tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post5246800927648917539..comments2024-03-28T01:17:43.262+01:00Comments on Temposchlucker: Time consuming trivialitiesTemposchluckerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07977208394417444785noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-6275621863793154362016-06-09T10:28:13.027+02:002016-06-09T10:28:13.027+02:00Every morning i take a chessnewspaper ( Rochade ) ...Every morning i take a chessnewspaper ( Rochade ) in my bathtub and memorise a more or less random diagram ( until i can mentaly name each pieces position without looking ;) and then follow the moves in the paper trying to keep track of the position till the next diagram<br /><br />;)<br /><br /><br />AoxomoxoA wonderinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16058687381216896080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-81850979374406602352016-06-09T00:21:26.056+02:002016-06-09T00:21:26.056+02:00Crazy Bob's software suite v0.0.2 includes a P...Crazy Bob's software suite v0.0.2 includes a Python script to select positions of a specified number of pieces from a PGN file with multiple games, and save them as FEN codes in a text file. Then a FEN from this file can be pasted into SCIDvsMac and the "edit board" window used for reconstruction. Also included in 0.0.2 is a recommendation to use something closer to the original Chase and Simon protocol. These changes speed up the process, so that it's easy to get a decent test of memory. --mfardalAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-91050594949590460792016-06-02T05:17:21.141+02:002016-06-02T05:17:21.141+02:00Robert, by "memory" I meant position mem...Robert, by "memory" I meant position memorization, not my general memory. Though that is bad too, you can ask my family. I've read up on the board memory experiments so I know there's a difference.<br /><br />As you said in the other thread, it's not clear whether working on the position memory skill will help with tactical ability. Some say yes (Blindfold Chess authors), some say no (some scientists I forget which), I haven't seen any evidence one way or the other. I noticed a lot of 2011 on this blog was spent on visualization and memorization, but I'm not sure any definite answers emerged. <br /><br />Aox, one reason I suspect it's important has to do with a recent experiment in the salt mines. Trying to absorb each board at the beginning turns out to help my performance--I see things faster and get stuck much less. So I'm thinking that the more I can absorb, the better I can think about the position as a whole. <br /><br />I wonder though whether I should learn the skill by working on it intensively, or very gradually by studying position play and master games. And how to measure it accurately so I can detect even small improvements... --mfardalAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-67882439636564156322016-06-01T23:40:58.067+02:002016-06-01T23:40:58.067+02:00Actually, I suspect that your "memory" i...Actually, I suspect that your "memory" is not nearly as bad as you think it is from your experiment. It confirms the results of previous experiments of this kind. Aox summarizes the point. The difference between amateurs and masters is chess-specific, not memory-specific. If positions of random assortments of pieces are done, the masters do only slightly better than the amateurs. As Aox suggested, there are tools available which will improve your board "vision." Chess-specific "skills" CAN be improved with practice!Robert Coblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12427520849707914818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-25160438021451034282016-06-01T20:04:46.084+02:002016-06-01T20:04:46.084+02:00http://theinvisiblegorilla.com/blog/2012/02/15/how...http://theinvisiblegorilla.com/blog/2012/02/15/how-experts-recall-chess-positions/<br />A master dont memorise the position of the pieces within 4 sec, they memorise what the pieces are doing to.<br />like: The queen attacks the Pawn at xy and defends the bishop at wz so she is sitting at ...<br /><br />So i think the skill of "position memorisation" is strong relatet to board vision and visualisation.There are many tools out in the net to learn board vision and visualisation<br />a very nice tool ist the Chess ( Vision ) Trainer 1.5.1 from DKappe or the (E)books of Stephen WardAoxomoxoA wonderinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16058687381216896080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-79087556076028389922016-06-01T15:32:36.425+02:002016-06-01T15:32:36.425+02:00I have tried out Crazy Bob's software. Thanks...I have tried out Crazy Bob's software. Thanks for the suggestion! The program has actually been upgraded to v0.0.1 by now. The added feature allows you to fast forward to the end of the game and then back up a few moves (so as not to have an obvious checkmate that would make memory easier). This is useful because I was aiming for very simple positions. The program runs rather slowly, but that's mainly because it uses the outdated hardware between my ears for the evaluation step.<br /><br />I have only tried 8 positions so far, with between 9 and 15 pieces. I gave myself about 30 seconds to absorb the position, about 30 to forget it, and a couple minutes to try to reconstruct it. It turns out the only part I'm good at is the forgetting. I used a scoring system where I gave myself 1 point for correctly placed pieces, 1/2 point for misplaced pieces, and -1 for extra ones, then divided by the number of pieces in the original position. (This is not based on any scientific papers, it just seemed to make sense.) Even with this "partial credit system", I only managed about 60% on average, give or take 10%. A couple positions I forgot completely: they just disappeared from my memory when I tried to rebuild them. Oddly enough, those were the ones with fewer pieces. At the other extreme, I managed one position almost perfectly, just placing one piece offset one square.<br /><br />My hunch is that my memory is terrible compared to other players of my level, and I suspect it's holding back my tactical performance. But I don't have any concrete information to that effect. Nor do I know how to improve it. --mfardalAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-27879214726733336332016-05-28T09:17:55.708+02:002016-05-28T09:17:55.708+02:00For a new car you only need money.
