### System I, talk to me!

Originally posted on April 15, 2017 and September 23, 2018

Once you know what a position is about, verbally, with system II completely satisfied, the question arises "Now what? What needs system I to absorb from the diagram that is reusable for other positions? How does such absorption get triggered?"

In order to find out, I rework my old diagrams. Usually, my system II is already finished with them after hours spending on it in the past. So I can have a fresh look at the position with the above questions in mind.

One thing I noticed, is that a position as below made me feel uncomfortable. When the mind does what it usually does, then the job is easy. But trying something new with this position was definitely out of my comfort zone. I noticed that because my mind was continuously distracted by silly tasks like checking my e-mail and looking up what is on the television tonight et cetera. It took me days actually before I was ready to dive somewhat deeper into it. Since I believe it is necessary, I persist, though. But I spilled a lot of time.

 Diagram 1 black to move

r1r5/4qppk/p1R1pn1p/1p6/2N1PB2/bN3Q1P/P4PP1/2R3K1 b - - 0 1

[solution]

Some people make use of contextual information like "how is the material balance?" et cetera. I try to avoid that. I'm trying to learn how to find the best move from the diagram, and from that point of view, contextual information feels like a kind of cheating. It prevents learning the skill I think I need.

I redeemed the trial and error method as the natural way system I works. What simplification of the position does it need? What are the patterns or chunks or whatever system I can work with, in this position?

I realized that there are only 3 relevant moves to consider. All 3 moves are captures:
• Rxc6
• bxc4
• Bxc1
Since it are all captures, the question arises, what makes the differences between these moves?

The differences occur in two areas: before and after the move is played. In other words, what changes because the moving piece leaves a square, and what changes because of the moving piece enters a new square? What happens in the wake of the piece, and what is due to the bow wave?

Rxc6
It doesn't leave anything in its wake, nor does it create new threats that aren't already there on its new square. Meaning: it is not a multiple function move. Tempo-wise, there is no tempo won. Only a tempo is spilled to execute the capture.

bxc4
It doesn't leave anything as a suffix. But it definitely creates a new threat in its prefix: the knight on b3 is threatened. Meaning it is a multiple function move. It spills a tempo on a capture, but it adds a new punch to the move that needs to be addressed.

Unluckily, the enemy has a multiple function move at his disposal that solves all his problems in one go:
1. ... bxc4 2.Rxc4
• In its suffix it leaves the threat behind of being captured
• The capture itself takes away the threat 2. ... cxb3
• In its prefix it adds a defender to rook c6

Bxc1
In its suffix it can't no longer be captured by knight c4 with tempo
In its prefix it obliges a recapture

There is no multiple function move for white that addresses all his problems:
• recapture  the bishop
• save knight c4
• save rook c6
The prefix and the suffix of a move gives additional patterns that are useful for judging the multiple functionality of a move. I hypothesized somewhere else that a combination is always based on winning a tempo by a multiple function move that cannot be addressed by a multiple function move of your opponent.

System I, can you work your magic with that?

1. This puzzle is pretty hard to me to figure it out and understand it completely.

However now I try to look at this in a new way:
A) to take (capture) the most valuable piece with my piece (RxR)
B) to take (capture) the most valuable piece with my piece and to get rid of my attacked piece in one move (BxR)

Both moves are very attractive and the mind's eye wants to play "the safest" (RxR), to avoid analysing and work!

However when we play BxR, we take a Rook and step away from the attacked Knight (c4) "free recapture". I think we could see it this way.

When I have some time, I will analyse this position deeply and share my views. Without making conclusions from your failed puzzles (they are often pretty hard to me as well) I do not think or dream of any improvement!

Thanks a lot for sharing your thoughts! :). Merry Christmas!

1. Just ask yourself: "What can I learn from this position that is portable to other positions?"

2. I found from this position that I need the skill to recognize a multi functional move.

Maybe we can even simplify that. It suffices to know stante pede when a move is NOT a multi functional move. In that case there is no suffix or prefix.

