More on calculation
Due to the work of prof. Adriaan the Groot, we nowadays mainly think of patterns when we think of calculation. The more patterns we have collected the better. Some of us (me) will add the frequency of occurrence to that.
The transfer problem is how to teleport the knowledge from one position to the other. We solved it by focusing on conceptualization of the solution.
Pruning of the tree of analysis is done by logic. Logic is destructive by nature, and it shows which variations are not worth calculating.
And the latest finding is understanding. In understanding, logic and patterns are combined, while system 1 and system 2 look over the shoulder of attention.
How does this work in practice?
 |
| Black to move |
2r5/4k1pp/p2p4/BpnPp3/4q3/5Q2/PP1K1bPP/3R1R2 b - - 5 28
The pattern at hand is the following killbox:
From this pattern we can build the following logical narrative:
- To get the rook from c8 to c2 we need to clear the c-file with tempo
- Nb3+ does the job
- White is now looking for a move that both deals with the check AND covers the mating square c2
- Qxb3 does the job
- Queen b3 is now overloaded. It must cover both mating squares c2 and e3. It must prevent Rc2 and Qe3
- Rc2+ lures away the white queen
- After which Qe3# delivers mate
A correction to the squares mentioned, based on the diagram:
ReplyDeleteFrom this pattern we can build the following logical narrative:
• To get the rook from c8 to c2 we need to clear the c-file with tempo
• Nb3+ does the job
• White is now looking for a move that both deals with the check AND covers the mating square c2
• Qxb3 does the job
• Queen b3 is now overloaded. It must cover both mating squares c2 and e3. It must prevent Rc2 and Qe3
• Rc2+ lures away the white queen
• After which Qe3 delivers mate
My apology if this seems pedantic; I had no problem understanding your point. (I fully expected that you would find this correction before anyone else.)
There are multiple stock tactical and mate patterns involved in this position. “SEEing” the stock patterns allows rapid calculation.
1st: WBa5 is LPDO, and can be one target of a knight double attack on b3 (WKd2, WBa5), forcing White’s reply 2. Qxb3. Double attack combined with line clearance.
2nd: Black can attack the White king with 2… Rc2+. As you noted, the White queen now has to defend two different stock mate patterns: Box Mate (on c2) and “Rose” Mate (on e3). Since the focal squares are a knight’s distance from each other, the queen is unable to cover both squares.
Black checkmates—Q.E.D.
Did this position arise in one of your games?
FWIW:
The following link is not something to distract you at this point; just file it away under “Things I might waste time on at some unspecified future date if I have nothing better to work on.”
I found a quite interesting tutorial on the King, Bishop and Knight endgame checkmate by the late GM Daniel Naroditsky. It has several intriguing insights on how to use mini-plans (my descriptive phrase, not GM Naroditsky’s) to step from one phase to the next, and also within each phase. I found his generalization of the bishop is very often used as the close quarter combatant and the knight is used as the perimeter defender to be very helpful in the first phase (getting the lone king to the edge of the board). His approach is based on the “W” maneuver. His description of the (often missed) “waiting move” by the Bishop is also very helpful. It makes the calculations easier to “SEE” when it appears the lone king has been allowed to escape from the enclosure.
The biggest problem I had is the redundancy of several statements—at times, it seems like a “stream of consciousness” rather than a planned out instructional video.
LINK: Bishop + Knight Mate Simplified | Principles of Chess Endgames | GM Naroditsky – YouTube
LINK: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRK7XLhGz_c
Thx!, I corrected it.
DeleteIt is from the game Xin Luo vs. A. Ismagambetov (2002).
DeleteA final (I hope!) quibble:
DeleteQueen e3 is now overloaded.
should read:
Queen b3 is now overloaded.
Thx!. I'm still a few beads short.
DeleteNot really. It's hard to catch errors when we "know" what we meant to say. It's very difficult to prevent System 2 from making substitutions to "make sense" out of what is presented to our eyes. That holds true for what we "SEE" on the chessboard as well.
