Make every move logical
The method I advocate to absorb logical patterns is based on understanding. Make every move logical, and System 1 will connect the pattern to the logic. Like the image of a word is connected to its meaning. Once you develop an eye for it, you will discover a whole host of one- and two-movers that garnish your combination. Take the following example:
 |
| Black to move |
4r3/1p3k1r/p1P2bp1/3p4/PP1PqP2/1N2RRP1/4Q3/6K1 b - - 0 45
Turov, M. vs. Movsesian, S., Wijk aan Zee 2013
The most principled variation goes as follows:
- 45. ... Qb1+
- 46. Qf1 Reh8
- 47. Qxb1 Rh1+
- 48. Kf2 R8h2#
The PoPLoAFun system is ideally suited to identify defensive resources. Because defence is about interrupting the LoA (line of attack). Let's see.
 |
| White to move after 45. ... Qb1+ |
By focusing on the LoAs you can immediately see all ways that white can try to dodge the bullet.
46. Kg2
46. Kf2 notice the difference. On f2 the king has no contact with the invasion square h2
46. Rf1
46 Qf1
46. Qe1
46. Qd1 just giving away the queen
46. Nc1 just giving away the knight
Here you have all one- and two-movers. Describe the logic of every move. But before you start, find an answer to the question "why play 45. ... Qc1+ in the first place? Why not play 45. ... Reh8 immediately?".
At first sight, I saddle you with an awful lot of work. But the good news is: look how much you can learn from 1 puzzle!
When logic reasoning becomes the habit for every move, you soon will find that you absorb the logic. Imagine how you relieve the cognitive load of calculation.
We are talking about a limited amount of puzzles. MDLM needed only 1100 puzzles from CT-art 3.0 to gain 600 points. Although he didn't know how he did it.
In the above position, you can learn the logic of about 15 moves. Study 16,500 (15x1100) one- and two-movers and you are above 2100!
Besides that, chess becomes fun when you start to see the logic of every move!
That doesn't mean that there are 16.500 one- and two-movers in 1100 puzzles. Since logic transfers from one position to another. They are geared around the basic tactical themes.
ReplyDeleteYou beat me to the punch line.
DeleteRepeating from a previous comment:
Cognitive research has shown that (regardless of what is considered to be a "chunk") that it takes at least 6-8 seconds of PERCEPTION, followed by up to one minute of ABSTRACTION, in order to establish a "chunk" in long-term memory (LTM). Any time shorter than that will NOT result in storage of a "chunk" in LTM.
Assuming (worst case) that each of the one-mover and two-mover “chunks” are unique (I seriously doubt that!), if we assume that PERCEPTION time is 10 seconds and ABSTRACTION time is 1 minute, then given 16,500 “chunks” to transfer to LTM, 16,500 “chunks” X 1.2 (rounded) minutes = 19,800 minutes to reach 2100 (MdlM’s end rating) or 330 hours. Surprisingly, that’s a lot closer to Dr. Lasker’s untested hypothesis that, given an appropriate training method, a player could reach the “first category” (Expert, not Master) in approximately 200 hours. Notably, he did not limit his training method to tactics. His primary focus was on developing good judgment based on valuations in all phases of the game.
Presuming 1 hour per day of focused training would require 330 days. At 5 days per week (with time off for “good behavior” on the weekends), it would take approximately 66 weeks or about 16.5 months or 1.5 years.
There could be an UNIDENTIFIED base set of “recognizers” (perhaps one-movers and two-movers) acquired through training that constitute a solid foundation for recognition of a vast number of analogous positions. If we assume a “chunk” is roughly equivalent to a recognizable pattern, then the guess-timate that a club player can recognize 10,000 patterns, a Master can recognize 50,000 patterns, and a Grandmaster can recognize 300,000 patterns is grossly over-estimated IF the patterns that can be recognized at the lower levels are subsumed in the patterns at the higher levels AND the base set of patterns is common to all players.
If the patterns that can be “recognized” are NOT limited to a base set of specific patterns that were trained but include patterns that can be recognized by analogy through abstraction, then perhaps that difference in quantity becomes more understandable.
Hypothetical math sprinkled like fairy dust over the issue of training.