Unearthing the mini skills
Somehow the term mini skill emerged during my investigations. So far it was based on a gut feeling and not on a proper definition. Let's see whether we can find out more. Robert came up with the following position:
5r1k/2q4b/p3p2Q/1pp4p/8/1P3r2/P1P4P/1KBR2R1 w - - 3 27
Saric, I. vs. Bosiocic, M.
I see the following salient cues:
- Qxf8 mate if it wasn't voor the defender Rf3
- Qg7 mate if it wasn't for the defender Qc7
- Bb2 mate if it wasn't for the defenders Qc7-e5 and Rf8-Rf3
So I guess that finding the defender is a mini skill.
When we find a defender, the next logical step is the question "can we annihilate the defender?". With tempo would be nice.
1. Rd7 deflects the Qc7 with tempo (Qxh7#).
1. ... Qxd7 2.Bb2+ can only be defended by the self-pin of a rook, after which f8 becomes vulnerable for invasion.
So the following mini skills emerge:
- See the salient cues (the mates)
- Find the defenders
- Annihilate the defenders with tempo
The logical narrative is the guide of the attention. During the building of the narrative, a lot of questions arise ("which piece defends f8?").
The stopwatch revealed that finding Rd7 took the most time. So asking myself "how to deflect the defender with tempo?" isn't second nature yet.
I observe that your definition (choice) of salient cues is distinctly different from mine.
ReplyDeleteMy experience in a wide variety of combative domains has been that weakness is the overriding salient guide for a proper response, aiming the lightning strike along the path of least resistance directly at the weakness. The important thing to learn is how to minimize the time interval between recognition of a weakness and the response to that weakness so that the response becomes instantaneous (or as close to that as possible). The observation of salient cues should trigger System 1 to produce the corresponding response, without the delay of System 2 logical thinking (step-by-step calculation).
Stock mating patterns are a response to weaknesses. The weakness precedes and conditions the response. No weakness, no combination. No weak back rank, no back rank mating pattern. No loose piece(s), no gain of material. No immobility of the enemy king, no way to crush it inside the “box.”
Starting with the stock mating patterns as the salient cues reminds me of the “Law of the Hammer:”
"It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail."—Abraham Maslow, 1966.
No offense intended.
Definitions have never been my forte. My approach has always been subjective. Or maybe personal is a better term. A more scientific approach forces me to add redundancy in my definitions. Nonetheless I noticed that my final conclusions are usually back upped by science.
ReplyDeleteI consider a salient cue to be what jumps into my eye at first sight when I see the position. A king with little room is a mental construct for me that doesn't jump at me.
The mates in 1 (which technically aren't in 1) contain the weak king in an implicit way. You can't see a mate in 1 without seeing a king with no wriggle room.
Seeing the mate in 1 that is not in 1 and possibly not mate is a mini skill. Skill indicates that you should see it a tempo.
The interaction between logic and pattern should happen by System 1 ideally.
The next mini skill is recognizing the defender. A decade or so ago I posted a problem where it took me 5 minutes after seeing a target before it dawned upon me that it might be a good idea to look for the defender of that target. Now I start immediately looking for it.
The logic is interwoven with the pattern. No need for System 2 anymore.
Annihilation of the defender is the next step. It's a mini skill too.
What I learn from this position is that such annihilation must happen with tempo. I guess that's a general rule. So looking for the additional tempo is the next mini skill.
Look how it beautifully follows the PoPLoAFun system.
Sitting duck-point of pressure-line of attack-defender of the LoA
The next mini skill that isn't automated here yet is about FUNction.
“Definitions have never been my forte.”
DeleteFair enough.
“I consider a salient cue to be what jumps into my eye at first sight when I see the position.”
The definition of “salient” is: most noticeable or important.
I consider a salient cue to be what is most relevant to the requirements of the position. Obviously, that’s not the dictionary definition.
“Defend” is one of the elementary contacts (Averbakh). “Supports” is “defend” contact without the supported piece being directly attacked; think of it as the overprotection idea.
Start with Dr. Lasker's Encircling Motif:
First phase: IMMOBILIZE the target.
