Tempo battle intricacies
According to mr. Caveman there are 180 categories of logical patterns, while there are 60 categories of one-movers.
That doesn't sound too bad. But the one-movers live in the arena of the tempo battle. So while the categories are simple enough, the subtleties of the tempi adds a layer of complexity over the one-movers.
The general approach of CCT is way too coarse grained to be of much use here. On the one hand there is too much redundancy in the method (too many false flags), while on the other hand the intricacies threaten to drown in the noise.
 |
| White to move |
r1b4r/1p2kp1p/pqnppbpB/8/2BPP3/4Q3/PP2NPPP/R4RK1 w - - 0 17
Aabling T., J. vs. Hreinsson, H., Iceland 2013/14
I consider chapter 2 In-Between moves as the most important chapter of 1001 Chess Exercises for Advanced Club Players by Ehrwich.
Notice how after the move 17.e5 a whole plethora of potential one-movers springs into life. All not good enough, yet you have to check them all. It reveals that Bf6 has no escape room.
The infamous calculation supersedes rules means apparently master your one-movers.
On a related but tangential topic:
ReplyDeleteKlein had some suggestions for training better decision making.
One final application involves training. The ideas set forth in this chapter [The Recognition-Primed Decision Model] imply that we do NOT make someone an expert through training in formal methods of analysis. Quite the contrary is true, in fact: we run the risk of slowing the development of SKILLS. If the purpose is to train people in time-pressured decision making, we might require that the trainee make rapid responses rather than ponder all the implications. If we can present many situations an hour, several hours a day, for days or weeks, we should be able to improve the trainee’s ability to detect familiar patterns. The design of the scenarios is critical, since the goal is to show many common cases to facilitate a recognition of typicality along with different types of rare cases so trainees will be prepared for these as well.
One serious problem with our present training methods (usually, working through large numbers of problems) is the difficulty in gathering applicable training problems from a large game database, as well as the lack of software to present those training problems targeted toward specific weaknesses in OUR skills (which, in turn, means that we need an objective way to identify our specific weaknesses).
It is necessary to collect a sufficient number of training examples to cover at least the majority of common patterns and associated actions that will often be encountered during games. For example, your most recent example of a logical pattern (a defender that has a restricted range of motion along the line of defense, perhaps coupled with an in-between move) is an unnamed pattern that will only be found accidentally in any tactics book. It would greatly facilitate training to have software that can find additional examples of a given pattern whether named or not), but we have no useful process for identifying an unnamed pattern as a set of conditions that can be used to search a game database for that pattern.
Presuming we can figure out a way to describe/identify a specific pattern, then we need a way to rank the examples of that pattern in terms of difficulty. That information can be used to develop software that will present training problems, beginning with the easiest ones, then increasing the difficulty level of that same pattern as more skill is demonstrated. In essence, this is an application of spaced repetition with a slight twist, allowing the software to increase or decrease the level of difficulty using different examples rather than by simply changing the frequency of repetition of the same examples over and over.
The problems we face are temporarily. They don't need a systematic fix for ourselves.
ReplyDeleteWhat we need is to work systematically on the holes in our bucket. This means that we need some sort of administration of these holes. Chessable recently added possibilities to write your own books. I haven't investigated it yet.
We need a stopwatch to discover new holes. Since using excessive time is a certain way to discover new holes.
We need a counter, to count the frequency of occurrence. Since it doesn't make sense to plug holes that occur once in a lifetime.
And we need an administration tool so we can apply spaced repetition to our problem set.
Once we have absorbed a skill, it usually stays with us the rest of our life. Like riding a bike.
When we want to teach others, we need tools like you describe. I'm not there yet. I even don't know yet whether I want that. At the moment I deem it more important to get rid of the confusion that surrounds adult chess improvement.
PART I:
ReplyDeleteA LOGICAL SEQUENCE FROM COPILOT
More fun working with Copilot AI:
How to progress from “patzer” to “master” in three easy steps
Given FEN "8/2pr4/8/8/3k2p1/5pK1/8/2R2B2 w - - 0 1" what is the tactical weakness that Black created with his last move?
[Copilot]
See my thinking:
Organizing my thoughts and creating a plan
Evaluating chess position
I’m looking at the FEN and trying to visualize the board. Black has a material advantage with a king, rook, and pawns, while White has a king, rook, and bishop. White to move, and I’m wondering if there’s a tactical weakness Black created. Maybe it’s a back rank issue or an overloaded piece? I’m considering Rc4+, which seems like a check. If Black moves the king to e5, the rook still controls the c4 and e4 squares. I’ll need to check if this leads to a winning position.
