Tempo dynamics
The components of a combination are glued together by tempo moves. What are we talking about?
 |
| White to move |
r2qrk2/pb2nnpQ/1p2B2p/8/3P3N/P1P5/5PPP/R1B3K1 w - - 0 1
Tal, M. vs. Myagmarsuren, L.
Backward thinking:
- What is it that we want?
- We want to give mate with Ng6#
- What prevents that?
- The knight on e7
- How can we lure away Ne7?
- By giving a check with Qh8
- What prevents that?
- The knight on f7
- How can we lure away that knight?
- With Bxh6 threatening mate (the tempo move)
- Why can't pawn g7 take Bh6?
- Pawn g7 is pinned and prevents Qxf7 mate
Forward thinking:
- 1. Bxh6 threatening mate in one (tempo move)
- 1. ... Nxh6 giving up the defense of h8
- 2. Qh8+ (tempo move)
- 2. ... Nhg8
- 3. Qxg8+ (with tempo)
- 3. ... Nxg8 giving up the defense of g6
- 4. Ng6#
You see a mix of ordinary tactical themes (pin, luring, overload, mate in 1) which are combined with subtle tempo moves. The only thread that holds the combination together is the logical narrative.
Every question-answer pair is a mini-skill. Every question and its answer must come naturally and easy to you in order to calculate the whole line without ending in a swamp prematurely.
ReplyDeleteYour proposed backward and forward thinking sequences are very good (and quite succinct). Here’s my “word salad” description of my thought sequence.
ReplyDeleteThe surface-level context is transparently obvious: the Black King is immobile, therefore the “obvious” starting point is to think about a check (any check) that cannot be defended as the shortest path to checkmate; This reasoning leads directly to the goal of Ng6#. White has superiority on g6 [2:1] but immediately occupying g6 with 1. Ng6+ allows Black to defend with 1… Nxg6 and the attack ends. There is no immediate move that can attack and remove the g6-defender (BNe7).
What remains on the surface? There are three White pieces cooperating in the attack but there is no obvious sacrifice of one of those pieces. The h6-square is B.A.D. [2:2]. No, it is controlled by White [2:1] because the g7-pawn is “pinned” (1. Bxh6 gxh6 2. Qxf7#). The g7-square is B.A.D. [1:1] and there is another White piece that can be used to attack it: 1. Bxh6, threatening mate-in-1 with 2. Qxg7#. Bring ALL of the available pieces into the attack!
Black MUST reply by capturing the Bishop: 1… Nxh6. This opens up the Black King’s “box” slightly to another attack with check: 2. Qh8+. Black MUST interpose a Knight to block the check. 2… N(e7)g8 allows immediate checkmate with 3. Ng6#, so Black MUST play 2… N(h6)g8. So far, so good: Black has been reduced to a sequence of “only” moves.
If not apparent previously, it should now be obvious that Black’s King is still immobile and the Ne7 is now overloaded defending both g6 and g8. Throw the drowning SOB an anchor! 3. Qxg8+ forces 3… Nxg8, allowing the other threat to be executed: 4. Ng6#. A series of forcing “only” moves leads directly to the end goal.
I find it “funny” that GM Stockfish “suggested” that Black attempt a defense by 1… Qxd4 2. cxd4 Nxh6 etc. Hey, what the heck—if it delays the inevitable by one move, go for it!
A very good example! Unfortunately, I could not find the game score on either ChessTempo or chessgames.com. It would be fascinating to see how Tal set up this combination.
Your description contains two elements:
Delete- a manual how to go from the swamp to the nearest hummock
- the logical narrative containing the mini-skills (QA pairs)
It is good to make a distinction between these two. At the end of the day, it are the mini-skills that need to be absorbed.
I asked Gemini. Don't trust the game data, it might have made that up.