nice rhetorical...<i>For a new car you only need money.</i><br />nice rhetorical gesture the reply would be: for a good game/move you need ( money for ) a good engine. <br />But back to our discussion<br />You are right the concious work is only a tiny little fraction of the work we have to do when we play chess. We see that at exercises like m1. At m1 we ( at least i ) dont think at all. Board vision, tactical vision that what we need and that is what we dont get. Maybe your new method will help here? I have doubts but please go ahead, its worthid a try.<br />Masters simply spot the "most" things where we have to analyse.AoxomoxoA wonderinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16058687381216896080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-7033275899550516612016-05-28T07:58:59.203+02:002016-05-28T07:58:59.203+02:00I think there is no single effect which makes mast...<i>I think there is no single effect which makes masters better!</i><br /><br />It revolves around the question: how many slack is there in our usual approach?<br />If I cut all the nonsense and waste of time out of my thinking, will I be a master level tactician?<br /><br />So far everything points in the direction: yes!<br /><br />It seems to me that you are overly worried about all the things where masters score better, according to scientific papers. You forget that the unconscious can work magic. If the brain is no longer overloaded with nonsense and bad habits, and if it has learned the appropriate pattern, or chunks, or whatever, there is room to work its miracles.<br /><br />For a new car you only need money. Money will give you everything you want, concerning your car. In this metaphor, money is the equivalent for time. Cut the spill of time! If you are not a master by then, we talk again.Temposchluckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07977208394417444785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-9507559348667882802016-05-27T18:34:06.852+02:002016-05-27T18:34:06.852+02:00@mfardal:
Crazy Bob's FREE Quick and Dirty DI...@mfardal:<br /><br />Crazy Bob's FREE <b>Quick and Dirty DIY Whole-Position Memory Test Suite</b>, Version 0.0.0!<br /><br /><b>Required Tools:</b><br /><br />A Web browser (I use Chrome)<br /><br />A chess position diagram editor (I use Fritz->File->New->New Position... and clear the board)<br /><br />A stop watch (I use the Stopwatch tool on my Verizon flip phone)<br /><br /><b>Process:</b><br /><br />1. Set up the chess position diagram editor to an empty board; leave it visible. Set up your stop watch to run.<br /><br />2. Load up <a href="http://www.chessgames.com/index.html" rel="nofollow"><b>Chessgames.com</b></a> in your browser. (Any other database of games will also work just fine. You can use Chessbase, Houdini/Chess King, whatever you have available.) Select a particular year (at random; set the Year is "=" YEAR) and "FIND CHESS GAMES!" Scroll down to a game selection at random (perhaps every 10th or 20th game). Select that game. Set "autoplay" and allow the game to proceed to the 10th, 20th, 30th, or 40th move (depending on how complicated you want the position to be). It really doesn't matter if you watch the position change or not while it is progressing, but I suggest keeping a close eye on the current move number. If the game ends before the preselected number of moves, pick another game. <br /><br />3. When the game position reaches the preselected move number, turn off autoplay and immediately minimize the browser window.<br /><br />4. Start the stop watch.<br /><br />5. Fill in the position in the chess diagram editor. When you think you are done, stop the stop watch.<br /><br />6. Use a screen copier (SNIP in Windoze) to copy the game position and your reconstructed position to MS Word or some other editor. Record your time from the stop watch. Figure out the number and type of diffferences between the original position and your reconstruction. There is literature online about what has been recorded and measured in past experiments of this type.<br /><br />7. If you want a fancy statistical analysis, copy your times and other pertinent information (number of pieces, types of pieces, color to move, number of differences, whatever floats your boat) into a spreadsheet program like MS Excel.<br /><br />8. <b>Lather, rinse, repeat</b> until you have collected sufficient data to give something other than statistical noise.<br /><br />9. Analyze away to your heart's content!<br /><br />The usual legal disclaimers apply. . ."as-is". . .no requirement to provide anything functional or of use to the end user. . . no warranty express or implied. . . no refunds of any kind. . . blah, blah, blah.<br /><br />Robert Coblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12427520849707914818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-65405987192665686002016-05-27T17:38:53.576+02:002016-05-27T17:38:53.576+02:00@ Tomasz
