tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post6975142246667534316..comments2024-03-28T01:17:43.262+01:00Comments on Temposchlucker: At the zooTemposchluckerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07977208394417444785noreply@blogger.comBlogger82125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-19283799291053415262016-11-20T21:01:51.162+01:002016-11-20T21:01:51.162+01:00As far as i see these books are just a collection ...As far as i see these books are just a collection of puzzles which could be puzzles of chesstempo. CTS would be a great instrument to measure the tactical vision if they would have more puzzles.<br />Presently i do some : https://shop.chessbase.com/de/products/the_path_to_tactical_strength<br />and "Strategy 3.0" http://chessok.com/?p=21207 , which is mainly tactics tooAoxomoxoA wonderinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16058687381216896080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-8748749744664513502016-11-18T16:48:28.893+01:002016-11-18T16:48:28.893+01:00I've made some progress (I think) on my tactic...I've made some progress (I think) on my tactical vision. I finished going through Tim Brennan/Anthea Carson's two books Tactics Time ! and Tactics Time 2 for the second time, using my highlighter. I'm currently at 1950 on lichess and 2048 on Chess Academy tactics trainers. For the first time in a long time, I've cracked the 1600 (at 1601 - ha! ha!) barrier on Chess Tactics Server without much difficulty.<br /><br />I'm still working on tactics. Instead of highlighting from key pieces all the way across the board, I'm just highlighting the key "weak" square(s) that "jump out" while surveying the position. I then try to visualize the tactical themes that combine the solution into a coherent sequence of moves. In some (rare) cases, I find continuations that seem to offer a more complicated defense than the given solution. I'll then explore those kinds of positions in depth, using Stockfish for analysis AFTER I've decided which direction to go. In almost all cases where I "miss" the reason for the solution given, it is because I didn't consider <b>ALL</b> possible "rays" of a key piece. I'm focusing very hard on "seeing" the potential interrelationships between pieces and squares FIRST, before looking for tactical continuations.<br /><br />Living in interesting times!<br /><br />Robert Coblenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-47142542704707979522016-10-29T20:59:32.604+02:002016-10-29T20:59:32.604+02:00There is an interesting article in the links on th...There is an interesting article in the links on the right side of the blog that is somewhat related to this discussion: Hugh Patterson's <b>The Unexplored Territory</b>. His thesis is that given the Shannon number [named after Claude Shannon, which is a conservative <b>lower bound</b> (not an estimate) of the game-tree complexity of chess of 10^120, based on an average of about 10^3 possibilities for a pair of moves consisting of a move for White followed by one for Black, and a typical game lasting about 40 such pairs of moves], there is an unbelievably large game space still available to be explored. It is his opinion that we do not search in this space because we rely on general principles to guide us toward victory, and, although that approach is successful for winning more often than losing, the very success of using general principles inhibits further growth in the realm of the possible.<br /><br />This sounds very similar to Watson's thesis in <b><i>Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy</i></b>.<br /><br />My opinion? I'm fairly certain (probability = 1) that I don't possess sufficient grasp of general principles to go off the beaten path looking for the exceptions. I will probably continue to follow the road <b>MORE</b> traveled, leaving the road <b>LESS</b> traveled to those intrepid explorers called Masters seeking to advance the art of the possible in chess.Robert Coblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12427520849707914818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-12810366854642154312016-10-27T21:18:39.534+02:002016-10-27T21:18:39.534+02:00@ Munich:
Yes. I am aware of what works for you. ...@ Munich:<br /><br />Yes. I am aware of what works for you. Please note that I acknowledged this above (although I did not address you by name):<br /><br />"<b><i>As has been demonstrated, playing by general principles may allow a player to reach a fairly high level of skill.</i> General principles are a distillation of thousands, perhaps millions of specific situations in chess.</b>"<br /><br />My point is, that although I am conversant with most of the general principles, that (by itself) is NOT sufficient for ME.<br /><br />For the rationale regarding the abandonment of general principles and the (almost exclusive) pursuit of the specific concrete considerations in each position, I refer anyone interested to Watson's book <b><i>Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy.</i></b> He is infinitely more eloquent in his reasoning than me.