tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post5332222594884291530..comments2024-03-28T01:17:43.262+01:00Comments on Temposchlucker: Convergence squaresTemposchluckerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07977208394417444785noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-65408611495040880212017-04-24T17:25:18.860+02:002017-04-24T17:25:18.860+02:00@tomasz. Yes i see that we share in the saltmining...@tomasz. Yes i see that we share in the saltmining struggle.although mine is more measured than it was ten years ago. 8) Cheers, Jim. Jim Takchessnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-36750062730292360112017-04-16T13:37:34.318+02:002017-04-16T13:37:34.318+02:00Oh Jeezee... :D
It is the problem with communicat...Oh Jeezee... :D<br /><br />It is the problem with communication without the access to the emotional side of our partner (in the discussion).<br /><br />I listed these elements (traits) to show that EVEN I have a huge problems with "perfect approach" something may be done with that. It may look the way I wrote it down because I was fury, but in fact they are my problems to overcome.<br /><br />I try to broaden the distance to my own and to laugt at myself every time I have a chance for it. And in addition I use irony and sarcasm quite often. I hope this explanation is a good guide for a future misunderstandings ;) :).<br /><br />You can criticize me effort as much as you wish ON ONE CONDITION. Do it constructively - show me what is wrong and what should be done to overcome it. And respect my will not to do or listen to your advice.<br /><br />BTW. At the last paragraph I used "you" as a plural - not just you Tempo, my dear chess friend :).Tomaszhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09690570865003924020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-84175279662401777862017-04-16T11:49:12.936+02:002017-04-16T11:49:12.936+02:00@Tomasz, I didn't mean to offend you or to rid...@Tomasz, I didn't mean to offend you or to ridiculize your efforts. I reacted to an observation of Aox with an observation of my own. I exaggerated it a little (a lot) because I thought that was funny between all the seriousness here. If you don't like that, I will respect that in the future and I will apologize. I don't spare my own sensitivities when I write down my observations about myself, and I tend to do the same with other people. Since I don't want to deprive them from the chance to learn something.Temposchluckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07977208394417444785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-53098310716295982392017-04-16T02:59:20.004+02:002017-04-16T02:59:20.004+02:00@ Jim takechess
I have spend a dozens of hours at...@ Jim takechess<br /><br />I have spend a dozens of hours at salt mining... actually I am probably one of the few crazy guys who has solved (done) 120-130K positions (repetitions) of mate in 1 easy puzzles. Some people say: IT IS INSANE!!! ;) :)<br /><br />There was the time we had been working on salt mines. Here you can check it out by yourself: http://temposchlucker.blogspot.com/search/label/salt%20minesTomaszhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09690570865003924020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-8874966203893490362017-04-16T02:55:03.894+02:002017-04-16T02:55:03.894+02:00I probably have it all (the list is not exhausted)...I probably have it all (the list is not exhausted):<br /><br />- bad thinking habits<br />- unorganised thinking<br />- lack of concentration<br />- lack of visualisation<br />- lack of motivation<br />- lack of perseverance (and persistance)<br />- lack of following logical observations (conclusions)<br />- lack of making conclusions<br /><br />Anyway I like guessing tactical puzzles even if all the chess world does it methodically, logically and systematically in a correct way with organized thinking and making conclusions :)Tomaszhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09690570865003924020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-64933490566677454232017-04-15T16:09:43.082+02:002017-04-15T16:09:43.082+02:00The pupil in this thesis did not improve "sha...The pupil in this thesis did not improve "sharp" during the first year and i dont play enough chess to see any improvement yet<br />The last 10 years i did tactics,tactics,tactics so i did start now with Strategy 3.0 only with ~~ 4 * 45min * 6 per week ( because it did interest me most ). It will take me estimatingly an other 3 months to reach the requested level of 80+ %. Next is planed to do endgames because the baseline requests the knowledge of 250 endgames. At the same time i will make shure that i stay at the same level in Strategy 3.0. Begining 2018 i will get closer to the trainingsplan and mix the different subjects and games as shown in the plan.AoxomoxoA wonderinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16058687381216896080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-50280296013577543852017-04-15T15:08:35.633+02:002017-04-15T15:08:35.633+02:00FWIW:
The outcome is a White win.
