The moves before the combination
Robert provided me with 10 PGNs of the tactical problems I'm currently studying. I wanted to see whether it is necessary to study the moves that lead to a combination. The answer is "yes, but not now".
The study of those moves is not necessary to understand the logical mechanisms of a combination. And you must learn those mechanisms first. I'm inclined to say that about 2000 puzzles, tactics and mates, would be sufficient.
The next step would be to do the same, but then for positional problems. Think of the woodpecker 2 puzzles and the positional puzzles of CM Can Kabadayi.
Then you need a set of endgame puzzles, like the series from Perlo for instance. It are tactical puzzles too, but the geometrics of the endgame differ vastly.
And you need indeed to study moves that precede combinations. Or actually every move that causes Stockfish to swing the eval bar with >2.0 points. I guess you can summarize that under the noumer "study master games".
Is my first impression of the PGNs.
 |
| White to move (!) |
5bk1/5pp1/3q1P1p/8/3NQ1P1/8/1r5P/4R2K w - - 0 53
Tomashevsky, E. vs. Ding L., Wijk aan Zee 2016
White is already worse. He must prevent the mate on h2
White chose for 54.Qe5. Which is understandable, he didn't want to give up the f6 pawn without at least ruining the black pawn structure. But then ther comes an interesting combination into the position. Based on the mutual overloading of the white Q, R and N.
54. ... Rb1! pinning/overloading the rook.
These mechanisms can well be studied after whites move.
So Carlsen is right, but it can easily put you on the wrong foot. First things first.
Yes, we can find precise and clear answers now to all questions concerning chess training.
ReplyDeleteThe trick applies to all two or three move combinations, no matter the purpose. Be it tactical or positional.
The only concern is the relevance. The frequency of occurrence of the mechanism we are learning.
I guess the more forcing a move is, the higher the frequency of occurrence .
This means that I'm right by putting the endgame on the backburner for now.
ReplyDeleteThe following position has some “interesting” features. It is the position immediately preceding (by one ply) problem #44 in Frank Erwich’s book 1001 Chess Exercises for Club Players: The Tactics Workbook that Also Explains All the Key Concepts. First, it is an outstanding example of the pin theme/device. Second, it illustrates the fact that a pin can be against a piece or a square, which gets little emphasis in most formal descriptions of a pin. Third, it shows how quickly things can go from B.A.D. to much, much worse when we fail to understand WHY we should NOT play a particular move. Fourth, it demonstrates the wide tactical gap between a GM and an ordinary master. Fifth, it gives a good argument for looking at the preconditions to a problem-like position (in other words, the value in looking at the game, not just the tactical problem).
ReplyDeleteFEN: 2r3k1/1Rq4p/p1P1rnp1/3p1p2/P7/2Q2B2/1P4PP/2R3K1 b - - 5 28
The question facing Black in the given position is: Should Black capture the WPc6?
[White "Judit Polgar"]
[Black "Sukh Dave Singh"]
[WhiteElo "2555"]
[BlackElo "2225"]
[Date "1989.??.??"]
[Round "1"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Event "Hastings op8889"]
[Site "Hastings-B ;EXT 88op"]
[Eco "B84"]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 6.Be2 a6 7.O-O Be7 8.f4 O-O 9.Be3 Qc7 10.a4 Nc6 11.Qe1 Nxd4 12.Bxd4 e5 13.Be3 exf4 14.Rxf4 Be6 15.Bd4 Nd7 16.Nd5 Bxd5 17.exd5 Ne5 18.c4 f5 19.Qc3 Rae8 20.Raf1 g6 21.c5 Nd7 22.c6 Bf6 23.Bxf6 Nxf6 24.Bf3 bxc6 25.dxc6 d5 26.Rb4 Re6 27.Rc1 Rc8 28.Rb7 Qxc6 29.Bxd5 Qxd5 30.Qxc8+ Ne8 31.Qd7 1-0
GM Stockfish opines:
D26 +0.64 28...Qd6 29.a5 Rxc6 30.Qxc6 Qxc6 31.Rxc6 Rxc6 32.Rb6 Rc1+ 33.Kf2 Kf7 34.Ke3 Rc5 35.Rxa6 Rb5 36.Kd4 Ke7 37.b4 Rxb4+ 38.Ke5 Nd7+ 39.Kxd5 Rb5+ 40.Kd4 Ne5
D25 +2.28 28...Qd8 29.c7 Qe8 30.b4 h5 31.b5 axb5 32.axb5 Kh7 33.Qd2 Nd7 34.h4 d4 35.Ra7 d3 36.Ra8 Rxa8 37.Bxa8 Nb6
D25 +3.85 28...Qe5 29.Qxe5 Rxe5 30.b4 d4 31.c7 Ree8 32.Bc6 Re7 33.Rb8 Rxc7 34.Rxc8+ Rxc8 35.Bd5+ Nxd5 36.Rxc8+ Kf7 37.Rc4 Nc3 38.Kf1 Nxa4 39.Rxd4 Nc3 40.Rd7+ Ke6 41.Rg7
D25 +4.93 28...Qxc6 29.Bxd5 Qxd5 30.Qxc8+ Ne8 31.Qd7 Qxd7 32.Rxd7 g5 33.Kf1 Re4 34.a5 Rb4 35.Rc8 Kf8 36.Rxh7 Rxb2 37.Rh8+ Kf7 38.Rhxe8 f4 39.Re2 Rb5 40.Rc7+ Kf6 41.Rc1
The question is not "is it necessary or useful". It is both. But the question is, is it necessary NOW in order to understand the entailing combination.
ReplyDeleteThe answer to that is no. It is completely arbitrary whether you do it now or later, since you have to do both anyway. It is a matter of preference.
As you noted, both are necessary and useful. However, I would be willing to bet that Master SIngh could easily execute GM Polgar's combination IFF he had been presented with it as a tactical problem following his 28...Qxc6 move. Unfortunately, he did NOT "SEE" (no System 1 trigger) what was fairly obvious to GM Polgar (and the rest of us in the peanut gallery). The System 1 "trigger" must ALWAYS be "pulled" prior to the bullet leaving the gun. No trigger, and you're left with a useless hunk of metal. No bullets in the gun also leaves a useless hunk of metal.
ReplyDeleteSigh. So many choices for a starting point, so little time to explore all of them.
For now I content myself with reaching the level of Master Singh. Later I will strive to get at Grandmasters Polgar's Level.
ReplyDeleteEmoji deliberately omitted.
DeleteOnce it dawns on you how many moves of merely 2 ply deep you miss, you will be more at peace with this less ambitious approach.
ReplyDelete