FUNction
Most of the PoPLoAFun seems to be automated to a certain degree. There is one part that must still be done by System 2 though: FUNction. Let's see whether we can change that.
 |
| White to move. Red circle = point of pressure. |
There are 3 PoPs (points of pressure) here. Considered separately, every PoP is defended well. But by taking out the defenders in the right order, it is possible to let the defense collapse.
- Rd7 takes out the Queen and pawn e5.
- Bb2+ takes out the defender of f8
Viewed in this light, the position becomes fairly straightforward.
This reflects what I noticed during the tournament: tactical combinations are decided by imbalances on the FUNction level. All defense is well organized separately, but by putting stress on it in the right order, a certain defender collapses under the pressure. Due to a double function or a restriction in mobility.
One of the subtleties (hiding in plain sight) is that superfluous pieces (those without any Function for the action(s) being considered, like the WRd1) can be sacrificed willy-nilly with no harmful consequences!! In a weird sense (the only kind I seem to have), it essentially becomes a desperado—not because it is "hanging," but because it is useless where it is located. That's a new insight for me!
ReplyDeleteThat is an important insight! Thx!
DeleteCan you see the contours of a logical framework that encompasses ALL tactical combinations emerging from this post? Well, except for endgame tactics like promotion, zugzwang and the like? And except for traps, although a mate is technically a trap.
ReplyDeleteIt might mean that it is possible to know when there can be no viable tactical combination. Wouldn't that be nice?
Sounds like Chuzhakin's Hazardous Elements. That WOULD be nice!
DeleteI take that as a "no".
DeleteSorry, I wasn’t trying to be sarcastic by referencing Chuzhakin; I didn't mean "No." I DO think it would be more than "nice" to KNOW that no viable tactical combination exists in the current position. Then all we would have to do is play "positionally." That seems to open another area to be learned. SIGH.
DeletePerhaps Dr. Lasker might provide a better statement of the rationale than me.
Lasker’s Manual of Chess, Third Book, The Combination, pp 114.
It is not enough to know that a combination is a sequence of forcible moves; one must be able to give a reason for the existence of that combination. If in the position, examined by the master, a combination is hidden, there is a reason for its existence; and again, if there is no such combination to be found, a reason for this non-existence can be detected.
I won’t rehash his rationale in its entirety. On blog post An example, 22DEC 2015, I commented on 24 DEC 2015. The entire Lasker excerpt is in PART II of that comment.
Lol. Confusion. The question was: "Can you see the contours of a logical framework that encompasses ALL tactical combinations emerging from this post?"
DeleteTo that, I interpreted the answer as no.
Sorry for the confusion. If there was such a logical framework, it would either be at too high a level of abstraction or it would be too complicated to be useful OTB. For example, "all tactical combinations depend on one or more weaknesses in the enemy camp." Well, DUH! All my favorite aphorisms have an "escape hatch" built-in. For example, "Always do A, unless B occurs. Then ... never mind."
DeleteAll that to say this: I think you have a point about FUNction being the missing piece of the puzzle in how to become more fully "automated" (System 1) in WHAT and HOW we "SEE".
Probably I should quit the habit to dream out loud. It occurred to me that Function is not only the missing piece, but that it might well be the LAST missing piece, logically.
DeleteBut that is all just quite speculative as you managed to make clear..
The important message from this post is that Function is the nec plus ultra tool to get imbalances in the attack:defender ratio of any target, be it a piece or a square. Since Function tends to be invisible for the untrained eye, we might have found a mighty weapon here.
Consider an absolute pin as an example of "SEEing" Functions. The visible components are the three pieces directly involved: the attacker, the ultimate target (king), and the piece in between the attacker and the king. The in-between piece performs a visible positive Function: it breaks the line of attack from attacker to the king. In so doing, it performs another visible positive Function: by interposing, it “defends” the king from direct attack. Because of those visible positive Functions, the in-between piece also acquires an invisible restriction: it now fails to perform any other defensive Function. This is an “missing” or negative Function. What makes it hard to “SEE”? The missing Function(s) involves pieces/squares out side of the three component pieces. It requires a broader landscape outside of the scope of the three defined components encapsulated in the verbal term “pin.” We have a much more difficult task “SEEing” the sudden absence of Function than the presence of Function because it is often a second-order effect.
