilized on the main line after about 8 minutes. Interestingly, that main line is the only line which gives White an advantage [+4.32]; everything else is even (1. Ne7+) or in Black’s favor.
Initially, I choose this problem for the whole beautiful story, which you described. But while elaborating on it, I stumbled on the mini-skills you pointed out earlier. I have won a few games recently, where I saw one mini pattern easier than my opponent did. Life is simply easier when having more mini skills than your opponent.
ReplyDeleteEspecially for long lines, it is easier to keep the thread when having a lot of mini skills. Since having to think during a line can easily distract you from the main thread. If you see these mini patterns, you don't need to think about them.
PART I:
ReplyDeleteA couple of things came to mind while reading this post and your comment above. Another word salad tossed up during the night!
It is relatively easy (too easy!) to find “facts” (knowledge) that we attempt to incorporate into our skill set without sufficient consideration. One example among too many is the ubiquitous aphorism, “Always check: it might be mate.” A “reading and nodding” acquaintance too often leads to another aphorism based on observation, “Patzer sees a check, patzer gives a check.”
Can either of them lead to a useful mini-skill?
Not without thoughtful consideration and application. In the first instance, a too literal interpretation is to always give a check, any check, if one is possible in a given position. Since that is the normal novice interpretation, it leads directly to the second observation. But consider a deeper meaning for the first saying, which is often lost. Instead of a literal chess “check,” consider it as sage advice to examine each position carefully, because humans are known for overlooking the obvious.
For some time, I’ve been critically examining lots of tactical puzzles on lichess.com. A significant majority of the puzzles demonstrate the opportunities that exist in almost every game for the alert player. In other words, one player was content with a superficial assessment of the position (usually ignoring the opponent’s possibilities) and plays a mistake or an outright blunder. This is true for all levels of players; higher rated players just do it less often. If we assume the aphorism is cautionary advice to “Be careful in examining each position, so as to not overlook unplanned opportunities that can and will often arise in every game,” then we have a mini-skill that is applicable to all situations. It is more of a description of a cautious attitude that literal advice. Unfortunately, it is not as “catchy” and memorable as the original aphorism.
PART II:
ReplyDeleteA second example is the often touted advice to use “CCT” (checks, captures, threats) as the basis for finding forcing moves. Charles Hertan devoted his excellent book Forcing Chess Moves: The Key to Better Calculation to elevating forcing moves above other possible tactical considerations. Obviously, a check is the most forcing move based on the formal chess rules. Captures are somewhat less forcing, in that the official rules do not require mandatory captures and recaptures similar to checkers. After all, the easier path to victory is to capture more material while avoiding losing material. A material advantage of 16:15 may be insignificant; a material ratio of 2:1 may be overwhelming—or not, depending on the specific of the position.
Instead of viewing “CCT” as the received wisdom of the chess “gods” regarding forcing moves, or using it as the basis for trial and error random moves, perhaps a different take on it can become the basis for a mini-skill. Let’s expand out the acronym to cover just about everything. “CMCTTP = Checks, Mate threats, Captures, Threats in general at different orders, Tactical threats, Positional threats. That seems to cover all possibilities in a chess game. Instead of looking at it as advice on what to randomly look for in each position, regard it as a hierarchy of the intensity of forcing moves with checks at the highest intensity and positional threats at the lowest intensity. That would provide some guidance when applying other mini-skills and attempting to work forward through a main variation. Again, the utility of the original acronym is in its brevity.
