Understand your openings

 Now the dust has settled around the scope of the trick, it's time to have a fresh look at the implications.

For those who haven't followed, the trick is what John Watson describes as "concrete calculation" and what I describe as "understanding". It is exactly the same. The only difference is that it didn't speak for itself for me until now. The reason that I call it understanding is because I have to understand it yet, while the titled player already understands it. So he doesn't realize that that is the problem. Before you call it understanding, after you call it concrete calculation.

Knowledge is superficial. Because you can construct what knowledge does we are inclined to think that we understand the matter. But construction is done by system 2. Hence it is slow and error prone.

Understanding is about the same knowledge, but now you have absorbed it. You know what it does without the need to construct it by system 2. It is ready for immediate use. You don't need words anymore to describe it, since you just know. System 2 is verbal. You SEE what the knowledge does with the aid of system 1. Words aren't necessary, and even can become an obstacle because the verbal system is too slow.

The difference between any two levels in rating is decided by the extent of how deep you master the trick.

There is some type of work-around for this in the opening. When you learn a series of variations by heart, you might be able to outplay your opponent when he is out of book and you are not. That way you can simulate your understanding.

But that is rather silly of course.

This means that you must understand your opening. I reckon that one variation takes one day to absorb. Just like one tactical puzzle takes one day to absorb. Often consumed in 30 repetitions over time.

If I apply that to my openings, it means that I need about 100 variations for white and 100 variations for black as the bare minimum. A year must be enough to deepen your understanding of your openings.

Understand your opening

After the opening, there is the Vukovic gap. The area between the end of the opening and the start of committing your pieces to the start of a kingside attack. Plus you have the attack itself.

For the white opening that I play, I reckon that I talk about 200 variations. For black I'm still looking for ways to fill the Vukovic gap.

So now we have an objective way to measure the amount of work that is needed. It is directly related to understanding the matter.

That is why I put endgames on the back burner. I know what I don't understand and how to fix it. My tournaments show that it will gain me 150 rating points at the cost of 1-2 years work to fix my endgame. To transform the endgame into a weapon, I need another 2 years, I reckon.