3. The recognition of a multi functional move can act as a pair of pruning shears. You start to look at the captures which a prefix or a suffix.

The nomenclature of prefix and suffix is arbitrary, of course. I find it convenient.

Maybe we should differentiate it a bit more. Take for instance 1. .. Rxc6. It threatens Nc4 in its prefix. But since Nc4 is already under siege, the prefix is irrelevant.

The same is true for 1. ... Bxc1. It threatens Bf4 in its prefix. But since Bf4 isn't B.A.D. (Barely Adequate Defended), that threat is actually irrelevant.

So now we have three flavors:

1. Not multifunctional
2. Multifunctional but irrelevant
3. Multifunctional, so it plays a possible role in the war on tempi

For 2 we need to recognize when a piece is not B.A.D.

2. Merry Christmas to all!

Temposchlucker wrote:

"Some people make use of contextual information like "how is the material balance?" et cetera. I try to avoid that. I'm trying to learn how to find the best move from the diagram, and from that point of view, contextual information feels like a kind of cheating. It prevents learning the skill I think I need."

IF chess is a large collection of miniskills, then it is not "cheating" to make use of whatever skills are possessed at any given moment in time.

Perhaps "These are not the skills you're looking for."

As previously noted by Aox, starting the "vulture's eye view" by answering (1) Which side is to move? and (2) What is the material balance? DOES provide a context for determining the answer to the third question (3) Is this puzzle about checkmate, gaining material or Pawn promotion? The context is important for reducing the number of alternatives that are viable "candidate moves" and for focusing the System 2 attention on the notions/ideas that may be relevant in the position. Whether we want it to do this or not, System 1 WILL begin the narrowing down process based on what has been previously learned/experienced (LTM) AND on what System 2 directs focus and attention toward.

"Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." - A. Einstein

As long as it doesn't violate the actual rules of chess, I'm all in favor of "cheating" (utilizing every possible shortcut as a SKILL) in every possible way that will increase my overall skill level.

"Do SOMETHING. If it works, do more of it. If it doesn't, do something else.” ― Franklin D. Roosevelt

1. Perhaps "These are not the skills you're looking for."

I knew this was going to haunt me. That's why I build in the phrase "feels like a kind of".

When I try to bolster my skill to remember memorized French words it is not handy to train my skill to look up words in the dictionary fast at the same time.

It isn't a judgment about what others do, of course. (I wouldn't dare on Christmas eve.)

3. The question : "What is the material balance?" has a second purpose, by counting the material you already get aware where the pieces are placed. This question can be anwered before chesstempo makes it first move so we can make use of this this extra time.
The question : "Is this puzzle about checkmate?" has to be answered anyway! If there are any checkmates.. all other calculations are trash.
Sooner or later we have to decide what the pouzzle is about: This puzzle is about the tactic named "counting", this puzzle is about exchangining the right way.
Knowing this we know the correct solving strategy: (1) we have to start and end the sequence of "take" (2) we try to increase our possibilitys to take and reduce the opponents possibilitys to take
The rest remains calculation

There is no problem solving without decisions and planing

1. You are right of course.

But sometimes I claim the right to be wrong. This is such case ;)

2. Right is something crooked that has been bent.

3. When i have the feeling i did not understand a tactic:
I
-read the tags(= tactical motives) given to this puzzle
-analyse the tactical weaknesses
-analyse my thinking according to my (idealized) thoughtprocess
-play (many) lines vs an engine
-memorize some main lines
Some pozzles ARE to comlicated
Example https://chesstempo.com/chess-tactics/156080
To "understand" this puzzle you need to know : What would be the right move after 1...Be8?
The answer is a looong line , verbally explained its a king attack where the Be8 is immobile and disconnecting the rocks asf. 1...Be8 needs to be judged, cant be calculated. The rating of this problem is rated so low because there is nothing else.. so people guess and try.