<br /><br />General caveat applies: no personal or financial connection, blah, blah, blah. . . .Robert Coblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12427520849707914818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-79813099735073517662016-10-26T01:06:50.549+02:002016-10-26T01:06:50.549+02:00But you are well aware that I found out it works p...But you are well aware that I found out it works pretty much the opposite with me?<br />My general principals - I can hardly think of them during blitz games. Blitz is probably mainly "tactics". <br />But in my longer OTB games, I think more often about guidance rules, which are not at all tactics.<br />For instance: "rooks are poor defenders, but strong attackers", or the Yoda-like witness: "if a time advantage you have - an object of attack you must create"<br />Or: "if I have an advantage in development, I need to make the position sharper to profit from this advantage"<br /><br />Tactics are for me concrete moves like "if I go here, he has to go there".<br />I found out that in long OTB games, mostly shallow tactics are prevalent, but many of the weak moves my opponents did are not weak tactically - they are just wrong according to guidance rules. You might need the ability to see most "easy" tactics. However, my CT Blitz rating of just around 1900-1950 seems to be enough to reach 2200 fide elo. This is not typical for a 2200 player, but in my case it is that way. I dont win my games due to tactics that often, but mostly because I got into better positions.<br />Munichnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-58598422628220108242016-10-24T19:21:35.665+02:002016-10-24T19:21:35.665+02:00PART II:
From E. A. Znosko-Borovsky's The Mid...PART II:<br /><br />From E. A. Znosko-Borovsky's <b><i>The Middle Game in Chess</i></b>, pg. 60:<br /><br /><b>"The strength of the position as a whole is decisive here, and this is not a question of an automatic adding up of the various separate elements. Once we have made an analysis of a position we must know how to complete it by synthesis."<br /><br />"Two points here are particularly noticeable. The first is the concentrated action of the forces. A piece may occupy a strong square and yet have no prospects and lack all effective force. Worse still, it may have power and yet be of no assistance whatever to the other pieces. It is then sheer dead weight. . . ."<br /><br />"The second point, the logical complement of the first, is that, in the middle game, when a certain plan is under consideration, the general principles (occupation of the centre, open lines, strong and weak squares) are of less account than the selection of an object of attack, against which all available forces are to be launched. On this point Alekhine goes so far as to say "all general considerations must be entirely forgotten" and "only that which contributes to the execution of the plan is of any avail."</b><br /><br />John Watson's book <b><i>Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy</i></b> is written on the thesis that modern chess essentially has ceased to be driven by general principles or rules, and is instead all about concrete variations from beginning to end. Mihai Suba's <b><i>Dynamic Chess Strategy</i></b> is also based on that same thesis.<br /><br />Yes, I know that an "appeal to authority" is a logical error. I just think that the more we move away from playing by general principles and focus on the unique specifics of each and every position, the better we will become as players.<br />Robert Coblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12427520849707914818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-8586284301874161962016-10-24T19:21:14.257+02:002016-10-24T19:21:14.257+02:00PART I:
“In general I consider that in chess ever...PART I:<br /><br /><b>“<i>In general I consider that in chess everything rests on tactics. If one thinks of strategy as a block of marble, then tactics are the chisel with which a master operates, in creating works of chess art.</i>” – Tigran Petrosian</b><br /><br />I'm am slowly becoming convinced that chess is more than 99% tactics.<br /><br />There is a spiraling cycle back and forth between attack and defense as we gain skill. At first, we "attack" using obvious moves, then we learn how to "defend" against those one-move attacks. We then extend our attacking capabilities another step, perhaps coordinating two pieces in an attack against a specific target, then investigate the corresponding defensive tactics. And so it goes, ever increasing (hopefully) the complexity of what we can "see" until at some point, we reach the "master" level of playing strength.<br /><br />I think (but cannot confirm, since I am nowhere near that "master" level) that this process continues with various subtleties as skills improve. In essence, strategy becomes whatever possibilities remain after taking into consideration what the opponent can do to you tactically.