In an ideal situation, it would go as fol...@ Tomasz<br />In an ideal situation, it would go as follows:<br /><br />First step: At the beginning, almost before you start seriously looking at the position,you do a global assessment of the position: what is the material balance, and what is the position about (mate, gain of wood, promotion). Level 4.<br /><br />Second step: Soaring. But what to look for? The patterns you have to look for are not in your system yet. Level 3.<br /><br />Third step: Once you got the main idea of the combination (aha erlebnis), it is usually no problem to find the exact moves. They flow naturally from the main idea. Level 1 and 2).<br /><br />This tells you what the main purpose of the training should be: to acquire the patterns you need for step 2.<br /><br />Temposchluckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07977208394417444785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-67337954314605558172016-05-27T16:55:47.108+02:002016-05-27T16:55:47.108+02:00@Aox:
I do not want to argue with you, BUT. . . (...@Aox:<br /><br />I do not want to argue with you, BUT. . . (there's always a "butt" stuck in there somewhere!)<br /><br />Could it be that the masters <b>ARE</b> actually slowed down by the verbalization, since the intent of the verbalization is to teach others, not to demonstrate the "master way" to analyze? As I watched the John Bartholomew video, I was able to "see" the point of the problem faster than he could talk about it. Have you noticed that in almost every problem, there are moments when he simply "runs silnt, runs deep" without saying a word, and then, sometimes after several seconds, when he comes back out of the "master trance," THEN he verbalizes what he was considering? In a couple of the problems, he went completely off the rails, and I was silently urging him to "look" again at the position. In at least one case, he truly went down the tunnel and crashed into the train. Not to worry; <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tInDH2FeXaM" rel="nofollow"><b>the train is fine</b></a>. That IN NO WAY means that I could hold my own against him (or any other expert, never mind a master or higher level player) in any actual chess GAME or even in a "solving problems" contest.<br /><br />Have you ever had the experience of listening to a speaker who read directly from his notes? Have you ever experienced the frustration of watching/listening to Bill O'Reilly on the Fox channel? (I rarely indulge THAT, since I find it so frustrating in many ways.) As he is speaking, the approximate text of his remarks is scrolled on the screen. I've finished reading before he usually begins to speak. When those kinds of situations occur, I want to throw something at the speaker. Why? BECAUSE I CAN READ A-N-D COMPREHEND MUCH FASTER THAN THEY CAN SPEAK! The master commentator must "convert" the rather vague concepts and interrelationships into a linear sequence of words that convey the specific point(s) he has in his mind; THAT MUST take a certain amount of time, relatively speaking MUCH MORE time, than if he just did the analysis silently. As a thought experiment, I considered an alternative way to transfer the ideas: the master simply shuffles the pieces around as he thinks through the problem, allowig a "visual" window into his mind. Again, I think it would slow him down, compared to when it all occurs only in his mind. So I conclude that the master <b>IS</b> being slowed down when he verbalizes, even though he still appears (usually) to grasp the essence of a position much quicker than we amateurs do.<br /><br />But (another one of those "butts"!), for pedagogical purposes, we don't seem to have any other method for conveying ideas from one mind to another one except through either the written word or verbalization.