PART III:
ReplyDeleteGo back to my December 1 comments on Zack’s (Zachary Saine, also known as The Chess Nerd) YouTube video with the “surprising” move 3. e6. Another useful “rule” is to “Invite all the available pieces into an attack.” We too often misconstrue “pieces” to NOT include the pawns. We sacrifice a Bishop in order to open up the opponent’s king to attack by the remaining “pieces” while subconsciously eliminating some of the pawns from consideration as attacking pieces. Zach got stuck on trying to advance the f2-pawn in such a way that is would be protected by the e5 pawn, overlooking that the e5 pawn could cut off the Black King’s escape route on its own. I’ve noted in the past that every PIECE (including the pawns) can produce an “attack” contact of 1 on any given square at any given time; the relevant average material is IRRELEVANT for attacking purposes. In this regard, a pawn is just as effective as a Queen for producing the “attacking” effect. Surely we all have seen puzzles in which the lowly pawn administers the coup de grâce. Broadening our view of the attacking capability of pawns is just another mini-skill.
These kinds of consideration are also applicable to endgames. A simple mini-skill is knowing THAT two connected passed pawns on the 6th rank can successfully advance to promotion against a lone Rook and HOW to do it. Another endgame mini-skill is knowing THAT a passed pawn on an adjacent file on the 6th rank can successfully advance to promotion against a Knight on the 8th rank and HOW to do it. Having that knowledge and mini-skills makes planning (formulating and investigating a potential main variation) simpler.
The essence of variation processing is to perform a mental simulation of a primary move sequence guided by mini-skills instead of individual moves using trial and error. Recognition of the associated patterns gives us access to the mini-skills. I’ve found that it’s very important to stop at the stepping stone positions and LOOK very hard for recognizable patterns before terminating my investigation and tossing out the particular move sequence found using just one mini-skill. That is also true of the examining the terminal position before making a final evaluation of a variation and playing the initial move. Too many times, I have taken my initial “gut feeling” as the right path and played the first move, only to find that I had overlooked other salient information that would have become apparent if I had followed the path using ALL of my mini-skills.
The message of my post has become a bit ambiguous. Originally, I wanted to cover the whole story and color the pictures myself, in order to expose the point of contact between the logical narrative and the well-known patterns.
ReplyDeleteThen I noticed the alternatives that Stockfish gave me, which reminded me the way I actually won a few games lately. So I changed the story to show which type of logic and patterns we are talking about (the simple type). Unintentionally shifting the focus from a complete logical narrative to a complete set of patterns that are irrelevant to this problem. They are irrelevant because a good logical narrative prunes them away.
But they are relevant as an example of the simple logic-pattern combinations in which we have to become fluent. Sorry if it confused someone.
The task of logic is to prune. The task of patterns is to prevent distraction from the logical narrative (by finding answers fast without effort or resources from system 2).
ReplyDeleteThe two Systems are complimentary, if used properly. System 1 proposes a pattern. System 2 must determine if that proposed pattern is an appropriate analogy for this specific position, moving along the move(s) of the proposed pattern and, at the end of that pattern/mini-skill, request System 1 to see if there is another pattern/mini-skill that is applicable in the new stepping-stone position.
ReplyDeleteI think Botvinnik’s description of the paratrooper escaping from the swamp before darkness sets in by “jumping” to the nearest hummock (stepping-stone position) is the best analogy of the process. Look at the nearest promising direction, simulate that move in your mind, and then repeat the process from the viewpoint of the new position until arriving at a final destination.
We err if we try to consciously control the switching back and forth between the two Systems, because we will usually prioritize the verbal System 2 over the non-verbal System 1. This is most evident when we impatiently start trying to use trial-and-error or logic rather than relying on pattern recognition. It sounds unlikely, but System 1 WILL find the closest analogous pattern if we direct our attention toward that end. During those times of uncertainty, we have to trust the overall system will find the solution.
Patience is very hard to exercise when the clock is ticking.
What I propose is to abandon thinking all together. When the little logic is glued to the little pattern, they form a chunk, or new pattern. The logic can't be retrieved without the pattern and the pattern can't be retrieved without the logic. Just like a word cannot be retrieved without its meaning, and the meaning cannot be retrieved without the word.
ReplyDeleteBuilding a logical narrative is the same as building a sentence from words. System 2 has the lead, and system 1 retrieves at lightning speed.
