LPDO
From "Secrets of Practical Chess" by GM John Nunn:
Nunn describes a friendly match of 100 rapid games where he beat a 2300-rated player by 88-12: "I thought that I would see lots of advanced strategic concepts in these games but actually all I have learnt is LPDO" ... During the remaining games I saw what he meant. Most of the games were decided by relatively simple tactics involving undefended pieces, when the LP would duly DO.
Nunn was back then, let's say, 2600 rated (to keep matters simple). 88-12, rapid, mainly simple tactics. Okay, let's apply some caveman mathematics.
88 / 12 = 7.3
Hypothesis: every 300 rating points means 7.3 times as much patterns of simple tactics absorbed.
Me 1700; Cook 2300, Nunn 2600 => Nunn has absorbed 7.3 ^4 = 2840 times as much patterns absorbed than me. The picture below shows it beautifully.
Every strategy letter in the picture has a set of simple tactics attached. I must work on the total amount of tactics, but even more so I must develop an eye for every positional detail. Since I can use tactics to get posistional things done. I'm working on a problem set of 1001 tactical problems. Every problem has about 3 simple tactical patterns in it. When I have absorbed these 3000 patterns, which will take about 1.5 year, Mr. Elo will reveal how it affects my rating.
That's why I'm now interested in positional chess so much.
I have no disagreement with your "caveman" mathematics. However, I don't think the difference is in the NUMBER of patterns absorbed, but in the ABSORPTION and the ability to SEE the relevant pattern(s) beyond the surface features of each position. In my own play, I often am fully aware of the requisite pattern(s); unfortunately (for me), I overlook what is readily visible right in front of my eyeballs because I was looking at some other "shiny object" that captured my attention. The only "cure I've found is to figuratively "sit on my hands" and make sure I have considered ALL patterns that exist right here, right now. That requires consistent mental focus move-by-move on both sides of the board, far beyond what I normally apply in most situations. After all, how hard can it be to SEE something as simple as a "loose piece"?
ReplyDeleteMaybe it is not about the amount of patterns but about the amount of connections between patterns and logical constructs.
DeleteIn an ideal world the eagle is not needed because it is replaced by logic. The logic guides your attention into the right direction.
ReplyDeleteIt is not that the loose piece isn't seen. The problem is that it's logical implications don't pop up immediately.
Its not just the pattern, its the correct thinking-process going with it. A few minutes ago i "solved" a tactical puzzle where the solution was a simple discovered attack. But it take me for ever to see that i have to move backwards to gain wood.. pffff. To a situation/pattern there are questions/methods belonging.
ReplyDeleteI saw years ago a chessvideo where some grandmaster said about some famous player that he "never" would have any LP's in his games. If YOU lose many games by LP's maybe thats a way to go?
"To a situation/pattern there are questions/methods belonging." Very true.
DeleteIf YOU lose many games by LP's maybe that's a way to go? Although I have often Loose Pieces, they usually don't drop off. I have a tendency to overlook knight forks, though. Especially in the endgame.