What do the pieces do?
A close inspection of my last post revealed that I probably mix up two things. The plan of a tactic is revealed by its last scenario. The main study task is twofold:
- discover all scenarios in the chain of the logical narrative
- discover all the effects of each scenario
I mix this up with my observations of the games at the Tata Chess tournament.. Essentially that works the same, but the end of the scenario-chain is not the gain of wood, but an assessment of the resulting position. Which I called the plan.
Back to tactics. The last post was about the first point, discovering all scenarios, and especially the last scenario. But during my training I discovered that point two is a problem too, seeing all the ins and outs of a single scenario.
Let me give an example.
 |
| Black to move |
5rk1/p3ppbp/1q1pb1p1/1N3r2/2PB1Qn1/1P4P1/P3PPBP/R4RK1 b - - 0 1
Parligras, Mircea vs. Nielsen, Peter Heine
This is a problem of my database, and Chessable presents it to be on a spaced repetition basis.
I think I hadn't seen this position for two months or so.
What did I see immediately (what have I absorbed)?:
- 18. ... Bxd4 taking away the thread against my Queen
- 19.Qxd4 Rxb5 annihilating the defender of the white queen
- 19.Qxg4 Rxb5 discovered attack against the white queen
What did I not see (what have I not absorbed)?
- 18. ... Bxd4 comes with an additional punch against Ra1
- 18. ... Bxd4 four black pieces converge on f2
I this as a proof how to make progress in tactics. I must focus on one scenario at the time. Until I see what the moves actually do, how two scenarios interconnect to each other and how the pieces converge.
This is the picture now. The following holes in my bucket are more or less plugged:
ReplyDelete-opening white
-openings black
-positional play
Plugged, but not converted into a weapon yet.
The following hole is not plugged:
-endgames
My tactics are slowly being converted into a weapon. When positions become tactically complicated, I do usually better than opponents of the same rating. Which most of the time converts into a better ending (one or two pawns up, or positionally advantageous). Which I tend to screw up.
FEN:5rk1/p3ppbp/1q1pb1p1/1N3r2/2PB1Qn1/1P4P1/P3PPBP/R4RK1 b - - 6 18
ReplyDeleteI presume you’ve looked at the game score. White’s 18. Bd4?? was a move-order blunder; he should have played the alternative line given by GM Stockfish (in bold in the game score below), reaching a more or less equal position.
What is the significant difference between the two lines?
In the game continuation, White goes into a losing exchange sequence (losing WBd4+WNb5 for BBg7).
In the alternative continuation, White gets an even exchange (swapping WNb5 for BNg4). After 18. Qxg4 Rxb5, White can retreat with 19. Qf3, protecting the WBc3.
I have a hard time understanding why a 2600+ GM didn’t figure that out. It doesn't seem that complicated.
What am I missing?
Chess Tempo
[White "Mircea Parligras"]
[Black "Peter Heine Nielsen"]
[WhiteElo "2625"]
[BlackElo "2687"]
[Date "2011.9.5"]
[Round "3.3"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Event "FIDE World Cup 2011"]
[Site "Khanty-Mansiysk RUS"]
[Eco "A38"]
1.c4 c5 2.g3 g6 3.Bg2 Bg7 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.Nc3 Nf6 6.d4 cxd4 7.Nxd4 O-O 8.O-O Nxd4 9.Qxd4 d6 10.Qh4 Be6 11.Bg5 Qa5 12.Bd2 Rac8 13.b3 b5 14.Qg5 Rc5 15.Nxb5 Qb6 16.Qf4 Ng4 17.Bc3 Rf5 18.Bd4 ( 18.Qxg4 Rxf2 19.Bd4 Bxg4 20.Bxb6 Rxf1+ 21.Rxf1 axb6 22.Nc7 Rc8 23.Nd5 Kf8 24.Kf2 ) 18...Bxd4 19.Qxd4 Rxb5 20.Qd2 Rc5 21.Rad1 a5 22.Qf4 a4 23.Rd3 axb3 24.axb3 Nf6 25.h3 d5 26.cxd5 Nxd5 27.Qh4 Nf6 28.g4 h5 29.g5 Nh7 30.Rg3 Rb8 31.Rd1 Rd8 32.Ra1 Qc7 33.Bf3 Rc1+ 34.Rxc1 Qxc1+ 35.Kh2 Qc5 36.Kg2 Rd4 37.e4 Rd2 0-1
The game score isn't given in the Chessable course. What I hope you are not missing is the point I'm trying to make: the necessity to work at node level.
DeletePersonally, I find it reassuring that these types of blunders are still made at master level. Every day one or two blunders happen in the master + challenger groups at Tata.
I searched back through the blog for “node” so that I was sure I clearly understood what you mean by that term. I agree that the "working level" must be at the node level.
DeleteThere are three blog posts containing “node.” I picked the Lowest common denominator — February 26, 2024 post as most informative.
