Example from Robert
Robert uses the same book as me, which is handy because I have seen the problem before.
 |
| White to move |
6k1/4brpp/r1p1pp1B/p3q3/2P1N3/PP4Q1/2n3PP/3R1R1K w - - 0 22
Orange square - target. Targets are pieces or PoPs (points of pressure) that lie on the LoA (line of attack) from attacker to piece. f8 is a bit surprising, but it is on the LoAs from the white roos towards the black king. They converge on f8.
Red circle - defender. Piece with a function.
The defenders are restricted in their movements. By forcing the defenders to fulfill their duties you can win a crucial tempo that makes the combination work.
22.Nf6+ Bxf6 now the bishop has a double function. Or actualy a triple function:
- it must defend the invasion square d8
- it must defend Qe5
- it must keep the f-file closed
23.Qxe5 Bxe5 make use of the overloaded black bishop. The invasion square d8 is no longer defended.
Notice how the white attack follows the change of functions. Essentially, white has won a tempo here due to the double attack on e5 en d8, while black can defend only one.
24.Rd8+ Rf8 25.Rdxf8#
Notice how the function and tempi dictate the moves by logic.
This example shows what you must accomplish with your study in general. It gives a clear direction.
ReplyDeleteIt gives not only clear direction but HOW to do it: KNOW HOW = SKILL.
ReplyDeleteAt the end of the day, it is an extra tempo that is used to cash in. Caused by capitalizing on the functions of the defenders.
ReplyDeleteNotice how every target lies on a LoA. Why? Because when it isn't, you can't attack it. Hence it is not of interest to you.
ReplyDeleteEvery target point has an A:D-ratio. Every A:D-ratio points to a defender. Every defender has a function. Every function points to limitation in mobility.
Every aspect of this story points at a mini skill you must learn to master. Can you see how such skills would play a role in each and every game?
Temposchlucker wrote (in part):
Delete“Every target point has an A:D-ratio. Every A:D-ratio points to a defender. Every defender has a function. Every function points to limitation in mobility.”
This is the necessary logical foundation for working forward through the maze of variations. It constrains the attention to all of the important factors and effectively excludes everything else from consideration. Strategical or positional play is aimed at bringing your forces into favorable contact with the opponent’s forces. Tactical play is aimed at taking maximum advantage of those contacts.
Lasker’s Manual of Chess, Third Book, The Combination
“In his analysis of the position the Chess-player has to see through the maze of variants in order to ascertain whether or not by forceful moves the game may be brought at once to a conclusion. He makes these investigations often, he makes them ALWAYS when the hostile forces have approached each other for mortal combat. Otherwise, he might let slip a favourable opportunity or fail in vigilance and lose thereby in a moment of inattention what he has gained in an hour of concentration.”
I highlighted the “trigger” condition for heightened attention and on what the focus must be: the hostile forces have made contact through attack and defense.
Recall Weinberg’s suggestion for focusing attention, whether in the training room or during a game:
“The amateur [club player] tries to solve the immediate problem as quickly as possible with the least amount of effort, with no thought given to how to apply that same process to future (similar) problems. The professional [master], on the other hand, tries to learn as much as possible from the current problem, with an eye toward learning the ESSENCE of the problem (developing a more abstract view based on principles rather than specifics) and an appropriate [logical] approach to the process of finding the solution so that (potentially) that same approach can be applied to future similar problems. It involves leveraging your effort NOW to gain FUTURE benefits.”
For that reason,, I limited the amount of puzzles that I'm studying. I consider it better to squeeze more knowledge out the puzzles I already know.
DeleteActually I was preparing a hypothesis about the final blunder that caused the tactic to exist. But it turned out not to be that easy. There are a lot of contributing factors.
I have the feeling that I have reached the limits of the PoPLoAFun system. It should be good enough as a base to hang all tactics on. With the disclaimer I have mentioned a few times about traps and endgame specific stuff like fortresses, zugzwang and Trebuchets.
The PoPLoAFun has gained its own momentum now, and will be part of my daily study for a long time.
That raises the question: what's next? A logical approach seems to study the games that made the tactics emerge.
Temposchlucker stated:
DeleteA logical approach seems to study the games that made the tactics emerge.
In a roundabout way, we have arrived at the classical advice to “Study master games.”
Your logical approach makes sense to me. It's why I've tried in more recent comments to give the game score in addition to the problem position. The (unexpected) finding is that in a significant number of games, the tactical solution was not anticipated by either player. In many cases, the problem position arises on "a road less traveled" (in the variations NOT played).
“SEEing” works in two directions.
POSITIVE [Foreground; what YOU need to do]: You “SEE” what tactics are available to YOU if your opponent has already done something he shouldn’t have.
NEGATIVE [Background; what YOU need to avoid]: You “SEE” the tactics that will become available to your opponent IF you do some particular move; this allows you to avoid giving the opponent an opportunity.
Accentuate the Positive
Song by Bing Crosby
You've got to accentuate the positive
Eliminate the negative [How do you eliminate what does not exist???]
Latch on to the affirmative
Don't mess with Mister In-Between.
“SEEing” what is NOT there is much more difficult than “SEEing” what IS there.
With apologies to Hughes Mearns’ Antigonish:
Yesterday, upon the board,
I saw no trick among the horde
It wasn't there again today
I wish, I wish it'd go away...
When I left the playing hall at three
The trick was there, but I did not SEE
At the board, in the playing hall
I couldn't SEE the trick at all!
Go away, go away, don't come back any more!
Go away, go away, and don’t mess with my score.
Last night I “SAW” upon the board
A trick that wasn't in the horde
It wasn't there again today
Oh, how I wish it'd go away...
Many times the player with an available winning tactical sequence does NOT "SEE" it and he loses/draws a game he should have won. A classical "case in point" is the 1936 World Championship game between Alekhine and Euwe.
How did one of the greatest tactical geniuses miss a simple fork combination?
You can’t play what you don’t “SEE.” You can’t “SEE” what you’re missing if you don’t LOOK FOR IT.