<br /><br />The problem with using general principles to guide move selection is that often there is a conflict between two or more general principles in a given concrete position. It is also the case (more often than not) that in the specific concrete position, the general principle is NOT applicable (the so-called "exception to the rule"). For fast time controls, this is perhaps a good approach for producing good ideas of what to do. But the consequence is that it trains the mind to use that "general principles" approach when it is (perhaps) not appropriate, like in a long time control game.<br /><br />As has been demonstrated, playing by general principles may allow a player to reach a fairly high level of skill. General principles are a distillation of thousands, perhaps millions of specific situations in chess.<br /><br />Unfortunately, IMHO, general principles also can be a limiting factor as well. As I learned in martial arts training, YOU WILL FIGHT LIKE YOU TRAIN. If you "train" your mind to utilize general principles to guide you, I believe it will ultimately limit your highest skill level. I certainly am NOT the originator of that notion.<br />Robert Coblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12427520849707914818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-21932193938442070602016-10-24T11:36:09.784+02:002016-10-24T11:36:09.784+02:00P.S. I checked now with one game which I won again...P.S. I checked now with one game which I won against a similar rated opponent with <br /><br /> georgy123:<br />6 Inaccuracies<br />3 Mistakes<br />1 Blunders<br />51 Average centipawn loss<br /><br />Munich:<br />1 Inaccuracies<br />1 Mistakes<br />0 Blunders<br />22 Average centipawn loss<br /><br />I checked: I would not have done 3 of his inaccuracies due to general rules.<br />I would not have done 2 mistakes, but probably that is a "follow up double mistake" which is one error due to the same rule. <br />And I would not have done the 1 blunder, because I identified the checkmate-in-1 pattern.<br /><br />So if I had been him, I had done only 3 inaccuracies, 1 mistake, 0 blunders. And mostly because of general guidance rules that would not have even considered the wrong moves he did. (1 blunder and 1 inaccuracies I had avoided due to pattern recognition).<br /><br />Here the game:<br />https://en.lichess.org/NrYMX7oI/black#69<br /><br />I would not have played <br /><br />9.Ng5 (rule: develop first, and the knight is not secured but is later just prone to attack. Also: I would like to keep the option to attack the bishop - until it yields something. I would instead be convinced that I follow the rule of development and had played 9.Be2 instead.)<br /><br />13.O-O-O?! (it loses a pawn, it is simply hanging. Pattern recognition? Board vision? Probably)<br /><br /><br />32.Rg3 (makes the rook less active. I would have liked to keep the option to give check from the side, so I could win the h6 pawn in some variations. Rule: in rook endgames, play active with your rooks. Rooks are poor defenders, but good attackers.)<br /><br />33.Kb4? (I know that in rook endgames you can get into a mating attack, similarly like in queen endgames. But a lot of people are carelessly activating their king, not knowing about the dangers. I had defenitely known about this as general rule about rook endgames.)<br /><br />34.g5? (this is a follow up error, somehow. White didnt see any danger with his previous move, so he did not see 34...c5+! comming. So this error is either a tactically one, or (in my case) it had not been moved due to the same previous rook endgame rule about king safety).<br /><br />Fazit: yes, guidance rules had been a big driver in winning this game and explains my high accuracy. <br />The involved tactics were not that deep, so with my CT Blitz rating of 1900 they were mostly under control).Munichnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-15893556141678270422016-10-24T10:29:46.895+02:002016-10-24T10:29:46.895+02:00There is one other "skill" I use, though...There is one other "skill" I use, though: I try to avoid sharp tactical positions. This isnt always possible, of course, but we all know that we can have some influence on the character of a game: Do we play a gambit or do we play (like I do) 1.Nf3. <br />At the end I can not prevent an aggressive player to sac something against me, but I dont need to pour oil into the fire and start playing gambits myself.<br /><br />And another thing worth to know: When I have played a game at lichess.org - afterwards I run the analyzis. This analyzis tells me the amount of inaccuracies (>0.3 pu), mistakes (> 1.0 pu) and blunders (>1.0 pu). It also tells me the average centipawn loss per move. Which is (in my longer time control games) pretty low.