As I understand it, a node is a potential branching point, which changes analysis from a straight-line sequence of transformations (move-by-move) into a tree of transformations with two or more alternatives branching out from each node in the tree. That concept is applicable to both the Tree of Analysis and the Tree of Scenarios.
At a node, the alternatives are associated with more than just “pieces-on-squares” [POS]. The formal chess rules can come into play [i.e., that a King cannot move into check during an exchange sequence], Checks, Captures and Threats [CCT] (of all kinds including Averbakh’s broad definition of a double attack to include direct attacks and threats of various orders), prototypical tactical themes (pins, forks, skewers, etc.) and stratagems (such as the Greek Gift) can be applied, and so forth. In short, any and all patterns (KNOWN BY AND AVAILABLE TO THE PLAYER) can be used to guide the investigative process at each node, either requiring additional search or producing a cutoff of further investigation along that alternative.
The important thing at each node is to CHOOSE the most urgent variation (a “forcing” sequence is best for reducing cognitive load by pruning, but there are alternatives that are just as useful, such as “quiet moves”) and traverse it forward, using scenarios to “jump” from one node to another (perhaps separated by more than just the next move) until either (1) a definitive desirable result is reached (significant material gain or a known pattern from which win, lose or draw can be inferred) or (2) the variation abruptly terminates in a recognized refutation. This is primarily a “depth-first” search. As you noted, after reaching the end of the principal variation, then go back and determine what patches (if any) are required at any particular node(s). At this stage, it is vitally important to not by blinded by confirmation bias. The hard thing to do is to honestly apply Popper's falsification process.
During the investigation along the principal variation, “interesting” complications can be observed and resolved while at each node, rather than waiting until the end of the overall variation. Those “resulting moves” (GM Beim) must be accounted for in the principal variation, and may trigger a search for a better alternative at the beginning (or at least earlier in the principal variation), perhaps requiring a different principal variation. This is NOT a strict application of Lasker’s Rule: “When you see a good move, look for a better one.” If the complications increase without SEEing a resolution, that is a good indication that the principal variation may be fatally flawed.
Klein opines that usually there will only be about three (NOT A-L-W-A-Y-S!!) options to investigate at each beginning node, and each option will only have to be explored using mental simulation to a depth of about six (NOT A-L-W-A-Y-S!!) sequences of scenarios in order to find a viable option.
Have I missed anything?
I was referring to this post.It is insufficient when I don't see the additional punch to Ra1 when I play Bxd4. I can never hope to become good at tactics when I don't fix this.
DeleteIt are the simple things we are blind for. The good news is, that I don't need to learn complex things just yet. When I learn these simple things, it will already make a huge difference.
We must first learn to see the obvious.
ReplyDeleteSurfaces and essences – we have to start with what’s “obvious” as “clues” to be able to SEE what is not obvious.
ReplyDeleteI recently read an interesting idea.
The Prototype Principle—The most specific event can serve as a general example of a class of events.
“Everybody knows that specific events have a vividness which imprints them so strongly on the memory that they can later be used as models for other events which are like them in some way [similar in essence]. Thus in each specific event, there is the germ of a whole class of similar events. The idea that there is generality in the specific is of far-reaching importance.
D. R. Hofstadter, Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, pg 352
Add the frequency of occurrence to that and you have a tool for guidance.
DeleteIt is difficult to communicate this. Since the obvious that I don't see probably differs from the obvious you don't see. But the the message is, before you worry about the not so obvious, you must first learn to see the obvious.
ReplyDeleteTemposchlucker opined:
ReplyDelete"[B]efore you worry about the not so obvious, you must first learn to SEE the obvious." [Emphasis added.]
That sounds very similar to GM Aagaard's aphorism:
"Before 'thinking outside the box', learn to 'think inside the box'.”
In the given example, I was 'aware' of the two possibilities that didn't automatically spring into your consciousness. Given the principal variation that seemed ‘obvious’ (the gain of material on d4 and b5) after 18. Bd4, I just pruned them from further consideration. It was only after going through the game score and reaching the position prior to White’s 18. Bd4?? that I realized there was some significance to the BBg7 pin of WBc3 against the WRa1.
I do understand the difference between training and playing. For nearly as long as I have been studying and playing chess (over 55 years), I have tried to follow this maxim as closely as possible:
“Train like you play, and you will then play like you train.”
As you noted, what seems obvious to you may not be obvious to me, and vice versa. What I find 'curious' is that what seemed 'obvious' to me was NOT 'obvious' to a 2600+ GM. Surely there must be some contextual reason for his apparent 'blindness' leading up to the critical moment. Perhaps time pressure, or even simply a 'brain fart' illusion; “stuff happens” to the best of us.
We tend to overestimate the masters. The eval bar shows that they are blunderprone too. The reason for our admiration is based on not realizing how bad we are. Is this post shows.
DeleteSo we overestimate the masters because we overestimate ourselves. It even feels as heresy to write this down.