Ambitious plan
I formulated logic as the nec plus ultra method to acquire tactical skills about 1.5 year ago, based on logical arguments. Yet it wasn't immediately clear how the exact form would look like. The past 1.5 year I experimented with this, and for the first time I have the feeling that I have found a working method.
I immediately adopted an ambitious plan to apply the training to myself the next 1.5 year. I think I have the pace right now. I do two problems per day. At average I need 15 minutes per problem. Two new problems per day is the absolute maximum. If I try to do it faster, than I will have to pay the price in the form of a lower quality. Which is just plain silly. A consequent pace of two problems per day adds up to 730 problems per year, which isn't slow at all!
The spaced repetition of Chessable offers the problem after 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256 et cetera hours, after a correct solution.
It is not the amount of problems that is relevant, but the quality of the logical narrative. Already my habit of random trial and error is slowly replaced by logical thinking. Which is the ultimate goal.
Now the method for tactical training is all said and done, I can't help thinking about whether I can do the same for positional play.
I did some math. If I accept that at a certain moment I will add endgames to my toolbox, then it will not be uncommon to grind down an opponent in, say, 80 moves. We talk about 1 move per minute at average then, in OTB play. This means that there is no time for system 2 to apply a decent algorithm. This means that algorithms may be of help in the study room, but for OTB play they are too slow.
How should it work for OTB play then? Now logic is my main guide, and system 2 is too slow to get much done in one minute per move, it becomes evident that I need positional patterns in order to come up with moves during OTB play.
The tactical training based on logical narratives, concludes our discussion about backward thinking definitely: you need to see the patterns at the end first. The logic is re-engineered from the end of the solution to the beginning. If you lack the patterns, your logical reasoning is going nowhere.
Hence I'm going to apply the same method which works for tactics to positional play. That means that I will solve 2 new positional problem per day at max.
I will use the following problem sets:
683 pattern in total. Say one year work at a speed of 2 new problems per day.
I adjusted the plan a bit. To assure the quality AND the diversity, I adjusted the pace a bit. One problem per day per area is fast enough. It adds up to 365 problems per year per area anyway, which is extremely fast.
ReplyDeleteIt gives me an opportunity to play with the different areas. I now have selected four areas:
- tactics
- center
- pawn structure
- endgames (!)
This is a daily routine. Furthermore I'm busy to formulate an algorithm to connect the dots between center, development, kingside attack and pawn structure. A project that is highly unpredictable, since I cannot know beforehand what I will find.