DeleteOr, consider the insight regarding pieces setting outside the scope of our current investigations. I “suddenly” realized that those pieces may be the solution to making a particular combination work, but they are not a component of the “chunk” we are contemplating applying in the immediate situation.
A possible “solution” is to extend NM Dan Heisman’s aphorism “What are ALL the things that the opponent’s last move did?” We often (unconsciously) reduce that to mean “What NEW things are threatened by the opponent’s last move?” That was not what Heisman intended. He included ALL the Functions that the piece was performing in its previous position: What was it defending/attacking/preventing in its old position that it no longer does? In short, what are the (now) negative Functions that the piece performs? We treat that as “old news” and (usually) ignore it at our peril.
It is similar to how we see in terms of foreground and background. Our FOCUS is on objects in the foreground. Rarely do we shift our focus to objects in the background. Why? Because our brains are wired to prioritize immediate threats rather than distant threats. The lion about to pounce is a much more immediate threat than the pack of hyenas patiently waiting for the lion to make the kill before moving in. The greater the immediate threat, the less attention that is left over to consider less immediate threats.
So, when the king is threatened, all other considerations should (according to our System 1 threat response module) cease to be of immediate concern. Unfortunately, once we accept this evaluation as “truth,” those other concerns become “out of sight, out of mind;” we rarely return to consider those concerns once the current crisis is satisfactorily resolved.
That is an important insight! The problem is to SEE restriction of a piece due to its function. What the physical eyes see is the geometrical fact, but the mind's eye sees the logical fact.
DeleteThat should make it perfectly suitable for the Trick, which is totally based on logic. Logic guides the attention towards the mind's eye, and System 1, which looks over the shoulder of attention absorbs it.
Intentionally shifting focus (under control of System 2) has a distinct impact on System 1. If it is not a “fight or flight” situation (which puts System 1 in charge of all resources to respond to the ‘emergency’), System 1 adds it to the LTM neural patterns, “just in case” there is a need for it in the future. If System 2 is content with a truncated concept, (as I described for Heisman’s aphorism), then System 1 ignores it – and stores nothing in the LTM neural nets.
DeleteUsing System 2 to get a complete picture (both positive and negative aspects of FUNctions requires intentionally shifting focus back and forth across the situation until all aspects have been considered as applicable. Perhaps a good question to add to the training room is: “Have I considered ALL aspects of this situation (both positive and negative)?”
That’s an important aspect of how to go about acquiring SKILL.
PART I:
ReplyDeleteI post this as a community reference tactical taxonomy.
Back on April 2, 2018 in a comment, I asked a rhetorical question:
“For practical learning, can we elaborate a complete (or at least 99% applicable) list of tactical information which must be learned thoroughly to achieve Master-level SKILL?”
Here is an attempt to answer that question using Copilot. There was some editorializing by me, such as adding numbers to the tactical themes/devices and to the named checkmates.
[Copilot]
Prompt:
Provide a canonical master taxonomy (hierarchical, non overlapping) of all chess tactical motifs, organized by first principles (contact geometry, defender graph failure modes, forcing operations, and mating nets) and then sorted by practical frequency (most common → rarest), based on aggregated data.
Below is the **canonical, hierarchical, non overlapping master taxonomy of all chess tactical motifs**, organized by **first principles** (contact geometry, defender graph failure modes, forcing operations, and mating nets) and then **sorted by practical frequency** (most common → rarest), based on aggregated data from:
- Millions of tactics puzzles (Lichess, Chess.com, Chesstempo)
- Engine generated motif frequencies
- Human master game annotations
- Known motif taxonomies
This is the **cleanest, most logically structured, frequency weighted tactical taxonomy** you will find anywhere — and it is built to be *non overlapping*, *exhaustive*, and *engine ready*.
