Understand your openings
Now the dust has settled around the scope of the trick, it's time to have a fresh look at the implications.
For those who haven't followed, the trick is what John Watson describes as "concrete calculation" and what I describe as "understanding". It is exactly the same. The only difference is that it didn't speak for itself for me until now. The reason that I call it understanding is because I have to understand it yet, while the titled player already understands it. So he doesn't realize that that is the problem. Before you call it understanding, after you call it concrete calculation.
Knowledge is superficial. Because you can construct what knowledge does we are inclined to think that we understand the matter. But construction is done by system 2. Hence it is slow and error prone.
Understanding is about the same knowledge, but now you have absorbed it. You know what it does without the need to construct it by system 2. It is ready for immediate use. You don't need words anymore to describe it, since you just know. System 2 is verbal. You SEE what the knowledge does with the aid of system 1. Words aren't necessary, and even can become an obstacle because the verbal system is too slow.
The difference between any two levels in rating is decided by the extent of how deep you master the trick.
There is some type of work-around for this in the opening. When you learn a series of variations by heart, you might be able to outplay your opponent when he is out of book and you are not. That way you can simulate your understanding.
But that is rather silly of course.
This means that you must understand your opening. I reckon that one variation takes one day to absorb. Just like one tactical puzzle takes one day to absorb. Often consumed in 30 repetitions over time.
If I apply that to my openings, it means that I need about 100 variations for white and 100 variations for black as the bare minimum. A year must be enough to deepen your understanding of your openings.
 |
| Understand your opening |
After the opening, there is the Vukovic gap. The area between the end of the opening and the start of committing your pieces to the start of a kingside attack. Plus you have the attack itself.
For the white opening that I play, I reckon that I talk about 200 variations. For black I'm still looking for ways to fill the Vukovic gap.
So now we have an objective way to measure the amount of work that is needed. It is directly related to understanding the matter.
That is why I put endgames on the back burner. I know what I don't understand and how to fix it. My tournaments show that it will gain me 150 rating points at the cost of 1-2 years work to fix my endgame. To transform the endgame into a weapon, I need another 2 years, I reckon.
It takes a lot of time to figure out every move in the opening. Books and courses provide only coarse grained information. On the other hand, it is the only way to learn to play an opening without needing the hand of a grandmaster to guide you all the way. Once you get the hang of it, it will become easier and more natural. I hope.
ReplyDeleteMost chess software that is in use for registering openings, is geared around variations. But somehow that is too limiting. How can I register idea's independent from the variations and the exact piece positions?
ReplyDeleteAny idea can be flexible in two ways:
- The attacking pieces and defending pieces have some flexibility in their placement, as long as they play the same role. Whether a bishop is on a1, b2 or c3 is often irrelevant when its role is to attack g7. The same is true for the defenders. They can have a relative positions to the lines of attack.
- and there are pieces that play no role at all in an idea. Whether a pawn is at a7, a6 or a5 might play no role at all. Both the attacking and the defending side have pieces that are just bystanders.
I'm trying to learn the QID. And I notice that a lot of black pieces mirror certain positions of the Colle Zukertort with white.
When you play an early e6 and b6 as black, you can get openings like the QID, the Nimzo Indian, the French and the Dutch.
But there is no decent way invented to register the common ideas. As of yet.
Isn't the flexibility of an "idea" based on (if not the same thing as) prototypical "patterns"?
DeleteConcrete calculations require initial recognition of "patterns" in order to be timely and effective. In any given concrete position, there will always be "familiar" relationships of piece configurations (creating Points of Pressure, Lines of Attack, and having Functions). Expert skill is not found in the mechanical process of calculation, but in the experiences stored in LTM which are readily accessible via intuition.
Repeating an old comment by Herbert Simon:
'The situation has provided a cue; this cue has given the expert access to information stored in [long-term] memory, and the information provides the answer. Intuition is nothing more and nothing less than [pattern] recognition.’
My view is that two things are needed for skillful play:
(1) Pattern recognition—intuition identifies the cues (both what is there and also what is NOT there) which trigger the retrieval of a narrow range of variations.
(2) Mental simulation—the process of calculation, evaluating the consequences of one given variation at a time, guided by intuition, searching for the first option that matches ALL relevant cues.
If this process does NOT provide a usable option, then revert to System 2 and a logical process.
There is, of course, no guarantee that either approach will produce a viable option.
I’m not sure why there would be any difference in concrete calculation approach in the three broad phases of the game. The distinction, IMHO, is that some of the relevant patterns/cues may be different in the three phases, whereas there are prototypical patterns that are applicable to all phases. For example, in the opening, getting the pieces into effective battle array (development) is not generally applicable to the two later phases. In the endgame, a significant goal may be to promote a pawn, which is not generally found in the opening. Yet, prototypical tactical themes/devices can be found in all three phases (simple forks, pins, skewers, etc.)
Yes.
DeleteFurthermore, I don't like the word intuition. People use it for all kind of things. If everybody used the definition of Herbert Simon, then it would be ok. But that is not the case. So usually I avoid the term for that very reason.
DeleteThe phases of the game are highly related to different scenarios. Development in the opening, invasion in the middlegame and promotion or mate in the endgame. All three types of scenarios heavily rely on prototypical tactical themes/devices. Chess is 99% tactics, for that matter.
DeleteThe Colle Zukertort has around 20 common ideas and maybe another 20 ideas that are more rare. The Chessable course I have, tries to convey that at me in 273 variations. That are 3300 moves. That is ridiculously inefficient.
ReplyDeletetries to convey that at me should read as tries to convey that to me. If I'm not mistaken.
DeleteThe myth of intuition has been debunked. It has been replaced by concrete calculation.
ReplyDeleteWhat hallucination is for an LLM is intuition for mankind.
ReplyDeleteMy intuition said: The difference between a top player and me is based on a single trick.
ReplyDeleteMy intuition said: John Watson is wrong with his rule independence and replacing it by concrete calculation.
Now: the trick turns out to be concrete calculation.
My intuition says: a chess engine is right 35% of the time. This means that a top player who plays 100% correct according to the chess engine is right 35% of the time. Due to the mediocre evaluation function of chess engines.
Intuitions are half truths that I belief are real truths. Both bias and bias inspired reasoning make be belief that I was right all along.
The past three years I have become better at concrete calculation. Usually it shows itself at the end of the middlegame, when my opponent has become tyred and the position has become complex. I became better in schwindling my way out.
ReplyDeleteThere are counter productive factors too. Often my way out is converting the position into a better endgame. Which I then mess up.
New aspects arise which I have never tried to play before.
tyred should read tired.
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsELPqJxJd8
ReplyDelete