Shifting targets
Preface
Long ago, I don't remember quite when, I posted about a position where it took me 5 minutes before I shifted my attention from the target to the defender. I worked by trial and error back then.
Nowadays, looking at the defender has become second nature. So I made definitely progress. The following phase, is to dynamically shift my attention along the line of logic. How does that look like?
 |
| Black to move |
1k5r/1b1r1p1p/p3p2B/2b1P1p1/4q3/1RRN1Q2/P4PPP/6K1 b - - 0 1
Firat, B. vs. Kinsiz, O.
Step 1
- Target: Qe1#
- Defender: Nd3
Step 2
- Target: Nd3 (the defender from the previous step!)
- Defenders: Qf3, Rc3
Step 3
Evaluation of 1. ... Rxd3 2.Qxd3
- Target: g2
- Defender: none (Qf3=pinned!)
Step 4
Evaluation of 1. ... Rxd3 2.Rxd3
- Target: Qe1#
- Defenders:none
Looking for counter attacks
Step 5a
Counter attack 1
1. ... Rxd3 2.Qxe4
Target: Rd1#
Defenders: none relevant
Step 5b
Counter attack 2
1. ... Rxd3 2.Rxb7+
Targets: g2 is no longer threatened =>Qf3 is not longer pinned , Rd1# is postponed.
Step 6
Answering counter attack 2
1. ... Rxd3 2.Rxb7+ Ka8
The king cannot take the rook because it can get a check on b7
Step 7
Evaluating counter attack 2
1. ... Rxd3 2.Rxb7+ Ka8 3. Qxd3 Qe1 4.Qf1
And white saved the day for now
Step 8
Looking for a follow up
 |
| Black to move |
k6r/1R3p1p/p3p2B/2b1P1p1/8/2R5/P4PPP/4qQK1 b - - 2 4
4. ... Bxf2+ 5.Kh1 Qxf1#
Conclusion
All these nine steps must be absorbed separately. It is unrealistic to suppose that you can see this in one view. It are nine pieces of logic that must be seen and stitched together to one logical narrative.
The preface tells us about 5 minutes that were needed between two steps. Not only the steps must be absorbed, but the logical transition between the steps must be assimilated too.
Currently, many steps are absorbed. But the transitions feel like hiccups. As if I move from one surprise to another. That is where the work lies. To become fluent in the logical chess language.
Imagine that you would do every step and every transition with system 2 and that each item would take 5 minutes. We talk about 9 x 5 + 8 x 5 = 85 minutes then. Can you imagine how error prone that would be? That's the difference between a child prodigy grandmaster and us.
ReplyDeleteAs club players, we run aground whenever we meet significant resistance (something occurs that we didn't anticipate from our examination of the initial position). In this specific position, that occurs at steps 5b and 8 FOR ME.
ReplyDeleteAt step 5b, we lose the initiative. This is usually accompanied by a feeling of panic. What happens if I can't regain the initiative? DISASTER! So, stop looking along this variation and try something else that maintains the initiative continuously until the successful conclusion. A lot of time can be wasted looking for an ephemeral (non-existent?) alternative.
At step 8, again we lose the initiative (or so it appears at first glance): White has successfully defended and is now counter-attacking our King. OH NO! Drop this variation and try something else. We thus fail to go that "extra step" in our calculations to "SEE" how to take advantage of the absolute pin on the White Queen.
Is it "obvious" that we should look at a diversion of the defender? We KNOW that's one of the first things to look at when exploiting a pin. The problem is that we MAY "SEE" [INCORRECTLY] that the f2-square is B.A.D. [2:2], not realizing that the king is actually the only defender and that the f2-square is in Black's control [1:2] because of the pin. The White Queen is pinned, and the White King cannot capture into check.
In short, we don't persist sufficiently to "SEE" all the way to the successful conclusion.
It brings to mind this aphorism from the old Soviet Union school:
"If it doesn't work, but you really want it to, then it must work!"
I’m also not convinced of the necessity to “SEE” all these steps initially. The essence of variation processing (GM Tisdall) is to follow the process outlined by GM Botvinnik:
"A simile may help clarify this notion of the horizon and its determinants. Let us suppose that a parachute-jumper has come down in a bog [swamp] and wants to get to solid ground. The bog is wide; its edges are hundreds of yards away. How does our hero proceed, if he cannot find a clear path from where he is to where he wants to be? He cannot take in the whole plot at one coup and pick out the entire path . . . he must act soon . . . darkness is falling!"
"In all probability, he will inspect the bog in some given direction for the first five to ten yards, choose a path from hummock to hummock, as safe a path as he can find, and TAKE THE FIRST STEP. He will make the next step after a similar preparation. Our hero again inspects the five-to-ten yard horizon. It will already have changed because of his action. He accepts the solution to the second-step problem, and so on until he clears the bog."
In short, we don’t have to “SEE” everything in the initial position, but just enough to move along a main variation into the future.
That sounds like a recipe for disaster but it’s not: all of this jumping from “hummock to hummock” occurs in our imagination, NOT on the board! If we end up in a cul-de-sac, we can always jump back to one or more previous hummocks or, if necessary, all the way back to the initial position. Given that we are supposed to trace out every variation based on candidate moves and only examine each leg of every variation once and only once [Kotov], we are extremely reluctant to do this because “that’s NOT the way we are supposed to analyze”!
