The salient logical cue
When you ask yourself "what is this position about?" you might get a logical answer. This is your salient logical cue. Triggered by the logical pattern that you recognize. For instance:
 |
| Black to move |
4r2k/1p4bp/p2p2p1/3P4/P1R2p2/1P3Q1P/3qNPP1/6K1 b - - 0 28
Lalith, B, vs. Rathnakaran, K., Sharjah 2017
The problem is, you would love to grab Ne2 which is BPDO (Bad Pieces Drop Off). But you have a vulnerable backrank. So the logical question arises: can I take Ne2 in such way that I keep my back rank protected?
As you see, the logic prunes your tree of analysis before you even start to think about moves. The move you are looking for must have an "additional punch" or in other words, must come with tempo. That is CCT, but now restrained beforehand by the logical conditions you have set.
28 ... Qe1+ puts the queen on the e-line, thus protecting e8 from a distance. And the check is the additional punch.
Notice how much more fun solving puzzles has become!
An aside (but related to the generation of logical pattern recognition):
ReplyDeleteI’ve been working on a formal chess grammar for describing tactics based on contacts and weaknesses.
After getting a fairly complete grammar generated defining weaknesses in a chess position, I posed the following question to Copilot (based on its own generated grammar):
Given the following FEN describing a chess position ["4r2k/1p4bp/p2p2p1/3P4/P1R2p2/1P3Q1P/3qNPP1/6K1 b - - 0 28"], what are the weaknesses in this position?
[Copilot]
See my thinking
Organizing my thoughts and creating a plan
Analyzing FEN
I’m looking at the FEN: "4r2k/1p4bp/p2p2p1/3P4/P1R2p2/1P3Q1P/3qNPP1/6K1 b - - 0 28".
Let’s break it down:
• Rank 8: Black rook on e8, black king on h8.
• Rank 7: Black pawns on b7 and h7, black bishop on g7.
• Rank 6: Black pawns on a6, d6, and g6.
• Rank 5: White pawn on d5.
• Rank 4: White pawn on a4, white rook on c4, black pawn on f4.
• Rank 3: White pawns on b3 and h3, white queen on f3.
• Rank 2: Black queen on d2, white knight on e2, white pawns on f2, g2, and h2.
Black to move.
Analyzing position and weaknesses
I’m looking at the position: Black to move. The material is fairly balanced, but I need to check for weaknesses. Black's queen on d2 seems deep, and I’m wondering if it’s undefended. The white pieces are mostly defended, like the queen on f3, which is protected by the knight on e2 [COMMENT: this is delusional—the WQf3 CANNOT be defended by the WNe2]. The white rook on c4 is defended by the pawn on b3. Black's bishop on g7 is defended by the king on h8. The black queen might be a bit exposed, though. The white king on g1 seems somewhat safe, while black's king on h8 is more vulnerable.
Analyzing weaknesses and loose pieces
I’m looking at the position and noticing a few things. The black pawn on f4 is insufficiently defended, with only the queen on d2 protecting it [COMMENT: BPf4 is under-defended {2:1}]. There are also several loose pieces, like the black queen on d2, the rook on e8, and pawns a6 and d6, but none of them are currently under attack. The white side seems solid, with no immediate weaknesses [COMMENT: The WNe2 is under-defended {1:2}.]. The white pawn on d5 is defended by the pawn on e4 [COMMENT: This is delusional—WQf3 defends WPd5; there is NO WPe4], so it’s safe for now. The black king on h8 is somewhat protected by pawns and the bishop.
Identifying weaknesses
I’m looking at the position and identifying a few weaknesses. The black queen on d2, rook on e8, and pawns a6 [COMMENT: BPa6 is protected by BPb7] and d6 are loose but not under attack. The black pawn on f4 is insufficiently defended, with only the queen protecting it. The white pawns on h3 and h2 might be loose [COMMENT: This is delusional—WPh3 is defended {2:0} and there is no WPh2] but are defended by other pieces. The black king on h8 is somewhat exposed, with some dark-square weaknesses around it. Overall, the main weakness is the black pawn on f4.
Done
[End Copilot]
It did NOT identify the WNe2 as an “under-defended” weakness. Consequently, it is incapable of identifying the tactical sequence that allows the WNe2 to be safely captured, gaining material.
