What is paramount now is the hunt for salient cues. We can divide a combination into sections. The cleaner we SEE the separate sections, the better. From the sections, I try to abstrahere the salient cues that give away the existence of a section. Currently, the problems I use are rated between 1700 and 1900. At average, the problems have 3 or 4 sections, although the amount can vary from 2 to 6. The sections are divided in a few departments:
- targets
- defenders/attackers
- tactical motif
- preparatory move
- tempo move
 |
| White to move |
6k1/3pp1bp/1p3r2/1P3p2/1P1n1P2/4Q3/2B1KR1P/3R3q w - - 1 1
[solution]
There are the following sections of the combination:
Targets
Opponent
Insufficient defended pieces.
- Qh1
- Nd4
B.A.D. (Barely Adequate Defended) invasion square
- b3
Mine
- Qe3
- Ke2
- Bc2
Tactical motifs
Opponent
- discovered attack from the battery Bg7 - Rf6 against d4
- pin with Re6 against whites Qe3 and Ke2
Mine
- pin with Bb3 against Re6 and Kg8
Tempo moves
Opponent
- Nd4+
- Re6+
Mine
- Bxe6+ with additional punch
- Taking the black knight relieves the check and changes the invasion square b3 from BAD to insufficient defended
Logic
All sections can be simply SEEN by their salient cues. Except for the tempo moves. There we need some logical reasoning.
There are two pieces of black hanging. The standaard scenario is to see of we can catch one of them while warding of the counter attack.
White is in check, so it is logical to see if we can win the knight first. But with what piece?
The piece that fetches Nd4 steps into a discovering attack. The white Queen is vulnerable where it currently stands because of the potential pin with Re6.
Conclusion
The salient cues can be SEEN in all sections of the combination. These cues are transferable to other problems, since they are not position dependent.
The section of the tempo moves is difficult. That section consists of:
- salient cues (for instance the additional punch Bxe6+ can be SEEN before the minds eye)
- standaard scenario's
- specific logic
Standaard scenarios consist of standaard logic. That is position independent and transferable to other positions. Hence it is plausible that it can be automated.
In your description of the opponent’s targets, you designated the b3-square as “B.A.D. (Barely Adequate Defended) invasion square.”
ReplyDeleteOn the surface, White has the advantage [2:1; WQe3 + WBc2 vs BNd4] on the b3-square. I don’t understand how this is a B.A.D. square. Clarify, please.
My first instinct was to capture the cheeky BNd4 while simultaneously maintaining the attack WRd1 ---> BQh1 while looking for some way to wriggle out of Black’s threats. Moving the White King seems counter-productive (dancing to the tune that Black is playing). That leaves only the capture 1. Qxd4. Switching to Black’s viewpoint, 1… Re6+ is a “discovered attack (on WQd4 from the BBg7) with check.” That looks very unappealing.
Only at this point did I start looking at 1. Rxd4. First, it gets rid of the cheeky Knight permanently. Second, it unfortunately allows Black to accomplish two things at once with 1… Re6+: (1) absolute pin of the WQe3 to the WKe2; and (2) attacks WRd4 with BBg7. Materially, White is momentarily ahead a Rook, but is threatened with losing his Queen. Most importantly, White has the right to move first. White “could” just capture on e6 [2. Qxe6+ dxe6] and then move the WRd4 to safety, leaving the material balanced, but that doesn’t feel like a desirable outcome.
This is the point at which I “saw” 2. Bb3, absolutely pinning the BRe6, and gaining a tempo to save the White Queen. The only thing left to do is figure out if the counterattack 2… Bxd4 grabs the White Queen. Nope, a Zwischenschach 3. Bxe6+ dxe6 4. Qxd4 ends up with White a Rook ahead.
Psychologically, it was very difficult to give up the “attack” against the BQh1. But, after all, an extra piece is nothing to sneer at – if we can get away with it unscathed by the counterattack!
"I don’t understand how this is a B.A.D. square. Clarify, please." The scale of the status of a square that we have developed doesn't reflect all subtleties that are possible: well defended, B.A.D. (Barely Adequate Defended), insufficient defended and not defended. We have momentarily the upperhand. Yet we cannot do at the square what we want to do. Maybe insufficient defended would be better. I don't think we are are there yet that we need to worry about these terms.