<br />Robert Coblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12427520849707914818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-65545109745005544152016-05-27T15:09:21.457+02:002016-05-27T15:09:21.457+02:00Perhaps related to soaring above the board...as me...Perhaps related to soaring above the board...as mentioned in the papers Aox has posted here, there's been a lot of academic work on the ability to reproduce positions from memory after viewing them for a short time. The performance is usually scored as the fraction of pieces in the correct position, or something like that. I'd like to assess how good my whole-position memory is, but I wasn't able to find any tool for doing that. Anybody have suggestions?<br /><br />There are a couple related tools in the sidebar, I think Aox made these. But if I remember right, one is subjective - it asks you if you <i>feel</i> you have the position in memory. As we all know, such feelings are unreliable. There's another tool where you're asked to specify the location of the missing piece. I found I could do fairly well just by guessing, without any use of memory at all. So I don't want to rely on this tool either, at least not for testing myself. --mfardalAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-40178800969381836542016-05-27T13:50:44.203+02:002016-05-27T13:50:44.203+02:00Function on the chessboard is recognized by its ge...Function on the chessboard is recognized by its geometrical characteristics. An overworked rook is in contact with two of its own pieces, which in turn are in contact with two attackers. If the latter contact isn't already there, then the attacker and the target are connected to the same focal square.<br /><br />Initiative is more complicated, yet the moves that maintain the initiative have certain geometrical characteristics too.Temposchluckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07977208394417444785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-65441413978084557962016-05-27T13:46:35.676+02:002016-05-27T13:46:35.676+02:00Yes, but how to get there? And even with these ste...Yes, but how to get there? And even with these steps you need to be sharp, quick and precise to calculate the critical lines.. without calculation chess dont work at all.<br /><br />AoxomoxoA wonderinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16058687381216896080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-51093296938112758012016-05-27T10:30:33.618+02:002016-05-27T10:30:33.618+02:00Yes, Masters see more and they are using bigger ch...Yes, Masters see more and they are using bigger chunks, chunks of chess positions ("throwing pieces around to different positions"..) and chunks of move sequences<br />But there is even more, they have better vision, they dont make "loops" ( come back to the same things ). They generate a stream of new information from the position, faster and sharper and more to the point. They can handle these big anounts of informations. They dont lose orientation in the tree of variations ( i for example often have to go back and reroute my path to see clearer )<br /><br />I think there is no single effect which makes masters better! Like if you want to have a better car you need virtually everything to be better, a better engine AND a better transmission ( or the transmission will break soon ) AND better breaks ( or you will die soon ) AND better weels ( ot the whole energy will not go into the street ) AND ...<br /><br />A perfect training should detect the weakest link(s) in the chain and i suspect that this one is not the same for everyone<br /><br />AoxomoxoA wonderinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16058687381216896080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-27784926551665294522016-05-27T10:10:47.918+02:002016-05-27T10:10:47.918+02:00"see, dont think" that sounds like saltm..."see, dont think" that sounds like saltmine, i see the loop closing ;)<br /><br />verbalising is not necessary, that is used for example at speed-reading but verbalising dont harm as you can see when you watch masters solving puzzles and actually speaking their thoughts aloud into the mic: they are still quicker, sharper, better<br />AoxomoxoA wonderinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16058687381216896080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-64259609428101132892016-05-27T10:09:12.327+02:002016-05-27T10:09:12.327+02:00I agree with you Tempo.