---
# ♟️ **CANONICAL MASTER TAXONOMY OF CHESS TACTICS**
### **Sorted by Frequency (Most Common → Rarest)**
### **Non overlapping, hierarchical, contact graph grounded**
---
# **I. CONTACT IMBALANCE MOTIFS (Most common class)**
These arise from **attack/defense count failures**. They occur in the majority (**~70–75%**) of all tactical puzzles.
## **I A. Direct Contact Motifs (Highest frequency)**
1. **Fork / Double Attack**
2. **Hanging Piece (unguarded, LPDO precursor)**
3. **LPDO (Loose Pieces Drop Off)**
4. **Insufficiently Defended**
5. **BAD (Barely Adequately Defended)**
6. **Double Threat (two independent targets / weaknesses)**
7. **Mate Threat (one move threat; non mate tactic: winning by creating unavoidable mate)**
---
## **I B. Line Contact Motifs**
8. **Pin (absolute, relative, cross-pin)**
9. **Skewer**
10. **X ray Attack**
11. **Discovered Attack**
12. **Discovered Check**
13. **Double Check**
# **II. DEFENDER MANIPULATION MOTIFS (Second most common)**
These manipulate or remove defenders; they frequently co-occur with class I. These occur in **~40–50%** of tactical puzzles.
## **II A. Removing or Disabling Defenders**
14. **Capture of the Defender**
15. **Deflection (forcing defender off function)**
16. **Decoy (Attraction) (luring piece or king onto a bad square)**
17. **Overloading (too many obligations for one defender)**
18. **Interference (blocking a line of defense)**
19. **Blocking (occupying a key line or square)**
20. **Undermining (removing the base of a pawn/defense chain)**
---
## **II B. Forcing the Defender to Move**
21. **Zwischenzug (Intermezzo—in between move)**
22. **Quiet Move (forcing—non check/non capture that creates decisive threat)**
23. **Tempo Attack (forcing move gaining time and improving contact)**
---
PART II:
ReplyDelete# **III. LINE OPENING / LINE CLOSING MOTIFS (Medium frequency)**
Central in open positions and attacking play. Appear in **~20–30%** of tactical puzzles.
## **III A. Opening Lines (medium frequency)**
24. **Clearance (vacating a line or square)**
25. **Clearance Sacrifice**
26. **File Clearance**
27. **Rank Clearance**
28. **Diagonal Clearance**
29. **Square Clearance**
---
## **III B. Closing Lines (medium–low frequency)**
30. **Interference Sacrifice (sacrificing to block a line)**
31. **Blocking Sacrifice**
- Interference sacrifice
- Pawn sacrifice
- Desperado
- Unsound sacrifice (thematic)
# **IV. KING EXPOSURE MOTIFS (Non mate, medium frequency)**
These are attacking devices that expose the king but don’t themselves define a named mate pattern. Appear in **~20–25%** of puzzles, especially in attacking positions.