<br />Now, I dont really know if this high accuracies (= low average centipawn loss per move) is only the result of my guidance rules (the "sspr", see Tomasz comment above). What speaks against these rules is: in most games I apply these rules, but in each game I assume I use only 1 or 2 rules which my opponent does not use. This is hardly enough to get the amount of inaccuracies, mistakes, blunders down from 12 to 6, plus the average centipawn loss shouldnt be too much influenced by 2 moves (influenced by knowing two guidance/sspr rules). On the other hand, I can not rule that out. Just feel that I rather doubt that. Unless I apply even more rules than I am aware of (unconciously). Could be. <br />I am going to "test" this and look now for the inaccuracies my opponents did, and try to find out what it was that they missed and why I wouldnt have played have of their inaccurate, or blunderous moves. Was it due to a guidance rule?Munichnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-48855708290295166482016-10-23T12:51:59.000+02:002016-10-23T12:51:59.000+02:00e)opening statistics. I had wild discussions about...e)opening statistics. I had wild discussions about that issue. Most people will find excuses to why these statistics are not reliable. And the reason are good (for instance rating differences are not taken into account). Nevertheless - I play statistically promissing openings, and guess what? --> I win more games with them!<br />I also found strange rules (guidance) about what a good opening looks like. One very odd rule is: if you play a black opening where you move ...Nf6 on move 1 or 2 - it usually is bad. Yes, all the indians are bad. Yes, 1...e5, 2...Nf6 is bad. A lot of openings are bad where ...Nf6 is the third move, too. Yes, 1...e5, 2...Nc6, 3...Nf6 is not great. Yes, 1...c5, 2...d6, 3...Nf6 is not as good as others, and so on....<br />You can make up your own rules, but the thing is: try to make sense of the moves and the chaos. There are guidlines of good openings. f2-f4 attacks are not so powerful as people might believe. <br />f)I did synergies between my openings. I found 1.Nf3 cuts down most possibilities, and I get either a KID, a Maroczy-bind, a Reti-gambit, or a catalan position most of the time. This enables me to know theory up to move 10-15, with various move orders, but at the end with the same/similar positions. I know them well.<br />g) if you have an advantage, the game is "sliding" towards the side who has an advantage. Which means: when you got out of the opening and stand well - you will likely win. It is like as if there was a football match with this special rule: if one team gets a penalty - it is a red card only. And the guy who got the red card is not leaving the ground, but is actually changing the sides! so a 11 vs 11 players football match is then a 12 vs 10 players match. If you start standing bad in chess - you likely lose. That is why GMs concentrate so much on openings. The common believe that people learn too much openings and that this was bad - this is wrong! Openings are very imporant. The trouble is: people dont look at statistics, but try to make a certain opening "work". Maybe because there is sometimes a nice trap. Forget about such seduction: play statistically good openings and you will win more games!<br />g)bishops are (like rooks) far distance weapons, too. A white bishop on c4, b5, f4, g5, a5, h5, g3, b3 is prone to attacks cause it is too close to the center. Better statistics yield openings where you place the bishop on g2, b2, e2, d2, or d3, e3 (in case these bishops can not be attacked with Nf6-g5 or Nc6-b4). Only knights feel really well in the center. <br />h)in endgames the rule "king first - pawn moves later" is true for most endgames. If there is an exception, than it is: if you have a king and a bishop. Then advance your pawn, and sac your bishop later to create a far advanced passer (break-through tactics).Munichhttps://en.lichess.org/@/Munichnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-24679931084263033012016-10-23T12:51:23.914+02:002016-10-23T12:51:23.914+02:00There are lots of rules I use which substitute or ...There are lots of rules I use which substitute or guide tactics.<br />I can not write them all down, but I give you hints where to look at:<br /><br />a) rook endgames happen often (50% of all endgames), but seem to be the least known. Look a rook endgame book up. <br /><br />b) "to take is a mistake" (look up: "the most common error" by GM Smirnov)<br /><br />c1) "the threat is more powerful than its execution" --> you have a discovery or a check possibility? If it does not yield anything - keep it!<br /><br />c2) (my own rule): you are threatened by an "empty thread" - you dont need to avoid it. You have a good move instead? Dont get impressed by threads that dont yield anything (see point c1). It is itching to react to a threat that is empty - but you dont need to. In a long OTB, you have the time to consider to leave things as they are and follow your own plan. Often you go out of the way eventually 1 or 2 moves later, but you dont need to react too soon. I know it costs time. I know it is itching. But your opponent will think a lot, too, in order to try to make the empty threat work. <br /><br />d) dont spend more than 10 minutes on a move. As soon as you are aware you used more than 10 minutes - promiss yourself to move within 1 minute. You need to accept that things are so complicated that you just cant judge it all. Sum your findings up (10 minutes will have given you some insight), think of a general rule (which move is doing more for your centralization? Or which move is safer and wont be dangerous?)