tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post7418821808932496873..comments2024-03-28T01:17:43.262+01:00Comments on Temposchlucker: Seeing vs calculatingTemposchluckerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07977208394417444785noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-28293944078598200192012-08-18T21:25:35.941+02:002012-08-18T21:25:35.941+02:00The main point I want to make is that you can repl...The main point I want to make is that you can replace (a considerable part of the) calculation by seeing the combination. That is not an argument but what I experienced.Temposchluckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07977208394417444785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-44568458631623825172012-08-17T21:25:16.291+02:002012-08-17T21:25:16.291+02:00About the nature of a difficult puzzle this is a t...About the nature of a difficult puzzle this is a typical example: equal pieces fork equal pieces.<br />Here the Nc6 forks the Ne5 (=equal piece) and the queen.<br /><br />But the rule "equal pieces threat" fails with the bishops. If you take with 1.NxNf6 BxNf6 then the Bg5 still pins the Bf6 (which is an equal piece). By knowing it is a difficult puzzle, my instinct told me it should be rather Nxf6 in order to keep the pin. <br /><br />I actually had a look at the move 2.Nc6 but for some strange reason I though Bc8-g4 counter attacking the queen would save black, while conect the black rooks with each other. Bc8-g4 is a rubbish move though. Just didnt count the material afterwards correctly somehow.<br />But it shows, that even the Bc8 played a part in my calculations, and before I did not look at the solution, how can I be sure to exclude it?<br />Same with the Ra8. A queen fork Qf3 attacking the point f6 and Ra8 looks like a good idea, and probably led to most fails?<br /><br />The puzzle is indeed not that difficult, if you look at it afterwards. But the rating does not make me really wonder, because it has a lot of elements and variations that can mislead you.<br />If it had been a 1900, I would not have been surprised, but the 22xx rating seems o.k. to me, too.<br /><br />What really makes me wonder is the rating of puzzles like this one:<br />http://chesstempo.com/chess-problems/58301<br /><br />It is rated 2000 in Blitz, but rated 800 in Standard.<br />Wow!<br /><br />Or how about this? It even is a clear pattern!<br />http://chesstempo.com/chess-problems/45536<br /><br />Last one (and I could not believe I failed it on the same day, after I was arguing with tempo about sample A and B. --> You remember that, tempo?):<br />http://chesstempo.com/chess-problems/53091<br /><br />I still dont have any good excuse how I ever could fail it after thinking 1 minute about it?<br />Why didnt the patter got fired here?<br />That can make me start to doubt about pattern recognition, but probably it can be explained with: we see what we expect to see. The standard ratings are much lower in rating, which means, if you take your time, you will see it and the pattern gets fired. OTB anyway, because there you expect all sorts of blunders, whereas you would not expect such puzzles in the range 2000 and above. (We only see what we expect to see.)<br /><br />Last word: I liked this post of Tempo very much. I guess it is a good advice to count how often one piece attacks and defends an other piece. In that way you can find overloaded pieces and get your thought work around that piece. It definitly helps, and I guess that is the main point Tempo wanted to make here.<br /><br />Munichnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-1607112658747259562012-08-17T19:46:18.540+02:002012-08-17T19:46:18.540+02:00@Aox,
That are side issues which might distract yo...@Aox,<br />That are side issues which might distract you from the core. Temposchluckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07977208394417444785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-27375345601750229202012-08-17T18:16:22.288+02:002012-08-17T18:16:22.288+02:00If you know the right combination than its "e...If you know the right combination than its "easy" to detect the tactical elements involved and then its "easy" to create a path of thought to "conclude" the right combination. But that is reverse engineering. To "shredder" ( is of couse hopeless exagerated but it sounds so nice ) a car is not to build a car. You will need to find an algorithm to "concentrate= minimise the numbers" of the tactical elements without erasing the relevant ones. then you might start your logical reasoning. <br />( was it SAT and NP-Hard ? The complexity might not be reduced )AoxomoxoA wonderinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16058687381216896080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-35583980741593763052012-08-17T16:08:34.687+02:002012-08-17T16:08:34.687+02:00I wrote down all elements that are relevant for th...I wrote down all elements that are relevant for the combination.<br /><br />A tactical element according to my subjective definition is always one of those:<br />A duplo attack (2 targets, 1 move)<br />A trap(1 target,1 move,lack of space)<br />A removal of a defender.<br /><br />Ra8 would is part of the following tactical elements:<br />Double attack Qd5 attacking Kg8 and Ra8.<br />Discovered attack with Qf3 or Bf3<br /><br />Since I judged that these weren't going to manifest anytime soon, I left them out.Temposchluckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07977208394417444785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-45230989415471296642012-08-17T15:22:11.914+02:002012-08-17T15:22:11.914+02:00You made a list of the tactical elements: why is t...You made a list of the tactical elements: why is the unprotected rook at a8 no tactical element? Underprotected pieces are often involved in tactics.AoxomoxoA wonderinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16058687381216896080noreply@blogger.com