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
While contemplating the implications of your recommendation to absorb the one-movers and two-movers, I realized that there is a direct connection to pattern recognition and mental simulation using action scripts (calculation).
ReplyDeleteI ASSUMED that pattern recognition of “chunks” refers to TOTAL patterns, not the individual components which comprise a total pattern.
I ASSUMED that the associated action(s) at each step had to be embedded into the overall “chunk” almost in a linear sequence.
For example, I assumed that the Greek Gift sacrifice pattern had to be absorbed in its entirety, including all “variations on the theme.” All of the ramifications (alternatives along the way to the end result) had to be included in the overall “chunk” in order to consider it firmly embedded in LTM. From start to finish, the entire process and intermediate structures had to be absorbed AS A SINGLE COMPOSITE UNIT.
In retrospect, that seems naive at best. Given the complexity of such a pattern, “obviously” there must be smaller units within the larger composite pattern. These smaller units are the one-movers and two-movers.
Klein’s Recognition-Primed Decision model is primarily composed of pattern recognition and mental simulation. Again, an erroneous assumption is that an overall pattern is recognized and then the mental simulation of associated actions ASSOCIATED WITH THAT SPECIFIC LARGE PATTERN takes place.
I think Tisdall’s variation processing is closer to reality. There is some surface “cue” that starts the investigative process. It could be the prerequisite(s) for a one-mover or two-mover which is “obvious” in the position. That smaller unit is simulated, advancing deeper into the essence of the position. This next position is recursively investigated using the same approach: identify another salient one-mover or two-mover, and advance again. Perhaps at some intermediate stage, a larger composite “chunk” is recognized, bringing with it more specific actions to be tried in sequence (checked for typicality and applicability).
For example, in the Greek Gift sacrifice, an obvious salient clue is the vulnerability of the h7 (h2) square to being captured with check by a Bishop. That is the precursor salient clue. Another salient clue may be no defensive knight (or a knight that can be driven away) on f3 (f6). It does not matter what order these clues are recognized, but it it is more likely that the Bishop sacrifice will definitely trigger “Greek Gift sacrifice” before anything else.
We don’t have to “SEE” everything at once in a large”chunk” at the beginning. We just have to keep recognizing and simulating the action steps until we reach a recognizable goal. If there are missing cues or lack of typicality at any stage, we reject that specific approach (one-mover or two-mover) if it cannot be modified successfully, back up to an alternative and drill in again. The mental simulation MAY reveal an alternative overall goal. If so, we switch to recognizing alternate patterns (more one-mover and two-mover patterns) that focus on that new goal. For example, if we start with an assumed goal of checkmate, at some point in the mental simulation we may realize that the opponent can “bail out” by giving up a certain amount of material to escape checkmate. In that case, perhaps we simulate a different alternative with a gain of material goal.
I expect we will end up with trial and error again. But now driven by System 1 and not System 2
Delete