There is no swamp involved here. When Susan Polgar played her simul at a speed of 2.6 seconds per move, she used no time to splash around in swamps. See could do so, because all here opponents fell in the swamp long before she would.
Of course, at the end of the day, when players have the same rating, they end up plunging around in the swamp. Which is what Botvinnik described. But I hypothesize that the one with the higher rating can postpone that moment against a lower rated player.
We have a large divergence in our views of Botvinnik's simile. It appears from your comment that you think he was referring to randomly splashing around the swamp using trial and error.
ReplyDeleteM. M. Botvinnik, Computers, chess and long-range planning:
[EXCERPT]
"Dear reader, only when we firmly decide, together, to reject all this mystical nonsense [miracles, geniuses, incomprehensible laws, and other kinds of 'creativity'] can we put the question: what, properly speaking, goes on in a chess game?
In my opinion, the process of playing chess (and probably any game) consists in a generalized exchange. By this term we mean an exchange in which (in the general case) the values traded may be tangible or positional ("invisible," situational). The goal of a generalized exchange is a relative gain of these tangible or positional (situational) values. There are not and cannot be other goals. In the end, this generalized exchange process must lead to the winning of infinitely great tangible value (i.e., to mate).
The proof that something like this goes on in other games is outside our task. But we may remind ourselves that in a game as far from chess as soccer there is an exchange of tangible values (fatigue will change the effective strength of the player) and positional values (conjunctures). Independently of whether the player has the ball or not, he moves with respect to the ball, the goal posts, and other players so that the position of the team shall become more favorable. The objective [in chess], which ends the game if it is attained, is to win an infinitely large material value.
The tangible values of the pieces in chess is well known to all beginning players. But what of the invisible, conjunctural (positional) value of the pieces? This value depends on the position of the piece and on the role of the piece in the general combat then taking place on the board. The positional value of a piece is subject to sharp changes: the intangible value of a Pawn can be very great, for instance when it mates the enemy King.
A simile may help clarify this notion of the horizon and its determinants. Let us suppose that a parachute-jumper has come down in a bog [swamp] and wants to get to solid ground. The bog is wide; its edges are hundreds of yards away. How does our hero proceed, if he cannot find a clear path from where he is to where he wants to be? He cannot take in the whole plot at one coup and pick out the entire path . . . he must act soon . . . darkness is falling!"
"In all probability, he will inspect the bog in some given direction for the first five to ten yards, choose a path from hummock to hummock, as safe a path as he can find, and TAKE THE FIRST STEP. He will make the next step after a similar preparation. Our hero again inspects the five-to-ten yard horizon. It will already have changed because of his action. He accepts the solution to the second-step problem, and so on until he clears the bog."
Inspecting the five-to-ten yard horizon appears to be much more deliberate than splashing around at random in the swamp. You don’t “jump” to the next hummock until you have evaluated the direction and the capability to safely reach that next hummock, perhaps with “hints” that the hummocks beyond this one will also prove to be useful. The vantage point from each next hummock in turn may change the overall direction because you can more clearly see the advantages and disadvantages of the current direction from there.
I don't think we have a divergence at all. Once we start thinking, we end up in a swamp. And from that moment, Botvinnik is right.
ReplyDeleteI hypothesize the following: we don't start thinking at the same time. The lower rated player enters his swamp earlier in the game. And not only that, he can only visualize shorter variations.
How deep can you visualize one variation? You can visualize until you need to think. And when you start thinking, you enter the swamp.
What can you visualize? You can visualize what you have absorbed. Once you have reached the end of your visualisation, you have to start thinking. Once you start thinking, you enter the swamp.
I don't think games are won by better swamp management. They are won by the skill to avoid the swamp longer.
I just try to describe what I observe during my games. I don't know how it is on Botwinninks level of course.