My personal view; YMMV.
This was what struck me in the first place. Point 5b and 8 caught me by surprise. Just as in the preface. Since I could overcome the surprise that I encountered in the preface, the question arose, can I do the same for point 5b and 8?
ReplyDeleteWith Rxb7+ (5b), white seems to solve his problems. But he only postponed it.
And at point 8, I had totally forgotten that I had a bishop on c5. Currently, in order to investigate the Vukovic gap, I focus on a helicopter view of all attackers and defenders beforehand. Before I jump out of the plane, so to say.
In the study room, you can do that. You can hang above the swamp as long as you like. You can even get back in the plane, if necessary.
In order to solve the Vukovic gap to an acceptable degree, I need piece awareness. How do they cooperate? At the same time, I must be able to renew that piece awareness at any moment. Because the targets are continuously shifting.
If your wife asks you "how was your day?" you need a minimal effort of system 2 to get an idea what you are going to tell her. The rest is handled by system 1.
ReplyDeleteIf a stranger asks you "Wie war dein Tag" then your system 2 must act in overdrive. What language is this man speaking, which words do I recognize, what can I tell a stranger? A simple task all of a sudden becomes problematic.
If we lack the simple skills as described in the 9 tasks and 8 transitions, then the simple task to tell a logical narrative about this position all of a sudden becomes problematic. That was what I was trying to point out.
It is a difference in being fluent in the steps. Have you absorbed them, then you can retrieve them fast. If you don't, it takes 5 minute per step, end you have no overview. You don't remember the map of the swamp when you flew above it.
ReplyDeleteTwo facts are indicative of what is happening. The simul of Susan Polgar and the 88-12 blitz game result of John Nunn.
They might be in the swamp, but they recognize where they are fast. Just like when you talk to your wife in English in comparison with German to a stranger.
If you talk Dutch to a German, they have no idea what you are saying. But when you talk Dutch with a heavy German accent, they understand what you mean. The Dutch accent make them them lose their bearings.
ReplyDeleteThat is a bit how it works with the overview over the swamp. If you are focusing too much on the details, then every hummock looks the same. But if you take some distance, you recognize the relative position of the hummocks.
I used for instance the word "hummock" without knowing what it means. But it is the context that gives me a pretty good idea.
All steps are simple common logical tactical ideas. There isn't one that is so extreme specific to this position that you will not find it in other positions. The same is true for the transitions between the steps.
ReplyDeleteOnly step 5b and 8 are somewhat special.
For 5b, you must trust your logical reasoning. Does the counter attack solve whites problems or does it just postpone them?
Step 8 is a matter of piece awareness. Are you aware of your potential attackers?
Steps are like hummocks. You don't need to know the word, as long as you have absorbed the idea behind it.
Every step and every transition between steps has its own conceptual idea behind it. The salient cue must lead to this idea. For the cue, you don't have to know the word "hummock". You must recognize the concept behind it, not the details. Trying to find your way up from the details is a tedious task and prone to distraction. Recognizing the details from the helicopter view is the way to go.
In step 5b, the position itself provides a generic answer to the counterattack idea. There are only two White attackers with potential checks (which are required to grab the initiative): (1) WRb3 and (2) WQf3. Only one of them has a direct check.
DeleteObviously WRb3 can check with 1. ... Rxd3 2.Rxb7+, hoping that Black will capture with 2… Kxb7, creating a potential check by the White Queen (with simultaneous capture of the Black Queen). There are no other White pieces that could check the Black King if he moves 2… Kh1; the WRb7 blocks the followup White Queen check.
Checking with 3. WRb8+ sets a small trap (which might just work in time trouble): 3… Kxb8 4. Rb3+. If Black carelessly captures with 4… Rxb3, then White wins with 5. Qxe4 because the WQe4 covers the b1-square – no back rank mate.
Instead, 3… Kxb8 4. Rb3+ Ka2 5. Rb7+ Kh1 resolves to the same solution as the main variation.
GM Stockfish uncovered another tactical doozie:
Delete1... Rxd3 2. Rxb7+ Kh1 3. Rb4
It pins(!) the Black Queen and gives Black another opportunity to get less than he should expect from the position. It's a surprising way to maintain the pin on the Black Queen. If Black just grabs the bait with 3... Bxb4?? 4. Qxe4+ wreaks havoc on Black.
The good news is that even grandmasters have an incomplete arsenal. They became grandmaster with it because we are so bad. There never was a necessity to develop their skill any further.
DeleteIt's a difference of point of view. From the bog upwards vs from the sky downwards. It feels different. That is what I'm trying to convey. You train better when you know what you are looking for.
ReplyDeleteTo be a bit more precise:
ReplyDeleteThe bog is the pile of candidate moves.
The hummock is the conceptual idea.
The helicopter is the piece awareness.
Trial and error is swimming in the swamp in search for a hummock.
The sunset is the chess clock.
If you need 5 minutes for one of the steps 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5a, you will not feel sure enough about 5b. If you haven't absorbed the ideas behind steps 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5a, then 5b will be a reason to panic.
ReplyDelete