If we focus on the elements from the previous post, you find everything you need to learn to recognize. All elements play a role in each and every game. Since there are only about 50 elements, you see that our task can't be that hard. If we are using the right method.
Robert said:
"I suggest (without being pejorative) that (in general) the notion that “If you’ve seen one (or 10) example(s), you’ve seen them all” is not true of most of the concepts on your list (even if it is true of Anastasia’s mate)."
Robert said:
"I suggest (without being pejorative) that (in general) the notion that “If you’ve seen one (or 10) example(s), you’ve seen them all” is not true of most of the concepts on your list (even if it is true of Anastasia’s mate)."
Exactly that. Even for Anastasia's mate it is not exactly true. So what's the problem? Let me give an example from a previous post.
 |
| Black to move |
Overloading plays a role in each and every game. So if we learn something useful about overloading, it transfers automagically to all other games.
What you see in the position above:
- a white knight that is attacked twice and defended once (LPDO)
- a white bishop that is attacked once and not defended (LPDO)
- a black bishop that is attacked twice and defended once (LPDO)
Further you see a black queen, which is about to be overloaded. After 1. ... Bxd2 the overloading of the black queen becomes a fact. The black queen cannot protect both d2 and c4.
After 1. ... Qxc3, white can gain the black bishop with 2. Nxc4
All this is easy to SEE, except for the potentially overloaded queen. And that is exactly what we have to learn from this position. The queen is not overloaded YET, but after 1. ... Bxd2 it IS.
Once you SEE what is going on in the position (the salient cues), the next question is: what to do about it. In other words: can we bring the black bishop Bc4 into safety WITH TEMPO (CCT). Bd4 has two tempo moves: Bd5 and Bb5, both attacking the white queen on c6. Is there a difference between the two moves?
On d5, the bishop is on the same line as d2, while on b5, it is not in contact with d2. So after 1. ... Bd5 WITH TEMPO, the black queen is no longer potentially overloaded.
So we can define a general rule:
two targets that have no contact with each other cause overloading of the one piece that protects both.
Another rule can be derived from this position.
If there are certain tasks to perform in a position (save the black bishop), you can do so at will, as long as you do it WITH TEMPO.
And yet another rule comes to mind:
A target is a role. Target roles can be played by:
- A piece
- A PoP
- A LoA
This means that in every tactical element that involves a target, the role of the target can be mutually fulfilled by a piece, a point of pressure or a line of attack. That broadens the application of rules like the one for overloaded pieces. A piece can be overloaded by a PoP and a LoA that have no contact which it has to protect.
And yet another rule:
Salient cues provide the definition of the problem, while tempo moves are the way to perform tasks that are necessary for the solution.
Of course, rules are a hobby of system 2. They have no practical application. But they are helpful to build the frame of cues that can trigger system 1.
So you see, there is a whole lot to learn from a single position. And that is logical, since the elements we are studying occur in every game. We don't need high quantities when we maximize the quality of our study.
PART I:
ReplyDeleteCreation (or more correctly, observation [ie, SEEing]) of "rules" is an integral part of the abstraction process involved in categorization. Broadening (horizontally encompassing and merging more examples into a category) and deepening (vertically moving toward a more abstract view of a category) are both facilitated by using analogies. "Rules" are derived as the inevitable result of this process. The two components of the learning process [System 1] are recognition of commonalities and differences between exemplars of that category. In general, a lifetime is insufficient to personally experience all of the examples which are necessary for building master-level SKILL [Know-How]. In addition, the attention MUST be focused in order to ingrain the "rules" into System 1. Ferreting out the "reason(s)" [Know-Why] underlying a strategy or tactic requires focused attention [System 2] on recognizing and summarizing (generally, in the form of a "rule") the pre-conditions which ALWAYS precede the existence of that specific strategy/tactic. Dr. Lasker’s MOTIFS are an example of a very high level of abstraction of pre-conditions. As a result, if you KNOW [System 1] how to recognize the pre-conditions, you have all that is needed to trigger System 1’s recognition process of the TACTICAL THEMES/DEVICES.
In an article titled How Can Experts See the Invisible? Reply to Bilalic and Gobet, Linhares and Brum provide the following information regarding the primary differences between novices (and also those who are not yet “experts”) and experts:
Novices classified problems using the particular, the concrete, the superficial, the pendulums, the blocks on inclined planes, the problems with same words (e.g., ‘‘center of mass’’).
Experts behaved quite differently. Experts classified the problems based on the abstract ideas, the physical laws [“rules”], the meaningful structures underlying their solutions.
(a) perception lies at the core of chess cognition
(b) pattern-recognition tasks are much more important than ‘‘looking ahead’’
(c) in the long run, only computational modeling can offer serious, nonambiguous, scientifically refutable theories of expertise
There is a basic asymmetry between experts and novices. Novices cannot behave as experts. But experts can behave as if they were novices. In our view, the flaw in reasoning stems from the fact that novices did not ‘‘simply do what they were told to do.’’ Novices did not do much at all. Novices did not match strategically similar scenarios, because they simply could not see them. And this leads to the contribution in Linhares and Brum (2007):
Experts can match positions based on strategic similarity [abstract patterns]. Beginners cannot.
This difference is crucial, as it shows that experts have acquired the remarkable ability to encode positions at an abstract level, which includes analogies and the fluid perception of the abstract roles that pieces play—and this is diametrically opposed to the superficial encoding emphasized in POS theories.
PART II:
ReplyDeleteI want to focus on assertion (b):
(b) pattern-recognition tasks are much more important than ‘‘looking ahead’’
Other cognitive researchers (Holding, in particular) assert that expert skill IN CHESS is primarily a function of the ability to search the tree of analysis. Given that search IS the primary function of computer programs (which play far above the level of any human), the opposite of assertion (b) would seem to be the case. Why is it not?
We are used to thinking in terms of “either-or”. If pattern recognition is more important than searching, then (obviously) searching cannot be more important – and vice versa.
I submit that FOR HUMANS pattern recognition IS most important, because it facilitates searching. If you can “SEE” patterns (like the list of patterns given here) with the vulture’s eye (ie, in the minds eye), then that facility aids the entire search process: you “SEE” the “chunks” as you move through the tree of analysis, NOT just at the beginning prior to performing the search of variations. Without the SKILL of “SEEing” the patterns DURING THE SEARCH you cannot “SEE” very far. The pattern recognition facilitates the search, not the other way around.
As Temposchlucker has noted, once we can “SEE” the salient patterns, often (NOT ALWAYS!) the variations turn out to be relatively simple. Without patterns in the mind’s eye, those without SKILL are reduced to trying to visualize the entire board at every branch of the tree of analysis AND keep it in mind throughout the entire process. Not bloody likely for mere mortals!!
I was writing a long post about abstractification. In the end the post became very complex and tedious to read. I decided to delete it and to write this post in stead. Time and again, we find that matters are way simpler than we though. It can't be otherwise, since otherwise a 12 year old girl would not be able to become a grandmaster. The struggle with transfer was based on complex considerations. But the final conclusion shows that transfer is very simple. Grandmasters are not good at complexity, they are good at the basics. As you said: skill facilitates the search through the tree of analysis. If you don't SEE it with system 1, you only can SIMULATE the seeing by an attempt to reconstruct it with system 2. The appearance of complexity arises when you try to do something simple in a complex way. When you try to do something with system 2 while system 1 is suited for it.
ReplyDeleteOverloading happens in each and every game. When we talk about abstractification, we must abstractify such simple thing as overloading. The end result MUST be simple, otherwise the abstractification went haywire along the way.