ReplyDeletePART I:
ReplyDeleteMore chess “fun” with Copilot. Notice that the given tactical puzzle is quite easy.
[START of Copilot session]
Given the following chess FEN “8/P6k/1n6/B4qp1/8/4P1Pp/8/5QK1 b - - 0 1” what is the applicable tactical motif to solve this puzzle?
Position overview and legality
Black to move. Pieces:
• White: king g1, queen f1, bishop a5, pawns a7, e3, g3.
• Black: king h7, queen f5, knight b6 (covering a8), pawns g5 and h3.
All candidate lines below are legal from the given FEN.
Defender-graph in prose
• Square g2: Black’s pawn on h3 controls g2. If Black’s queen ever lands on g2 with check, it’s mating or near-mating due to the pawn’s support and the king’s limited flight squares.
• Square f1: Occupied by White’s queen. It is not defended by any Black minor/rook piece; only the Black queen can interact directly along the f-file. Critically, if the Black queen captures on f1, White’s only legal recapture is with the king (Kxf1), because the white queen would be the captured piece.
• Square a8: White wants to promote a7→a8, but Black’s knight on b6 controls a8, making any immediate promotion lose material (…Nxa8).
The interplay: if Black can decoy the white king onto f1, the ensuing push …h2 threatens promotion with check while White cannot counter-promote safely because a8 is covered by the b6 knight.
Forcing line and outcome
• 1…Qxf1+! Attraction/decoy: Black removes the white queen from f1 and forces the white king to recapture.
• White must play 2.Kxf1. No other legal check-parry exists because the queen on f1 is the captured piece.
• 2…h2! Now the passed pawn advances with tempo, threatening …h1=Q+ next.
• 3.Kg2 h1=Q+ 4.Kxh1 is possible, but then Black’s queen emerges with check; meanwhile White still cannot promote safely on a8 due to …Nb6xa8, and Black’s active pieces (queen, knight, pawns) generate a decisive attack once the h-pawn promotes.
• If White tries to avoid Kg2, the promotion arrives with check anyway, and the attack continues while the a7 pawn remains stymied by the knight on b6.
This is a classic decoy into a promotion race that favors Black: the forced king attraction to f1 gives Black the time and tempo to push …h2–h1=Q+, while the b6 knight neutralizes White’s counterplay on a8.
Tactical motif
Decoy (attraction) to enable a winning passed-pawn promotion, supported by square control (over a8 by Nb6) and a mating net on g2.
PART II:
ReplyDeleteAfter 1...Qxf1 2. Kxf1 h2 3. Kg2 h1=Q+ 4. Kxh1 there is no Black queen left to "emerge" with check. THIS IS NONSENSE. Consider the alternative 1...h2+ and determine the tactical motif.
Position overview and legality
Black to move. Pieces are: White king g1, queen f1, bishop a5, pawns a7, e3, g3; Black king h7, queen f5, knight b6, pawns g5 and h3. All moves discussed below are legal from this FEN, and checks/captures are verified.
Defender-graph in prose
• Square f1 (white queen): Black’s queen on f5 has a clear vertical line to f1 (through f4, f3, f2). If White’s king is decoyed off g1, …Qxf1+ becomes tactical with tempo.
• Squares around White’s king: The pawn on h3 controls g2 and h2 after advancing: from h3 it controls g2; from h2 it controls g1 and h1. This matters for check patterns after …h2+.
• Promotion dynamics: The pawn on h3 wants to reach h1=Q. The route is fastest if Black first removes or decoys White’s king so that …Qxf1+ comes with tempo, then …h1=Q follows.
• Counterplay (a7→a8): White’s promotion is hindered by the black knight on b6, which controls a8, preventing a clean counter-race.
Forcing lines after 1…h2+
• 2.Kxh2: White captures the checking pawn. Black immediately plays …Qxf1!, and the white queen falls; Black wins decisive material.
