The Trick in action
Yesterday I participated in a simul. There were 14 participants and the simul was given by a Fide Master.
I didn't exactly measure it, but at average he needed 4 seconds per move. Which meant that I had to make a move every 56 seconds. I could keep up into the middlegame, until I was compelled to shift gears from System 1 to System 2. All of a sudden, 56 seconds was not enough to make a reasonable move anymore. So when he stood at my board, I was obliged to play a move which I knew wasn't good. It costed me a pawn and it caused weaknesses in my position.
His plan was simple:
- in the opening: develop and do nothing weird
- in the middlegame: trade everything that is dangerous
- wait for my mistake
- trade off every piece and convert the game to a win
When the first participants began to drop out, matters start to become worse. He needs lesser and lesser time before he stands in front of you.
A master is somebody who can play the one- and two-movers in every part of the game.
An expert can only do so in some parts of the game.
The difference between a master and a grandmaster, and between a grandmaster and a super-grandmaster is a matter of scale. I can't see that of course, because it is out of my league, but it has to be. What else can it be? I gathered enough circumstantial evidence to prove that beyond doubt. My doubt, that is.
Mastering one- and two-movers in all parts of the game is enough to become a master.
This means that you can study any game to help you absorb the one- and two-movers. As long as you know what you are after.
ReplyDeleteYour experience mirrors my own (from the viewpoint of the person giving a simul). I noted in a comment back in 2015:
ReplyDeleteI've done simultaneous exhibitions (nothing on the scale of Judit Polgar; that's not what I'm trying to express). I had more skill and knowledge and experience than my opponents. Consequently, I could "SEE" things they could not see, and so I used that advantage to win. I didn't try to experiment with the openings or take unnecessary chances in the middlegame. I generally allowed my opponents to beat themselves. I once played GM Arnold Denker in a simultaneous exhibition. He did nothing out of the ordinary; he just waited for the inevitable mistake/oversight (even though it was not an egregious error) and then just ground me down with technique.
You said:
Mastering one- and two-movers in all parts of the game is enough to become a master.
Corroboration of GM Botvinnik's statement:
When Mikhail Botvinnik lost on first board during the 1955 Soviet-American match, the world champion explained the result simply, "It shows I need to perfect my play of TWO-MOVE variations."
"It’s the little things that count, hundreds of them." — Cliff Shaw