DeleteThere are several comments in that Naroditsky video where he explicitly states that he reconsidered a suggested move (one based on "principles") after calculating a few moves into the future.
DeleteIt reminded of the analysis sessions I had a long time ago with NM Richard Bustamente, who was rated almost 2400 USCF at the time. I would focus on "principles" (primarily gleaned from Nimzowitsch) while he would focus exclusively on concrete variations. He would start calculating a variation, then suddenly reject it because of something he saw while looking ahead. He never mentioned general principles.
The "trick" is definitely THE TRICK!
Since the trick works so well, chess theory basically is put on hold. I try to think beyond the trick. Which is of course no recipe for success. (or maybe even a guarantee for failure). But that doesn't matter.
DeleteNothing devaluates as fast as knowledge. A novelty in chess devaluates the moment it is played with success. You can't expect a long lasting revenue from knowledge. Only skill has a hurdle for obtaining it. It cannot be copied without effort and understanding.
ReplyDeleteJudit Polgar said: in my days, it often was enough to use my intuition. But nowadays that doesn't work anymore. The new generation has learned to work with computers, and they learn concrete calculation.
ReplyDeleteAnd it is shown in the commentary room. The "old school" commentators feel often that their instinct is no match for the eval bar. To the extent that Judit called it the "evil bar" at a certain moment.
Sindarov indicated that he has a thought process that makes the difference. He keeps that secret "for obvious reasons", as he said it.
ReplyDeleteA thought process is meant to prune the tree of analysis before you start calculating.
" I don’t want to explain my thought process in a game in detail, for obvious reasons. But I can summarize it like this: I’m always calculating, and when I have to make a decision without time to calculate everything I’d like, I rely on my intuition. Very concrete calculation is the basic element of modern chess.”
ReplyDeleteAs far as I know, Sindarov was only in serious time trouble in round 1 of the candidates tournament. He used time pressure against his opponents as a weapon in the other games.
ReplyDeleteWe seem to have solved the Babylonian confusion around concrete calculation.
ReplyDeleteWhat are rules? A method to prune the tree of analysis.
What said John Watson? There are too many exceptions on the rules, so the rules are not useful. Replace them by concrete analysis.
Me: concrete analysis is based on logical narratives. This logical understanding is used to prune the tree of analysis.
He who uses logical understanding never feels the urge to mention that because it speaks for itself.
Again, somewhat off topic; ignore if you wish.
ReplyDeleteI found confirmation of the “trick” in the Naroditsky video at 22:44 and 24:37. He falls back on calculating because the example position he set up does not lend itself readily to his principle-based W maneuver. Unfortunately, what he “SEEs” (while looking off into space) remains inside his head.
it's a little bit awkward right because
22:46 you're you're like king and bishop are
22:48 slightly on the wrong
22:51 sides
22:52 so the best thing to do probably this is
22:54 actually not so easy let me think for a
22:56 second
22:58 boom boom boom boom
23:00 okay i think i know what i want to do
24:37 huh
24:38 what would i do here i'm trying to find
24:40 i know like
24:42 how i would do it but i'm trying to find
24:43 a pure way maybe king d6 yeah king this
24:46 king d6
24:48 yeah it's the wrong w but it like in
24:51 this case it doesn't matter you can you
24:53 can almost like do it impromptu
Not trying to talk ill of the dead. Naroditsky at the time was a 2600+ GM.
I copied out the transcript and then went through it, correcting the errors in transcription, and adding diagrams after every move, 162 pages in a Word document. (Yeah, sometimes I can be OCD.) While doing so, I realized that there are several good indirect reasons to learn this endgame, having nothing directly to do with learning this specific ending for its own sake. Zugzwang, waiting moves, “boxing” the enemy king with a minimum of pieces, moving the enemy king using compulsion, and so forth.
As always, YMMV infinitely.
It were the videos of commenting grandmasters that convinced me that the trick was decisive from novice to the super grandmasters.
DeleteThis means that even the difference between a super grandmaster and a grandmaster is decided by the trick.
DeleteHence the difference in ranking in freestyle chess and regular chess will tell you how much a grandmaster leans on opening preparation.