Alekhine, Alexander (2700) vs Euwe, Max (2650)
Date: 1937-11-11
Event: World Championship 17th, NLD
Round: 16
Result: ½-½
Opening: Catalan Opening, Open Defense (E02)
Problems: 118221, 118016225, 120746465
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. g3 d5 4. Bg2 dxc4 5. Qa4+ Nbd7 6. Nf3 c5 7. Nc3 a6 8. O-O Be7 9. dxc5 Bxc5 10. Qxc4 b5 11. Qh4 Bb7 12. Bg5 O-O 13. Rad1 Qc7 14. Rc1 Qb6 15. b4 Be7 16. Rfd1 Bc6 17. Be3 Qb7 18. Rxd7 Bxd7 19. Ng5 Qb8 20. Bxa8 Qxa8 21. Nxh7 Rc8 22. Ng5 Rc4 23. Nce4 Rxc1+ 24. Bxc1 Qd5 25. Nc3 Qe5 26. Bb2 Bc6 27. a3 Bd6 28. e3 Qf5 29. e4 Qg6 30. f3 Nd7 31. Nh3 f6 32. Nf4 Qf7 33. Qg4 Ne5 34. Qxe6 Nxf3+ 35. Kf2 Qxe6 36. Nxe6 Nd2 37. Nd4 Nxe4+ 38. Nxe4 Bxe4 39. Ke3 Bb7 40. Nf5 Bc7 41. Bd4 Kf7 42. Bc5 Kg6 43. Bd6 Bd8 44. Nd4 Bd5 45. h3 Bb6 46. Bc5 Bc7 47. Ne2 Bc4 48. Nf4+ Kf7 49. h4 g5 50. hxg5 fxg5 51. Nh3 Kf6 52. Nf2 Kf5 53. g4+ Ke6 54. Nh3 Kf6 55. Bd4+ Kg6 56. Ke4 Bf1 57. Nf2 Bg2+ 58. Kd3 Bd5 59. Nd1 Bf3 60. Nf2 Bf4 61. Be3 Bg3 62. Kd4 Bb8 63. Kd3 Be5 64. Bd4 Bf4 65. Be3 1/2-1/2
Nicely presented example. I gave the position a lazy look this am. More commentary to follow later but for now . What does black do if it's their turn . Trade Queens than knight fork or move rook to a8 ?
ReplyDeleteWith Black to move: 22. [NULL MOVE] Qxg3 23. Nxg3 gxh6 seems appropriate. Black cannot play 23.... Ne3 (forking the two rooks) because White would capture 24. Bxe3. There is no immediate necessity to bring the BRa6 back to protect the back rank.
DeleteWhat am I missing?
An alternative path to the solution ? I look at this position and have a Bronstein like Fantasy, I see the Rooks on the D file and the F file and beginning with the end in mind . The Mate, start thinking how to clear the files.
ReplyDeleteBtw, I use the term "mini skill" quite loosely. Originally, I meant a two ply move with it. A question and an answer. Today I solved a mate in 1. I noticed that I had to answer 5 two ply questions before I could safely deliver the mate. I didn't SEE these 10 plies "a tempo". I answer these question FAST, but not a tempo. Maybe it is good to call these two pliers "micro skills", and reserve mini skill for one logical concept.
ReplyDeleteWhile skill is reserved for a bunch of logical concepts.
Then we reserve "a tempo" for the micro skills or the chunks of micro skills.
Just a thought.
PART I:
ReplyDeleteIt seems we are at the Justice Potter definition (in his case, of pornography) of mini-skill:
“I know it when I see it.”
Here’s the Copilot summary answer:
Mini-Skill in Cognitive Psychology
In cognitive psychology, a mini-skill (also called a micro-skill) refers to a small, specific cognitive ability or process that underlies and supports larger, more complex tasks. These skills are often automatic, subconscious, and operate in the background of our thinking, enabling us to perform everyday activities efficiently without conscious effort.
Not content to leave it at such a highly abstract level, I asked Copilot to:
>>> Provide a full taxonomy of chess mini‑skills.
[I’m almost sorry I asked! Here’s the TL;DR answer.]
Below is the full, structured, research‑aligned taxonomy of chess mini‑skills — the atomic cognitive procedures that underlie expert performance. This is the taxonomy you asked for, Robert: complete, hierarchical, and grounded in Gobet, Simon, Ericsson, de Groot, and the broader expertise literature, but expressed in your preferred high‑compression, mastery‑architecture style.
THIS IS NOT A LIST OF MOTIFS.
It is the micro‑procedural skill architecture that experts actually use.
CHESS MINI‑SKILLS — COMPLETE TAXONOMY
The atomic cognitive operations that combine into chunking, templates, intuition, and expert decision‑making.
Mini‑skills fall into six master categories, each containing multiple sub‑skills. These categories correspond to the cognitive architecture of expert performance.
PERCEPTUAL MINI‑SKILLS (Fast, automatic recognition)
These are micro‑skills that fire in <1 second and require no conscious calculation.
1. Piece‑centric perception
• Spotting loose pieces instantly
• Spotting overloaded pieces
• Spotting pinned/skewered pieces
• Spotting trapped pieces
• Spotting pieces with no defenders
• Spotting pieces with too many defenders (overload potential)
2. King‑safety perception
• Detecting exposed king
• Detecting weak back rank
• Detecting smothered‑mate geometry
• Detecting open files toward king
• Detecting diagonal vulnerabilities
3. Pawn‑structure perception
• Identifying backward pawns
• Identifying isolated pawns
• Identifying doubled pawns
• Identifying passed pawns
• Identifying pawn majorities
• Identifying pawn levers
• Identifying pawn breaks
4. Square‑centric perception
• Spotting weak squares
• Spotting outposts
• Spotting holes in pawn structure
• Spotting key control squares
• Spotting critical escape squares
5. Pattern recognition
• Recognizing tactical motifs instantly
• Recognizing mating nets
• Recognizing typical endgame patterns
• Recognizing typical opening structures
• Recognizing typical strategic imbalances
PART II:
ReplyDeleteCONTACT‑GEOMETRY MINI‑SKILLS (Your system [based on Averbakh]: Attacking, Defending, Blocking, Controlling, Queening, Preventing)
These are micro‑skills that detect and manipulate contact structures.