Second phase: ATTACK the immobilized piece with superior force.
It is the IMMOBILITY that is the weakness. King immobility is the most serious piece weakness. Ergo, to ME, that becomes a salient cue on first glance at a position. (Perhaps that’s merely my own idiosyncrasy.)
Since every chess piece has an attacking capability of 1 on any given square at one time, creating superior force directly against a target requires bringing more attackers (the worst placed piece, if possible) to bear on the target. Since this is often not possible, the alternative approach is to change the relative superiority (attackers/defenders) against the target by shifting attention to the defenders of the target, and attempting to reduce their number by typical means:
(1) Capture the defender.
(2) Divert the defender away from its task.
(3) Interrupting the line of defense of the defender.
(4) Reduce or remove the defending functionality by adding to its Function(s).
An example would be an absolute pin; the defender loses all other defensive functionality because of the requirement to shield the king.
It is important to note that an absolutely pinned piece can still have an effect on a different square (or lines) even though it is immobile. An example would be an absolutely pinned queen with a ray of attack against a square, preventing the enemy king from moving there.
Function is a subtle form of immobility. As soon as a piece (or Pawn) is given a specific function to perform, it LOSES a certain flexibility, capability, potential.
So far everything has gone smooth and automatic. The next step is about FUNction. The art it to find where the defenders fail because they have double duties. Now I do that with System 2. It is time to make a mini skill of it.
ReplyDeleteIn your post 3 posts ago you asked about Guess the Move software. I use as Robert mentioned the pgn mentor on my phone. I use it specifically on a selection culled from the Brause database of Halloween Gambit games. For the repetitive parts I can quickly move to the important part with an arrow button. One can set the time period between moves.
ReplyDeletehttps://lichess.org/study/qzEFZfZC. More on Brause in the Halloween Gambit study I created on Lichess. Easy to create. The studies can be created with a guess the move feature as well.
ReplyDeletethx!
DeleteI’ve never had to play against the Halloween Gambit: I don’t play the 1. e4 e5 openings. The tactics look like a lot of fun!
DeleteThere is Grandmaster precedent for sacrificing a piece for a very strong pawn center. The game between GM David Bronstein and Ernst Rojahn, 1956 Olympiad, Moscow, qualifying round came immediately to mind. There is obvious compensation but most GMs don’t like such a great imbalance between material and space. Bronstein also got his queen into the center (with tempo) while Black’s queen knight ended up on b6. The central pawn structure in the Halloween Gambit (as you gave it in your lichess study—yes, I looked through it) looks surprisingly similar to the central structure in the Bronstein-Rojahn game.
[LINK: https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1033954]
There are 3 pages of comments and several other games referenced based on the central pawn “spear” formation.
David Bronstein’s highest official FIDE Elo rating was 2595, reached in May 1974. According to Edo Historical Chess Ratings, Rojahn’s highest recorded rating was 2362 in 1947.
[Event "Moscow Olympiad qual-1"]
[Site "Moscow URS"]
[Date "1956.09.05"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "5"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "David Bronstein"]
[Black "Ernst Rojahn"]
[ECO "C58"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "75"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Na5 6. d3 h6
7. Nf3 e4 8. dxe4 Nxc4 9. Qd4 Nb6 10. c4 c5 11. Qd3 Bg4
12. Nbd2 Be7 13. O-O O-O 14. Ne5 Bh5 15. b3 Nbd7 16. Bb2 Nxe5
17. Bxe5 Nd7 18. Bc3 Bf6 19. Rae1 Bxc3 20. Qxc3 Qf6 21. e5 Qf5
22. f4 Bg6 23. Ne4 Rab8 24. Qf3 Bh7 25. g4 Qg6 26. f5 Qb6
27. Qg3 f6 28. e6 Ne5 29. h4 Kh8 30. g5 Rbc8 31. Kh1 Qd8
32. g6 Bxg6 33. fxg6 b5 34. d6 Qb6 35. d7 Nxd7 36. exd7 Rcd8
37. Nxf6 Qc6+ 38. Qg2 1-0
I am playing catch up on your blog. The place I am starting is Muddled Thinking .
ReplyDeleteBrave!
Delete