ReplyDelete"Psychologically, it was very difficult to give up the “attack” against the BQh1" We have a lot of these psychological barriers. They are often useful to speed up your thinking. But sometimes they are not correct. Recently I hit the same barrier when I had to give up my Queen for a better result. Even while there were times that I did six Queen sacrifices before breakfast, I was reluctant to think in that direction.
This weekend I have been busy with my 26 "scenario suited" problems in search for salient cues. I could dismiss 7 of them as "got it". But of the remaining 19 problems I had not the feeling that I "got them". Of course I can solve them or calculate them by now, they look familiar, but they don't inflict a feeling of "boredom" because I know them so well. Familiar but not absorbed. I guess when I see these problem over 5 years, I probably have the feeling that I have seen these problems never before.
ReplyDeleteOf course I'm looking for ways around this. I have the feeling that I build more visual cues for the area of the targets and the area of the tactical motifs. And that is good, of course. But the area of the tempo moves mostly remained vague. Apparently that area need the focus of investigation.
I apologize for insufficient clarity in my request regarding B.A.D. inclusion squares definition. I don’t care what label may eventually be applied, or even if that category remains unlabeled. What I should have asked is for the surface-level feature(s) that “cue” recognition of that category. B.A.D. squares are easily identified – they are squares that are contested by an equal number of attackers and defenders, regardless of which player’s viewpoint is used. I still don’t “SEE” the cue(s) for he b3-square to be an “invasion square.”
ReplyDeleteObviously, the b3-square could be a potential invasion square for Black, albeit one that is not “safe” (Heisman) at present for dropping the BNd4 on to it. I also “SEE” the WBc2 as LPDO. On the other hand, if White moves the WBc2 to the b3-square at some point (with the BNd4 still there), then I “SEE” that it then becomes B.A.D. [1:1; WQe3 vs BNd4] because occupying a square removes the attacking force of the occupying piece on that square.
As I thought about this problem last night, I imagined that Black “SAW” the situation along the following lines prior to 26… Nd4+. He conceived the possibility of pinning the WQe3 to the WKe2 by moving BRe6. I looked up the stem game (between two masters, both rated above 2200) and found that the Black Knight moved from the e6-square. Moving BNd4+ is a forcing move that opens the BRe6 pinning possibility with an additional punch of being a fork of WKe2 (CHECK!) and WBc3. Perhaps it was conceived as a “double attack” (the combination of the fork and the pin threat). It also prevents White from capturing BQh1 (for at least one move). I suspect that Black stopped his calculations one move short, “SEEing” that royal pin and perhaps even the BBg7’s “attack” on whatever piece White used to capture the BNd4. The points that were overlooked (more likely, never “SEEn”) were that (1) after establishing the pin White would have the right to move first; (2) White’s counter-pin WBb3 on the BRe6 provided the means to get rid of the Black pin WITH CHECK and (3) that removing the BRe6 pin would then free the WQe3 to recapture the BBd4. In short, he SAW the contours of the potential tactics essentially only from his own point of view, and not holistically (both sides).
There are two local areas to consider: (1) the obvious WRd1 --> BQh1, and (2) the tactical melee in the center of the board.
In the “Who cares?!” category, GM Stockfish thinks that Black should have played 26… Qb7 with a slight White advantage [0.68].
For those without Chess Tempo:
Wiese-Jozwiak, Malgorzata (2260) vs Pejka, Marek (2260)
Date: 1984
Event: Poznan, Poznan
Round: 9
Result: 1-0
Opening: Sicilian Defense, Accelerated Dragon, Maroczy Bind, Breyer Variation (B39)
Problems: 43315
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 g6 5. c4 Bg7 6. Be3 Nf6 7. Nc3 Ng4 8. Qxg4 Nxd4 9. Qd1 Ne6 10. Rc1 b6 11. b4 Bb7 12. Bd3 O-O 13. O-O a5 14. a3 axb4 15. axb4 Ra3 16. Qd2 f5 17. exf5 gxf5 18. f4 Qa8 19. Nb5 Rb3 20. Bc2 Rxe3 21. Qxe3 Bxg2 22. Rf2 Bc6 23. Rd1 Rf6 24. Kf1 Bxb5 25. cxb5 Qh1+ 26. Ke2 Nd4+ 27. Rxd4 Re6 28. Bb3 Black resigned
Correction:
ReplyDeletean additional punch of being a fork of WKe2 (CHECK!) and WBc3.
should be:
an additional punch of being a fork of WKe2 (CHECK!) and WBc2.