• 2.Kg2: White steps away from the pawn’s check. Black plays …Qxf1+ 3.Kxf1 h1=Q+, promoting with check. Black emerges with an extra queen and a winning attack while a8 is still covered by the knight.
• 2.Kf2 or 2.Kh1: Illegal. Kf2 walks into the queen’s control of f2; Kh1 is controlled by the pawn on h2.
In all cases, the advance …h2+ forces the king’s displacement or a capture that allows …Qxf1 with tempo, clearing the path for …h1=Q.
Tactical motif
Decoy (attraction) of the king with a forcing check, followed by removal of the defender and a winning promotion.
What limits your ability to see this line rather than the previous line?
That’s a sharp question — and it gets right to the heart of how I reason through chess positions.
The main limitation isn’t that the line with 1…h2+ is “too deep” for me, but rather how I structure the legality and defender-graph checks. Here’s what happened:
• Earlier oversight: I focused on the queen capture line (…Qxf1+) without fully auditing the pawn check …h2+. Because I didn’t explicitly run through all forcing checks first, I missed the stronger candidate.
• Defender-graph bias: My analysis was centered on the queen’s relationship to f1 and d7, so I treated the pawn as secondary. In reality, the pawn check is the forcing move that decoys the king and unlocks the queen capture.
• Correction with …h2+: Once you pointed it out, the legality check shows that 1…h2+ is superior:
• If 2.Kxh2, then …Qxf1 wins the queen.
• If 2.Kg2, then …Qxf1+ followed by …h1=Q+ wins decisively.
• The motif is decoy/deflection of the king combined with removal of the defender and promotion.
Why I missed it
I didn’t enforce my own rule of “check all forcing moves first”. In tactical puzzles, checks and captures must be the first candidates — they often reveal the motif. By prioritizing the queen capture line, I skipped the pawn check that actually sets up the tactic.
Tactical motif (explicit highlight)
Decoy (attraction of the king) via 1…h2+, leading to removal of the defender and promotion.
[END of Copilot session]
It appears that Copilot uses CCT (or at least “CC”) to order its “reasoning.” In making its errors in logic, it appears quite “logical,” very similar to what happens with chess players below the master level.
“I MISSED IT.”
YEP.
The king is overloaded. It can't prevent both the promotion AND defend the queen. A matter of seconds or less.
ReplyDeleteIt takes courage to show these kind of examples. But that is what we are talking about.
Sorry: I missed one of the end bold HTML marks and it screwed up the emphasis where I wanted it. Trying again.
ReplyDeleteAn interesting medium-level Chess Tempo puzzle: #222557535. (The game score is at the end of this comment.)
FEN: 2r1bk2/p4pbQ/1p2p2p/4q1pP/2PB4/1P6/5PP1/1B1R2K1 b - - 0 0
The puzzle tags are Attraction [+7 -0], Unpinning [+5 -1], Discoverer Checks.
My interest is in the mini-skill(s) required to “SEE” the solution, not the
”categorizations” applied to the puzzle.
Black played 30… Rd8. I surmise that prior to this, he “saw” immediately that moving the Black Queen away from the defense of the BBg7 just loses the Bishop with check. That is a localized surface-level phenomenon. I suspect (given the ratings) that he also “saw” that he could play 0… Qxd4 1. Rxd4 Bxd4 but this would lose to 2. Qxh6+ Bg7 3. Qxg5. At this point, realizing he was going to lose the Queen, he decided to lose it in a different way, by “pinning” the WBd4, hoping for 0… Rd8 1. Bxe5 Rxd1+ 2. Kh2 Bxe5+ 3. g3 Bg7, retaining the two kingside pawns. Playing blitz, it “made sense” materially and he went for it. Unfortunately for him, his opponent “saw” something completely different.