There are thre...FWIW:<br /><br />The outcome is a White win.<br /><br />There are three distinct ways of "looking" at this apparently simple endgame.<br /><br />(1) Using the concept of the opposition.<br /><br />Black has an outside passed Pawn and his King is ahead of the Pawn. If the other Pawns on the other side of the board were eliminated, Black would be winning because the White King must give way, allowing Black to advance his King and support the Pawn as it moves toward promotion. There is some trickery involved which requires Black to avoid a possible stalemate, but nothing that can't be worked out rather quickly at the board.<br /><br />(2) Using the Silman concept of "Fox in the Chicken Coop."<br /><br />Black abandons the Black Pawn to its fate, and goes after the White Pawns with his King. There is nothing that White can do to stop this idea IFF there were nothing else in the position; BUT, there is!<br /><br />(3) Using tactics to force a White Pawn through to queening.<br /><br />This requires special knowledge; without it, most class players would not suspect that White is winning IFF he knows how to do it.<br /><br />The first point is that White can employ a duplo attack. By 1. g6! there is a fork and an immediate threat to take either the f7 or h7 Pawn, creating a passed Pawn which is very close to promotion. Black MUST capture the Pawn.<br /><br />The variations now split into two branches. The procedure is the same in both variations: it is to create a second duplo attack, using two Pawns to attack two Pawns. Black must choose one or the other, allowing the second attack to succeed by bypassing and then promoting that Pawn.<br /><br />(1) 1. ... fxg6 2. h6! gxh6 (2. ... gxf5 3. hxg7 and the Pawn queens) 3. f6 and the Pawn queens.<br /><br />(2) 1. ... hxg6 2. f6! gxf6 (2. ... gxh5 3. fxg7 and the Pawn queens) 3. h6 and the Pawn queens.<br /><br />My point is this: if you are missing specific knowledge (how to force the Pawn through in this specific configuration), then it is highly likely that you will focus on one or both of the first two general ideas, and assume (without detailed calculations) that Black is winning. It demonstrates that we have to consider Lasker's idea of "balance" across the ENTIRE BOARD at all times, not just the local situation in one specific area of the board.<br /><br />Connecting the various areas of the board is very difficult to do, especially if working at the level of moves. This is the advantage of the vulture's eye view, looking for PLF FIRST, then combining these into motifs, then identifying potential tactical themes/devices and only then formulating combinations (connecting everything "seen" into a coherent whole). Since the motifs MAY be offensive or defensive in specific areas, these ideas constitute "playing in accordance with the requirement(s) of the position."<br /><br /><br /> <br /><br /> Robert Coblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12427520849707914818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-64939861543921329422017-04-15T14:21:57.653+02:002017-04-15T14:21:57.653+02:00@ Aox:
Thank you for the clarification! I thought...@ Aox:<br /><br />Thank you for the clarification! I thought it "odd" that the math didn't work out; I was unaware that 1 school hour was only 45 minutes long.<br /><br />This plan is one of the most detailed I have ever seen, especially incorporating existing computer software to assist the process.<br /><br />Have you noticed any appreciable improvement so far after 4 months of intensive training?<br />Robert Coblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12427520849707914818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-35961487299851265332017-04-15T12:51:21.716+02:002017-04-15T12:51:21.716+02:00Yes possible too,.. bad thinking habits.. unorgani...Yes possible too,.. bad thinking habits.. unorganised thinking, lack of concentration.... Should be extremely !!! beneficial to detect exactly : what it is and to work on it AoxomoxoA wonderinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16058687381216896080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-7433803102382477282017-04-15T09:37:52.535+02:002017-04-15T09:37:52.535+02:00The reason that I suspect that there is nothing wr...The reason that I suspect that there is nothing wrong with the visualization skills is <a href="http://temposchlucker.blogspot.nl/2016/01/thought-process-redux.html" rel="nofollow">this post, see last diagram</a><br /><br />Tomasz commented:<br /><br /><i>The last puzzle was AMAZING! I have solved it within 2 minutes!!! I am really proud of myself as I noticed the theme (motif) immediately! After that I thought it is mate in 3-4 moves, but the King ran away quite a long way. Anyway I checkmated it at move 8! It was great pawn move - 8.g6 mate final! :)</i>Temposchluckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07977208394417444785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-56170044877460388332017-04-15T09:09:22.971+02:002017-04-15T09:09:22.971+02:00I