 |
| Diagram 1. Black to move |
[solution]
I use a macro written in autohotkey to copy the board and to open it in a paint-like program.
There I add colored squares to it by hand.
- Green = target squares (points of pressure)
- Red = piece on duty (function)
 |
| Diagram 2. Black to move |
The idea is simple:
- to develop a sense for target squares (PoP)
- to develop a sense for pieces on duty (Fun)
I work with a limited set of problems.
The same set of problems can be used to draw the lines of attack.
That is a different exercise, which I do during a different training session.
The idea is simple:
- to develop a sense for the lines of attack (LoA)
 |
| Diagram 3. Black to move. |
I work with a database of 960 problems. The problems have the following themes:
- double attack
- discovered attack
- skewer
- pin
- overloading
- mate
I want to learn to see the essential patterns a tempo.
A picture worth a thousand words! Thanks for the succinct illustration of PoPLoAFun!
ReplyDeleteGiven the minimalist approach to identifying the "requirements of the position", it is somewhat surprising that just "seeing" the two B.A.D. squares (g2 and d1) as Points of Pressure, the two tasks (Functions) assigned to the White Queen, and the two corresponding Lines of Attack is sufficient to trigger the appropriate move sequence - by a different piece (the Black Nd4). I guess the difficulty is "seeing" that the Knight can cut one of the White Queen's defensive lines, while simultaneously creating a mating sequence based on the weakness of White's back rank.
I went to the solution on Chess Tempo in order to play through the game to "see" what White missed immediately prior to the given position. The position of the White Rook on c5 made no sense to me.
Here's the game info:
Ennenbach, Ralph (2245) vs Blechzin, Igor (2350)
Date: 1994
Event: St Ingbert op, St Ingbert op
Round: 2
Result: 0-1
Opening: Sicilian Defense, O'Kelly Variation, Venice System (B28)
Problems: 33128
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 a6 3. c3 d5 4. exd5 Qxd5 5. d4 e6 6. Be3 cxd4 7. cxd4 Nf6 8. Nc3 Qd8 9. Bd3 b5 10. Rc1 Bb7 11. O-O Be7 12. Qe2 O-O 13. Ne5 Nc6 14. Rfd1 Qd6 15. Ne4 Qd5 16. Nxf6+ Bxf6 17. Rc5 Nxd4 18. Bxh7+ Kh8 19. Qg4 Ne2+
Although Black had a slight advantage after 16. ... Bxf6, it was not overwhelming (-0.65 Stockfish). White's 17. Rc5? was a tactical blunder.
When I first looked at the position, I could "see" that Black wanted to move the Black Nd4; the only question was WHERE? Since there are only two relevant squares (f3 and e2) giving check (forcing moves), it only required seeing which one was better. Obviously, 17. ... Nf3+ 18. Qxf3 leaves the White Queen still defending both B.A.D. points, so (by the method of elimination) 17. ... Ne2+ must be the answer. If 18. Kf1, then 18. ... Qxd1#. Otherwise, 18. Qxe2 Qxg2#.
I was surprised that both of the players were masters. I would think that both players would be capable of "seeing" their way through the not-so-difficult tactics to a stable position. Apparently, it was just not a good day for Master Ennenbach.
People found 27 ways to go wrong with the first move. If you must judge every move, then there is no way to do that fast. By focussing on the essential patterns only, you can save time.
ReplyDeleteThere is almost always a "duplo" element involved. Even with the mates. function has a duplo element in it. The queen must guard two squares. You must attack (the same) two squares.
First the patterns must be "constructed". Then, the patterns must be recognized. Then, the patterns must be learned by rote. Meaning, they must be repeated until they pop up by themselves. The problem is that the patterns have a tendency to mire under the moves. At a certain moment, you start to remember the moves in stead of the patterns.
I haven't found a way around this yet.
As a result of just this one problem, I can "see" (understand) that if there are two (or more) B.A.D. squares, then there may be (and most likely IS) a possible tactical shot connecting the dots. Being aware of available motifs is the first step toward finding tactical shots; consider it to be the justification and the psychological "trigger" for tactics. Applying tactical devices/themes follows the motif(s) recognition, which are the means to take advantage of those motifs.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, too much of the available chess literature conflates the two different ideas of motifs and themes. I've only found a few books which explicitly distinguish between them. Emanuel Lasker's Lasker's Manual of Chess, Peter Romanovsky's Soviet Middlegame Technique, and Emmanuel Neiman's Tune Your Chess Tactics Antenna all carefully distinguish the difference.