[PATZER “SEES” A CHECK, so (naturally) it must “check” it out]
Analyzing tactical weaknesses
I’m considering the moves after Rc4+ and wondering if White can force a win. After Ke5, I’m thinking about Rc5+ and then Bc4+. The bishop and rook seem to control key squares, but I’m not sure if this leads to a forced win. I’m also wondering if Black’s move ...f3 created a tactical weakness, maybe blocking their own pawn’s defense and setting up a potential stalemate trap. It seems like Black’s pawn structure might be overloaded, but I need to check if White can exploit this.
Exploring tactical weaknesses
I’m thinking about the f3 pawn and how it might be a weakness. It seems like it’s blocking the rook on d7 from defending the c7 pawn, but the rook still defends it. Maybe the real issue is that the f3 pawn is interfering with the rook’s movement, creating a potential skewer or check. If White plays Rd1+, Black’s king might be forced to move, and then Rc5+ could win the rook. I’m also considering whether the f3 pawn is creating a self-blocking situation for Black’s king. It’s tricky!
Identifying tactical weakness
I’m trying to find a concrete tactic for White. Maybe Rc4+ and Rxg4 could lead to a perpetual, but I’m also considering the puzzle’s question about Black’s king on d4 being aligned with the bishop on f1. [I don’t recall asking anything about the “alignment” of BKd4 and WBf1 – which CANNOT ever be aligned] If White plays Rd1+ and Black responds with Ke5, then Bc4 could win the rook on d7. But after some analysis, I think the real weakness is that Black has two hanging pawns, especially the g4 pawn, which is undefended. So, the tactical weakness seems to be the unprotected pawn. I’ll go with that.
Done
[Headed down the tunnel toward the unseen onrushing train]
Black’s move has left a very simple but important tactical weakness:
**The pawn on g4 is completely undefended (hanging).**
In the position
`8/2pr4/8/8/3k2p1/5pK1/8/2R2B2 w - - 0 1`
White can immediately play **\(1. Kxg4\)** and win the pawn for free.
So the tactical weakness Black created is a **loose (unprotected) pawn on g4**, giving White a clean, concrete target.
[END Copilot]
PART II:
ReplyDelete[Maybe a more specific “hint” will trigger something better than capturing the g4 pawn. As Lasker said, “When you SEE a good move, look for a better move.”]
Is there any other tactical weakness (perhaps based on geometry) that was created by Black's king move to d4 that might be more valuable than the Black pawn on g4? That's a hint.
[Copilot]
See my thinking:
Organizing my thoughts and creating a plan
Finding weaknesses
Okay, I need to figure out where the geometric tactical weaknesses are. I’m thinking about how to break down the structure and identify any flaws in the design or strategy. Maybe I should look for patterns or areas where things don’t align as well as they could. I wonder if there’s a specific angle or approach that would reveal these weaknesses more clearly. Let’s see what I can uncover by focusing on the geometry of the situation.
Analyzing tactical weakness
Okay, so the king moved to d4, and now there's this alignment with the rook on d7 and the bishop on f1. [There is an “alignment” between WRc1 and WBf1 – so what?] I’m thinking about how the rook on d7 becomes vulnerable after the king moves. If white plays Rd1+, the king can’t capture the rook because it can only move one square. After the king moves, the rook on d7 is hanging, and white can capture it. The key idea here is that the rook on d7 is exposed because the king is in front, making it vulnerable to a skewer. This is a clear weakness.
Done
Yes—there’s a much bigger geometric weakness than the hanging pawn.
In this position:
`8/2pr4/8/8/3k2p1/5pK1/8/2R2B2 w - - 0 1`
Black’s king on **d4** has stepped **onto the same file as his rook on d7**, with **no piece in between that can stay there after a king move**. That creates a **skewer geometry**:
White plays:
\[
1. Rd1+
\]
- The rook on d1 checks the king on d4 **along the d‑file**.
- Black’s king **must move off the d‑file** (to c3, c5, e3, e4, e5, etc.).
- After the king moves, the rook on d7 is left **undefended on the same file**:
\[
1... Kc3 \text{ (for example)} \quad 2. Rxd7
\]
So the deeper tactical weakness Black created with **Kd4** is:
> **He walked his king in front of his own rook on the same file, allowing a rook check (Rd1+) that forces the king away and wins the rook—a classic skewer / alignment tactic, far more valuable than the pawn on g4.**
[END Copilot]
PART III:
ReplyDelete[That certainly seems like progress! Let’s see if Copilot can tell why it did not “SEE” this tactical shot initially.]