However I am sure the BIG...I agree with you Tempo.<br /><br />However I am sure the BIGGEST GAIN (significant improvement) can be made when we know WHAT to see (to look at), WHAT is not important (!) and what are the goals (mate, winning material or promotion).<br /><br />In other words - it is (close) to impossible to find the best variation (series of moves) that leads to gain an advantage when:<br /><br />1. You do not know what to look for (lack of goal)<br />2. You want to analyse everything (lack of avoiding to analyse the noise)<br />3. You cannot see/discover the motifs (themes).<br /><br />After it is done probably 90% of the tactical positions can be solved with using these 3 important points.<br /><br />What do you think about this idea(my proposal)? Did these points cover with your findings?Tomaszhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09690570865003924020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-26454833700436624602016-05-27T03:57:33.391+02:002016-05-27T03:57:33.391+02:00I'm beginning to think that the function motif...I'm beginning to think that the <b>function</b> motif (which includes the overworked defender) is one of the most important, if not THE MOST IMPORTANT, motifs for rapidly "seeing" the gist of a position quickly. It certainly focuses our sight on interrelationships between at least 2-3 (or more) pieces, thereby forming a related "chunk." (I hesitate to call it a "pattern" because that implies there is something that I already have in my subconscious LTM memory that I can recognize, and I'm pretty sure the requisite "patterns" are NOT in there yet.) Anything that allows us to "see" multiple things <b>at once</b> is a very good thing! Previously, I had given the highest priority to the <b>geometrical</b> motif, but (for some unknown reason) that motif now seems to "pop" into sight much quicker and easier for me than the <b>function</b> motif. I think (but cannot be sure) that it is connected with my decision to mentally trace the "aura" (rays of potential movement/capture) from each line-moving piece (Queen, Rook and Bishop) from the piece outward in all directions, through obstacles (same side pieces as well as possible captures), until each aura encounters the edge of the board; I also do something similar for Knights. I've been working on that specific thing for some months regularly, so (maybe) it's beginning to sink into my subconscious. The specific way I do it is to start with whichever piece grabs my attention first in a problem/position. I immediately trace out the aura for that piece, trying to be aware of potential targets (squares as well as pieces) while I am doing it. It has been surprising how many clues I get from that simple focusing process. The function motif comes into play in second place (for the time being), because I still have to "think" about it before I can "see" it; it is not even close to being in my subconscious.<br /><br />I have no idea what benefit (if any) I am actually getting from this focus on "seeing" without verbalization, but I am more aware of potentialities than I was previously. It is showing up in the problems on Chess Academy. I still take a lot longer than I would like to solve some of the problems. However, my rating there went to 2038 (the first time I've ever gone over 2000) last week. I know I can't sustain or improve it unless I take my time and go through my "seeing" training regimen in each position, but it is encouraging, nonetheless. The hard part is cutting out the verbalization that usually accompanies the process. I keep reminding myself that I am not trying to absorb any knowledge from the position; not tactics, not strategy, nothing. The knowledge is irrelevant because it is unique to a specific position; "seeing" is my only focus at this point, and it should be relevant to ALL positions once it is burned into the subconscious.<br /><br /><b>How do you eat an elephant? <i>One small bite at a time.</i></b><br />Robert Coblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12427520849707914818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-40156469794445797232016-05-27T02:34:26.879+02:002016-05-27T02:34:26.879+02:00All indicators seem to point in the same direction...All indicators seem to point in the same direction: <i>see, don't think!</i>.<br />The past days I have been experimenting with this, and I found that puzzles can be solved by only looking at them indeed. It often takes an awful lot of time though, so my rating plummeted again, but after five days, it starts to normalize again.<br /><br />The experiment of Robert showed that the habit of verbalizing is still quite strong in us. But the fact that it is even possible to solve a puzzle by mere seeing alone, is encouraging, and gives the training a clear direction. It works better when you know where you should aim at.<br /><br />There are a lot of new patterns to see and to learn, mostly geared around the subjects <i>focal points, initiative and overworked defenders</i>. I hope and assume that assimilating these new patterns will speed up the seeing a lot.Temposchluckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07977208394417444785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-36784116482693820542016-05-26T22:02:04.345+02:002016-05-26T22:02:04.345+02:00@Aox:
That is a perfect illustration of what I wa...@Aox:<br /><br />That is a perfect illustration of what I was trying to say. Although John is using verbiage, he is simply describing what he is "seeing" AND why he is throwing the pieces around to different positions to take advantage of what he is "seeing." This very much reminds me of how Master Richard Bustamante (1975 US Armed Forces Champion) used to analyze with me watching: he would simply move the pieces around the board, give an evaluation (good, bad or needs more "looking") without any reference to general principles, "rules," etc. Everything was concrete to the specific position. He was mostly indifferent to any "theories" about chess. That brought to mind two different (and yet very similarly) stories from the literature.<br /><br />GM Kotov (<b><i>Think Like a Grandmaster</i></b>, pg. 170: <b><i>Another digression seems relevant. Once in a lobby of the Hall of Columns of the Trade Union in Moscow a group of masters were analyzing an ending. They could not find the right way to go about things and there was a lot of arguing about it. Suddenly Capablanca came into the room. He was always fond of walking about when it was his opponent's turn to move. Learning the reason for the dispute the Cuban bent down to "look" at the position, said, "Si, si," and suddenly redistributed the pieces all over the board to show what the correct formation was for the side that was trying to win. I haven't exaggerated. Don Jose literally pushed the pieces round the board without making moves. He just put them in fresh positions where he thought they were needed. Suddenly everything became clear. The correct scheme of things had been set up and now the win was easy.</i></b><br /><br />GM Rowson (<b><i>Chess For ZEBRAS</i></b>) repeated something from GM Nigel Davies: <b><i>In case neither of these two distinctions [between "knowing that" {KNOWLEDGE} and "knowing how" {SKILL}] means much to you, I came across a third saying much the same thing, in an article on Chesscafe.com by Nigel Davies called 'The How and the What'. Extracts are copied below with the author's kind permission: "I recently saw a newsgroup discussion about tournament preparation. Everything under the sun was mentioned from openings to endings and strategy to tactics with everyone having their own idea about how it should be done. I just commented that 'the how is more important than the what', leaving anyone reading this guessing as to what I meant. In fact the comment was deliberately enigmatic ... It really doesn't matter what you study, THE IMPORTANT THING IS TO USE THIS AS A TRAINING GROUND FOR THINKING RATHER THAN TRYING TO ASSIMILATE A MIND-NUMBING AMOUNT OF INFORMATION. In these days of a zillion different chess products, this message seems to be quite lost, and indeed most people seem to want books that tell them what to do. The reality is that YOU'VE GOT TO MOVE THE PIECES AROUND THE BOARD AND PLAY WITH THE POSITION. Who does that? Amateurs don't, GMs do...</i></b><br />Robert Coblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12427520849707914818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-55175267211622891782016-05-26T17:44:24.508+02:002016-05-26T17:44:24.508+02:00@Tomasz:
Thank you for the ideas and suggestions!...@Tomasz:<br /><br />Thank you for the ideas and suggestions! <br /><br />My gut feeling is that logical thinkng would have to be used in order to PROVE a win or not a win. Since our concept of "proof" is based on using words, I suspect (without "proof") that this will not lead to an increase in skill. I lean more toward the "seeing" approach to solving problems. If I don't "see" the parameters within the position and the interrelationships between those parameters, I get lost digging around in the word salads, trying to find a scrap of meat, while the mental train hurtles toward the tunnel. GM Rowson describes this reliance on word descriptions as the means (<b>for AMATEURS</b>) to reduce the cognitive load associated with complicated positions. Grandmasters, on the other hand, dispence with the verbalization altogether. That would seem to contradict the usual descriptive annotations given by grandmasters in their books. IM Watson informs us amateurs that there is a serious danger here for the aspiring student. The annotators use words as a mere shorthand to summarize the most important points of a position, rather than killing entire forests trying to point out every detail and consideration that went into a specific decision. The danger is that we amateurs will (wrongly) infer that <b>this is how the grandmasters think</b> - in verbal reasonings and annotations as they are playing. The reality is that most of the time, the grandmasters are "seeing" complex interrelationships between pieces, squares and "chunks" of pieces in a kind of vague visual sense without any verbalization at all. They not only DON'T VERBALIZE, they don't even have a clear-cut "picture" of a board or pieces in their minds; it is all kind of non-descript abstract "painting." They toss around the pieces "visually" (sort of) in order to change those interrelationships. Most of their "thinking" (if it can even be called that in the conventional sense) has nothing to do with recalling general principles, "rules", etc. They don't think that way - but <b>we amateurs do think that way!