ReplyDelete[Event "Chess Olympiad (Preliminaries)"]
[Site "Nice FRA"]
[Date "1974.06.13"]
[Round "7"]
[White "Tal, Mikhail"]
[Black "Myagmarsuren, Lhamsuren"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A13"]
1. c4 e6 2. Pf3 d5 3. b3 Pf6 4. Lb2 c5 5. e3 Pc6 6. d4 cxd4 7. exd4 Le7 8. Ld3 0-0 9. 0-0 b6 10. Pbd2 Lb7 11. Te1 Tc8 12. a3 Tc7 13. De2 Da8 14. Tad1 Td8 15. Lb1 dxc4 16. bxc4 Pa5 17. d5 exd5 18. Pg5 h6 19. Lxh6! Pxh6 20. Dh8+! Phg8 21. Dxg8+! Pxg8 22. Pg6# 1-0
I translated the game score into English notation and got this:
ReplyDelete1. c4 e6 2. Nf3 d5 3. b3 Nf6 4. Bb2 c5 5. e3 Nc6 6. d4 cxd4 7. exd4 Be7 8. Bd3 0-0 9. 0-0 b6 10. Nbd2 Bb7 11. Re1 Rc8 12. a3 Rc7 13. Qe2 Qa8 14. Rad1 Rd8 15. Bb1 dxc4 16. bxc4 Na5 17. d5 exd5 18. Ng5 h6 19. Bxh6! Nxh6 20. Qh8+! Nhg8 21. Qxg8+! Nxg8 22. Ng6# 1-0
The position after 18… h6 does not permit 19. Bxh6! It is totally different from the puzzle position. The FEN for the Gemini position prior to where it is broken is:
FEN: q2r2k1/pbr1bpp1/1p3n1p/n2p2N1/2P5/P7/1B1NQPPP/1B1RR1K1 w - - 0 19
Sorry, but Gemini did not retrieve or generate the actual game score.
If I screwed up the translation to English notation, please correct the score above.
I appreciate your attempt to provide the game score!
I already thought it constructed something to please me. AGI might be further away then we think.
DeletePutting words in the "mouth" of a LLM Descartes: Latin non cogito, ergo non sum, usually translated into English as "I do not think, therefore I am not."
Delete(That seems to apply to a lot of humans, too.)
Paradox: If "it" does not exist, then what is tossing out the answers?
So far, Copilot has an unblemished record of proposing ILLEGAL moves when making chess move suggestions. It's even more frustrating when it continues to suggest illegal moves after being told explicitly that its solution is WRONG because of illegal moves.
Maybe stubborn persistence in being wrong is an indication of human-like qualities?
There is certainly a lot of resemblance between system 2 and a LLM. I don't consider the art of discrimination as a part of system 2. It is more a generator of plausible sounding word salads.
DeleteIn this very case it took a game of Tal vs Myagmarsuren of 28 moves, cut the last part of it, and added the moves that I had given it to the end.
DeleteI asked Copilot to find the exact game score for Tal-Myagmarsuren. Here’s what it found [PGN] on Chess Tempo:
ReplyDelete[White "Mikhail Tal"]
[Black "Lhamsuren Myagmarsuren"]
[WhiteElo "2635"]
[BlackElo "2375"]
[Date "1974.6.11"]
[Round "7"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Event "Nice olm elim-1"]
[Site "Nice"]
[Eco "A13"]
1.c4 e6 2.Nc3 Bb4 3.Nf3 d5 4.d4 Ne7 5.e3 c5 6.Bd3 Nbc6 7.O-O dxc4 8.Bxc4 O-O 9.a3 cxd4 10.exd4 Bxc3 11.bxc3 b6 12.Qd3 Bb7 13.Re1 h6 14.Ba2 Re8 15.Rxe6 fxe6 16.Bxe6+ Kf8 17.Nh4 Ne5 18.Qh7 N7c6 19.Qg8+ Ke7 20.Nf5+ Kf6 21.dxe5+ Nxe5 22.Qxg7+ Kxe6 23.Nd4+ Kd6 24.Bf4 Bd5 25.Re1 Kc5 26.Rxe5 Rxe5 27.Qxe5 Qd7 28.Nc2 Re8 29.Qd4+ Kc6 30.c4 Be6 31.Qe4+ Kc5 32.h3 Bf5 33.Be3+ Kd6 34.Qf4+ 1-0
And now, for the rest of the story:
The critical move before the combination in the puzzle is Black’s 18th move. In the actual game (presuming this is historically accurate), Black did NOT play 18… N(e5)f7 (preserving the BNe5 AND “protecting” the h8-square), but instead played 18… N(e7)c6, opening up an escape square for the Black King. It didn’t matter: Tal drove the Black King out into the open and mercilessly attacked it.