<br />The feeling not to know which move is better is awful - but you need to let go at some point. More time of thinking only will get you into time trouble later. Also - you will gain a lot of insight in 20 minutes, but when you then speed up you feel that you dont have the same insight that you had when you were thinking for 20 minutes. This is an awful feeling and the main reason why people speed up too late (when they are in time trouble, they speed up, but not as much as neccessary). The gain of insight (the gain in accuracy) you achieve if you use more than 10 minutes is almost always not worth it.Munichhttps://en.lichess.org/@/Munichnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-68854545869904284302016-10-23T01:58:02.454+02:002016-10-23T01:58:02.454+02:00We have played one blitz game and chatted a bit. T...We have played one blitz game and chatted a bit. The present score at blitz is 16:6 for my favour.<br /><br />And I think we made some nice conclusions (discoveries) based on our (various) approach to tactics.<br /><br />Munich - the player who use set of rules and filter out the weak moves due to the 'super set pack rules' (sspr). This way he can limit the moves to 1-2 best ones (or good enough/sufficient to stay in the game). He does not need too much energy for this process, but sometimes he may be confused which move is better due to the "necessity for analysis".<br /><br />Tomasz (me) - the player who use the experience and the intuition based on hundreds of puzzles analysed and some knowledge of tactics. He rather calculate better positions with the use of tactics, but when he is playing blitz game he STRONGLY rely on intuition.<br /><br /><br />This way Munich needs more tactical experience together with deeper understanding of tactics (motifs, refutations and differences between the specific moves at the positions in front of him). If he would be able to add this factor to his chess strenght he would be able to see simple tactics much faster. And it will be enough to be a master level at chess (and in blitz the performance should improve significantly).<br /><br />Tomasz needs the set of rules - the same ones as Munich is constantly using. This way he can feel the harmony of the pieces and "cut off" the inferior moves and positions... without the necessity of counting some variations. And the next factor Tomasz has to fix is to understand the dynamic of position better with much better positional understanding (especially plans, counterplay and realising the advantage).<br /><br />I hope this short description may trigger a longer discussion. It can help to explain why Munich needs that much time at blitz and cannot beat Tomasz. And in reverse - Tomasz plays much faster even at the cost of weakning the position. He does not hesitate that much and plays the moves "which looks nice".Tomaszhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09690570865003924020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-16273185187316888712016-10-21T22:34:45.881+02:002016-10-21T22:34:45.881+02:00Today I thought again about "what is the driv...Today I thought again about "what is the driver of a good k-factor". I guess a high k-factor is achieved when you cut down on thinking (calculating) because you lose rule-by-thumb knowledge (guidance - temposchlucker identified them as kind of "patterns", too. <br />a) I am a Blitz player of average strength - for an ~1800 fide elo (A-Class) player.<br /><br />b) trouble is: I am not a 1800 player but rather a 2200 fide elo player.<br /><br />For instance I got beaten a lot in Bullet and blitz games when I played Tomasz (cant remember the outcome, but I lost decisive like 5 versus 20 or so.)<br /><br />I dont feel much special when I play longer games. <br />I tried to observe my thinking process during longer games. I see all the threats that are there. I try here, and try there. I am not happy with here nor with there. So I try again and again. And suddenly I find a move that keeps it all alive. I check a little longer, but usually, I can move within 20 seconds of checking. In a long game I take 1 minute. But anyway, I am then ready to play the move "that is just right".<br /><br />Having said that, it reminds me suddenly of Rubinstein (it was him?) who said something like: "I usually look just 1 move deep - but always the right move!"<br /><br />This fits much more to my thinking. It isnt that deep, nor can I imagine people calculate much less than I do - because I really dont calculate that much. <br /><br />Often I let myself guide by common sense:<br /><br />"knight on the rim looks dim"<br />"lose pieces drop off"<br />"pushing f2-f4 often is dangerous for the king, even though might not happen something now - it just leaves my king vulnerable, so I follow the recommendation of GM John Rowan who said that the dangers of this move is often underestimated, and if there is no need - better dont move it"<br />"My experience is that I lost many games in the past when I played O-O-O, so if not needed - I better go O-O"<br />"the h2-h4-h5 attack is not that strong against the g7-bishop fianchetto (dragon-set-up)"<br />"knights are the best defenders for the king"<br />"rooks dont belong in the center"<br />"in the openings - the defenses which move ...Ng8-f6 early have often inferior statistics. Yes, that includes most "indians", too!"