All kangaroos look the same

 We are totally capable to distinguish between male and female faces. Yet we don't know how we do that. From an evolutionary point of view, it is probably handy to know the difference between men and women.

On the other hand, I have no idea what a female kangaroo looks like. Nature is very frugal with skills, since they eat up mental resources. From a surviving point of view, it is not necessary to know the difference between male and female kangaroos. I suppose male kangaroos have no pouch.

As usual, I have no idea where my post is going to beforehand.

The task of system 2 is, maybe among other tasks, pruning. When I am just modeling clay, I have to wait until some female characteristics appear accidently. That took about six hours when I tried it for the first time.

When Robert provided me with a website about the eight differences between male and female faces, I knew where to look, and the next time it took me only one hour to model a face that looked somewhat female. System 2 guided my attention along the eight differences between male and female faces, thus replacing randomness by a targeted approach.

I wondered why system 2 didn't know anything about how I recognized the differences between male and female faces. That is totally hidden within the operation of system 1.

But since clay modeling isn't a skill with great evolutionary value, I must bother system 2 with the details. The past weeks I started to look at a lot of female faces. And slowly system 2 learns more about the differences. The things that you won't find in books.

I noticed that my clay models were based on a two dimensional view. But of course it is not going to work if I try to imprint three dimensional features in a two dimensional way. So slowly I am learning to see better. I must see the 3D features consciously. That means, that system 2 has to be involved. Without system 2, there can't be a conscious approach. And without a conscious approach, you are dependent of randomness. Involvement of system 2 means that every feature needs a name.

Genesis 2:19-20: "Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

Please don't get carried away. I'm not religious in any traditional way. (Adam = system 2, Eve = system 1?)  

What does that mean for chess? Have a look at the following position.

Black to move

8/6k1/1b2ppp1/1P5p/2n1NP2/B5PK/2r4P/R7 b - - 1 1 

[solution]

There is quite some distance between the first move and the winning of the white rook. How do we get the whole picture? What salient cues must system 1 see and what logic must be applied by system 2 in order to get a holistic view?

Yesterday I realized that in order to have a tactic, you need a target. The three targets that needs considering are:

• the NOT defended targets (LPDO)
• the B.A.D. (Barely Adequate Defended) targets
• the invasion square

But what is the most logical order to look for these targets?

A NOT defended target is not under attack yet. So you need at least one tempo to attack it. To prevent it from escaping or being protected, you need at least a two tempo move to attack it. So you can better look for double attacks in stead.

A BAD target has an equal amount of attackers and defenders [n:n]. Someone said that you can best start to look for the target with the highest n first. Since the more defenders there are, the higher the chance that one of them can be eliminated or is compromised because of some function it must fulfil. That too indicates that a NOT defended target should be later on the list, since it has no defenders at all which you can compromise. Hence the best order is:

• the B.A.D. targets (with the most amount of defenders first)
• the NOT defended targets (since you need to get an extra tempo from elsewhere)
• the invasion square (if everything else fails)

The need for tempi dictates the order. 

What is the best BAD target here?

• h2 [1:1]
• Ba3 [1:1]

Ra1 is the defender of both BAD targets. This means that it is already compromised. It is overloaded. So the next subject of contemplation offers itself: how to make use of the overloaded Ra1?

The simple 1. . . . Nxa3 2.Rxa3 lures the rook away from the defense of g1.

2. . . . Bg1 3. g4 (obliged) Rxh2+ 4.Kg3 and out of the blue, a skewer presents itself.

I don't think that the skewer is a salient cue that need to be seen upfront. Logic and seeing must work together. But at the same time, you need to keep the distance, in order to maintain a holistic view.

I was looking at the separate sequences with system 2, so I totally missed the spontaneous materialisation of the skewer.

In retrospect, keeping a holistic view has been the problem the past 24 years. Now the elephant in the room has its name.

What does this have to do with kangaroos? Nature has given you the skill to distinguish between male and female features in humans, but not in kangaroos. Since nature is frugal with skills, you need system 2 to give the features a name. Since without a name, you cannot guide your attention. Without guidance by attention, system 1 cannot work its magic. In clay modeling the features are the differences between male and female features. In chess these are the salient cues. You need to give them a name in order to guide your attention, giving system 1 the chance to educate itself.

But first and foremost, you must maintain the holistic view. Otherwise system 2 will carry you away, and you will miss the materializing skewers.