4. @ Aox:

Re: https://chesstempo.com/chess-tactics/156080

That was a strange experience! I paid attention to your question regarding 1. ... Be8; I thought that was the main line. I then brought up the problem on Chess Tempo.

The first thing that popped into my mind (after 0. ... Qxe5) was a "family fork" on g6. However, Black has a favorable capture ratio (1:2) on that square initially. Even if the Black Bishop can be lured away by 1. dxe6 Bxe6, g6 becomes B.A.D. (WNf4 vs BPh7), so the White Knight still cannot execute the fork on g6 because it loses its capture capability on g6 by moving to it. (The attacking/defending ration changes to 0:1). Is there any other possibility for clearing g6 related to the h7 Pawn? Nope, so (for the time being) reject that possibility.

So why would Black move the Black Bishop to e8? The only possibility would be to escape a direct attack. So, that brings up 1. dxe6. Prior to that move, e6 is B.A.D. (2:2 - WNf4 + WPd5 vs BQe5 + BBf7). Perhaps the Black Queen can be "trapped"? Nope, after a capture (or two) on e6, the Black Queen has unfettered movement. So, put 1. dxe6 on the "back burner" as a possibility, and "see" if there is anything else available.

What about a capture on e4? Nope, the ratio is (2:2) on e4. It's B.A.D., but there is not another attacker to add to e4 at present. So, the capture on e4 goes on the "back burner."

Anything else that might cause my System 1 to start yelling "EUREKA!"? Nope, so it's going to have to be either 1. dxe6 or 1. Bxe4.

Let's look at the available LoA in the near vicinity. AHA! WQ + WB "attack" f5, in addition to Pg4. We have a favorable ration (3:2) on f5! That means if the f5 square can be cleared, e4 will change to a favorable ratio (2:1) and the Black Knight can be captured. How can it be cleared? AHA! Capture on e6 FIRST, followed by capturing on f5. 1. dxe6 is "conveniently" forcing: Black must do something about the attack on the Black Bishop. OH! THIS IS WHERE THE BLACK BISHOP MIGHT RETREAT WITH 1. ... Be8!

But why retreat? It is "obvious" (without looking far enough ahead) that Black controls e6 (at least for the moment). Why not just capture 1. ... Bxe6? If White plays 2. Nxe6, then Black simply recaptures with the Black Queen 2. ... Qxe6, and then what? OH! Now the f5 square can be completely cleared because there is a very forcing move available: gxf5!! Regardless of how Black recapture on f5 (either 2. ... Qxf5 or 2. ... Rxf5), White goal is accomplished: White now has superiority on e4 and will continue 3. Bxe4, winning material.

Okay, is there any need to look at 1. Bxe4? Nope, it just doesn't have any punch to it.

So, let's "run it up the flag pole and see who salutes."

0. ... Qxe5 (grabbing a Pawn) 1. dxe6 Bxe6 2. gxf5 Qxf5 3. Bxe4 is my MAIN line.

What about the alternative 1. ... Be8? Clearing f5 is quite an accomplishment in the MAIN line, so let's go with that: 2. gxf5 (connecting the two Pawns and forcing Black to do something about the hanging BNe4), so (perhaps) 2. ... Nd6 (attacking the f5 Pawn) or 2. ... Nxf2, sacrificing the Knight to open up the King position. I'm not "feeling" that either one is sufficient; that is one heck of a passer on e6, and there doesn't seem to be enough compensation.

Let's take a page out of de Groot's book, and follow Dr. Euwe's advice: make the best MOVE 1. dxe6 and then see what happens.

Chess Tempo followed the MAIN line verbatim: PROBLEM SOLVED!

It took less than 20 seconds to do that analysis.