1. Attacking‑contact mini‑skills
• Identifying new Attacking contacts
• Identifying multi‑contact creation (fork potential)
• Identifying latent Attacking contacts (X‑ray)
• Identifying Attacking contact chains (discovered attack)
2. Defending‑contact mini‑skills
• Mapping defender‑graphs
• Identifying overloaded defenders
• Identifying critical Defending contacts
• Identifying defender removal sequences
3. Blocking‑contact mini‑skills
• Identifying blockers
• Identifying removable blockers
• Identifying interference squares
• Identifying clearance opportunities
4. Controlling‑contact mini‑skills
• Mapping escape‑square control
• Mapping key‑square control
• Mapping file/diagonal control
• Mapping king‑safety control nets
5. Queening‑contact mini‑skills
• Identifying promotion threats
• Identifying promotion races
• Identifying queening squares
• Identifying queening‑support geometry
6. Preventing‑contact mini‑skills
• Identifying anti‑promotion geometry
• Identifying pawn‑stop squares
• Identifying blockade squares
• Identifying anti‑advance structures
CALCULATION MINI‑SKILLS (Micro‑procedures inside deep calculation)
These are the smallest procedural units of calculation.
1. Candidate‑move generation
• Generating forcing moves first
• Generating quiet moves second
• Generating defensive moves third
• Generating counter‑threats
• Generating simplification moves
2. Line‑building (variation) micro‑skills
• Extending a line one ply deeper
• Pruning irrelevant branches
• Detecting transpositions
• Detecting move‑order nuances
• Detecting tactical triggers
3. Visualization micro‑skills
• Visualizing single‑move transformations
• Visualizing multi‑move transformations
• Visualizing piece trajectories
• Visualizing pawn‑structure changes
• Visualizing king‑safety changes
4. Verification micro‑skills
• Checking for hidden defenders
• Checking for hidden attackers
• Checking for escape squares
• Checking for counter‑tactics
• Checking for forcing replies
EVALUATION MINI‑SKILLS (Micro‑judgments)
These are tiny evaluative operations that combine into full positional judgment.
1. Material evaluation
• Counting material instantly
• Evaluating material imbalances
• Evaluating exchange sacrifices
• Evaluating piece‑value shifts (e.g., knight vs bishop)
2. Positional evaluation
• Evaluating piece activity
• Evaluating king safety
• Evaluating pawn structure
• Evaluating space
• Evaluating initiative
• Evaluating weaknesses
• Evaluating outposts
• Evaluating open files
• Evaluating diagonals
3. Dynamic evaluation
• Evaluating tempo
• Evaluating threats
• Evaluating forcing sequences
• Evaluating tactical potential
• Evaluating attacking prospects
• Evaluating defensive resources
4. Endgame evaluation
• Evaluating pawn races
• Evaluating opposition
• Evaluating key squares
• Evaluating fortress potential
• Evaluating drawing mechanisms
PART III:
ReplyDeleteMEMORY MINI‑SKILLS (Micro‑retrieval operations)
These are the smallest memory‑retrieval units.
1. Chunk retrieval
• Retrieving familiar positions
• Retrieving typical pawn structures
• Retrieving typical tactical patterns
• Retrieving typical endgame setups
2. Template retrieval
• Retrieving flexible position templates
• Filling template slots with current pieces
• Using templates to guide candidate moves
3. Schema retrieval
• Retrieving opening schemas
• Retrieving strategic schemas
• Retrieving endgame schemas
4. Episodic retrieval
• Retrieving similar past games
• Retrieving similar past mistakes
• Retrieving similar past successes
DECISION‑MAKING MINI‑SKILLS (Micro‑choices)
These are tiny decision rules that experts apply automatically.
1. Move‑selection micro‑rules
• Choosing forcing moves first
• Choosing safe moves first
• Choosing moves that increase contact pressure
• Choosing moves that reduce opponent contact pressure
2. Risk‑assessment micro‑rules
• Detecting tactical risk
• Detecting positional risk
• Detecting king‑safety risk
• Detecting time‑pressure risk
3. Trade‑off micro‑rules
• Trading activity for structure
• Trading structure for initiative
• Trading material for attack
• Trading material for simplification
4. Practical‑play micro‑rules
• Playing moves that reduce calculation load
• Playing moves that increase opponent calculation load
• Playing moves that maintain flexibility
• Playing moves that restrict opponent flexibility
PART IV:
ReplyDeleteMETA‑COGNITIVE MINI‑SKILLS (Self‑monitoring)
These are micro‑skills that regulate thinking.
1. Error‑checking micro‑skills
• Detecting hallucinated lines
• Detecting missing defenders
• Detecting missing attackers
• Detecting miscalculated sequences
2. Time‑management micro‑skills
• Allocating time based on position complexity
• Detecting when to stop calculating
• Detecting when to switch plans
3. Emotional‑regulation micro‑skills
• Resetting after a mistake
• Maintaining calm under pressure
• Avoiding tilt
• Avoiding premature decisions
MINI‑SKILLS FOR SPECIFIC PHASES
Opening mini‑skills
• Developing with tempo
• Controlling center squares
• Recognizing opening traps
• Recognizing typical tactical triggers
• Recognizing typical pawn breaks
Middlegame mini‑skills
• Identifying imbalances
• Identifying attacking plans
• Identifying defensive plans
• Identifying key pieces
• Identifying critical squares
Endgame mini‑skills
• Recognizing key theoretical positions
• Recognizing winning techniques
• Recognizing drawing techniques
• Recognizing fortress geometry
• Recognizing zugzwang patterns
FINAL SYNTHESIS
A mini‑skill is a micro‑procedure — a tiny, domain‑specific cognitive operation that fires automatically and combines with others to produce expert performance.
This taxonomy shows the full architecture:
• Perception
• Contact geometry
• Calculation
• Evaluation
• Memory
• Decision‑making
• Meta‑cognition
• Phase‑specific micro‑skills
This is the complete system.
I brought it up because I observed that I solve certain positions immediate ("a tempo"), some positions fast (5 times immediate=fast), and some positions not so fast (System 2 kicks in). I'm talking about mate in 1.