Perhaps the puzzle was created based on “what if” Black had played 18… N(e5)f7, as part of someone’s annotation of the game?
FWIW, I asked for Copilot’s “suggestion” for a general “anti-hallucination” prompt and then used it before asking for the exact game score. Here is that prompt:
You must follow these rules exactly:
1. Do NOT guess, speculate, or invent information.
2. If you are unsure or cannot verify something, say “I’m not sure” and explain why.
3. Ask clarifying questions instead of assuming missing details.
4. Provide citations for every factual claim.
5. If no reliable source exists, state that clearly.
6. Show your reasoning step by step.
7. After giving your answer, perform a verification pass:
- Identify any statements that might be uncertain.
- Flag anything that requires external confirmation.
8. Do NOT add details that were not explicitly provided or verifiably sourced.
9. If the task is ambiguous, list the possible interpretations and ask which one is intended.
10. If the safest answer is “insufficient information,” you must say so.
Amusingly, as soon as I applied this prompt, it tried to “weasel out” of a strict set of limitations on its answer:
“For this answer, use strict accuracy mode:
- Do not guess.
- If you’re unsure, say ‘I’m not sure’ and explain why.
- Ask me clarifying questions instead of assuming.
- Show your reasoning step by step for nontrivial points.
- At the end, list any parts you’re least confident about.”
I entered that somewhat less strict prompt, followed by this one:
“Find the exact chess moves for the game between Mikhail Tal and Lhamsuren Myagmarsuren, Chess Olympiad (Preliminaries), Nice FRANCE, 1974.06.13, Round 7”
It returned the exact game score, using both Chess Tempo and chessgames.com as reference sources. I located the game on Chess Tempo but there was a server error while trying to access the game on chessgames.com. That’s the first time I’ve ever hit that problem there.
I got into chessgames.com this morning and found the game score. There are some differences in the header (dates and whether it was a “qualifier” or “elimination” event). The chessgames.com version also was two additional moves longer than the Chess Tempo version. The crucial Black 18th move is the same.
ReplyDelete[Event "Nice Olympiad qual-1"]
[Site "Nice FRA"]
[Date "1974.06.13"]
[EventDate "1974.06.07"]
[Round "7"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Mikhail Tal"]
[Black "Lhamsuren Myagmarsuren"]
[ECO "A13"]
[WhiteElo "2635"]
[BlackElo "2375"]
[PlyCount "69"]
1.c4 e6 2.Nc3 Bb4 3.Nf3 d5 4.d4 Ne7 5.e3 c5 6.Bd3 Nbc6 7.O-O
dxc4 8. Bxc4 O-O 9.a3 cxd4 10.exd4 Bxc3 11.bxc3 b6 12.Qd3 Bb7
13.Re1 h6 14.Ba2 Re8 15.Rxe6 fxe6 16.Bxe6+ Kf8 17.Nh4 Ne5
18.Qh7 N7c6 19.Qg8+ Ke7 20.Nf5+ Kf6 21.dxe5+ Nxe5 22.Qxg7+
Kxe6 23.Nd4+ Kd6 24.Bf4 Bd5 25.Re1 Kc5 26.Rxe5 Rxe5 27.Qxe5
Qd7 28.Nc2 Re8 29.Qd4+ Kc6 30.c4 Be6 31.Qe4+ Kc5 32.h3 Bf5
33.Be3+ Kd6 34.Qf4+ Ke7 35.Nd4 1-0