4. Correction:

But why retreat? It is "obvious" (without looking far enough ahead) that Black controls e6 (at least for the moment). Why not just capture 1. ... Bxe6? If White plays 2. Nxe6, then Black simply recaptures with the Black Queen 2. ... Qxe6, and then what? OH! Now the f5 square can be completely cleared because there is a very forcing move available: 3. gxf5!! Regardless of how Black recapture on f5 (either 3. ... Qxf5 or 3. ... Rxf5), White goal is accomplished: White now has superiority on e4 and will continue 4. Bxe4, winning material.

5. 1..Be8 is computer mainline

Neue Partie
r4r1k/pp3bpp/2p1P3/4qp2/4nNPP/P2BP3/1PQ2P2/R3K2R b KQ - 0 1

Analysis by Stockfish 10 64 POPCNT:

1. +- (4.50): 2...Le8 3.0-0-0 Sc5 4.Lxf5 g6 5.Ld3 b5 6.Kb1 Kg8 7.g5 Sxd3 8.Txd3 a5 9.Td4 Txf4 10.Txf4 Dxe6 11.Tf6 De7 12.Td1 b4 13.a4 c5 14.Tdd6 Tc8 15.h5 b3 16.Dc4+ Lf7 17.Dg4 Tf8 18.hxg6 Lxg6+ 19.Kc1 Txf6 20.Txf6
2. +- (4.79): 2...Da5+ 3.Ke2 Le8 4.gxf5 Sd6 5.Tag1 De5 6.Tg5 h6 7.f6 Dxf6 8.Kd2 Sb5 9.Thg1 Sd4 10.Txg7 Dxg7 11.Txg7 Sxc2 12.Th7+ Kg8 13.Kxc2 Tf6 14.Txb7 a5 15.Le4 Kf8 16.Kb3 c5 17.Kc4 Tc8 18.Th7 Kg8 19.h5
3. +- (4.98): 2...Lxe6 3.Sxe6 Sxf2 4.Dxf2 Dxe6 5.gxf5 Db3 6.Dc2 Db6 7.Th3 Tae8 8.Kf2 c5 9.Dc3 c4 10.Tg1 Te7 11.Lc2 Df6 12.Dxf6 gxf6 13.Td1 b5 14.Td6 a5 15.Tb6 Td8

So : to understand this puzzle you need to understand the refutation of 1...Be8
1...Be8 2.gxf5 Nc5 3.000 Sxd3 4.Xxd3 Xxf5 need to be judged

1. PART I:

What engine is Chess Tempo using for its analysis? Is that analysis of sufficiently high quality to be useful to mere mortals? I have no doubt whatsoever that Stockfish 10 is the “best” (strongest) currently available engine (with the possible exceptions of AlphaZero and Leela Zero). However, I doubt very seriously whether I can follow and duplicate the “reasoning process” of a very strong engine. Heck, I sometimes have problems following the Fritz 11 analysis, which is “only” about 2700-2800 ELO! If I could consistently play at that level (I could only wish it were possible), I’d be quite content to never make it to Stockfish 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 or 12 levels!

At MY current level, I need to be able to comprehend WHY the main line IS the main line. I have no argument against Stockfish 10’s “main line” being the most correct analysis. Perhaps I am too content just to be able to “see” a not-so-obvious inferior line. That may be why I’ll never reach the FIDE Master level. I seem unable to follow Dr. Lasker’s maxim (according to NM Dan Heisman): “When you ‘see’ a good move, look for a better one.

Here’s the Chess Tempo analysis, copied directly from Chess Tempo:

0...Qxe5 1.dxe6 [ +2.21 (depth:15)