<br />"if you are white - symmetry is rather good. If you are black - assymetry is rather good."<br />"if you have the knight in an endgame: keep your pawns behind. If you have the bishop - advance them and gain space"<br />"bishops are far-distance-weapons, and only need a little manoeverability (to increase their activity). So place them on the 2nd or 7th rank, but no more than on the 6th/3rd rank."<br />"the pawn constelation c4/d4 and missing e-pawn means that the d4-pawn is notorious weak, almost like an isolated pawn (it doesn matter if b3/a2 pawns are also their, so the c4/d4 pawn is not a hanging duo). To fight this pawn play d6-d5 - cause that isolates the d4-pawn. if you have no d-pawn (as black) put pressure against the d4-pawn on a half-open d-file."<br />"The best way of fighting against the Hippo is to do nothing and keep a manoeverable center (and "do nothing for a long time"). With more room at disposal you shuffle your pieces from left to right or right to left - and black has trouble to keep up."<br />"in pur pawn endgames you are most often doing well if you stick to "activate king first - pawns later". <br />"pure pawn endgames are notorious difficult - if no need to do so, keep the last piece on the board. Dont go into an "even looking" pure pawn endgame if you have no advantage."<br /><br />etc.<br />I have many, many guidlines - and I feel I have much more guidlines than many other players. If you read through my guidlines: did you know about them (besides of the first 2 which everybody seem to know)? These guidance-rules are maybe one of the drivers of a high k-factor? They help me to cut down on thinking - I dont calculate more, but I actually calculate less!<br />Munichhttps://en.lichess.org/@/Munichnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-78288856344287149162016-10-11T04:11:37.901+02:002016-10-11T04:11:37.901+02:00I told you many time Tempo NOT TO share your chess...I told you many time Tempo NOT TO share your chess views as they are really controversial ones! And now you will be forced to explain what it means to decypher chess notation, ideas, motifs and "all the stuff we do not understand and cannot crack at FBI or CIA" ;) :).<br /><br />BTW. NSA is helping Karjakin to stay alive at World Chess Championship against Mozart of Chess - Magnus Carlsenovich Carlsenus. Now you know why I have been praising your chess ideas so much, don't you? :D<br />Tomaszhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09690570865003924020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-18998764229876473402016-10-11T01:45:29.969+02:002016-10-11T01:45:29.969+02:00The NSA used to copy my writings in silence. Hence...The NSA used to copy my writings in silence. Hence I thought the Russians must be involved. But maybe it is just a hacker in need to be a nuisance indeed. I assume we will never know.Temposchluckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07977208394417444785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-51843398357837923872016-10-11T01:33:06.932+02:002016-10-11T01:33:06.932+02:00I notice that "magic" at the other blogs...I notice that "magic" at the other blogs as well. You did nothing and neither Russians nor Americans had to call FBI or CIA to come back the links magically ;) :).<br /><br />BTW. There was some virus that linked to Blogspot links and made some damages - that's why blogspot removed all the links and after some time recover these. That's the version I heard of.Tomaszhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09690570865003924020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-25002225078079598662016-10-10T19:08:33.538+02:002016-10-10T19:08:33.538+02:00@Tomasz:
Thank you for the feedback!@Tomasz:<br /><br />Thank you for the feedback!Robert Coblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12427520849707914818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-5291205275940116202016-10-10T15:50:23.781+02:002016-10-10T15:50:23.781+02:00@Robert
1) The materials I am using are the paper...@Robert<br /><br />1) The materials I am using are the paper books I have been buying for 20 years. There are 80%-90 of these are Russian (publishing house), and the rest are English. They are workbooks and manuals. Most of these are only puzzles, but some puzzles (for solving) are inside the book related to tactics or combinations (f.e. "1000 chess mating combinations").<br /><br />2) The puzzles are rated according to the levels of complexity. For example some of these are recommended to B-A class players (1800-2000), and some with the minimum level you can start solving (1600 and above). They are most often tactics and combinations, but some of these (let's say 20-25%) are related to endings.