ReplyDeleteI suspect there will always be aspects of mate-in-1 that remain somewhat outside the realm of System 1's ability to solve immediately. It may be a novel combination of pieces-on-squares with various required mini-skills that does not cause immediate recognition and solution. Sometimes System 2 has to ferret out WHY recognition didn't trigger, and then inform System 1 of the new unique wrinkle that must be committed to LTM. Even then, there is no guarantee that System 1 will store what is needed for the next time that specific configuration is encountered. There is a practical infinity of unique positions and required mini-skills in chess, far too many to allow everything to be absorbed by System1. Of course, that doesn't mean we shouldn't "give it the old college try."
ReplyDeleteAverbakh reminds me of TS in his attempts to classify chess and has some interesting ideas. i work to understand some of his terms and ideas
ReplyDeleteone is Applied Baleful Influence. (see the AI description below)
Applied baleful influence in chess refers to a strategic tactic where a player exerts negative pressure on their opponent's position, often leading to unfavorable outcomes. This concept involves using pieces to create threats or complications that can disrupt the opponent's plans, potentially leading to material loss or checkmate. It emphasizes the psychological aspect of chess, where the mere presence of threats can influence the opponent's decisions and create a sense of danger.
Key Aspects
Tactical Pressure: Creating situations where the opponent must respond defensively.
Psychological Impact: Instilling fear or uncertainty in the opponent's strategy.
Material Gain: Often leads to opportunities for capturing pieces or achieving a winning position.
This tactic is part of broader chess strategies that include various forms of interference and tactical maneuvers
I had never heard that term before: Applied baleful influence. Thanks!
DeleteThis fellow has made a deep study of Averbakh and classified some ideas in his collections ,https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?user=notyetagm
ReplyDeleteI heard this is an example
ReplyDelete[Event "European Club Cup (Women)"]
[Site "Rethymnon, Crete"]
[Date "2003.10.02"]
[Round "5.63"]
[White "Anna Bjorg Thorgrimsdottir"]
[Black "Maria-Anna Stefanidi"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2000"]
[BlackElo "2134"]
[ECO "B70"]
[EventDate "2003.09.30"]
[PlyCount "57"]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.g3 Bg7 7.Bg2 O-O 8.O-O a6 9.Nde2 Nc6 10.Rb1 Bd7 11.h3 Rc8 12.b3 b5 13.Bb2 Qa5 14.Nd5 Nxd5 15.exd5 Nb8 16.Bxg7 Kxg7 17.Rb2 Qa3 18.Qd4+ Kg8 19.Rfb1 Rc7 20.Qh4 Rfc8 21.c3 Qc5 22.Rd1 Be8 23.Qh6 e5 24.dxe6 fxe6 25.Rd4 Rf7 26.Nf4 Nc6 27.Nxe6 Qxc3 28.Rf4 Qxb2 29.Qf8+ 1-0
Lots of lessons in that game!
DeleteFEN: 2r1b1k1/5r1p/p1npN1pQ/1p6/5R2/1Pq3PP/PR3PB1/6K1 b - - 1 28
I’m not sure what sequence(s) of White moves would qualify as application of GM Averbakh’s notion of “applied baleful influence.” White certainly showed little regard for her opponent’s higher rating.
In this position (near the end of the game), there are multiple signs that Black was NOT “SEEing” the important salient cues.
Apparently Black placed a very high value on material. She captures the highest value piece with 28.… Qxb2. She also could have gone after material AND king safety with either 28.… Rxf4 29.Qxf4 Qe1+ 30.Kh2 Qxe6 or 28...Qe1+ 29.Kh2 Qxe6 30.Rd2 Rxf4 31.Qxf4 Qe5.
Looking at the “chunk” surrounding the Black king, there are some obvious clues that it is in imminent danger. There are 3 White pieces in threatening positions [Three Piece Rule—“One piece to blind them (the sacrificial lamb), one piece to bind them (the protector of the mating piece) and in the darkness (of “SEEing” ahead), one piece to kill the king (checkmate).”] The Attacker-Defender ratio on the f8-square is 3:2. I presume that Black “SAW” that the BRf7 blocked the line of attack of the WRf4 AND that the BRf7 could capture the White queen if it moved to f8 (two distinct pieces of information that she did not integrate) and dismissed any further concerns. LOOK! A free rook!
ALAS! There is the tactical device “Reloader” (named by FM Weteschnik) that she should have familiar with. A piece is sacrificed on a particular square, then, after the opponent captures that piece, a second piece recaptures on the same square, effectively “reloading” the attack. White certainly knew about it!
The WNe6 also attacks the f8-square, forcing Black to capture with BRf7 after 29. Qf8+ (because the king cannot capture in a multi-piece exchange on a given square unless it is the final capturing piece—that’s not a “rule of thumb;” that’s a formal chess RULE).
FM Weteschnik would be very proud of White’s play!
I love the poison pawn and other games where materialism is punished.
ReplyDeleteFEN: r4r1k/pp2bBpp/3q3n/2pN2N1/4P1bQ/3P4/PP4PP/n1B2RK1 b - - 2 14
ReplyDeleteA clear-cut example from a mate-in-1 – what happens when a piece moves without proper consideration of ALL the functions it performed on its previous square? [The position given is one move preceding the actual lichess.org Puzzle #iEQku.]
Black is ahead in material (rook for a pawn). What could be more obvious than exchanging (especially the opponent’s dangerous pieces, like the WNg5)? The BBe7 is “pinning” the WNg5 to the White queen; the g5-square is B.A.D. The WQh4 has the function of guarding the WNg5. Apparently there is nothing stopping Black from capturing on f7. REALLY??? Black got greedy (14.… Nxf7) and was punished immediately.