1.dxe6 Be8 2.O-O-O Nc5 3.Bxf5 g6 4.b4 gxf5 5.Qxc5 Qxc5+ 6.bxc5 fxg4 7.Rhg1 Rg8 8.Kb2 ][ -0.21 (depth:14)
1.Bxe4 fxe4 2.dxc6 Rac8 3.Qb3 bxc6 4.Qc2 Rcd8 5.h5 Rb8 6.O-O-O Qg5 7.Qxe4 Qc5+ 8.Qc2 Qxc2+ 9.Kxc2 ][ -0.32 (depth:14)
1.Nxe6 Rfc8 2.Qe2 Qxd5 3.Nf4 Qa5+ 4.b4 Qe5 5.O-O a5 6.gxf5 axb4 7.Bxe4 Qxe4 ][ -0.36 (depth:15)
1.dxc6 Rac8 2.Bxe4 fxe4 3.Qb3 bxc6 4.Qc2 Rcd8 5.h5 h6 6.Rd1 Qa5+ 7.Qc3 Qxc3+ 8.bxc3 Rxd1+ 9.Kxd1][ -0.60 (depth:14)
1.d6 Nxd6 2.O-O-O c5 3.Kb1 c4 4.Bxc4 fxg4 5.Bd3 Rac8 6.Qe2 Ne4 7.Ka1 Nf6 ]

1...Bxe6 [ -2.52 (depth:15)

1...Bxe6 2.Nxe6 Nxf2 3.Qxf2 Qxe6 4.gxf5 Qb3 5.Rd1 Rad8 6.Qe2 Rfe8 7.e4 Qb6 8.Bc4 Rxd1+ 9.Kxd1 ][ -2.21 (depth:15)
1...Be8 2.O-O-O Nc5 3.Bxf5 g6 4.b4 gxf5 5.Qxc5 Qxc5+ 6.bxc5 fxg4 7.Rhg1 Rg8 8.Kb2 Rg7 ][ -2.44 (depth:15)
1...Qa5+ 2.b4 Qe5 3.Rc1 Bxe6 4.Nxe6 Nxf2 5.Kxf2 Qxe6 6.gxf5 Rad8 7.h5 Qh6 8.Be4 a5 ][ -2.85 (depth:15)
1...Bg6 2.Nxg6+ hxg6 3.h5 g5 4.O-O-O Nc5 5.Bxf5 Rf6 6.Kb1 Nxe6 7.Rd2 Re8 8.Rhd1 Qc5 ][ -3.10 (depth:15)
1...Bg8 2.h5 Ng3 3.fxg3 Qxe3+ 4.Kd1 Bxe6 5.h6 Rf7 6.Qc3 Re8 7.gxf5 Bxf5 8.hxg7+ Kg8 9.Bxf5 Rxf5 ]

2. PART II:

2.Nxe6 [ +2.60 (depth:15)

2.Nxe6 Nxf2 3.Qxf2 Qxe6 4.gxf5 Qb3 5.Rd1 Rad8 6.Qc2 Qd5 7.Kf2 Rde8 8.e4 Qe5 9.Kg2 ][ +0.20 (depth:15)
2.O-O-O Nc5 3.Nxe6 Nxd3+ 4.Rxd3 Qxe6 5.gxf5 Rxf5 6.Rhd1 Raf8 7.Rd8 Rf3 8.Qc5 Kg8 9.Rxf8+ Rxf8 ][ +0.02 (depth:15)
2.gxf5 Bxf5 3.O-O-O c5 4.h5 h6 5.Bxe4 Bxe4 6.Ng6+ Bxg6 7.hxg6 Qe6 8.Rh5 b6 9.Kb1 ][ -0.07 (depth:14
2.Rg1 Qa5+ 3.b4 Qe5 4.Rb1 Bd5 5.Qb2 Qe7 6.gxf5 Rxf5 7.Rg4 Re8 8.Qd4 Re5 9.Nxd5 ][ -0.10 (depth:14
2.h5 Qa5+ 3.b4 Qe5 4.Rc1 Rae8 5.Nxe6 Qxe6 6.gxf5 Qxf5 7.Bxe4 Rxe4 8.h6 g5 ]

2...Qxe6 [ -3.02 (depth:16)

