Temposchlucker

 While fiddling around with the position of the previous post, it became apparent that black's Rc2 was a blunder. Let's look again at the position, but before the blunder. BLACK to move 2r1r1k1/p3bp1p/1p4p1/3q1p2/8/1P2PR1Q/PB4PP/R5K1 b - - 1 27 The arrows indicate the LoAs (lines of attack)  What are black's options to prevent the mate? Bg5 => gives black control over h6 (on the LoA) h5 => closes the LoA Qd8 => gives black control over h4 (on the LoA) Qe4 => gives black control over h4 (on the LoA) Bf8 => gives black control over h6 (on the LoA) f6 => closes the long diagonal (LoA) f4 => gives black control over h5 (on the LoA) LoA awareness prunes the tree of analysis. Only moves that check the LoAs need consideration. This gives a more precise picture of the tempi. Only tempi that have an influence on the LoAs are relevant. Rc2 is a blunder because it has no effect on the LoAs. The move Rc2 is typically inspired by blacks own LoAs, without considering...

I'm investigating the preconditions of the Art of Attack in Chess from Vukovic. Simply counting the attackers and the defenders is a bit too simple.  White to move 4r1k1/p3bp1p/1p4p1/3q1p2/8/1P2PR1Q/PBr3PP/R5K1 w - - 1 27 Van Vliet, Louis vs. Passmore, S., London 1900 If white played a straight forward move like 27.Bd4, he would probably lose. Only forceful moves will give white the win. Every move must have an additional punch. It turns out that that must be either a check or a mate in 1 threat. What are the relevant elements?: -killbox -escape route -#amount of attackers -#amount of defenders -tempo battle -lines of attack -piece sac to pry the box open -chasing the king wall of the killbox: -own pieces of the enemy -passive attackers -active attackers (forming a wall with tempo) -magnet to draw the king out in the open -double check It turns out that counting the attackers vs the defenders isn't very enlightening. Because the defenders need a tempo to execute their task. The...

There are a lot of different areas in chess where I can do better. I can't address them all at once. So I have to make choices. On the one hand I'm highly influenced by progressive insight, while on the other hand, I need the right training material, and I discover new books and videos all the time. Furthermore, I'm the slave of my curiosity. When I want to know something, I go for it, no matter whether it will bear fruit or not. You can't possibly know beforehand. Luckily I have most of the time the discipline to finish a few things first before I jump on the next bandwagon. A few weeks ago, I purchased a new course on Chessable: Attacking hotspots in chess The author divides the chessboard in four hotspots: And he has puzzles for every square in every hotspot. On every square he has quite a few sacrifices for every piece: Queen, Rook, Bishop and Knight sacrifices. These puzzles are a good base to get a deeper insight in the Vukovic gap. Tactics are supportive by their...

 We found three levels of observation: Swamp Hummock Eagle Swamp The swamp observation is guided by trial and error and candidate moves. It highly depends on coincidence and the complexity of the position. The best thing you can do is to swim to the closest hummock. Hummock Hummocks are ideas. You will find an explanation of what ideas are in the previous post. No matter where you are in the swamp, you start with the first hummock. Essentially you can work in two directions from your hummock: towards the beginning and towards the end. The power of it is that it prunes most other possibilities while you are thinking. It surpasses trial and error when the complexity increases. In an ideal world, you develop a sense for starting at the right hummock at the beginning of a sequence. Eagle The eagle gives you things like: Piece awareness Pawn structure awareness Color complex awareness Endgame transition awareness It guides the overall strategy during the game, but it fails in the detail...

Preface  Long ago, I don't remember quite when, I posted about a position where it took me 5 minutes before I shifted my attention from the target to the defender. I worked by trial and error back then. Nowadays, looking at the defender has become second nature. So I made definitely progress. The following phase, is to dynamically shift my attention along the line of logic. How does that look like? Black to move 1k5r/1b1r1p1p/p3p2B/2b1P1p1/4q3/1RRN1Q2/P4PPP/6K1 b - - 0 1 Firat, B. vs. Kinsiz, O. Step 1 Target: Qe1# Defender: Nd3 Step 2 Target: Nd3 (the defender from the previous step!) Defenders: Qf3, Rc3 Step 3 Evaluation of 1. ... Rxd3 2.Qxd3 Target: g2 Defender: none (Qf3=pinned!) Step 4 Evaluation of 1. ... Rxd3 2.Rxd3 Target: Qe1# Defenders:none Looking for counter attacks Step 5a Counter attack 1 1. ... Rxd3 2.Qxe4 Target: Rd1# Defenders: none relevant Step 5b Counter attack 2 1. ... Rxd3 2.Rxb7+ Targets: g2 is no longer threatened =>Qf3 is not longer pinned , Rd1# is post...

The last tournament I identified three areas where I suck: Openings (150) Endgame (150) Vukovic gap (250-500) Estimated maximum rating gain between parenthesis. Openings This weekend, I analysed my failures in the opening of the past 1.5 year. I worked out the necessary improvements and put them in a database with the Chess Openings Wizard (COW, former Bookup), so I can train them. Endgame Endgames are currently on the backburner. Vukovic gap I approach the kingside assault from two (three) sides, the beginning and the end. Positional play (beginning) Mates (end) Endgame transitions (end) It turns out that with building a positional framework, I opened a can of worms. Currently I have tens of XMind maps, and try to make something consistent out of them. It doesn't come easy. While working on color complexes, I stumbled on another endpoint: endgame transitions. I cannot predict where matters are heading. In July, I have my next tournament. At least I will have fixed my openings by t...

 I finished the autobiography "Rebel Queen" of Susan Polgar lately. The Polgar experiment always has been my main inspiration for my quest of getting better at chess as a plateauing adult player. I never had the inclination to learn more about the Polgar experiment, because I figured that it wouldn't work for adults anyway. Because if it had, I'm sure somebody would know it. So far, I had extracted two conclusions from the Polgar experiment: Any child can be a prodigy with the right education Being good at chess is like learning a "trick", since a child can do it The proof of the latter I considered to be true because of Susan Polgar, who gave a simul of 1131 games in 17 hours with a score of 99%. Meaning that she had used about 2.5 seconds per move at average. Given that she had to walk from board to board in the meantime, that would imply that there is no thinking involved. Since there was simply not enough time for thinking (system 2). Reading the book to...