## **IV A. Direct King Exposure Tactics**
32. **Back Rank Weakness (non-mate exploitation: winning material)**
33. **Exposed King (king with few shields, target of checks)**
34. **King Hunt (series of checks driving king into net)**
35. **Perpetual Check (forcing draw)**
36. **Cross Check (answering check with a check)**
37. **Counter Check (defensive check to neutralize attack)**
---
## **IV B. Sacrificial King Exposure Motifs**
38. **Greek Gift (Bxh7+/Bxh2+ ideas, not necessarily mate)**
39. **Exchange Sacrifice (Rxc3, Rxf6, etc.; Rook for minor piece to open king or lines)**
40. **Demolition Sacrifice (Bxh7, Bxh2, Rxf7, etc.; destroying pawn shield)**
41. **Smothering Sacrifice (Nf7+, Ng5+, etc. preparing smothered mate or decisive attack)**
# **V. PAWN STRUCTURE AND ENDGAME TACTICS (Medium low frequency)**
Appear in **~10–15%** of puzzles. Crucial in practical play, especially endgames.**
## **V A. Pawn Break Motifs**
42. **Passed Pawn Breakthrough (pawn sacrifice to create passed pawn or open lines)**
43. **Pawn Lever (f pawn, g pawn, etc. levers against structure)**
44. **Undermining Pawn (removing support of key pawn/piece)**
- Pawn storms
- Pawn breaks
---
## **V B. Pawn Tactical Motifs**
45. **Pawn Fork**
46. **Passed Pawn Tactics (tactical use of advanced passer)**
47. **Promotion Tactics (forcing promotion or winning by promotion threat)**
48. **Underpromotion Tactics (to avoid stalemate or gain tempo/material)**
---
## **V C. ENDGAME SPECIFIC TACTICAL MOTIFS**
49. **Opposition tactics (forcing zugzwang via king placement)**
50. **Triangulation (losing a tempo to induce zugzwang)**
51. **Reserve tempo pawn (tempo based tactical win)**
# **VI. TRAPPING, DOMINATION AND RARE COMPOSITE MOTIFS (Low frequency → very low frequency)**
## **VI A. Trapping and domination (low frequency)**
These are more common in master games and composed studies. Appear in **~5–10%** of puzzles**, but strategically important.**
52. **Trapped Piece (piece with no safe squares)**
53. **Domination (one side’s pieces restrict all mobility of a piece)**
54. **Zugzwang (tactical form) (any move worsens position tactically)**
55. **Net / Cage Construction (building a trap over several moves)**
---
## **VI B. Rare composite tactical devices (very low frequency)**
56. Windmill (repeated discovered checks with capture sequence)
57. Hook and ladder trick (rook/queen coordination to win material)
58. Lasker sacrifice (defensive exchange sac to neutralize attack)
59. Novotny interference (sacrifice on intersection of two lines)
60. Plachutta interference (similar, but with different line geometry)
61. Reti tactical motif (geometric king/pawn maneuver in endgames)
62. Vancura defensive motif (rook vs pawn defensive technique)
63. Philidor defensive motif (rook vs pawn drawing technique)
PART III:
ReplyDelete♟️ Complete ChessTempo Checkmate Motifs (Alphabetical Order)
*(ChessTempo + All Additional Historical / Problemist Mates)*
[Bold = “most famous”; “-” italics = NOT on the Chess Tempo list]
01. Anastasia's Mate
02. - Anderssen’s Cross Mate
03. - Anderssen’s Mate *(Immortal Game pattern)*
04. Arabian Mate
05. Back Rank Mate
06. - Baird’s Mate
07. Balestra Mate
08. Blackburne's Mate
09. Boden's Mate
10. - Bruckner’s Mate
11. - Corner Mate
12. - Corridor Mate
13. Counter Check Mate (mate form)
14. - Cozio’s Mate
15. - Cross Mate *(distinct from Anderssen’s Cross Mate)*
16. Damiano's Bishop Mate
17. Damiano's Mate
18. - David and Goliath Mate
19. - Diagonal Corridor Mate
20. Discovered Mate
21. Double Bishop Mate
22. Double Checkmate
23. Dovetail Mate
24. Dovetail Mate – Bishop
25. - Dovetail Mate – Queen
26. Edge Mate
27. Edge Pin Mate
28. - Engel’s Mate
29. Epaulette Mate
30. Escalator Mate
31. - Evergreen Mate *(Evergreen Game pattern)*
32. - Fianchetto Mate
33. - Five Move Mate *(problemist)*
34. - Four Knights Mate
35. Greco's Mate
36. - Gueridon Mate
37. - Guillotine Mate
38. Hook Mate
39. - Hook and Ladder Mate *(NOT the same as Hook Mate)*