<br /><br />3) What you are doing with the markers ("I use a highlighter to mark the attack/defense trajectories from each piece to the edge of the board") I am doing in my mind. I do not do it in a purpose way, but rather unconciously (with little effort). And I am rather interested at finding holes in my knowledge and skills... to solving all of these puzzles perfectly (with 100% score of correctness).<br /><br />4) Your recommended method is a very good way to learn about the interactions and relationships with all the pieces (especially involved in the action). I will use it when I could not solve the puzzle and see what happens. I want to quote you: "Careful reconstruction of your thought process will reveal why the mistake was made". That's what I want to use this method. By the way - I have known this method for about 10-12 years, but I have not used it too often (as I did not need it).<br /><br />And yes, I agree with you: "...it will take at least 200-500 problems to get comfortable using this process".<br /><br />5) "If you do try this idea, please post on how it worked (or not) for you". As I said before... if I need it I will try it on. However I want to do/test this (and many other) ideas at huge number of puzzles because I want to see which one is best for the specific type of puzzles. It is the same as mentioned by Tempo, Munich or Aox hint: "mate, material gain or pawn promotion".<br /><br />And what interest me the most is the connecting (merging) the tactical skills with the knowledge of the particular position and its elements. I estimate my level may rise to 2100-2200 at tactics... after I will have solved 16-18K of harder puzzles. Take notice that 5-10% of these are at the level of 2200 or even (some) 2300! Some people can say: 'damn hard, but they are a master level and that's why they cannot be easy'.<br /><br />All the puzzles number is: 43432 (I have a scoresheet at Excel and it adds me all the workbooks puzzles). I have solved about 20-22K of easy puzzles (up to 1600) and the "second part" has to be solved - otherwise I cannot achieve A-level (2000 rating).<br /><br />Oh, I could forget one thing! The idea or highlighting the pieces was tested by me at some puzzles (less then 50). It turned out it is not beneficial unless I can understand the ideas/motifs inside the puzzle(s). That's why I want to focus at the motifs first and after I cannot solve the position - use the marker to see what are the sections and areas the pieces are intersectioned and what important relationship I simply missed.Tomaszhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09690570865003924020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-46422824714671925862016-10-09T21:15:40.019+02:002016-10-09T21:15:40.019+02:00@Tomasz:
I am definitely interested in your resul...@Tomasz:<br /><br />I am definitely interested in your results!<br /><br />1. What are the source materials that you are using?<br /><br />2. How were the puzzles rated?<br /><br />I would love to have a program that objectively, consistently and accurately rated puzzles similarly to Chess Tempo and other online tactics servers, without having to have a large group of users solve them, and then retroactively applying the Glicko 2 rating system to the solvers, and thus indirectly to the problems.I am unaware of any such rating program.<br /><br />My recent experience with tactical problem solving has convinced me that the idea of "surveying" the entire position, identifying areas of interest (specific pieces/relationships that seem to be "obvious" in some sense) and then visualizing the attack/defense trajectories of all involved pieces (not the same as surveying all legal moves) works best for me. I have to be careful to look at all relevant pieces and all relevant attack/defense trajectories.<br /><br />It must be working (to at least some extent) because I have been able to keep my tactics rating on Chess Academy and lichess in the 1800-1900 range without much difficulty. I'm getting a lot more of the 1900-2100+ puzzles to solve, and (often) solving them correctly. Prior to changing the way I visualize, I was never able to get above 1800 on either site.<br /><br />As an integral part of the training process, as I previously suggested, I use a highlighter to mark the attack/defense trajectories from each piece to the edge of the board (for long-range pieces Queen, Rook, Bishop) and at least two "hops" with the Knight. The Pawn gets a trajectory to the promotion square or a forking square or a discovered attack if there is <b>any</b> possibility of advancing the Pawn. The King I leave out of consideration unless I sense a mating attack possibility for either player. If you want to differentiate more clearly the attack versus defense possibilities, I suggest using two different colors of highlighters, one for attack and a different color for defense. It is rather amazing how the interactions jump into vision using this training technique. Keep in mind that the goal is to train the vision, so whenever you can "see" the contours without doing the highlighting, do so. Eventually, I found that as long as I focused on rigorously doing this process, I didn't really need to actually highlight the information.