The motifs reside at the surface level and are easily visible to the discerning eye. The applicable tactical devices/themes also (usually) reside at the surface level. Points of pressure and lines of attack help guide deeper thoughts. Functions reside at a deeper level, closer to the essence. If you can't recognize the motif(s) "hiding in plain sight," then trying to apply tactical devices/themes at random is an exercise in futility.
Once you can "see" all of the above in an integrated fashion, you can then use strategy. Trying to apply strategy without having the underlying tactical foundation is a "cart before the horse" approach.
Function like in pin, skewer and overloading show usually 3 squares. 2 green (points of pressure) and 1 red (function). These motifs look very similar. They have similar patterns.
ReplyDeleteDouble attack and discovered attack show usually only 2 green (points of pressure) squares.
So far, the effect of the training seems to be that it prevents the overloading of the mind with less relevant details. I think that that is what we are after.
What puzzles me, is that remembering the moves tends to take precedence over remembering the patterns after a while. Why is the remembering of the moves more easy than remembering the patterns? It hinders the education of the unconscious mind.
@ Temposchlucker asks:
ReplyDeleteWhy is the remembering of the moves more easy than remembering the patterns? It hinders the education of the unconscious mind.
There is a feeling of "SURPRISE" which accompanies the "revolutionary" (GM Beim's term) action (the move) somewhere within a combination, usually the first move. It violates our sense of accepted chess values. As a consequence, the mind "sees" that specific move as the most salient aspect of the entire combination, and gives it special significance in memory. How to get around that? I think one possibility (which seems to work for me) is to "dig deeper" into WHY the combination existed in the first place. What is it about the position that triggered the player to "see" the combination? It almost always will be something deeper than that "surprise" move.
In the given problem, I'm fairly certain that Master Ennenbach "saw" the possibility of Black playing 17. ... Nxd4. I cannot believe that a Master-level player would be oblivious to that move. I suspect that he may have reasoned somewhat like this (obviously, this is sheer speculation on my part, and the order of his thoughts [more likely, unconscious awareness]) might have been along these lines prior to 17. Rc5:
I can attack his Queen with 17. Rc5, and gain a tempo for swinging the Rook over to increase the attack against his King. He does have the possibility to play 17. ... Nxd4, but I have that covered by discovering an attack on his Queen with the check 18. Bxh7+, regaining my Pawn and then capturing on d4 with my Bishop, protecting my Rook. I can protect against his mating threat on g2 with 19. Qg4.
In short, I think he may have ended his analysis at that point, perhaps playing by intuition that he had everything covered by examining the tactical devices/themes available. Unfortunately (for him), he failed to take into account that the back rank was weakened by 17. Rc5, and that as a result, the White Queen would acquire two defensive Functions, not just the "obvious" one of protecting the checkmate on g2. He failed to "see" that Black could cut the defense of the Rook with check, forcing White to choose whether to get checkmated on g2 or d1. I think that's why he did not resign after 17. ... Nxd4 18. Bxh7+ Kh8 19. Qg4, but did resign after 19. ... Ne2+.
I cannot be sure that is what happened - not even close. However, that is unimportant for us to learn from his experience. By analyzing in this fashion, we give more importance to the deeper aspects of the combination, and thereby shift the emphasis away from the first "surprising" move to the underlying pattern(s). There is a duplo element involved, connecting two different mating patterns. There is also the emphasis of the importance of having the move, of not panicking when the Queen is attacked, of "seeing" beyond the obvious tactical devices/themes, and probably other things I'm not thinking about right now. Hopefully, our subconscious stores away the underlying salient aspects in addition to the move.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMy "method" is now:
ReplyDeletethere are things to see ( tactical weaknesses.. is pinnable..)
and methods to make use of "it" ( taktical motives.. pin...)
and something i did do wrong ( Thinking method.. not calculated deep enough, not looking for kingsafty first..not looking for de-pinnable chances of the opponent.. )
One of these points i made wrong..