suspect that there is nothing wrong with the vis...I suspect that there is nothing wrong with the visualization skills of Tomasz. But maybe he makes things overcomplicated. His analysis of complex positions is not unlikely to start with the story of Adam and Eve and end with the latest findings in quantum mechanics ;) When the position allows that he doesn't think too much, he performs best.Temposchluckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07977208394417444785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-81458200432767873302017-04-15T08:51:09.296+02:002017-04-15T08:51:09.296+02:00You said: " but when I can move the pieces I ...You said: " but when I can move the pieces I can discover the solution pretty soon".<br /><br />I suspect since a long time that your visualisation is bad. You can solve "flat" puzzles in hyperspeed but there is a cut of at puzzles with some "depth".<br />I suggest to do some calculation/visualisation/memorisation training. i guess that this would boost your chess the most and quickest. AoxomoxoA wonderinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16058687381216896080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-15108240276075477132017-04-15T08:40:40.914+02:002017-04-15T08:40:40.914+02:00It is 4 * 45min of study + 30 min of --rest-- and...It is 4 * 45min of study + 30 min of --rest-- and this 4 times a week ( i do more ! ). 45min is 1 School-hour. So: her math is ok. The "trainingsplan" is an abstract of her PhD thesis in Pedagogics.<br /><br />AoxomoxoA wonderinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16058687381216896080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-19012387462380870262017-04-15T02:46:39.330+02:002017-04-15T02:46:39.330+02:00@ Jim takchess:
Thank you for the reference to Mr...@ Jim takchess:<br /><br />Thank you for the reference to Mr. Winter's remarks regarding the <b>Theory of Steinitz</b>, which MIGHT be better attributed to Dr. Lasker. I followed a link, and found this note by Dr. Lasker, in response to an earlier criticism.<br /><br /><br />Link" <a href="http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/lasker.html" rel="nofollow">Dr Lasker’s Chess History - Edward Winter</a><br /><br />Emanuel Lasker, on pages 464-465 of the November 1933 BCM:<br /><br /><b>Now as to my philosophy. <br /><br />Mr Goulding Brown disarms me by claiming for himself no authority whatever in that domain. In speaking of the reason of a plan I did have an end in view. Many chessplayers have peculiar notions as to how a chess master does his thinking, and it is not easy to make them understand. Language is pregnant with old philosophical thought, and a new idea, in making use, as it must, of old terms, has to rely on the reader’s imagination and good will. The motive for a plan, the reason of a plan, the raison d’être of a plan, all these arise from valuation. I wanted to suggest this idea. If the reader grasps it he will more readily understand that a new style of planning must be generated at a period when valuations have undergone a change, and that it cannot arise nor be logically founded in any other way.</b><br /><br />I simply note the importance that Dr. Lasker placed on developing your own valuations if you wish to progress in chess.<br /><br />Thank you for the reference!<br /><br />Robert Coblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12427520849707914818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-45137359597660740882017-04-15T01:44:51.146+02:002017-04-15T01:44:51.146+02:00But, but: what about the Kotovian 4-step process? ...But, but: what about the Kotovian 4-step process? <br /><br />(1) List all candidate moves FIRST, before anything else; <br />(2) Calculate each variation in turn; <br />(3) Visualize all possible lines as a "tree of variations"; and <br />(4) During a GAME, each branch of the tree must be examined once and only once.<br /><br />(Just kidding; GM V. Beim pretty much demolishes that process in his book <b><i>How to Calculate chess Tactics</i></b>. I actually prefer the much shorter question by GM A. Lein: "<b><i>I don't think like a tree - do you think like a tree?</i></b>", quoted in GM J. Tisdall's excellent book <b><i>Improve Your Chess NOW</i></b>.)<br /><br />I had bookmarked GM Irina Mikhailova's training plan some time ago. Given the intensity of the training and the time requirements, I came to the reasonable conclusion that I personally was never going to be able to even attempt it.<br /><br />I was amused (a little) by the Monday-Thirsday "Weekday plan of individual studies in a computer class 1998" which required 4.5 hours per day of training, for a total weekly time commitment of 16 hours. (I am easily amused by ironies, such as touting a computer based training solution and then not using the computer to check the schedule math.) At 4.5 hours per day, who cares if that would total to 18 hours per week? Oh well, as long as the proposed program achieves the planned goal of reaching FIDE 2400 (IM level), the math doesn't matter.