I surmise that White “saw” that the BBg7 was on a B.A.D. square [2:2]. (There is considerable utility in “seeing” the lines of attack through pieces! Is that a “mini-skill”?) The order of captures on g7 does not have to begin with 1. Bxe5. Instead, capturing 1. Qxg7+ (checks having a higher priority than captures) is more forcing. The LOA action of the WBd4 through the BQe5 is like a skewer (first stage) followed with a pin (second stage), set up by a Queen sacrifice with check, all rolled into one! This type of position is something I have not seen previously in over 100,000 puzzles, that I can recall.
What is the mini-skill that brought that “solution” to mind?
Capturing with the Black King (1… Kxg7) allows White to capture 2. Bxe5+ (again, with a check), forcing 2… Kh7 (or some other move out of check) followed by 3. Rxd8 and White is winning.
It didn’t seem like a sequential recognition of fundamental tactical themes while I investigated it initially. I “saw” the capture with check, and immediately “saw” the rest of it in a flash of inspiration/intuition. That includes “seeing” that it would not matter whether the Black King or the Black Queen captured after 1. Qxg7+ because the subsequent capture by the WBd4 would be with check.
To the best of my knowledge, there is no label for this category of position. The three labels that have been applied seem to describe only a fraction of what’s going on overall, and even combining them still seems as if there is something crucial missing. BTW, I have never seen this exact puzzle (pieces-on-squares) before.
How did the mini-skill come into existence?
More importantly, how do we consciously train to create this TYPE of mini-skill?
Game Score:
[White "Ruben Domingo Nunez"]
[Black "Alexander Motylev"]
[WhiteElo "2409"]
[BlackElo "2596"]
[Date "2024.12.9"]
[Round "5.15"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Event "European Blitz 2024"]
[Site "Skopje MKD"]
[Eco "B21"]
1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 d3 4.Bxd3 g6 5.c4 Bg7 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.O-O d6 8.h3 Nf6 9.Nc3 O-O 10.Be3 Be6 11.Rc1 Nd7 12.b3 Nc5 13.Bb1 Rc8 14.Qe2 Re8 15.Rfd1 Qc7 16.Nd5 Qb8 17.Ng5 Bd7 18.Nf3 e6 19.Nc3 Red8 20.Nb5 Be8 21.Nxd6 Nxb3 22.axb3 Rxd6 23.h4 h6 24.h5 g5 25.e5 Rxd1+ 26.Rxd1 Nxe5 27.Nxe5 Qxe5 28.Qd3 b6 29.Qh7+ Kf8 30.Bd4 Rd8 31.Qxg7+ 1-0
I talked a lot about terms like "with tempo", "with additional punch", "postponing the problem" and "the tempo battle". It is an aspect that is most of the time kind of neglected. The CCT mnemonic should set you on track. But that is the wrong order.
ReplyDeleteIn stead, the logic should set you on track. Most problems have a tempo element in them. The move you want to do is impossible, unless you can do it with tempo. The right tag here would be "skewer" indeed. But the tempo (check) is more important than the skewer. It makes the skewer work.
The logical narrative should be highly directed towards tempo moves. You need to discover that logic during studying tactical problems. That is how mini-skills are absorbed. May the logic lead you!
Thank you for putting me on the right track! Time is the "invisible" component that overrides all other evaluative considerations in every position. Even when at a tremendous deficit in material or space you can still play winning lines based on "gittin' dere fustiest wit the mostiest" (a Southern colloquialism). It makes sense that what cannot be seen with the naked eye is the hardest mini-skill to train.
ReplyDeleteIt is somewhat surprising that most tactics training focuses on the spatial aspects without emphasizing that the time element is most important in all tactics. Perhaps it is assumed that "everybody knows THAT." Osmosis is a poor tutor of invisible information.
Most tactical themes have a spatial and a time component. Like the duplo attacks that attack two targets with one move. All these themes have standard scenarios for both attack and defense. It is the "additional punch" that often makes the impossible possible. Usually it takes a lot of words to describe the subtleties of such move.
ReplyDelete