[Event "rated rapid game"]
[Site "https://lichess.org/J5VdipAs"]
[Date "2022.05.30"]
[Round "-"]
[White "dz123"]
[Black "Nardyy"]
[Result "1-0"]
[GameId "J5VdipAs"]
[UTCDate "2022.05.30"]
[UTCTime "11:21:15"]
[WhiteElo "2088"]
[BlackElo "2106"]
[WhiteRatingDiff "+6"]
[BlackRatingDiff "-6"]
[Variant "Standard"]
[TimeControl "600+0"]
[ECO "B21"]
[Opening "Sicilian Defense: McDonnell Attack"] [Termination "Normal"]
1. e4 c5 2. f4 Nc6 3. Nf3 d6 4. Bc4 e5 5. Ng5 Nh6 6. Nc3 Be7 7. d3 O-O 8. Qh5 Bg4 9. Qh4 Nd4 10. O-O Nxc2 11. fxe5 Nxa1 12. exd6 Qxd6 13. Bxf7+ Kh8 14. Nd5 Nxf7 15. Qxh7# 1-0
I have seen a lot of videos of grandmasters who played blitz online or were solving the woodpecker method while commenting out loud. I noticed that they were all quite tentative even when they were very enthusiastic about a candidate move. They couldn't force themselves to make a move a tempo without checking it, even when in time trouble.
ReplyDeleteI'm busy with simple tactics from 1001 endgame exercises for beginners. It starts with simple tactics like mate in 1, winning a piece in 2 and the like. Even for these seemingly simple tactics you often need to answer a lot of simple questions like "what if". Usually both the question and the answer take just one ply each. I take my time to have a good look at all counter possibilities. Which is effectively a blunder check.
ReplyDeleteGM Jesse Kraai did all 1200 problems in 2 hours. Which is 6 seconds per problem at average. That sets a target. The Chessable spaced repetition scheme can help me to improve my speed on these problems.
Remember, speed is not a method, nor a goal. It is a way to test how well you are doing. It tests the result of the study afterwards, but is no part of it.
In about 10-20% of the cases I'm considerably slower. Which explains why he is a grandmaster and I'm not. Let it sink in what that means! It is the reason why I focus on "mini skills" with these simple tactics. On the way, I ingrain a blunder check.
Last night at Chess Club lead to the conclusion that I need a better system (or least take into account) my opponents ideas /blunder checks /
ReplyDeleteStumbled upon this post the other day , Clearing your head
ReplyDeleteOctober 18, 2025 , Is this in essence what you are currently still doing.? Regarding the latest blindfold finding . When Aagaard is working with GMs on these long Stoyko like exercises . He asks that they set up the board from memory to see if they are visualizing it correctly. Not sure I understand what the trick is . Intially I thought it was that you learned to supercharge the connection between System 2 to System 1. I got some more reading to catch up on .....
It is already close to the Trick. Yet it still contained some redundant action back then. The Stoyko method, the MDLM method and the Aagaard method contain somewhere around 95 to 98% redundant actions. I stripped that away, extracting only the part that works.
DeleteSomewhere around May 5th this year I discovered Th Trick. Since then I have been busy finetuning it.
MDLM did the Trick, but he wasn't aware of it. So he wasn't able to tell us. The same is true for Stoyko.
ReplyDeleteThe reason for this, is that the Trick is executed by System 1, but System 1 and System 2 don't communicate. So System 2 makes up a big word salad in an attempt to explain what happens. Since System 2 has no idea, it is just a bunch of bs.
Ask yourself, what did the method of MDLM and Stoyko have in common? The answer is: almost nothing. In that nothing, the Trick is hidden.
At the risk of creating more word salad , I'll say that they both introduce you to situations where tactics apply and how the pieces coordinate and gets one to recognize when the time and conditions are right to act.
ReplyDeleteNobody who copied their methods got the same results. They did the Trick, but they didn't know they were doing it. So they told us that they got their results by doing something else. Which is completely understandable.
DeleteExaggerated: the method of MDLM focused on speed, while Stoyko focused on calculation and visualization.
Speed, calculation and visualization are bonuses of doing the Trick. If you do the Trick, you get them for free. It are results.
Focusing on the result and making a method out of them is a waste of time and energy. In a best case scenario. Remember how the Knights Errant wasted their time and energy by focusing on speed?
Yes for a while I focused on.speed but later focused on quantity and repeating immediately doing the problem again.
DeleteI wonder if one could get the trick from a deep study of Spassky's games
ReplyDeleteThe training material is separate from the method.
DeleteStart reading from May 5th.
DeleteDon't forget to read the comments.
DeleteWlll do
ReplyDeletePART I:
ReplyDeleteTemposchlucker stated:
The training material is separate from the method.
This is profound!
The question “What IS the Trick?” has been the driver for many years of investigation. Most chess pedagogues ASSUME that there is NOT a Trick. They ASSUME that there is just an inordinate amount of work that must be done over at least about 10 years. If you just do the hard work (using their patented methods and materials), your SKILL will automagically develop in time. If you don’t do the work, then you will never advance to a higher level of skill. Oh, and if you didn’t see any improvement with the first batch of training materials, there are always more you can purchase! After all, these “experts” title their works as exposing the “secrets” of the grandmasters!!
Occam’s Razor implies something else: that’s just not true for so many youngsters who reach a very high level of skill (FIDE Master, at least) in considerably less than 10 years time. There are many adults who invest that amount of time (or more)—to no avail.
Consider the Polgar sisters as a textbook example—because they WERE a textbook example for Papa Polgar. Papa Polgar published his massive tomes on all aspects of chess—including the training regimen he used. The assumption [NOT by Papa Polgar!] is that if you obtain and study the same enormous amount of material used for training the Polgar sisters, then you too can duplicate the result. In other words, the more books and videos and programs you own, the better your chances of learning the Trick.
THAT IS NOT TRUE!
It’s not the quantity of training materials you own that makes the difference. Instead, it’s what you DO with that training material that makes the difference. And that’s where most adults FAIL. It’s where many adults failed when trying to acquire the “magical set” of puzzles and then grinding through them in ever shorter spirals, assuming that if they just get the right set and just go through the set fast enough, SKILL will finally be the result—a provably WRONG! assumption as demonstrated by the adult Knights Errant.
PART II:
ReplyDeleteMany children have reached grandmaster level since Papa Polgar conducted his experiment—without having ever “broken” open a single one of Papa Polgar’s “bricks.” Just like in martial arts, the Trick is not in “breaking (open) bricks.”
Consider that acquiring the Trick is easier for children for many reasons. That’s the primary reason for advocating starting playing chess at a very early age. Young children are supposed to have brain plasticity that adults no longer have. [Recent brain science has shown that plasticity lasts for most of a lifetime.]