2...Qxe6 3.gxf5 Qxf5 4.Bxe4 Qh5 5.Rd1 Rae8 6.Rd7 Qg4 7.Rd4 Qh5 8.f4 Re6 9.Qg2 Qa5+ 10.Kf2 ][ -2.62 (depth:16)
2...Nxf2 3.Qxf2 Qxe6 4.gxf5 Qb3 5.Rd1 Rad8 6.Qc2 Qf7 7.Kf2 Qe7 8.Kf3 Rde8 9.e4 g6 10.Qc3+ ][ -3.47 (depth:16)
2...Ng3 3.Nxf8 Nxh1 4.Nxh7 Kxh7 5.Bxf5+ Kh8 6.O-O-O Qh2 7.h5 Rf8 8.f3 Qxc2+ 9.Bxc2 Ng3 10.Rd7 ][ -3.88 (depth:16)
2...Qa5+ 3.Kf1 Ng3+ 4.fxg3 Qd5 5.Kf2 Qxe6 6.gxf5 Rad8 7.e4 Qe7 8.Kg2 Rd4 9.Rad1 Qe5 10.Qf2 ][ -4.27 (depth:16)
2...Rf6 3.Bxe4 fxe4 4.Ng5 Qa5+ 5.b4 Qe5 6.Rd1 Rff8 7.f4 Qe7 8.Qxe4 Qxe4 9.Nxe4 Rfe8 10.Rd4 ]

3.gxf5 [ +3.23 (depth:17)

3.gxf5 Qxf5 4.Bxe4 Qh5 5.Rd1 Rae8 6.f3 h6 7.Qc3 Re7 8.Rd2 Rfe8 9.Qd4 Rf7 10.Rg2 Qa5+ 11.Qc3 ][ +0.31 (depth:17)
3.O-O-O Rae8 4.gxf5 Qxf5 5.f4 Qc5 6.Rhe1 Qxc2+ 7.Bxc2 Nf6 8.Rd4 g6 9.Kd2 Rd8 10.Rxd8 Rxd8+11.Bd3 ][ 0.00 (depth:17)
3.Rf1 Rae8 4.gxf5 Rxf5 5.Bxe4 Qxe4 6.Qxe4 Rxe4 7.Rd1 Kg8 8.Rd7 Rxh4 9.Rg1 Rf7 10.Rd8+ Rf8 11.Rd7 Rf7 ][ -0.04 (depth:16)
3.h5 Rae8 4.gxf5 Qxf5 5.Bxe4 Rxe4 6.O-O-O h6 7.Kb1 Re5 8.Qxf5 Rfxf5 9.Rd8+ Kh7 10.Rd7 Rxf2 ][ -0.09 (depth:17)
3.Rg1 Rae8 4.gxf5 Qxf5 5.Bxe4 Rxe4 6.O-O-O Qe6 7.Kb1 Rxh4 8.Qc5 Kg8 9.Qxa7 Rg4 10.f3 Qf5+11.Ka1 ]

3...Qxf5 [ -3.07 (depth:17)

3...Qxf5 4.Bxe4 Qh5 5.Rd1 Rae8 6.f3 a6 7.Qc3 Rf7 8.Rh3 Rfe7 9.Qc4 Rf7 10.Qd4 a5 11.Rg3 Qxh4 ][ -3.67 (depth:17)
3...Rxf5 4.Bxe4 Re5 5.Bxh7 Qg4 6.Rd1 Rf8 7.Bd3 c5 8.Qc3 Rd5 9.Bc2 Rxd1+ 10.Bxd1 Qg2 11.Rf1 b6 ][ -3.98 (depth:17)
3...Qe7 4.Bxe4 Rad8 5.Rd1 Rde8 6.f3 a6 7.Kf2 Rd8 8.Rxd8 Rxd8 9.h5 h6 10.Qc3 Qd6 11.b4 Rd7 ][ -3.99 (depth:16)
3...Qe5 4.Bxe4 Rad8 5.Rd1 Rde8 6.f3 Rf7 7.Kf2 Qc7 8.Qc5 a5 9.Rd6 Qe7 10.h5 Rd8 11.Rhd1 ][ -4.06 (depth:16)
3...Qd6 4.Bxe4 Rad8 5.Rd1 Qe5 6.Rxd8 Rxd8 7.Ke2 Qe7 8.Rd1 Rf8 9.Bf3 a6 10.Ke1 Qxh4 11.Rd7 ]

