Make every tempo count
We have not really names for patterns that are related to the tempo battle. And when items have no names, they are difficult to absorb. System 2 takes care of naming things. He is the one to take care of making the tactical words absorbable.
 |
| White to move |
2r5/p3npkp/3qpnp1/4N3/3P2P1/1B6/PP1Q1P2/4R1K1 w - - 1 27
Lucki, Stanislaw vs. Beltins, Gunars, Email 2010
What is the difference between 27. Qh6+ and 27. Qf4 immediately?
And should this tempo move have its own name?
Temposchlucker wrote (in part):
ReplyDeleteAnd when items have no names, they are difficult to absorb. System 2 takes care of naming things. He is the one to take care of making the tactical words absorbable.
I found something similar in the Introduction to Kahneman’s Thinking, Fast and Slow. I “translated” (hopefully accurately) his example from medicine to chess.
To be a good chess player and analyst, a player needs to acquire a large set of labels for weaknesses, each of which binds an idea of the weakness and its symptoms, possible antecedents and causes possible developments and consequences, and possible interventions to cure or mitigate the weakness. Learning chess consists in part of learning the language of chess. A deeper understanding of judgments and choices also requires a richer vocabulary than is available in everyday language. The hope for informed discussion [like on this blog] is that there are distinctive patterns in the moves and the errors people make.
Given associative memory and the many “accidental” neural links that are formed without conscious intention, labeling provides a common access “cue” to activate associated neural links, making it easier to recall common ideas when encountering a novel “not quite the same” position.
We do not have to rely solely upon the terminology and “received wisdom” of the elders; we can create our own terms. Unfortunately, TANSTAAFL. If we do this, we pay a premium price in time to absorb the identified patterns; 23 years and counting!
For example, we have Dr. Lasker’s “encircling motif.” At its most abstract, it is immobility combined with superior force at the point of immobility. Dr. Lasker gives the idea of a large tree, firmly rooted. If attacked by a fire-breathing dragon, it cannot escape and may end up dead.
An alternative (that might be more appropriate for a game modeled on war) is the siege of a castle. The castle is immobile. Every opening (gates, doors, hidden tunnels, moats) is a weakness that can be exploited. [I have a “thing” for this idea because of my favorite siege weapon, the trébuchet. Go figure.]
In either example, the relative imbalance of attackers and defenders determines whether the weaknesses can be exploited or not.
There will always be points of relative weakness, no matter how hard we try to make every point equally strong. We can call them points of pressure, pivot points, B.A.D. squares, invasion squares, whatever term makes the concept stick in our brains, with later recall capability when we SEE this essence. The important point is to SEE them as weaknesses. Surrounding those weaknesses are the typical developments and consequences that flow from them.
I contend that we often get the learning process backward. We start with predigested labels (provided by our teachers and instructional material) and then try to apply the generalized “concept” (in the form of “rules”) to specific positions. We usually become “familiar” with the terminology, without having a grounding (SKILL) in applying the concept to any and every applicable position.
What is important is to comprehend the specifics of each position, and only then apply abstraction, categorization and analogies, ending with a retrieval “label.” If we find that we have “reinvented the wheel,” what difference does it make? We now have usable SKILL.
The last few posts have been very helpful!
There is not much literature about the tempo battle. Yet it happens in every game. I tried to describe the dynamics. So I'm working with labels like postponement move, additional punch, intermezzo, tit for tat, quiescence, with tempo, duplo move, et cetera.
ReplyDeleteThe dynamics of the tempo battle happen in forefront of the LoA landscape. Recently, I added the label of the killzone to it.
I talked already about the killzone in relation to the tree of scenarios in 2017
The plea of the latest posts is to go deeper with lesser and simpler problems. Mine the gems in the ground. The positions are way richer than we are inclined to think.
ReplyDeleteMining one good label will be useful for thousands positions. So take your time.
Maybe I should add the "irrelevant tempo". When the opponent takes a piece what only consumes a tempo but doesn't have an influence on the final outcome.
ReplyDeleteTemposchlucker asks:
ReplyDelete(1) What is the difference between 27. Qh6+ and 27. Qf4 immediately?
(2) And should this tempo move have its own name?
Question 2 essentially answers questions 1.
The difference is timing. Lasker’s attack motif stipulates that we must not shilly-shally; if possible, we must use a forcing sequence of moves based on threats.
27. Qf4 immediately has a delayed “threat” against f7 (Queen and Knight “looking” at f7), after kicking the BNf6 off that square with g5. There is no direct threat (such as checking with the Knight while discovering an attack against BQd6 from WQf4). Consequently, Black has a tempo to protect against the threat to f7 with 27… Rf8. White can only temporarily gain a pawn with 28. Nxg6 Qxf4 29. Nxf4. White’s “attack” ends before it gets anywhere.
