Temposchlucker

Let's have a look on an attacking piece, for instance the Bishop A Bishop can reach every square on the board within two moves. The question is, what potential targets are there within this reach? Every hostile piece on the same color can be a possible target. The next question is, what are the impediments between the Bishop and its target? And can those impediments be removed? To see that quick you can imagine some sort of rake that comes out of the Bishop. In fact this is an extended version of the X-ray scan from Mousetrapper. Every Bishop has two outgoing rakes with a right angle in between (see both diagrams) White to move and win. I am experimenting with "X-rake jogging". That goes as follows. I adjust the thinkinglevel of Arena to 40 seconds per ply and let the computer play against itself. If white is to move: I imagine rake 1 for the white-squared Bishop of white and have a look at the targets within its reach. I imagine rake 2 for the same Bishop. Then I do the

Before using my new scansystem: Computer level: 6 ply deep. Win = 0 Draw = 0 Loss = 35 Since using my new system: Win = 1 Draw = 8 Loss = 6 I gave the Chess Tactics Server a try. Very nice done and a good program. But it interferes with the training I'm doing right now. The program rewards speed at the cost of accuracy. Since I'm trying to learn not to blunder and to play accurate now I have to delay such training for speed. Immediate after I did excersises at the Chess Tactics Server I lost to the computer the next game because I played too fast. I'm trying to play faster then G/60 but that doesn't work yet. My performance drops immediately. I'm experimenting with the order: First looking for targets and then for attackers or the reverse. Does chess effect the sanity of the mind in a negative way? No, it keeps mad people sane.

Before using my new scansystem: Computer level: 6 ply deep. Win = 0 Draw = 0 Loss = 35 Since using my new system: Win = 1 Draw = 6 Loss = 3 My first win. It is of course not difficult to win from a computer which is allowed to think only 6 plies deep. Make a trap on ply 7 and you win. But there is this not about. I commit myself to scan only to avoid mistakes. I don't play chess as I would normally do in an OTB game. I train the scanningprocess. The only plans I make are based on DLM's ideas: increase mobility, keep Queen on the board, trade pawns off, prevent castling of the opponent. So no deep planning here. An average game costs me about 1 hour. I hope I can bring this dramatically down. But I'm not sure yet that that is possible for me. We will see. The scanning process is a lot of work and it is easy to become diverted. But at least the scores look more sunny. Board vision.

A warm welcome to a whole bunch of new Knights: Zeon - The Paradoxical Knight Silver Dragon - The Pyrotechnic Knight Dread Pirate Josh - The One-Eyed Knight May Caissa be well-disposed towards them. I played some more games against the computer, for learning to transfer my tactical pattern recognition to OTB play. Before using my new scansystem: Computer level: 6 ply deep. Win = 0 Draw = 0 Loss = 35 Since using my new system: Win = 0 Draw = 4 Loss = 2 So I make some progress. It costs me alot of effort to stay focussed and disciplined. One simple slip and the computer knocks me out. On the other hand it is an amazing improvement and a great way to train. Ok, more information on Mein System. . . Since my computer doesn't make tactical mistakes within the 6 plies it is allowed to think, it makes no sense to check its side for tactical blunders. So I scan only my own side. Against a real opponent it can be profitable to scan his side too of course, but then I have to be much faster

Welcome! For all those wannabe Knights lurking out there. We are always interested in your experiences. The criteria for joining the Knights are: You have to work your way through a Michael de la Maza inspired study program. The judgement of this is yours. You have to indicate you want to join the Knights. You have to maintain a blog about your program where you post on a regular base (=more than once per month) You have to add all the other Knights to your sidebar and keep it up to date. You have to keep me informed about your ratingprogress, so I can maintain a list. Come on in, the water is fine!