4.Bxe4 [ +3.14 (depth:17)

4.Bxe4 Qh5 5.Rd1 Rf7 6.Qe2 Qe5 7.f3 Qh5 8.Qc2 a6 9.Qc4 Raf8 10.Rh3 a5 11.Qc3 Re8 12.Rg3 ][ +0.32 (depth:17)
4.O-O-O Rae8 5.f4 Re7 6.Kb1 h6 7.Rhg1 Rd8 8.Bxe4 Rxd1+ 9.Rxd1 Qxe4 10.Qxe4 Rxe4 11.Rd3 Kg8 12.Kc2 ][ -0.30 (depth:17)
4.f4 Qa5+ 5.b4 Qb6 6.Bxe4 Qxe3+ 7.Qe2 Qxf4 8.Rf1 Qe5 9.O-O-O Qa1+ 10.Bb1 Qxa3+ 11.Qb2 Qh3 12.Rg1 ][ -0.80 (depth:17)
4.Rf1 Qa5+ 5.b4 Qe5 6.Rd1 Nc3 7.Rc1 Nd5 8.Be4 Rad8 9.Rg1 Qh5 10.Bxd5 Rxd5 11.Qe4 Re8 12.Qf4 ][ -1.19 (depth:16)
4.Rh2 Qg4 5.Kf1 Rae8 6.Bxe4 Rxe4 7.Qc5 Qf3 8.Re1 Rg4 9.h5 b6 10.Qe7 Qf5 11.e4 Qf3 ]

3. Well, no matter what is mainline or not, you need to be able to evaluate 1...Be8 if you want to understand the puzzle, you cant hope for the move where you win wood fast.

6. PART I:

I have no argument against a required evaluation for 1. ... Be8; IFF that is the defensive line selected by Black, then (obviously) it must be evaluated. On the other hand, if that defense is NOT selected, then it can consume a lot of time for no benefit. In the mad time scramble to get the correct solution in a relatively short time, cutting off some lines prior to obtaining complete clarity must inevitably be done. We are not computers and cannot hope to exhaustively analyze every "possible" line to the end. Or, it could be that I'm just too mentally lazy for this game!

While looking at our respective posts (and all that fantastic computer analysis), I was struck by the thought that this may be one of the reasons we feel so inadequate when trying to analyze all RELEVANT lines. We "feel" our way forward through intuitions of System 1 as to the most probable line of play IN OUR OPINION. I personally have never been able to exhaustively and sufficiently analyze any position or problem to match both the breadth and depth of a computer engine. As I noted, Dr. Euwe's idea of simply making what seems the best move (1. dxe6 moves the analysis point one step closer to the "final solution," making it more likely that the key idea(s) will become more apparent in the new position. The onus is thus shifted to the opponent to figure out the best defense. As soon as that defensive line is revealed, we have more information with which to plan and evaluate the next step(s). This is also the approach of GM Jonathan Tisdall expounded in Improve Your Chess NOW, using his method called "variation processing."

I note one additional consideration involving the "vulture's eye view." Surveying the position (identifying which player is to move, the material balance, what the position is about [checkmate, material gain or Pawn promotion], etc.) also establishes the "expectation" for the position. Game theory gives us these ideas: if advantageous, at a minimum we should be able to maintain that advantage or increase it; if disadvantageous, we should be able to avoid allowing the disadvantage to increase; and if "balanced," we should be able to maintain that balance. The "expectation" provides another means for truncating lines of analysis which do not conform to our expectation.