</b> The principles, "rules", etc. must be arrived at by independently and individually examining a sufficient number of positions through individual hard work to make them part of our subconscious. (I am reminded of Temposchlucker's description of his skill at moving knights around the board LIKE A GRANDMASTER.) Glomming on to a set of principles, a thinking process, or anything else in chess (or any other field, for that matter) without "making them unique" to yourself (internalization) means that you may have an academic knowledge of them, but you don't have the skill to use them appropriately except in the simplest of situations. It is the exceptions that prove the rule!<br /><br />"<b><i>If only we could pull out our brains, and use only our "eyes."</i></b> Picasso<br /><br />I'll get off the soap box now. . .Robert Coblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12427520849707914818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-34996965641905334572016-05-26T17:42:53.829+02:002016-05-26T17:42:53.829+02:00here an other example how to do it right ;)
https:...here an other example how to do it right ;)<br />https://youtu.be/AGOzeJkoH_0AoxomoxoA wonderinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16058687381216896080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-14402843353902076852016-05-26T17:17:23.799+02:002016-05-26T17:17:23.799+02:00PART IV:
But there is something else going on her...PART IV:<br /><br />But there is something else going on here. Because of the experience we have in the standard educational system, we are used to arriving at KNOWLEDGE as an accumulation of facts. Rarely if ever does the educational process teach SKILL. We “think” in words and stories. Once we have convinced ourselves that “it is just this way,” we no longer can accept that maybe, just MAYBE, “it really is NOT this way.” The words give us that old familiar “feeling” that we “understand” the position as a whole, while providing no “warning signs” that the words themselves are leading us into the tunnel.<br /><br />I did an experiment using words with my youngest brother last night. My older brother and I are working with him on improvization on piano. I asked him to describe the relationship of the notes in the major scale, based on whole tones and half tones. He immediately rolled his fingers along the keyboard giving me the C major scale, up and back down. He stated that the half tones were between scale degrees 3-4 and 7-8. Absolutely correct regurgitation of KNOWLEDGE! He also knew that this relationship holds for every major key (all 15 keys, if you don’t consider enharmonic keys). Then came the crucial part of the experiment: I asked him to play exactly the same thing he had previously played, one half tone higher. He immediately flubbed it! We tried it with several keys. The only one he could actually demonstrate any fluidity on was C major. The KNOWLEDGE was immediately and directly available, but the SKILL was missing. How could this be? It is because we mistake “familiarity” (based on word salads) with mastery, knowledge with skill.<br /><br />The words enable us to CONSCIOUSLY “think” about positions. But, given the empirical evidence so far, it appears that the bulk of skill resides in (perhaps) the fusiform face area of the brain. I’m pretty sure that the FFA is NON-VERBAL, so using logical thinking processes IN TRAINING may give us access to the WORDS as we try to solve some future problem, but the KNOWLEDGE has not been transformed into SKILL – and thus, we fail as ADULT chess improvers. The very words that we use to identify and categorize concepts into knowledge cause us to “think” that we understand, when we don’t. We can give a dictionary definition (just as my brother did for the location fo the half tones within a major scale) but we can’t play the tune. In this sense, “<b>familiarity breeds contempt.</b>” We become dismissive of the simple stuff and try to move on to more complicated concepts, when in actuality all we have is a crappy foundation for skill. How many times do we look at a “simple” position and dismiss it from any serious consideration because it is TOO simple? I know I do!<br /><br />As a finishing point, consider this little anecdote from Weteschnik’s book.<br /><br />“<b>Another piece of advice! Even when you occupy yourself with such simple things as piece movement, important lessons can still be learned. <i>A lot of people smiled when Mikhail Tal admitted that he liked to watch children’s chess programs on television.</i> But, despite being a World’s Champion and one of the greatest tacticians of all time, he claimed that <i>HE WAS STILL LEARNING FROM THESE SIMPLE PATTERNS.</i></b><br /><br /><b>Are we still learning skills from the simple stuff, or are we so convinced of our own knowledge that we think we have progressed beyond it? Are we hung up on our own knowledge petard, unable to progress because we confuse an understanding of the terminology with skill?</b><br /><br /><b>Thanks for allowing and participating in the experiment!</b><br />Robert Coblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12427520849707914818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-39090968695545558742016-05-26T17:16:07.257+02:002016-05-26T17:16:07.257+02:00PART III:
“The individual elements of this analys...PART III:<br /><br />“<b>The individual elements of this analysis may be correct, but there is a crucial point missing: the intersection of the two sides of the board. Only if you see all of the individual pieces <i>TOGETHER</i> will you get the full picture [the vulture’s eye view] and this looks a little different: 1. …f2!! 2. Rg8 Bb1!</b>”<br /><br />“<b>White has nothing better than taking the bishop, because 3. Rf8+ is met by 3. … Bf5 and the f-pawn queens anyway.</b>”<br /><br />“<b>But by taking the bishop: 3. Kxb1 the status of the king is radically changed as it is now on the first rank. 3. … f1=Q+ the f-pawn promotes with check, winning a crucial tempo.</b>”<br /><br />“<b><i>This is a good example that understanding all the individual elements of a position does not necessarily mean understanding the whole position.</i></b>”<br /><br />Thus begins Weteschnik’s description of the method of a status examination using checklists.<br /><br />While thinking about this position and the description, it occurred to me that we often verbalize (perhaps even subvocalize) our logical thinking process. There are some serious problems with doing this. Obviously, if we reason ourselves into the wrong conclusions (failing to see the “forest” because we are too far down in the “trees”), we will either futilely expend considerable time trying to “make it work” or forget to fly back up to the vulture’s viewpoint. Notice that the “word salad” used by Weteschnik causes us to arrive at contradictory conclusions about the two sides of the board, and thus causes us to NOT see the interaction of the two sides, i.e., the position as a whole. Yet, when Temposchlucker put the position into an engine, he immediately “saw” the solution. There was no intellectualization, no verbalization, just the vulture mind “seeing” the prey and puncing on it.<br /><br />There is a subtlety involved. We “think” that there is nothing to be gained in position 1 from sacrificing the bishop. Because we have already thought THAT, it is retained somewhat as a residual RESTRICTION on what works and what doesn’t work. That limits our logical thinking process because we have already articulated the restriction into words. It acts as a kind of filter to eliminate that from consideration. Without the words, just looking at the position brought the right course of action to mind: sacrifice the bishop immediately!<br />Robert Coblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12427520849707914818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-3893892009423533112016-05-26T17:15:47.124+02:002016-05-26T17:15:47.124+02:00PART II:
Position 3 is the “prey” for the “vultur...PART II:<br /><br />Position 3 is the “prey” for the “vulture.” The point concerns the pitfalls of using a conscious logical thinking process based on words. Obviously, we have both position 1 and 2 combined. In the first case (position 1), the result is drawn. In the second case, the result is a White win. Yet, when combined, the result is a Black win! That seems contradictory to logical thinking based on words! Here’s how Weteschnik described the logical thinking process:<br /> <br />“<b>At first glance it looks as if this position is winning for White. Both sides of the board seem to be under his control. The white king has a firm grip on the black bishop, and the rook might sacrifice itself (using a check on the f file) for the f-pawn if it advances, then White could win by pushing the h-pawn. <i>THE ONLY WAY TO DEAL WITH THE ROOK CHECK WOULD BE TO PUT A PIECE BETWEEN THE KING AND THE ROOK WHEN IT TURNS UP ON f8</i> (emphasis added).</b>”<br /><br />[So far, so good. The logical thinking train is rolling merrily down the rails in the right direction. And then, it promptly runs into the tunnel.]<br /><br />“<b>But [why is there ALWAYS a “but”?] if the bishop moves it is taken. The prospects look rather grim for Black. The frustrating word <i>zugzwang</i> must ring in Black’s ears. If he moves his king, then White’s h-pawn will queen.</b>”<br /><br />[Notice how the logical reasoning process now tries to derail the train. Words are thrown on the tracks!]<br /><br />“<b>For example: 1. …Ke3 2. h4 Kf4 3. Rxf4+ and even if Black ttries to be clever and goes after the pawn with 3. … Kg4 instead of 3. … Kxf3, White answers 4. Rh3!</b>”<br /><br />“<b>Again offering the rook while saving the pawn. Black would lose because of zugzwang as the black king can only temporarily block the white pawn.</b><br />Robert Coblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12427520849707914818noreply@blogger.com