The 207 checks for playing blunder free and making use of the blunders of your opponent can be divided in 3 series of 69: First series check your own side. Second series check your opponents side. Third series check your own side again after making the desired move in your mind. This scan costed about half an hour per move. I have simplified the scan, removed the doubles etc. A total scan cost me now about 5 minutes per move. I hope I can prune things further. The scan is going really slow because I have to think everytime. If I can find a way to train it so it will become automatic, I guess it can be done a lot faster. First results: Before I used this method: 35 losses in a row against the computer(6ply, G/15). Since I use it: 2 draws (6ply,G/60) I have to take more time to scan. OTB: win against 1713 The game OTB showed me another way of saving time: you can scan your own position when to move and scan your opponents when he has to move. Further I followed DLM's advice to drasti

I have played a lot of games against my computer at 6 ply deep G/15. Nearly all the games I loose because of common tactical shots. With patterns I learned long ago. So the assimilated patterns have to be transferred to OTB play. I am trying to find a scanmethod to help me to do that. To that end I wrote down all the combinations which made me loose against the computer. From those combinations I distilled a checklist. To prevent all common combinations which can appear in the first 6 ply, it is necessary to check 207 points. To check all 207 points at a pace of 7 seconds per check, I needed 25 minutes per move. Combinations that loose a pawn are not even taken into account! These figures make a lot of things clear that were incomprehensible first. It's actually a miracle I blunder only 3 times per game! To play blunder free you can do 4 moves in 2 hours. . . The simple X-ray scan as invented by mousetrapper covers only a tiny part of these 207 points to check. The Holy Grail I'

After being euphoric in my previous post, I have to temper my enthousiasm somewhat. Blogging is a kind of thinking out loud. Which means that you have to have a little patience with me, since my opinions are permanent "under construction". So what stays upright after a few days experimenting? There are two important impediments when you are trying to become able at chess. Or trying to become able at anything, for that matter. The first problem lies in "talking semantics" (I hope I use the expression in a correct way). Take for instance the word "tactics". One grandmaster says "when you cannot gain wood and you cannot deliver mate, there are no tactics". Another grandmaster says "chess is 99% tactics". If you take only into account what they say, you have to establish that they disagree. But there is a big chance they actually don't. They only use a different definition of what tactics are. If they first agree on definitions then the

The pieces. Piece 1. As you can see here the ratings of most Knights are steadily improving. If we compare this with the pace of rating improvement of DLM, our results look a little measly. We still seem to do something wrong. Piece 2. Last tourney I had paltry results. Analysis of the games revealed the following facts: I fell victim to a lot of oversights. Especially when the board was crowded. These oversights consisted always of VERY SIMPLE tactics. These oversights ruined my plans everytime, so I had to start to make new plans. Which lead to time trouble. Often I managed to control the damage by creativity and pure luck. Reason why I never saw these oversights as blunders. Which they actually were. To solve my problems I looked in two directions. First I tried to experiment with what I called "extended microdrills". This lead to nothing. Second I thought I needed a database with special problems, like the ones I came across OTB. But this is totally useless.

Do you want to be a tactical beast without having to spend tons of study hours? It is possible with the Brace-O-Maza!! Unmarkedly to wear at every tournament. The Brace-O-Maza contains the latest software for crushing your opponent. New engines can be downloaded via an USB-port. Fisheye lens to scan the board automatically for moves. Now enhanced with the latest X-ray technology for devastating skewers! No more time trouble! Since you don't need to think anymore by yourself, you have plenty of time now during a game. To prevent boredom a special copy of CT-art 3.0 can be downloaded from our website so you can solve tactical puzzles during a game! Ships with comprehensive manual with even an extended paragraph with hundreds of credible reasons to explain why you have an arm bracing every tourney. To give a few examples: "My new bokken just arrived and I don't know how to handle it yet." "I did 7 circles with CT-art and now I have RSI (repetetive strain injur

about a thoughtprocess. . . Quite a few knights are busy with that now, which inspired me to have a look myself. Some time ago I came across a system which worked with rectangles to scan the board in a sytematic way for tactics. It's a pity I don't know where I found it. I believe it was from an American grandmaster, but I forgot the name. I had a look at Dan Heismans list. And at the list of de la Maza. And at the lists of the other Knights. So I decided to make a list of my own. Did I already mention I am self-opinionated? I have two constraints: 1. It has to be simple. This means that everything that is self-evident is pruned. If I am in check, I have to relief it. If I forget that, my opponent will help me to remember. So there's no necessity to record that in a list. Time trouble is already bothering me, so long checklists are not going to be of help. 2. It has to help me to strengthen the spots where I am really weak. From the analysis of my last 8 games emerged a cer