I do realize the risk associated with this kind of approach. If the initial intuition is incorrect, it may be likely that we will lose. Formerly, I was very unwilling to "trust my intuition". Over the years, I've tried to accept and even trust my intuitions, to at least 'see' the direction in which that intuition is pointing. That change has occurred because of the things I've learned in the discussions on this blog.

7. PART II:

When I get pessimistic, I console myself with Dr. Lasker's thoughts:

Education in Chess has to be an education in INDEPENDENT THINKING AND JUDGING. Chess must NOT be memorized, simply because it is not important enough. IF YOU LOAD YOUR MEMORY, YOU SHOULD KNOW W-H-Y. Memory is too valuable to be stocked with trifles. Of my fifty-seven years I have applied at least thirty to forgetting most of what I had learned or read, and since I succeeded in this I have acquired a certain ease and cheer which I should never again be without. If need be, I can increase my skill at chess, if need be I can do that of which I have no idea at present. I HAVE STORED LITTLE IN MY MEMORY, BUT I CAN APPLY THAT LITTLE, and it is of good use in many and varied emergencies. I KEEP IT IN ORDER, but resist every attempt to increase its dead weight.

You should keep in mind no names, nor numbers, nor isolated incidents, not even results, but ONLY METHODS. THE METHOD IS PLASTIC. IT IS APPLICABLE IN EVERY SITUATION. The result, the isolated incident, is rigid, because bound to wholly individual conditions. THE METHOD PRODUCES NUMEROUS RESULTS; A FEW OF THESE WILL REMAIN IN OUR MEMORY, AND AS LONG AS THEY REMAIN FEW, THEY ARE USEFUL TO ILLUSTRATE AND KEEP ALIVE THE "RULES" WHICH ORDER A THOUSAND RESULTS. Such useful results must be renewed from time to time just as fresh food has to be supplied to a living organism to keep t strong and healthy. But results useful in this manner have a living connection with "rules," and these again are discovered by applying a live method: the whole of this organization must have life, more than that—a HARMONIOUS LIFE.

8. As much as i like Lasker ( i did read every book of him ), he was a mathematician and chessplayer but not a psychologist or teacher. He seems to have used the Feynman Technique
https://youtu.be/_f-qkGJBPts
But chess is less about knowledge, its more about skills. A 14 Jear old Grandmaster easily beats a 60 year old Class player who did study chess (-books) for 40 years.
Lasker was talking about 200 hours of instructor time to make a master in chess.. today we are talking about 10 000 hours of deliberate practise.

To understand a positioen means ( at least ), that you have a response for every move of the opponent, especially if this move has a meaning. Everything else is hope-chess.
On the other hand: it helps! to understand a position if you play it against an engine and try all ideas you can think of. Change sides from time to time. Go back, try an other idea.. play around. What are the candidate-moves? which ideas are repeating in different lines..
Hard to not get lost in plain variations, but.. it helps

Well, it is about knowledge, but since we lack the skills, we are not rewarded for our knowledge.

The Feynman Technique is about simplifying matters. Simplification is a way to create chunks. A bunch of incoherent data is bound together. Logic is the glue between the particles.

The videos of gingergm show the logic behind the moves in the opening. I can't say it is rocket science, to be honest. I can imagine why Lasker thinks that a good instructor needs only 200 hours to teach everything you need to know to become a master.

But something went terribly wrong in the skill department. I always have had the feeling that it would be easy to fix the skill problem. I still do. I feel that it is inherently simple. Otherwise I would have abandoned this blog long ago.

What gingergm shows me, is that I don't use my logical chess reasoning at all when playing chess. I'm too intimidated by the sheer amount of possibilities. Every move of my opponent comes as a surprise. Even more so, the effects of my own moves come as a surprise. That's why I abandoned chess for five years.

But I feel that is about to change.

10. To me the improvement of the skills is most important/difficult. We cant improve in tactics but we know all necessary knowledge about that subject. I saw kids getting better in tatics than i am in notime.
The other hint is the experience with the Checkmate in 1 problem
we'll see