27. Qh6+ forces Black to choose one of two unpleasant alternatives (there are other alternatives that are even more unpleasant). If 27… Kxh6 then 28. Nxf7+ Kg7 29. Nxd6 (attacking the Black Rook). If 27… Kg8, then 28. Qf4 attacks the loose BNf6 AND the focal point f7 – double attack. If 28… Kg7 28. g5 and if the BNf6 moves, White gets inside the killbox. Otherwise, White gains a piece. It’s rather ironic that by using two moves to get to the f4-square, White actually gains a necessary tempo.
How about naming it the “two-step mambo” with regards to “dancing” with the Black King? One step forward, one step back; twist and turn.
in fact, it is an intermezzo move. You want to play Qf4 AND have the move. The in between move is designed to keep the move. That it is based on a knight fork is somewhat irrelevant, it could have been any forcing move that costs black time.
DeletePART I:
ReplyDeleteI had a curious question regarding chess instruction and asked Claude ai for the answer.
QUESTION: What approximate percentage of chess books and videos are targeted toward club players (below 1800 Elo)?
ANSWER:
Based on the search results, I can provide you with an informed estimate. The most relevant data comes from Chess.com's consumer segmentation analysis, which shows that more than 95% of active Chess.com users are below 1400 rating among all time control categories, and over 85% fall under the Beginner segment [Chess Consumer Segments, Defined - Chess.com.]
While this data is specifically about Chess.com users rather than book/video purchasers, it provides valuable insight into the chess-playing population. The search results also indicate that chess skill levels are commonly categorized as: Beginner is less than 1400(ish), intermediate is 1400-1800(ish), expert is 1800+ [Chess Progression - Chess Forums - Chess.com.]
Given this information, I would estimate that approximately 75-85% of chess books and videos are targeted toward club players below 1800 Elo (beginners and intermediates). This estimate is based on several factors:
- The overwhelming majority of chess players fall into the beginner/intermediate categories
- Publishers naturally target the largest market segments
- The search results show extensive categorization of chess content specifically for "beginners," "intermediate," and "club players"
- Content for advanced players (1800+ Elo) represents a much smaller, specialized market
The remaining 15-25% would be advanced content for expert-level players, masters, and specialized theoretical works. This distribution makes commercial sense since publishers want to reach the broadest possible audience, and the vast majority of chess enthusiasts who purchase instructional materials are working to improve from beginner to intermediate levels.
A strange thought:
Could it be that all that training material is a big (perhaps the primary) reason why the vast majority of players NEVER improve above club level?
PART II:
ReplyDeleteCould it be that “reading and nodding along” doesn’t really foster improvement?
A variation on an aphorism:
"Don't study what the old (and new) masters wrote; study what the old (and new) masters did."
I am unaware of any “master” who achieved that level of skill by exclusively studying club-level instruction.
As an example of my jaundiced view, consider that one of the first things taught is the material value of the pieces. The specific numerical values are unimportant; use Reinfeld’s values or the modern values derived by GM Kaufman by an in-depth analysis using a computer. In either case, the values are useful (for club players to get a quick idea of why not to just throw pieces away willy-nilly) but virtually useless for players above club level. Why? Because the values are averages. They should be used like training wheels for a bicycle; as soon as you learn to balance yourself, get rid of them!
Nassim Nicholas Taleb provides some excellent advice:
Never try to cross a river that is (ON AVERAGE) four feet deep.
Yet, once we “learn” a table of values, it seems quite “natural” to always use it as a first basis for evaluating whether to sacrifice or not. We “see” the annotation “White sacrifices his Queen on f7” and immediately it triggers a System 1 “fight or flight” response—will we be able to regain that material? If we cannot SEE a clear path to checkmate or gain of material, we (usually quickly) abandon the idea because it is a material sacrifice, and material cannot be thrown away for nothing.
This feeds directly into IM John Watson’s thesis that modern chess is “rules-independent.”
Consider how a “master” would look at the same idea of a sacrifice on f7. The idea will be “Can I remove a defender of the killzone so that my other pieces can get into the killzone?” In this view, the average material value of any piece has no meaning; only the capturing capability matters. Belaboring the “obvious”: each and every piece has the capability to either capture or not capture on a specific square at a specific time. That is the only salient feature to be considered in most cases.
Will there come a time (in the future of the calculations) that will necessitate totaling up the material gained or lost? Perhaps, at the end, but checkmate has a tendency to eliminate that requirement altogether.