Digesting the tournament
The past weeks I have been able to analyze the holes in my bucket which occurred in a tournament I played three weeks ago. And I concocted a plan based on that analysis.
Tactics
I have had a good look at how grandmasters solve tactical problems. And I made an educated guess what would be needed to reach a tactical level of a 2200 rated player, based on the method I have found. I deem that when I absorb the patterns that belong to about 1000 problems of the right quality, I should be able to reach that level. I estimate that I can absorb those patterns at a rate of two problems per day during a longer period of time. This would take 1.5 year.
I believe I have found exactly the right problem set for that.
The tournament convinced me that this should be my number one activity to get better.
Center - development - preparation for king assault
The second area of attention is the middlegame. Especially the fight for the center, the development of my pieces and the preparation for the assault on the king. These goals are highly related, my first tries are very promising, and I have not the slightest idea what I'm doing. I expect a lot from this study, but I cannot predict how this will develop over time.
Tournament at the end of the year
I will solely focus on the two area's I mentioned above. At the end of the year I will submit in another nine-day tournament and measure the results.
What I will not do YET
I found more holes in my bucket the past tournament. But I don't want to smear out my powers over too many areas, as I have done the past 1.5 years. So the holes that I intend to plug in the future but not now:
- Pawn structure
- Endgame
- Opening
GM Mykhaylo Oleksiyenko describes in his courses about tactical calculation an algorithm for his students. But he admits that he doesn't use it himself because he doesn't need it.
ReplyDeleteCareful observation of grandmasters solving tactical puzzles while commenting gives a good impression which patterns they have absorbed and when they redirect to logical narratives when certain patterns are not available in their system.
Especially their self-control is remarkable when they lack the patterns. They insist that their logical narrative is complete before they make a move. They hardly ever gamble.
My educated guess how much patterns I need to absorb to become a 2200 rated tactician is based on these observations.
The quality of the used data set is paramount.
Love your blog. Thank you for doing this. Are you comfortable sharing which problem set you plan on using? Thx again.
ReplyDelete1001 Chess Exercises for Advanced Club Players
DeleteThanks very much!
DeleteDo you also have the original 1001 Chess Exercises for Club Players? I don't, but I just received the updated version of 1001 Chess Exercises for Advanced Club Players. I haven't had a chance to look at it. I'm curious if it would be worthwhile to buy the original book, in order to build skill from the ground up.
DeleteAnother question: Is the "algorithm" touted by GM Mykhaylo Oleksiyenko for club players only given in World Champion Calculation Training - Part 1, or is it repeated in all four Parts?
TIA.
I do have the original 1001 Chess Exercises for Club Players. I did it long ago, and if I remember well it was a bit simple. I didn't know how to study it though, so I gained little from it. I plan on do it again when I'm ready with the current tome. Which probably is over two years.
DeleteThe free lunch is that the logical narratives from the author saves time when you concoct your own. So there is a free lunch after all.
I have only part 4 of GM Mykhaylo Oleksiyenko World Champion Calculation Training. There he describes that he developed the algorithm over the years. Meaning that the one in part 1 might differ a bit from the latest version. My conclusion was that he describes the algorithm in each and every part.
The ability to calculate is a result of the right tactical training, not something that you actual learn. The right tactical training is to learn how to reason logically.
ReplyDeleteUsually tactical training focuses on the ability to visualize the future, and to try to keep in mind all sorts of branches.
Forget the visualization, the branches, the variations. They are all results of the right training, they can't be learned separately.
Instead, learn how to build a logical narrative. Don't be bothered by the branches. Since they usually are unique to the position, you will never see them again in practice. Don't waste your time with worrying about them.
By formulating a logical narrative by system 2, your system 1 absorbs the accompanying patterns. It is this absorption that causes you to visualize positions later on, hence to calculate. These are byproducts of logical reasoning.
ReplyDeleteWhen you look at videos of grandmasters who are solving tactical problems, or even play blitz while commenting, you can easily observe which patterns they have absorbed and when they shift to logical reasoning.
So what is the reason that someone plateaus then? Do they run out of logical narratives, or do they stop reasoning? Or do they apply their reasoning to the wrong areas?
ReplyDeleteNunn gives an example of a GM who wins 88 out of 100 blitz games from a master level player. The reason of this was formulated by the master: I lost because of LPDO, not by some deep strategic ideas.
This indicates that a grandmaster has absorbed way more tactical patterns than the master.
So it is not likely that you run out of patterns anytime soon, but someway we abandon logical reasoning at some moment.
Why? For instance because we value other subjects as being more important. Like openings et cetera.
It wouldn't be too miserable as long as we keep to base our study on logical reasoning. Here is where the frequency of occurrence kicks in. How often do we get the poisoned pawn variation of the Najdorf on the board?
We must limit our logical reasoning to subjects that happen in each and every game, and don't get distracted by subjects that look interesting but which we face seldom OTB.