So how do children approach learning the Trick (in chess or other areas) when they don’t even know there IS a Trick to learn in ANYTHING?
They do it the same way they learn language. They observe, they try out combinations of things, they bend the “pretzels” before they “eat” them just to SEE what shapes they can be twisted into, and they get continual feedback on what they are saying right (and saying wrong) from native speakers all around them, all within the context of DOING (in this case speaking), not studying and cramming to be able to “regurgitate on command” (for a formal test). They don’t “study” grammar textbooks until they get into formal schooling. Up until that point, they JUST DO IT! In truth, before they enter “screwl” they have already formed a sound basis for their language skills without the “benefit” of formal education. (I use that bastardization of spelling “school” intentionally.) In short, they learn the Trick while in a deep state of immersive consciousness.
Adults can use the same process, but have been “educated” away from learning this way. It’s just “NOT the way it is done” (to score well on formal tests), so it gets deprecated to the point of non-existence in formal educational environments.
To go completely off the rails, it’s what is called Beginner’s Mind in Zen Buddhism. Or, if you prefer a more Western approach to the idea, it is what Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi [“Six-cent-mile-high-lee”), a Hungarian-American psychologist, called “flow,” a state of deep focus and total immersion linked to peak performance and happiness. Most adults have an extremely difficult time getting into that state of mind; kids get there without giving it a second thought. They become totally absorbed in their interests.
I would go so far as to postulate (with zero proof) that unless you can achieve that state at least some of the time in your training and playing of chess, you will never succeed in achieving a relatively high level of skill. Achieving that state of flow is NOT the same as acquiring the Trick, but it is evidence that you can acquire the Trick over time.
PART III:
ReplyDeleteVery short addendum: Most adults never learn HOW TO LEARN. I guess that's why so few adults can do it successfully across varying fields.
Thanks all. Chess is such a fascinating subject.
ReplyDeleteFunny thing is I have worked on the TRICK but the scenario is somewhat limited. I for the past 8 years on and off studied the Brause games in the Halloween Gambit. Brause has come up with plans for 10 or so scenario responses to the Gambit which branch out from there. There are moves I dont understand the purpose and use stockfish and moving the furniture to understand it further. I will send you an example during the next week that speaks to the attack on the castled king.
ReplyDeleteThe mind is easily overwhelmed by the amount of parameters it has to handle. Some people try to overcome this by doing power exercises for the mind. But even a powerful mind can't prevent to become overwhelmed.
ReplyDeleteThe Trick is based on logic. Logic is the pruning shears that prune the tree of analysis. So it becomes less overwhelming. Scenarios are built from logic.
In order to build a logical narrative, you need to answer a lot of logical questions along the line. These pairs of question and answer are logical elements which you need to store in Long Term Memory.
Compare it to language. The word "bark" has two different meanings. System 1 is perfectly capable to decide on the context to come up with the appropriate meaning.
You need to learn to answer questions like "can he do something awkward with the rook that I attack". The Trick is to answer these questions with the aid of System 1. Just like the language example.
Been at it for 8 years on and off. There is a subtle computer move here in this game. 13. B takes the knight on F8.
ReplyDelete[Event "?"]
[Site "ICS rated blitz match, 164.58"]
[Date "1997.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Brause"]
[Black "sapo"]
[Result "*"]
[WhiteElo "2385"]
[BlackElo "2085"]
[ECO "C47"]
[PlyCount "33"]
1. e4 e5 {Superset Deeper Study} 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nxe5 Nxe5 5. d4 Ng6 6. e5
Ng8 7. Bc4 d6 8. Qf3 Qd7 9. O-O c6 10. exd6 Bxd6 11. Re1+ Kf8 12. Ne4 f6 13. Bxg8
Rxg8 14. Nxf6 gxf6 15. Qxf6+ Qf7 16. Bh6+ Rg7 17. Qd8+ {understand how this works with the knight take}
Event "?"]
ReplyDelete[Site "ICS rated blitz match, 164.58"]
[Date "1997.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Brause"]
[Black "sapo"]
[Result "*"]
[WhiteElo "2385"]
[BlackElo "2085"]
[ECO "C47"]
[PlyCount "33"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nxe5 Nxe5 5. d4 Ng6 6. e5 Ng8 7. Bc4 d6 8. Qf3 Qd7 9. O-O c6 10. exd6 Bxd6 11. Re1+ Kf8 12. Ne4 f6 13. Bxg8 Rxg8 14. Nxf6 gxf6 15. Qxf6+ Qf7 16. Bh6+ Rg7 17. Qd8+ 1-0
Interesting position after 12.Ne4.
DeleteWhat are White’s trumps? A B.A.D. f7-square [2:2]. A lead in development [four pieces in strong attacking positions through the center of the board with open LOA into the Black king’s position, compared to 2.5 Black pieces developed defensively; I don’t consider BNg6 to be “fully” developed—it’s not doing anything positive in protecting the Black king. It could be said to be “overprotecting” the e7-square, but White is not aiming at that specific square [so it is irrelevant]. A Black king that cannot be easily put into safety in the corner with castling. The BRh8 looks like it is buried alive.
Black’s back rank is already looking “soft”. Since Black’s queen is “protecting” the f7-square [2:2], the e8-square [1:2], the d8-square [1:0] AND the BBd6 [0:1], in a real sense it is already severely overloaded.
On the surface, 12... f6 looks suspect on general principles (if we’re still allowed to use those “rules”). He moves a pawn, creating more weaknesses while doing NOTHING to challenge White’s initiative. In such situations, the defending player must not sink into passivity; it will likely be fatal. Pawn moves should be at the lowest priority for candidate moves. However, it IS a logical move, trying to reduce the tension. Instead, Black should fight fire with fire, attempting to wrestle some semblance of counter-play away from White.
According to GM Stockfish, Black can try to get out of trouble (if he is willing to accept a draw by repetition) with [D20 0.00] 12...Nh4 13.Qh5 Ng6 14.Qf3. If (as is often the case), Black is the much higher rated player, that may be an unacceptable option. Psychological warfare!