It is a myth that LLM AI is “intelligent.”
The LLM-part of our brain isn't intelligent either.
DeletePresuming that a combination CANNOT exist without at least two weaknesses, which weakness should be prioritized for investigation? It seems rather simple: prioritize the greatest weakness (the one with the greatest relative loss) for initial investigation. A mate threat would have a higher priority than material gain, based on CMCT [Check, Mate threat, Capture of material, other Threat types]. Consider other weaknesses as needed in the context of exploiting the primary weakness.
ReplyDeleteIt is also possible that a different order of investigation may occur. According to NM Heisman, the first question to ask is, “What are ALL the things that the opponent’s LAST MOVE does [and what are ALL the things it no longer does and what are ALL the weaknesses created by that last move]?”
Example (from a previous comment):
FEN = 2r3k1/4bppp/1r2p3/qb6/5B2/2N3R1/PP4PP/2R1Q2K w - - 3 26
Game:
Spassky, Boris V. (2655) vs Averkin, Orest N (2460)
Date: 1973-10
Event: URS-ch41, URS-ch41 Moscow ;URS-ch
Round: 1
Result: 1-0
Opening: Sicilian Defense, Paulsen Variation, Szen Variation (B44)
Problems: 146815, 118015922, 120746162, 130435590, 142307693
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 e6 5. Nb5 d6 6. c4 Nf6 7. N1c3 a6 8. Na3 Be7 9. Be2 O-O 10. O-O Bd7 11. Be3 Rb8 12. Rc1 Qa5 13. f4 Rfd8 14. Qd2 Be8 15. Rfd1 Nb4 16. Qe1 b5 17. Kh1 Rdc8 18. cxb5 axb5 19. e5 dxe5 20. fxe5 Nd7 21. Naxb5 Nxe5 22. Bf4 Ned3 23. Bxd3 Nxd3 24. Rxd3 Bxb5 25. Rg3 Rb6 26. Bc7 Rxc7 27. Qe5 g6 28. Qxc7 Bh4 29. Rf3 Be8 30. Rxf7 Bxf7 31. Rf1 Be8 32. Qc8 Kg7 33. Qxe8 Bf6 34. Ne4 e5 35. Nxf6
As trivial as it seems, Black’s last move creates an “obvious” opportunity for a pin with 26. Bc7. That seems to be stupid because Black can simply capture the bishop with 26.… Rxc7. BUT, that capture creates a LPDO rook on c7. AHA! A weakness—can it be exploited?
If you look for other weak points in Black’s position, you notice the g7-square, attacked once by the rook on g3, and defended only once by the king [B.A.D. 1:1]. There is an obvious attack with 27. Qe5, threatening mate in one.
Serendipity! The c7-square is also attacked by 27. Qe5, giving an attack on two objects at the same time.
26. Bc7! Rxc7 27. Qe5 g6
The best defensive try was 27...Kf8! 28.Qxc7 Bd6 29.Qd8+ Be8+/= and Black has a defensible position [GM Stockfish].
You might have a crucial point here. You (and Aox) have often stressed the importance of the premove(s) of a puzzle. I used to acknowledge receipt of that fact and parked it for later investigation. I always considered it to be a bit of cheating not to want to play against the bare position without further context.
DeleteLately I have listened to a lot of interviews with titled chess players about how they became so good. They all must have used some sort of method to learn the trick.
Carlson said that he thought that solving puzzles was not the best way to learn the trick (my interpretation of what he said, of course). He observed that people who were good in puzzles kept missing combinations in real games.
With some thinking, I think that this means that he absorbs the logical patterns by studying the games. When a combination manifests itself, his salient logical cues are already triggered by the moves that precede the combination.
Hence I need the PGNs of the games of the puzzles I'm studying.
And I assume that this means that I must have another look at the Chuzhakin system of weaknesses again. Aox used to train this way. I wonder what his experiences are.
Say, we have a puzzle with 4 sequential tactical elements. Our System 1 learns how el 2 follows from el 1, how el 3 follows from el 2 and how el 4 follows from el 3. What we do NOT learn is how el 1 arises from the game. And that is the starting salient logical cue!
ReplyDeleteHence Carlson is right!
And Heisman, for that matter.
ReplyDelete