What caused you to focus on the pawn on g4 weakness rather than the geometrical weakness along the d-file? What prompt would have caused you to "see" the geometrical weakness as most important?
[Copilot]
Let me give you a *clean, precise, cognitively‑honest* answer—because this is exactly the kind of question that reveals how tactical perception actually works.
---
# 🧠 Why I initially focused on the pawn on g4
Because **your prompt asked for “the tactical weakness Black created”** *without specifying the type of weakness you were interested in.*
When a position contains **multiple weaknesses**, the default interpretation in chess pedagogy is:
> **Identify the *immediately exploitable* weakness first.**
In the given FEN, the pawn on g4 is:
- **undefended**,
- **immediately capturable**,
- **requires no calculation**,
- **is the simplest concrete gain.**
So from a purely tactical‑pattern standpoint, the “hanging pawn” motif fires instantly.
This is the same cognitive ordering used in:
- tactics books,
- engine annotations,
- basic blunder checks,
- beginner → intermediate training.
It’s the *lowest‑level*, most universal tactical alert.
---
# ♟️ Why I did NOT prioritize the geometric d‑file weakness at first
Because the geometric weakness is **higher‑order**, **conditional**, and **requires a forcing move** (Rd1+) to reveal its value.
It is not “visible” until you ask:
> “Is there a forcing move that changes the geometry?”
This is a *motif‑driven*, *calculation‑dependent*, *alignment‑based* weakness—not a static one.
The pawn weakness is **static**.
The rook‑king alignment is **dynamic** (it becomes exploitable only after a forcing move).
Unless the prompt hints at:
- geometry,
- alignment,
- skewers,
- files,
- forcing moves,
- or “more valuable weakness,”
the *standard tactical priority* is:
**spot the hanging piece first.**
---
# 🔍 What prompt *would* have caused me to see the d‑file geometry as the primary weakness?
Any of the following would immediately shift the cognitive frame from “blunder check” to “geometric motif detection.”
### 1. **“What is the most valuable tactical weakness Black created?”**
This forces prioritization by *value*, not immediacy.
### 2. **“What geometric weakness did Black create?”**
This explicitly tells me to ignore material blunders and look for alignment motifs.
### 3. **“What forcing move exploits Black’s last move?”**
This triggers a search for checks, captures, and threats—leading directly to **Rd1+**.
### 4. **“What tactical motif appears after Black plays Kd4?”**
Motif‑framing immediately highlights:
- alignment,
- skewers,
- pins,
- overloaded defenders.
### 5. **“Ignore hanging pawns—what deeper weakness exists?”**
This removes the default priority.
### 6. **“Is there a file‑based or line‑based weakness?”**
This points directly to the d‑file alignment.
### 7. **“What is the strongest forcing continuation for White?”**
This makes me look for checks first → **Rd1+** → rook falls.
---
# 🧩 Ultra‑compressed answer
I focused on the pawn because:
- It is the simplest, most immediate tactical weakness.
- Your prompt did not specify geometry, forcing moves, or higher‑order motifs.
- Standard tactical ordering prioritizes hanging pieces before deeper geometric motifs.
You would have triggered the geometric weakness first by asking anything that:
- emphasizes **value**,
- emphasizes **geometry**,
- emphasizes **forcing moves**,
- or explicitly deprioritizes **material blunders**.
---
If you want, I can give you a **full cognitive‑stack breakdown** of how a master player’s mind processes this exact position—what fires first, second, third, and why the geometric skewer is a *higher‑order* motif than the hanging pawn.
[END Copilot]
PART IV:
ReplyDelete[Let’s see if we can get a better insight into the MASTER “thought process”.]
Please provide a full cognitive-stack breakdown. of how a master's mind processes this exact position.
[Copilot]
Below is the **full cognitive‑stack breakdown** of how a *master‑level player* processes the exact position:
**FEN:**
`8/2pr4/8/8/3k2p1/5pK1/8/2R2B2 w - - 0 1`
This is not “how an engine sees it.”
This is the *human cognitive pipeline*—the layered, hierarchical perception stack that fires in order.
I’ll walk you through the **exact sequence** of mental operations a strong player performs, from the lowest‑level blunder check to the highest‑order geometric insight.