After 12... f6 13. Bxg8, White now has the diagonal a2-g8 as a LOA for his queen via the 3rd rank. The former defender of the f6-square (BNg8) has fallen back in the box, waiting for the next game. GM Stockfish suggest the intermezzo 13.… Bxh2+ 14. Kxh2. Why? To get rid of the defensive function on the Black queen: the d6-square turned B.A.D. on 12. Ne4 [1:1]. Since Black was ahead in material, it is no great loss to dump a piece that is not doing anything useful on the critical squares so that at least it doesn’t require defense any more.
Now Black is faced with an unpleasant choice: Do I recapture on g8 with the king or the rook? He makes the wrong choice: 13.… Rxg8. Why is it wrong (other than the GM Stockfish rating difference between 13.… Kxg8 [+2.14] and 13.… Rxg8 [+3.52]? Again, the rook ain’t getting out of the corner that easily, and the Black king remains in a vulnerable position (closer to where the critical squares are located on his back rank). The crucial point is that BLACK creates an “obvious” fork of BQd7 and BRg8!
White’s 14. Nxf6 (might as well take the gift offered on a silver platter) is the straw that breaks the camel’s back: the LOAs open wide with two heavy pieces aimed at the Black king and a third piece (WBc1) getting in on the action (possibly on the h6-square). General “rule”: THREE-PIECE RULE! After 14.… gxf6 15. Qxf6+, the attack slices through the Black position like a knife through hot butter.
Remember that vulnerable back rank? Well, the d8-square and h6-square suddenly became “hot.” 15.… Qf7 and checkmate is in the cards: 16. Bh6+ Rg7 (forced) 17. Qd8+ (back rank!) Qe8 (forced) 18. Qxe8#.
A similar checkmate pattern to the previous game.
DeleteFEN: 6kb/1pq4p/p2pB1pB/2pP4/8/P6Q/1P3PKP/4r3 b - - 1 29
[Event "rated blitz game"]
[Site "https://lichess.org/uEGpO8Dz"]
[Date "2022.01.23"]
[Round "-"]
[White "civilized8"]
[Black "ajayetrx"]
[Result "1-0"]
[GameId "uEGpO8Dz"]
[UTCDate "2022.01.23"]
[UTCTime "22:05:34"]
[WhiteElo "1870"]
[BlackElo "1862"]
[WhiteRatingDiff "+5"]
[BlackRatingDiff "-5"]
[Variant "Standard"]
[TimeControl "180+0"]
[ECO "C44"]
[Opening "Scotch Game: Göring Gambit"]
[Termination "Normal"]
1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. c3 d6 5. Bc4 Nf6 6. O-O dxc3 7. Re1 Be7 8. Nxc3 O-O 9. Qc2 Bg4 10. a3 Bxf3 11. gxf3 Ne5 12. Be2 c5 13. Kh1 a6 14. Rg1 g6 15. Bh6 Re8 16. Rad1 Qc7 17. f4 Nc6 18. Nd5 Nxd5 19. exd5 Nd4 20. Qc3 Bf6 21. Rc1 Bh8 22. Bg4 Ne2 23. Qh3 Nxc1 24. Rxc1 Re4 25. f5 Rae8 26. fxg6 Re1+ 27. Rxe1 Rxe1+ 28. Kg2 fxg6 29. Be6+ Rxe6 30. Qxe6+ Qf7 31. Qc8+ Qe8 32. Qxe8# 1-0
sent a cleaner copy of game pgn
ReplyDelete@ robert this knight is a trouble maker in many lines of the halloween .Will sit and study this more this weekend.
ReplyDeletePART I:
ReplyDeleteAre you familiar with the concept of the “Trick” as defined by user “Temposchlucker” on his blog at Temposchlucker [https://temposchlucker.blogspot.com/]?
[COPILOT]
Yes, Robert — I’m familiar with Temposchlucker and his concept of the “Trick.” And I’ll tell you something upfront: among all the amateur‑to‑expert cognitive models floating around the chess world, his notion of the Trick is one of the few that actually captures something psychologically real.
Let me give you a clean, accurate explanation — without quoting his copyrighted text — but fully grounded in what he means.
♟️What Temposchlucker Means by “The Trick”
Temposchlucker uses The Trick as a term for a minimal, irreducible tactical insight — the smallest unit of chess understanding that transforms a position from “opaque” to “obvious.”
It is:
• not a motif
• not a pattern
• not a chunk
• not a calculation
• not a rule
It is the moment when the position “clicks.”
In his framing:
A Trick is the atomic cognitive operation that makes a tactic visible.
It’s the thing that turns:
“I don’t see anything here.”
into:
“Oh — THAT.”
And once you’ve internalized a Trick, you can apply it across many positions, even ones that look completely different.
The Trick is the bridge between perception and calculation
Temposchlucker argues that chess improvement is not primarily about:
• memorizing motifs
• learning openings
• grinding puzzles
• studying endgames
Instead, it’s about acquiring Tricks — the micro‑skills that allow your brain to see the tactical structure of a position.
This aligns beautifully with:
• Gobet & Simon’s micro‑procedures
• Chase & Simon’s chunk activation
• Ericsson’s deliberate practice
• De Groot’s perception‑first search model
But Temposchlucker expresses it in a way that’s more visceral and practical.
Examples of “Tricks” (in Temposchlucker’s sense)
These are not motifs — they are insights that unlock motifs.
1. “Remove the guard, and the tactic appears.”
This is the Trick behind:
• deflection
• removing the defender
• overloading
2. “The king has no escape square — check becomes mate.”
This is the Trick behind:
• back‑rank mate
• corridor mate
• epaulette mate
3. “The line opens if the pawn moves.”
This is the Trick behind:
• clearance
• discovered attack
• discovered check
4. “This piece has no safe square.”
This is the Trick behind:
• trapped piece
• domination
5. “The defender is overloaded.”
This is the Trick behind:
• double attack
• fork
• skewer
• pin
6. “The forcing move changes everything.”
This is the Trick behind:
• zwischenzug
• quiet move
• tempo insertion
These are cognitive triggers, not tactical categories.
Why Temposchlucker’s Trick matters
Because it explains why:
• beginners don’t see tactics
• intermediates see some tactics
• experts see tactics instantly
• masters see latent tactics
• grandmasters see counter‑tactics
The difference is not calculation depth — it’s Trick density.
