Short-range tactics
I miss a lot of one-move tactics. That may sound silly at first. Yet pay attention!
We can easily construct the solution of one-move tactics with System 2. So easy, that it might look as an area that poses no problems. The point is, that there is a difference between a constructed solution and an absorbed solution.
A solution constructed by System 2:
- eats memory resources like time, energy and memory slots
- is error prone
- takes time to construct
An absorbed solution retrieved by System 1:
- doesn't need memory resources
- is SEEN
- can be used in a visualization sequence
- takes no time
Long variations consist of many one-movers. If you need resources for these one-movers, you will hit the limits of construction soon.
The problem with examples is that they show my limits. It is tempting to conclude that you have no problems whatsoever. But it is an invitation to have a look at your own limitations.
First, solve this problem. Feel free to use Stockfish:
 |
| White to move |
5rk1/5ppp/p1q1P3/1p1rP3/1Pp5/6PP/P1Q4K/3R1R2 w - - 0 32
Eljanov, P. vs. Lenic, L., Porto Carras 2011
I show you the one movers I had not absorbed:
 |
| After 1.Qg2 black spoils the party with fxe6. Black to move |
And I missed the following:
 |
| Black to move after 1.e7 Re8 2.Qg2 |
After 1.e7 Re8 2.Qg2 is missed the following 3 one-movers:
- green arrow - takes away d8 from black, so the Rd5 cannot be protected a second time
- blue arrow - tit for tat taking to rooks looks scary as compensation for the black queen
- red arrow - the white queen can take Re8#. Not only more than enough compensation, but even mate
Of course, I could construct all one-movers after some time. But it took me a while. That way you never can give a simul or win a blitz tournament.
I don't think it is necessary to use a problem set especially for one-movers. But you need to be aware of them in the problems that you are training, in order to get the most out of a problem.
None of the four one-movers I missed is rare or complex or uncommon. I probably have seen them thousands of times. What drove my mind to decide to not absorb the tactic?
ReplyDeleteMy mind deemed it easier to construct the solution with System 2 every time the tactics occur than to invest in the future and absorb the tactic for use by System 1. That is the problem we have to solve. Don't let this puzzle slip by without solving this question!
You must go beyond the geometrical patterns of the individual one-move tactic and focus on the logical pattern that goes beyond this position. You probably have to connect the logical patterns of the same tactic whenever you see them.
ReplyDeleteI also missed those one movers—primarily because I didn’t even consider that they were one movers, and certainly did not consider them to be of importance.
ReplyDeleteWhat drove my mind to decide to not absorb the tactic?
A valuation of one-movers that they are NOT “rare or complex or uncommon“ is an unconscious decision. “Familiarity breeds contempt. [or complacency]”
System 2 is reportedly “lazy” and will not expend much attention and effort on things that are not deemed important (perhaps of “survival value”). As you noted, it is so “easy” for System 2 to analyze these types of considerations. What was my attitude: Why encumber memory with such trivia? Your example shows why.
In some ways, it’s like Averbakh’s basic contacts or extending lines of attack to the edge of the board through all intervening pieces, and so many other things that we take for granted we already “know” how to do. We can do those things so easily using System 2, and consequently, place little or no importance on doing them. Dr. Lasker opined that an intimate acquaintance with the squares of the board was essential—yet few of us consider that gaining an intimate (System 1) acquaintance with those squares has any value at all, so we ignore his advice.
Every Function of every piece and square may be significant conditions for the recognition and successful execution of a combination. There are not only the preconditions (MOTIVES) but the intermediate conditions (essentially one movers) DURING the combination.
The solution is focused attention on all aspects of a given problem during training. Unfortunately, the chess training literature is primarily focused on the quantity and complexity of problems, and provides no good way to force us to focus our attention AND to give us immediate feedback when we fail to do that. Instead, it gives us ego strokes when we “get the solution correct,” as if that’s the important thing about training. How many times have we patted ourselves on the back when we have greater than 80% correct solutions or when we “solve” 50-100 puzzles in under 3 minutes? Perhaps that is the reason why so many of us look for a panacea like MdlM or the Woodpecker Method, and still miserably fail to improve in proportion to the enormous effort expended—on the wrong aspects most of the time.