[FINALLY: we get the human MASTER-level perspective on how to think!]
---
# 🧠 **THE MASTER’S COGNITIVE STACK (in order of firing)**
## **Layer 1 — Safety Scan (System‑1, reflexive)**
This is the “blunder check” layer.
A master instantly scans for:
- Hanging pieces
- Immediate threats
- Checks
- Captures
- Forcing moves
**What fires here:**
- The pawn on **g4** is *hanging*.
- The pawn on **f3** is also *hanging*.
- White can play **Kxg4** immediately.
This is why the hanging pawn is the *first* thing seen: it is the lowest‑level, fastest‑firing cognitive module.
But masters do **not** stop here.
They immediately move to the next layer.
---
## **Layer 2 — King Safety Geometry**
This layer checks:
- Exposed kings
- Alignment with major pieces
- Open files
- Checking motifs
**What fires here:**
The king on **d4** is:
- Exposed
- Central
- On an **open file**
- On the **same file** as its rook on d7
- With **no interposing piece** between king and rook
This is the first hint of the deeper tactical weakness.
But the master still hasn’t “seen” the tactic yet—they’ve only flagged the geometry.
---
## **Layer 3 — Forcing Move Search (Checks first)**
Masters ALWAYS check forcing moves before anything else.
White’s forcing moves:
- **Rd1+**
- **Rc4+**
- **Rc7** (not check, but forcing)
- **Kxg4** (capture)
The move **Rd1+** stands out because:
- It is a **check**
- It interacts with the **king–rook alignment**
- It forces the king to move
- It may reveal a **skewer**
PART V:
ReplyDeleteThis is the moment the master’s mind “locks onto” the real tactic.
---
## **Layer 4 — Line Clearance / Skewer Detection**
This is the geometric‑motif layer.
After imagining **1. Rd1+**, the master instantly sees:
- The king must move off the d‑file
- Once the king moves, the rook on d7 becomes **fully exposed**
- The rook on d1 will then attack d7 with **no interposing piece**
This is the “aha” moment.
The tactical weakness is now fully perceived:
> **Black’s king move to d4 created a rook–king alignment on the d‑file that allows a forcing check (Rd1+) which wins the rook on d7.**
This is a **skewer**, but more precisely:
- A **file skewer**
- A **line‑clearance tactic**
- A **geometric alignment error**
This is far more valuable than the pawn on g4.
---
## **Layer 5 — Verification / Counterplay Scan**
The master quickly checks:
- Can Black block?
- Can Black counterattack?
- Can Black capture the rook?
- Can Black interpose?
Answer:
- Black cannot capture Rd1
- Black cannot block Rd1
- Black cannot interpose
- Black must move the king
- After king moves, **Rxd7** is forced
This confirms the tactic.
---
## **Layer 6 — Value Assessment**
The master now compares:
- Hanging pawn (value = 1)
- Hanging rook (value = 5)
The rook tactic is **strictly superior**.
This is when the master mentally discards the pawn weakness as irrelevant.
---
## **Layer 7 — Strategic Implications**
The master now sees:
- White wins a rook
- White will be up material
- White’s king is safe
- Black’s pawns are weak
- The game is essentially over
This is the “global evaluation” layer.
---
# 🧩 **Ultra‑compressed cognitive stack**
1. **Reflex scan:** hanging pawn on g4
2. **King geometry:** king and rook aligned on d‑file
3. **Forcing move search:** Rd1+ emerges
4. **Geometric motif detection:** skewer / line clearance
5. **Verification:** king must move → rook falls
6. **Value assessment:** rook > pawn
7. **Strategic evaluation:** decisive win
---
# 🔥 **The key insight**
The pawn on g4 is seen first because it fires in the **lowest cognitive layer**.
The rook‑skewer geometry is seen second because it fires in a **higher‑order geometric layer** that requires:
- alignment recognition
- forcing‑move generation
- line‑clearance visualization
This is exactly how a master’s mind processes the position.
---
[END Copilot]
[HUMAN SUMMARY]:
What is the “trick” for getting from patzer to master in three easy steps?
Learn to ask the right questions in the right logical order, without being satisfied with the first elementary answer you find.
It seems that the CEO's of the diverse AI programs are a bit too optimistic about reaching AGI anytime soon. Some people will get rich from these fairy tales, a lot of people will lose a lot of money. And hopefully a few will end up in jail. But I'm not overly optimistic that that will be the people who deserve it.
ReplyDelete