Here you have a nice and clear example of corresponding squares from SOPE Black to move and draw. e1 = 5 (because I don't want it to look messy) The first invisible pattern you have to see is the line between the 2nd and 3rd rank. Black isn't allowed to pass this line because he has to keep an eye on d3 (rule of the square). The second invisible pattern contains the key squares (in blue) If white manages to conquer one of the key squares then black is lost. So black has to defend these squares. The third invisible pattern you have to see is that of the corresponding squares. If the white king appears on a square with a certain number, then black has to put his king on a corresponding square with the same number. Otherwise black is lost. As you see there is a shortest path between both area's with key squares, which for both white and black are of equal distance. If white decides to attack the key squares a3 and b3 he heads for square 1 (=a2) At the same time the black king

To give you an idea of how SOPE works. In the book they use a lot of diagrams where key squares, critical squares, winning/drawing/losing sectors, corresponding squares are shown. A key square is a square that quarantees succes (in your marriage and OTB), no matter who is to move. See for an example of key squares diagram 1. They make use of symbols in stead of colours. Diagram 1. White to move. If white manages to conquer a key square, he will capture the black pawn. At that moment he stands already on a new key square. One which assures the promotion of the pawn. See diagram 2. Diagram 2. Black to move, white to win. Without the book it costed me hours per problem to figure out where those fields are in any given position. I simply had not the knowledge. I even figured out (part of) the theory of corresponding squares myself. Which is a waste of time. If you know exactly where your king has to head for, things become much easier. In the endgame the importance to see the invisible pat

The book Secrets of pawn endings from Muller & Lamprecht (from now on SOPE) clearly serves its goal. I complained earlier that I had to invent everything of my own. That's not the case anymore. SOPE has a good method to make the invisible patterns visible. This saves me a huge amount of time. I begin to feel already more comfortable on an empty board. Visualizing long lines is going better everyday. What is encouraging is that a certain amount of the problems come from grandmaster games where one of the grandmasters misplayed it. Ok, maybe they where in time trouble, but they had clearly not the patterns ready. Today I finished chapter two, I'm busy with the exercises now. There is no reason why the diagrams in the text shouldn't count as exercises. Then the total amount of exercises in SOPE comes at 418, which is ideal for 7 circles. Since they are complex and a lot of the exercises have to be solved twice, for exemple "win with white, white to move, draw with bla

In my chessclub we have three guys who are known as "endgame specialist". (ratings 2084, 1894 and 1803 resp.) I had an interview with those guys and they all said the same: They are gaining most of their points in the endgame. They don't have studied endgames and know little about it. This is remarkable. They seem to have a natural intuition how to play the endgame. I have not. This reminds me of the same phenomenon in the middlegame. Certain guys seem to play the middlegame easy. They use little time. Someway their pieces seem to land always on the best squares. Their play beams harmony. I don't have this quality. If I do a move without thinking it's always a bad one. Usually I don't have problems to beat those natural talents, because you have to trap them one move further than they are used to think. There always comes a moment they loose their patience and move too fast. Especially if I have made the position unharmonic on purpose. In the endgame yo

Today my new book Secrets of pawn endings arrived. Written by Karsten Muller and Frank Lamprecht. Published by Everyman Chess in 2000. 288 pages. First impression. The layout is very good and clear. There is a lot of text and diagrams in every chapter with really clear explanations. I like the explainatory diagrams with sectors, keysquares etc. very much because of their clarity. Pawn endings are really a goal in itself for the writers. That is to say that, unlike Euwe for example, they didn't write the book because the had to. As a sort of obliged explanation of the basics while they actually want to tell us about rook endings. No, it is clear they really love pawn endings. The approach of the writers is very practical. Unlike Euwe, who often felt himself obliged to write a lot of useless semi-scientific stuff, just for the sake of being complete. What's written in this book is all very useful and practical. What I do think though, is that you really have to be committed to pa

I'm starting to become enthousiastic about pawn endings. But I'm feeling a little weird. When I talk to my chessfriends about it then I get a reaction like "o yes, rook endings, very important stuff. You have to learn that." Rook endings? I don't understand pawn endings at all, how can I begin with rook endings? It seems that a lot of people look down on pawn endings. Well, maybe I am stupid, but I find it to be very complex matter. OK, I don't have feeling for it, but still I wonder how much people could solve the problems with for example Kpp against Kp well in all cases. I worked my way for the first time through Euwes pawn ending chapter. I have now a global understanding of opposition, triangulation, Reti manoeuvre, zugzwang, rule of the square, passed pawn etc. . But that is something totally different than having the skills and technique to play the positions correct. Because sometimes opposition doesn't matter. Sometimes there are hidden resources.

