The tactical object
Roles are not geometrical patterns. It are abstract definitions of tactical elements. A role is often piece independent, although often different pieces give different quirks to the role. Often the role is rather independent of the geometry. There are a huge amount of places where the pieces can be, and still perform the same role.
Roles are closely related to scenarios. A certain set of roles has its own set of standard scenarios. The specific position determines which scenarios from the set are suited and which are not. Have a look at the following position.
 |
| Black to move |
6k1/5p2/p4P1b/1p2q2p/4N2K/7P/P1P1Q3/8 b - - 0 1
Which tactical objects can we identify?
 |
| Black to move |
We can identify:
- target Ne4
- defender Qe2
- Ne4 is pinned
 |
| Black to move |
 |
| After 1. ... Bg5+ 2.Kh5. Black to move |
 |
| After 2. ... Be3. White to move. |
The black bishop interferes with the defense of Ne4 by Qe2 with check.
Above, the most important roles and their matching scenarios are described. Somehow we must learn to recognize the roles and the scenarios in this position. Like you can recognize a rabbit in a cloud.
FEN - 4r1k1/1p3pp1/p1b3q1/5N2/1Q2P3/2P5/PP6/1K5R w - - 0 1
ReplyDeleteA composed position by P. Romanovsky (1950).
Fundamental Checkmates: A complete study of mating patterns, mechanisms and combinations, Antonio Gude, 2016.
Gude comments:
“But first a position that is hard to classify. This illustrative position, composed by master Piotr [Peter] Romanovsky, allows us to SEE a spectacular manoeuvre which leaves Black the choice between a mate with the rook or a mate with the knight!”
A rather simple problem, which is a good illustration of certain things.
What should pop into consciousness (courtesy of System 1) almost instantly?
Start with the most obvious from a previous checklist – it’s White to move.
Perhaps we total up the material – it’s even, unless you award a slightly higher value to Bishop over Knight. [That slight difference is irrelevant in this position.]
Perhaps we look for points of pressure. The e7-square is B.A.D. [2:1] so White can check on e7, forking the Black King and Queen and forcing Black to capture on e7 with his Rook. [Moving the Black King to f8 instead sets up a discovered double check, capturing the Black Queen with tempo; not good.]
Perhaps we look for lines of attack. The h file is wide open. The White Queen ‘attacks’ f8, but the f8-square is defended [2:1].
Perhaps we look for functions. White has three pieces aimed into the heart of the Black King’s position. According to the “three piece” rule [one to sacrifice and two to mate], there might be a mating attack. The Black Rook has to protect e7. The Black Queen and Black Bishop are currently bystanders.
Maybe we should have started with something else: the Black King is completely immobile. “Always check, it might be mate!”
There are three possible checks.
A quick investigation of short tactics shows that trying to gain the Exchange with 1. Ne7+ Rxe7 2. Qxe7 loses a piece to 2...Qxe4+ 3. Qxe4 Bxe4+ 4. Kc1 Bxh1 and Black has a Bishop and two passed Pawns; not looking good for White. Door #1 closes.
Let’s try 1. Rh8+ Kxh8. UGH! There is no followup. Door #2 closes.
By process of elimination, we arrive at 1. Qf8+, smashing into the pivot point. The Red Sea divides into two paths. 1...Rxf8 or 1...Kxf8. In the first case, the Black Rook is diverted (deflected) away from its duty to protect the e7 square. In the second case, the Black King is diverted (deflected) away from its duty to protect the back rank.
Now we can recognize standard mating patterns.
1. Qf8+ Rxf8 2. Ne7# is a variation on Anastasia’s mate; when you seen one, you should be able to see them all.
1. Qf8+ Kxf8 2. Rh8# is a typical back-rank mate. [The White Knight closes the door to e7 as an escape hole.]
So, what should we have SEEn almost instantly? For my money, it would be the total immobility of the Black King. Immediately following that recognition should have been a subconscious memory search of potential mating patterns or forcing moves to create potential mating patterns. The specific configuration of pieces should have brought forward the two known mating patterns.
Problem solved!
Was it because we SEE the two potential mating patterns as the first thing that System 1 throws up on the wall? I think not. The process involves realizing that the immobility of the Black King should trigger a search for stock mating patterns. At least, that’s what the RCCM tells ME.
"Was it because we SEE the two potential mating patterns as the first thing that System 1 throws up on the wall? I think not. The process involves realizing that the immobility of the Black King should trigger a search for stock mating patterns. At least, that’s what the RCCM tells ME."
DeleteI completely surpassed all system 2 lists and SAW immediately both the smothered mate AND Anastasia's mate AND the magnet. Which tells me I'm on the right track with my 280 hours of MATE training lately.
Which is about 9 hours per mate.
DeleteRegarding hours per mate. In Aagaard Attacking Manual 2 he points strong players Im/GM missing tactical shots which he attributes to their not being familiar with basic mating patterns.
ReplyDeleteIn the database with tactical shots which I use, often (15% of the cases or so) the comment is: "in the game was played . . ." Meaning that the GM or IM missed the tactical shot. So there is some hope still :)
Delete