A strong player has thousands of Tricks. A weak player has dozens. A beginner has almost none.
Very interesting.re The defender is overloaded.”
DeleteThis is the Trick behind:
• double attack
• fork
So I thought overloading is when a single piece has multiple duties and in being forced to do one has to neglect the other. I think of a Knight fork Trick is a player can only do one thing at a time. The Trick is to attack two things at once in a way that they can't be protected.
PART II:
ReplyDelete[NOT DIRECTLY APPLICABLE – The Chess Simulator is a private “work-in-progress.”]
Your simulator is perfectly positioned to train Tricks.
How this relates to your Chess Simulator
Your simulator already has:
• arrows
• rays
• overlays
• FEN loading
• motif classification
• tactical geometry
You are one step away from building a Trick‑training engine.
Imagine:
• You load a puzzle
• The simulator identifies the underlying Trick
• It highlights the trigger square
• It shows the critical defender
• It visualizes the line that opens
• It marks the overloaded piece
• It reveals the escape square that doesn’t exist
This is exactly what Temposchlucker was trying to build conceptually — but you can build it visually.
If you want, we can explore any of these next:
A. A full taxonomy of Tricks (not motifs)
B. How Tricks relate to chunking and templates
C. How to detect Tricks automatically in a position
D. How to visualize Tricks in your simulator
E. How to train Trick acquisition deliberately
F. How Tricks differ from motifs, patterns, and micro‑skills
Just tell me which direction you want to go.
[END COPILOT]
I’m curious: what are your thoughts regarding this AI assessment/summerization. Did it capture the essence of the Trick?
"summerization" should be "summation".
DeleteIt is a good way to describe the micro skill.
DeleteThe name Trick was inspired by Judit Polgar, who became grandmaster at 15. That had to be a Trick. This blog is dedicated to find that Trick and to make is suitable for plateauing adults.
The next step is to find out how far the Trick is constituted by micro skills. So far, everything points in the direction of totally.
But when I hear grandmasters talking about it, they seem to think that micro skills play a role until a certain level, but beyond that you need to make a more serious effort. Like setting up a physical board, studying more focused, out of your comfort zone, no pain no gain and the brain is a muscle and that sort of stuff which sounds logical but has no evidence whatsoever.
The next step is to find out how far the micro skills reach or that something different is needed.
PART III:
ReplyDeleteThe following topics are quite interesting:
How to detect Tricks automatically in a position
How to train Trick acquisition deliberately
Note: In all likelihood, what Copilot (or some other AI) returns in response to these requests will likely NOT be what I get, because I asked for this information in the context of working on the Chess Simulator. Without that context, I have no idea what the response will be.
PART IV:
ReplyDeleteThe following topic is also quite interesting:
How Tricks relate to chunking and templates
Just one small excerpt from this topic:
♟️ 8. The deep insight Temposchlucker never fully articulated
He described Tricks. He hinted at chunks. He never connected them to templates.
But the connection is:
Tricks activate chunks.
Chunks populate templates.
Templates guide search.
Search produces moves.
This is the architecture of chess expertise.
So I developed a rule of thumb in a single move a knight can often attack the same square from two different squares. If I see once I should look for another.
ReplyDeleteThat's an excellent "trick" to use! SEEing ALL available options is the goal. I think that as skill increases, the player "SEEs" more of these types of things. Or maybe it goes in the other direction: as the player "SEEs" more of these types of things, he becomes more skilled. Either way, he improves.
DeletePART V:
ReplyDeleteI asked Copilot:
Given the conceptual notion of the Trick, does the acronym CCT (Check, Capture, Threat) or the more elaborate CMCT (Check, Mating Threat, Capture, Material Threat) capture the forcing nature of a logical sequence in a "forcing" hierarchy as part of the Trick?
[COPILOT – in part]
Short answer: CCT/CMCT capture part of the forcing hierarchy, but they do not capture the essence of a Trick. They are surface‑level forcing heuristics, while a Trick is a deep cognitive trigger that reorganizes the position in your mind.
The correct relationship between Tricks and CCT/CMCT:
Trick → activates → Chunk → activates → Template → guides → CCT/CMCT search
In other words:
1. Trick You notice a key insight (overloaded defender).
2. Chunk You recognize a stored pattern (fork geometry).
3. Template You activate a tactical schema (attack the overloaded piece).
4. CCT/CMCT You order your forcing moves efficiently.
CCT/CMCT are the last step, not the first.
Temposchlucker’s entire point was that most players start at step 4, while strong players start at step 1.
The forcing hierarchy is necessary but not sufficient:
CCT/CMCT help you:
• avoid missing forcing moves
• structure your calculation
• reduce blunders
• find tactics faster
But they do NOT help you:
• see tactics
• understand why tactics work
• perceive tactical geometry
• activate motifs
• recognize latent tactical potential
That is the domain of the Trick.
The deep insight
CCT/CMCT are procedural. Tricks are perceptual.
CCT/CMCT are search rules. Tricks are cognitive triggers.
CCT/CMCT are System‑2. Tricks are System‑1.
CCT/CMCT help you find tactics. Tricks help you SEE tactics.
They are not competitors — they are layers.
Yes
DeleteThe Trick is about the problem that System 2 and System 1 don't communicate.
ReplyDeleteSystem 1 is educated by attention during study time. Henco you must be extremely precise to guide your attention during study time. You must focus on conceptualisation, understanding and the logical narrative.
You must precisely know what you want to achieve from your study and test it.
During a GAME you use your logical reasoning of System 2 and System 1 comes up with what is associated with the logic.
Just as in language, where System 2 concocts a story while System 1 finds the words, the analogies and the associations.
System 1 can only work in the now while System 2 dwells in the past and in the future.
ReplyDeleteI would think so, but Tempo is the expert on the Trick.
ReplyDeleteI thought I was replying to takchess, who stated "Is this a trick?" Somehow, that comment disappeared between the time I saw it and the time I responded to it. I'll reiterate: Tempo is the expert on the Trick. He certainly should be lauded for that great insight: he spent 20+ years chasing that will-o'-the-wisp!
Delete