I just downloaded the Nalimov endgame-tablebase for 5-pieces. 7,5 Gb in 2 hours is about 1+ Mb/sec. Not bad. It gives a weird effect to put in Arena a position of Euwes endgamebook and within a fraction of a second you see "mate in #21" I read tru all pawnendings of Euwe today. I estimate it will cost me about 5 months to master the pawnendings in the way I want. A tempo that is. At this moment I learn very much each day. But it goes terribly slow. I ordered "Secrets of pawnendings" from Muller and Lamprecht. I hope that will speed things up a little. (Secrets? The book is available everywhere!) But it's unbelievable interesting. Weird King moves are very common. I try to understand why a specific King move wins, while all others fail. I look if the same positon give the same results when it shifts a line to the right or left. Or a rank forwards or backwards. "Simple" positions costs me hours. Hours that has to be spend in the studyroom and not behind

In awaiting of my new endgamebook I have time to surf around the web, looking for articles and opinions about pawnendings. I stumbled on this diagram in an article of Karsten Muller, who wrote it for Chesscafe. I recognized the pattern immediate so the solution was obvious. Since I just started with endgames, I could remember that I had seen the same pattern about two weeks ago in the book of John Nunn. I have published both diagrams, to make it possible to compare the recognized pattern with the original. Diagram 1, the recognized pattern White to move draws, black to move wins. This was the original position: Diagram 2, the original. White to move draws, black to move wins. The interesting point though is that the patterns that triggered the recognition are actual invisible. I studied diagram 2 for a couple of hours a few weeks ago. The study revealed the importance of the f-line. Thats the line black is forbidden to pass. So that's the borderline white has to defend, using the

Today I studied for 3 hours a position of 2 Kings and 3 pawns. And I played it against Arena. I just simply have not the idea that I grasp everything that's in the position, though it seems simple enough. The position comes from Euwes endgamebook, who only give the variations. I have the unpleasant feeling of missing something important. Totally fed up I ordered "Secrets of pawn endings" from Muller and Lamprecht today. 288 pages solely dedicated to pawnendings. That should help to do the job. On the other front Margriet is circleing from dawn to dusk, actually longer. Well, in a few hours she will be graduating, so keep your best wishes ready. By then she will have done 7 circles of TCT step 3, 4 and 5 (1680 problems) in just 83 days. Now you know why she don't blog so often! update ***IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT*** I proudly anounce that Margriet just finished her 7 circles!!! Congratulations, weldone!! I am very proud and very, very glad, because I have enough from the

I think I grasped the ideas of opposition, Reti manoeuvre and triangulation. That were the 3 main ideas on pawnendings that Nunn advised to learn. Since I restrict myself to pawnendings for now, I can lay his book aside for this moment. Now I'm solving postitions to transform what I have comprehended to a skill. Today I used the book of Euwe on endings. This might become addictive! I put the positions in Arena and try to play them. The only trouble is that chesswriters have the sadistic habit to mix extreme rare positions between common ones. So you spend lots of time on positions you will never see in practice. But I assume in a few weeks I will have an idea of the main lines. I have a toolbox with new tools: Opposition Rule of square Reti manoeuvre Race Triangulation Zugzwang Stalemate Now I have to become skilled in using the tools. I think I will pester some FICS-players now by trading off all pieces. . .

I'm now studying full throttle endgame theory. Well, I chewed for 5 hours on the diagram below. I invented the system of corresponding squares. Which already exists, as I later found out. (As is the old trouble with all my inventions. ) White to move and win. The first sparks of insight in triangulation start to dawn on me. But it's totally clear to me, this study is gonna last some time. But at least in this position it starts to become clear that 1.Kc2 Kf4 2.Kb2! are logical moves. To see this immediate in all situations is however a different matter! I am curious how many persons at my club would play this correctly. If it are very few, what I presume, then this study can be a goldmine. The basic idea of triangulation is not so difficult, but I seem to get used to such an empty board. It feels like acclimatisation of some kind. Dear Caissa, please help me a little.