Temposchlucker

Let me continue with the previous position, Yet one move further, after 1,Nxb7 Qxb7 White to move 3r3k/nq4pp/p4p2/1p2p3/4P3/2P2N1P/PnB1QPP1/R5K1 w - - 0 2 I can imagine that I reach this position by logical reasoning and see it before my minds eye. How should I proceed? Somehow I have the feeling that producing more word salad from this point onwards is not very effective. How does System 1 learn? Is it enough to describe what the position is about? Or do I need to invent the description all by myself? In other words, must I approach this from the study room or from the training room? I'm of course addicted to the study room. But the document that I produced there (see the previous post) seems to be sufficient as guideline for the description of this position. Robert gave a lot of examples for karate and stuff that seem to imply that there comes a moment that System 1 must just follow the instruction (while System 2 must shut up for a moment). This seems such moment.

 I made the begin of a checklist of matters to recognize in a puzzle. I will work out more details in following posts: Before combination Get rid of your own problem piece Get rid of potential counter attacker A target piece can be lost by Trap Little space [ Prevent escape ] [ Blocking ] Duplo attack Double attack Discovered attack Pin Skewer Target not on target square [ Chase ] to target square by threat [ Lure ] to target square [ Capture ] defended piece. Defender becomes target [ Magnet ] Attacker not on begin LoA [ Targeting ] LoA battle [ Clearance ] Your own piece with additional threat Change A:D-ratio on LoA, pivot square or target square After combination Assure safe withdrawal of attacker General An [ action ] is indicated by square brackets, bold and italic Do all [ actions ] accompanied by a threat change A:D-ratio [ Add attacker ] (targeting) [ Remove defender ] [ Capture ] [ Cha...

 What do I try to accomplish? I want to develop a reasoning system that makes optimal use of the pruning capabilities based on value and logical reasoning. I reckon that it is universal, so that when I develop it to attack the queen, the same reasoning method can be used to attack a rook. That way, you can rule out whether there is a tactic in the position or not by just applying the reasoning system from the king down to the knight. I'm not bothered by the fact that the reasoning system might get bulky, because it tells me which parts I must absorb by System 1. I'm not bothered by how long it takes, since there are only 20 scenarios to learn. The position below has already 4 of them. That is already 20%! To prevent to become overwhelmed, I divide the tasks in many little subtasks. While fiddling around with the smallest task possible, I am surprised how much hidden details gets unearthed along the way. White to move 3r3k/nb2q1pp/p4p2/Np2p3/4P3/2P2N1P/PnB1QPP1/R5K1 w - - 0 1 We...

 No targets, no combination. This can act as a powerful pruning method. How cool would it be if we were able to say "there are no tactics in this position, so I can stop looking for them"! [disclaimer] When I talk about tactical combinations, I exclude for now endgame related themes like promotion, zugzwang and the like. Furthermore, I use the convention to call only pieces targets . Hence no squares and no pawns. Just to keep matters simple for now. Another point of attention is the use of the term preparational move. I use that especially for moves that happen before the combination even starts. Like getting rid of problem pieces. There are preparational moves within the combination too. These are of a different type. They are part of the combination. Let that not confuse you. This means, that we must find a reliable way to recognize targets in the position. Let's give it a try. Let me first repeat the part of the mind map that is about targets: red = capture green = th...

  White to move 5rk1/1r3ppp/1p1Q1n2/p7/1pP5/2q1N1P1/P2R1P1P/4R1K1 w - - 0 23 TAL - Target Target is the black King Method is mate (see scheme in previous post) TAL - Attackers Attackers are white Queen, Rd2 and Re1 TAL - LoAs LoAs: d2-d8-g8 status:Rf8 in the way e1-e8-g8 status Ne3 in the way d6-f8-g8 status Rf8 in the way So white has to clear the LoAs by Qxf6+ and getting Ne3 out of the way with tempo . Notice: the tempo battle (CMCT) starts long after analyzing the logic of the position every step of the TAL method can lead to abandoning the rest of the combination This makes TAL the ideal pruning shears.

Most tactical elements can be hung up on the LoA battle nowadays. LoA = line of attack. Furthermore, I now limited the preparatory moves to moves that can't be hung up on the LoA battle. The colored dots indicate whether you need a threat (green) or a capture (red) to execute the little piece of logic that each branch represents.

 If you have a close look at CMCT, as I have done lately, then you discover that it is actually quite a mess. The first C stands for Check. Which is actually a Threat of the King. So why do we have two threats, one for the king and one for the other pieces? It is a half-baked solution for pruning. The threat against pieces can be ignored while the threat  against the king cannot. It doesn't solve the difference between the threat against a queen in comparison to a threat against a bishop. How differs a check from a mate? It are both threats against the king  But in the first case the king has the room to escape the threat (by walking away or interfering with the attacker, while in the case of mate the king can't do both. What about the M? It is in fact a threat (to mate in 1), and it works because two potential extra conditions: the king can't escape, and the attacker can't be interfered with. So CMCT tries to combine 3 elements: type of threat (capture or threat to cap...