<br /><br />I applaud your choice to use sequences of master games sorted by themes.<br /><br />Best of luck to you!<br /><br />Robert Coblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12427520849707914818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-33269592302709463622017-04-14T23:35:51.130+02:002017-04-14T23:35:51.130+02:00Interested where this will go. I spent a lot of ti...Interested where this will go. I spent a lot of time without much thought doing the mdlm circles. Intuition didnt follow. It wasnt until i started to understand and notice structure did intuition follow. Jim takchessnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-27834275985123238532017-04-14T21:33:39.277+02:002017-04-14T21:33:39.277+02:00But since he is able to recognize the squares that...But since he is able to recognize the squares that are the stepping stones of backward thinking FAST (since with system II) should read: But since he is able to recognize the squares that are the stepping stones of backward thinking FAST (since with system <b>I</b>)Temposchluckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07977208394417444785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-90786521851230051622017-04-14T21:28:19.063+02:002017-04-14T21:28:19.063+02:00we may watch on how several masters think and solv...we may watch on how several masters think and solve tactical puzzle. They have different methods for different types of positions but a main method seems to be to generate a prototype of the mainline, using patterns/ideas they spot, not only at the beginning (first move(s)) or end ( goal ) but at any location in this line too ( try to make use of a potential discovered attack at some point for example ) . It's a type of genetic process using methods of inverse move-orders and so on; then they try to tune the line and at the end its been blunder checked.<br />The videos of the actual thinking of grandmasters give a hint what should/must be improved to solve tactics at masterlevel ( not necessary how ).<br />To analyze the patterns of "points of pressure" and so forth as tempo does here is a type of deliberate training which might help to improve. But when i watch masters solving tactical puzzles i think there is a lot more to do.<br /><br />Since 4 months i am using a modification of this method : https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7CnosTj8wPhTjk0TDU4U1BpX2M/view with the hope to gain more and better chunks. Its a deliberate training with sequences of master-games sorted by themes.<br />AoxomoxoA wonderinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16058687381216896080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-64119013365927380642017-04-14T21:28:17.824+02:002017-04-14T21:28:17.824+02:00I consider the prodigy to be the average (grand)ma...I consider the prodigy to be the <i>average</i> (grand)master in his younger years. Just to avoid misunderstandings. The scope of forward thinking is limited by numbers. I don't think that this scope is different for prodigies and adult amateurs. Since the numbers are the same, and the physical build of the brains is roughly the same.<br /><br />This and the previous posts describes how the scope of forward thinking (system I) can be extended by changing the numbers. The numbers are changed by pruning the tree of analysis. Backwards thinking is able to prune the <i>tree of analysis</i>. We accomplish backwards thinking as system II. I hypothesize the following:<br /><br />The prodigy transfers his backwards thinking from system II to system I without knowing it. His system II thinking is as slow as our system II thinking. And even his system I thinking is as fast as our system I thinking. But since he is able to recognize the squares that are the stepping stones of backward thinking FAST (since with system II), he is able to prune the <i>tree of analysis</i>. Which makes his forward thinking looking as much faster than our forward thinking. Which isn't true, since he calculates less due to the pruning. I predict that we can learn to transfer our backward thinking from system II to system I too.<br /><br />We should automate the scan for stepping stones for backward thinking. Like the search for the b8 square in the position.Temposchluckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07977208394417444785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-50626843208029068922017-04-14T19:11:04.819+02:002017-04-14T19:11:04.819+02:00Vis-a-vis the Lasker quote referenced in the Updat...Vis-a-vis the Lasker quote referenced in the Update. . .<br /><br />The important idea (IMHO) is encapsulated in what followed that excerpt:<br /><br /><b><i>In looking for a combination the given position is the essential thing, <br />in the conceiving of plans the intended position is the root of MY thinking.