Forgetting PoPs
My main focal point for the next tournament will be the openings. I don't feel comfortable in many of my openings when an opponent deviates early OR I forgot the variation.
While I have come to grips with the middlegame, I clearly have not solved the conundrum of the opening stage.
Because 80% of my opponents deviate early, either because they forgot their book line too OR they have chosen some obscure variation OR they are just like me and have no idea what they are doing, the frequency of occurrence of my book lines is too low to get enough training in them.
In general, with white I'm doing better than with black.
I have found a band-aid for black though with the Chessable course My first opening repertoire for black from GM Jon Ludvig Hammer. Which is easy to learn and provides an answer for all early move deviations.
While training this new repertoire, I'm quite aware of what exactly goes wrong with my usual approach. Have a look at the following position:
 |
| Diagram 1. White to move |
r1b2rk1/pp3pbp/1qn1p2p/2ppP3/3P4/2P2N2/PP1QBPPP/RN3RK1 w - - 4 10
I'm not worried about the endgame consequences of the double pawn on the h-file. That is the price you pay for a simplified approach of the opening when white deviates early. Given the the piece activity and clear plan for black, I doubt that there will be and endgame anyway.
I was worried about the weak pawn on h7 though. What if white had played Qc2 a few moves earlier instead of Qd2? How am I going to protect pawn h7 when white combines Qc2 with Bd3 and piles up against h7?
Forgetting the PoPs (points of pressure)
What I totally forgot, is that white cannot play Qc2 at all . Since the white queen has a task to defend d4. I forgot that I was piling up against d4 with a reason.
This indicates what the problem is AND the solution. If you are not aware of the Pops, you have no idea what you are doing. It's high time to forget about the variations in order to assimilate PoP awareness. Meaning: time to fiddle around with the openings instead of worrying about variations.
There is a lot of similarity with training tactics where variation addiction obscures the sight on what is going on too. And where fiddling around until you get the hang of it is the solution likewise.
ReplyDeleteWhile looking from this new perspective to my openings, I start to suspect that the amount of scenarios I have to learn to handle is finite too.
ReplyDeleteFor the following reasons:
The scenarios are apparently geared around the LoAs and the PoPs I'm going to use. If I play the French, I have already pruned the amount of possibilities. I focus on d4, which means I don't focus on g4 or so.
I played e6, so white can't use the LoA from c4. Hence he must place his bishop somewhere else.
I must find employment for my bad bishop. On the long diagonal, or on a6 and trade it. Or when e6 is traded, I might place it on g4.
There are a limited amount of attackers, and they must usually choose between two or three LoAs.
Choices prune the amount of possibilities. I only must be aware that I'm making choices.
If I observe what happens in my head, then I see that intelligent thoughts are popping up there. I don't know where they come from. I didn't create them consciously, that is for sure. I hypothesize that their origin is somewhere in system 1. I assimilated the basis for those thoughts in my youth, I assume. If that is true, then my method can be used to become more intelligent at later age.
ReplyDeleteThe description of the Woodpecker Method from the Chessable website:
ReplyDelete"You solve 1,000 positional exercises through 7 cycles. You cut your completion time in half each round. And by the final cycle, you take on all 1,000 exercises in a single day — sharpening your instincts to an edge through intense, focused effort."
Play blitzgames and analyse these games post mortem by looking for your opening lines (and maybe for your biggest blunders).
ReplyDeleteI abandoned blitz quite a few years ago since I noticed that it ingrained bad habits. A secondary benefit is that my opponents complain that my last online game was is 2008.
DeleteLuckily none has found my blog.
You may play anonymous at chess.com or lichess.com.
DeleteI played a lot online in the past. But I don't find it much fun anymore. I play about 3 long OTB games every week, and I already have my hands full with analyzing them, now I know how analyze.
DeletePlaying blitz isn't a good idea anyhow, since it weakens my habits.
This position is taken from GM Smirnov’s YouTube video Calculation Technique: 2500 GM vs 2000 ELO vs 1600 ELO, with the given position taken from GM Michael Adams’ book Think like a Super-GM. The gist of GM Adam’s book (and GM Smirnov’s exposition) is to give the “analysis” by three different ELO level players of various positions in order to learn how to “think” like a super-GM.
ReplyDeleteFEN: 3q2k1/3P1ppp/ppr2n2/8/8/1B3P2/P2Q1P1P/4R1K1 w - - 0 1
LINK: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYNR1ctbdmw
If you SEE all of the PoP [Points of Pressure], LoA [Lines of Attack], and Fun [Functions] in this position, then figuring out what to play becomes relatively simple. It becomes a simple(?) matter of SEEing the ramifications of combining different attacks and defenses into duplo moves. The variations appear as a byproduct.
It is interesting that the example analyses start with candidate moves. I think it is much simpler to start with PoPLoAFun and then searching for the multi-purpose moves that connect attack and defense.
It certainly lends credence to your emphasis on NOT forgetting about PoPs (nor LoAs nor Funs).
At the end, GM Smirnov summarizes the differences in approach between an average player and a Grandmaster:
1. Focus your attention on your opponent’s half of the board and try to go there.
2. Consider forcing moves: Checks, captures and attacking moves for yourself.
3. Consider forcing moves: Checks, captures and attacking moves for your opponent.
PoPLoAFun prunes the tree of analysis. No LoA, no tactics. CCT is way too coarse. It has too much redundancy.
DeleteTrial and error is how system 1 works. The difference must come from an educated system 1. Without education (=absorbed skills), system 1 is going nowhere. A trained system 1 will see the salient cues and trigger the inherent logic behind it. System 2 can then answer the question: how can I make this work.
The reason grandmasters cannot explain this to you, is that gm's
don't realize that their system 1 is educated and ours is not.Then they invent stuff like CCT what they don't use themselves either, adding to the confusion.