<br /><br />At first it will seems rather mechanical and you will overlook certain key trajectories, causing you to miss the solution. Careful reconstruction of your thought process will reveal why the mistake was made. In my experience, the most common problem is the thought process, not a lack of knowledge. Take careful note of every problem, especially those that you didn't see all the opportunities. The long-term goal is (as it has been discussed here extensively) to "see" quickly and accurately what resources are available yet hidden in a given situation.<br /><br />As you get habituated to the process, you will find that more and more possibilities will appear almost by osmosis. (I almost wrote "by magic" because it fells magical to me.) I've completed nearly 1,000 problems in the <b><i>Tactics Time</i></b> book by Tim Brennan and Anthea Carson so far. I already have the <b><i>Tactics Time 2</i></b> book for follow-on training. The follow-on to that is up for grabs at this point.<br /><br />I suggest that it will take at least 200-500 problems to get comfortable using this process. If you do try this idea, please post on how it worked (or not) for you.<br /><br />Good luck, my friend!Robert Coblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12427520849707914818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-24642266742173755002016-10-09T11:48:56.571+02:002016-10-09T11:48:56.571+02:00A few days ago I made the decision to solve about ...A few days ago I made the decision to solve about 16-18K chess puzzles ONLY from (paper) workbooks or manuals. The complexity (degree) of these tasks are at the range of 1600 up to 2200. My goal is to solve these at the ratio of 90% and see which ones are/were really too hard to solve and what was the reason I could not find the solution.<br /><br />If anyone is interested at this chess experiment/test just let me know. You can help me by sharing your questions at the form of list. The more questions the better. You can make suggestions, recommendations or any other form of comments.<br /><br />I am going to solve these puzzles to the end of 2019. It means there are just 3 years (and 2 months) left.<br /><br />Looking forward to your replies my chss friends.<br /><br />BTW. I have already solved about 20K puzzles, but the majority of these were no harder (difficult) then 1600.Tomaszhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09690570865003924020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-4086504166246167582016-10-08T21:46:12.591+02:002016-10-08T21:46:12.591+02:00The board vision exercises reappeared too. It'...The board vision exercises reappeared too. It's just blogger pulling the strings. I did nothing. Or maybe the Russians are trying to make us nervous.Temposchluckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07977208394417444785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-83036493613354027522016-10-08T21:04:10.317+02:002016-10-08T21:04:10.317+02:00Bizarro world: the "My BLog List" just r...Bizarro world: the "My BLog List" just reappeared. I hope that is a result of something you did, rather than just BLogger doing it randomly.<br /><br />I hope all is going good for you on the job front. Still no info on the Mall buyout here.Robert Coblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12427520849707914818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-15706673094610309232016-10-03T13:56:51.771+02:002016-10-03T13:56:51.771+02:00I keep fingers crossed on you as well my friend!
...I keep fingers crossed on you as well my friend!<br /><br />Back to chess - You may not believe, but I have started to see the BENEFITS of your chess tips shared in these great articles. I do not waste that much time when I have a bit more complex position. And at some of tactical positions I simply see the best move in 2-3 seconds (!) instead of looking for it... for a minute!<br /><br />And I have already strated reading (studying) chess books and I will solve a few hundreds of puzzles (from a workbook) rated 1700-2100. If I find any interesting positions and ideas... I will write them down. When you come back to your blog I will share my findings.<br /><br />Looking forward to your writing in the future... as your articles are were inspiring and thought provoking! :) Just keep it in your mind my friend!Tomaszhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09690570865003924020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-3743960205784468932016-10-02T17:48:13.471+02:002016-10-02T17:48:13.471+02:00Best of luck in your new job! Looking forward to y...Best of luck in your new job! Looking forward to your writing in the future.Bryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15914218228584003868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-62468656008812595922016-10-01T13:31:08.332+02:002016-10-01T13:31:08.332+02:00I made a local copy of my blog.I made a local copy of my blog.Temposchluckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07977208394417444785noreply@blogger.com