</i></b> <br /><br />[Note: Lasker is describing his own thinking processes in THAT statement!]<br /><br /><b><i>THE MASTER UTILIZES BOTH DIRECTIONS OF THINKING, ALTERNATING BETWEEN THEM <br />WITHOUT THINKING ABOUT THE THINKING PROCESS.</i></b><br /><br />I do NOT "see" a correlation between what mister Lasker stated regarding the <br />opposing orientations of AMATEURS (combination-player thinks forward; <br />position-player thinks backward) and the (potential but very unlikely) connection <br />between those two archtypes of AMATEURS and adult "improvers" (forward thinking combination players?)<br />vice young prodigies (backward thinking position players?). I don't think that is the case at all.<br /><br />Please note that the following point is NOT "aimed" at anyone in particular - except (perhaps) ME.<br />I am as guilty of faulty "thinking" as anyone else.<br /><br />I think that adult chess improvers (with extremely rare exceptions) approach "improvement" from a <br />totally different perspective from young prodigies. I also think this is why most adults fail to improve <br />as fast or to the level of which they are potentially capable.<br /><br />The adult relies heavily (perhaps almost exclusively) on SLOW rational thinking (* System 2). He does this <br />when trying to learn patterns (or "chunks" or "templates"). He does this when trying to devise a "rational" <br />(perhaps all-inclusive) thinking "process." He does this when he tries to "solve" a problem or a position. <br />The emphasis is on logical reasoning. If you doubt this assertion, simply re-read this blog and the comments. <br />In every case, the emphasis is primarily on REASONING.<br /><br />The young prodigy does NOT rely on rational thinking. Instead, he relies on FAST intuition (* System 1). <br />He is exposed to a position. He does not reason his way to a general "rule" which covers that situation. <br />He merely(!) "sees" (intuits) a "solution" and tries it. If it does not work, he does not REASON out why;<br />he simply looks for another (similar in some aspect of chess) and tries again.<br /><br />I know that is a very simplistic view of the differences. IMHO, it does succinctly capture the differences.<br /><br />Time after time, we collectively have arrived at a logical "solution" to how to improve - and yet, we do NOT.<br /><br />Perhaps it is time to change our approach and try what the vast majority of masters suggest as the "tried<br />and true" method of chess improvement.<br /><br />I am quite sure that anyone reading this will immediately jump to the thought "Physician, heal thyself."<br /><br />I'm working on THAT!<br /><br /><b><i>* Thinking, Fast and Slow</i></b>, Daniel Kahneman, C 2011<br /><br /><b><i>System 1</i> operates automatically and quickly, with little or no effort and no sense of voluntary control.<br /><br /><i>System 2</i> [consciously] allocates attention to the effortful mental activities that demand it, including<br />complex computations. The operations of System 2 are often associated with the subjective experience of <br />agency, choice and concentration.</b>Robert Coblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12427520849707914818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-26108697817997339982017-04-14T10:23:06.173+02:002017-04-14T10:23:06.173+02:00I have added an update to the post in blue.I have added an update to the post in blue.Temposchluckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07977208394417444785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-61499719820269016572017-04-13T23:31:35.613+02:002017-04-13T23:31:35.613+02:00https://en.chessbase.com/post/us-chess-legend-arth...https://en.chessbase.com/post/us-chess-legend-arthur-bisguier-passes-at-87AoxomoxoA wonderinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16058687381216896080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-25845795652884496722017-04-13T21:20:18.848+02:002017-04-13T21:20:18.848+02:00Only if he was wearing blue suede shoes - LOL!Only if he was wearing blue suede shoes - LOL!Robert Coblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12427520849707914818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-49091134728786419712017-04-13T18:52:55.527+02:002017-04-13T18:52:55.527+02:00Robert, good point. Do you think at the end of the...Robert, good point. Do you think at the end of the tournament, they announced Ehlvest has left the Building? .....takchesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12700106696079445533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-4770458273671271842017-04-13T18:46:45.937+02:002017-04-13T18:46:45.937+02:00Time for another experiment. . .
FEN: 8/5ppp/8/5P...Time for another experiment. . .<br /><br />FEN: 8/5ppp/8/5PPP/1p6/1k6/8/1K6 w - - 0 1<br /><br />What should be the outcome?<br /><br />How did you go about forming your opinion of what to play?<br /><br />Thanks!Robert Coblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12427520849707914818noreply@blogger.com