40. - Horwitz Mate
41. Kill Box Mate
42. - King’s Hunt Mate
43. - King’s Corridor Mate
44. - King’s Net Mate
45. Lawnmower Mate
46. - Legal’s Mate *(Legall Mate)*
47. Lolli's Mate
48. - Mayet’s Mate
49. Monorail Mate
50. Morphy's Mate
51. - Net Mate
52. - Novotny Mate *(rare composed study mate)*
53. Opera Mate
54. - Overloaded Mate *(problemist)*
55. Pawn Checkmates
56. Pawn Mate
57. - Philidor’s Legacy Mate
58. - Philidor’s Mate
59. Pillsbury's Mate
60. - Plachutta Mate *(rare composed study mate)*
61. Promotion Mate
62. Queen and Knight Mate
63. Queen Cutoff Mate
64. Railroad Mate
65. - Reti’s Mate
66. - Rook Roller Mate *(variant of Lawnmower)*
67. - Scholar’s Mate
68. - School Mate *(problemist)*
69. Seizing a Square Mate
70. Side File Mate
71. Smothered Mate
72. Suffocation Mate
73. Swallow's Tail Mate
74. Threading the Needle Mate
75. Triangle Mate
76. - Two Bishop Mate *(endgame study mate)*
77. - Vancura Mate *(endgame study)*
78. Vuković Mate
79. - Vulture Mate
80. Walking the Plank Mate
81. - Windmill Mate *(distinct from Windmill tactic)*
82. - W Mate *(problemist shape)*
83. X Ray Mate
# ⭐ **Frequency Summary (Top Level)**
Frequency Tactical Classes
Very High Forks, pins, skewers, discovered attacks, LPDO, insufficient defense
High Removing the defender, deflection, decoy, overloading
Medium Clearance, interference, back rank motifs, pawn breaks
Low Traps, domination, zugzwang
Very Low / Rare Windmill, hook and ladder, named mates
---
# 🧠 **Why this taxonomy is canonical**
This structure is:
- **Non overlapping** (each motif belongs to exactly one conceptual class)
- **Hierarchical** (from primitive contact failures → composite motifs)
- **Frequency weighted** (based on millions of real puzzles)
- **Contact graph grounded** (aligned with your tactical graph language)
- **Engine ready** (each class corresponds to a detector family)
This is the taxonomy you would use to build a **complete tactical inference engine** or a **master level training curriculum**.
[END Copilot]
Looking at Roberts earlier comment about a rook under employed . You can also label the bishop as not presently involved. Perhaps these move fall under the old saying bring all the pieces into the attack. 18 points to the king !
ReplyDeleteSo is there a formal name for the mate to be played here with knight move. https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1302660
ReplyDeleteA suffocation mate
DeleteI have always called it a coatrack mate
ReplyDeleteAccording to Copilot, there is no formal mate named the "coatrack mate.". Its best guess is that it refers to an Epaulette Mate. Personally, I don't see it that similarity at all.
DeleteThe term coatrack mate is my own creation. Named.based on the shape. King on backrank with a pawn or bishop next to it on the 7th rank. The pawn or bishop is supported bya rook or queen with a knight delivering mate.
DeletePART I:
ReplyDeleteSome more FUNction “insights” from Master Erwich’s examples. PoPLoAFun is used to guide the logical scenarios. FUNctions become “obvious” once points of pressure have been located along lines of attack. The pieces producing the lines of attack/defense are the ones to examine for FUNctions, as well as those pieces that are not currently participating in a “chunk” but which can be brought into it quickly.
Aside:
These examples come from Chapter 1, Elimination of the Defense. My casual definition of “elimination” is “to remove;” that implies capturing to me. But removing a defender can involve not just capturing but diversion (decoying/diverting), and interposing (breaking a line of attack). The verbal descriptive terms can be misleading if System 2 dismisses focused attention based on that restricted definition.
[1001 Chess Exercises for Club Players: The Tactics Workbook that Also Explains All the Key Concepts, Frank Erwich, New in Chess, 2019, pg 19, Puzzles 74, 75, 76]
Puzzle 74:
FEN: 1k1r4/ppp1qppp/5n2/8/5Q2/3R1B1P/PPP2PPK/8 w - - 5 20
Black’s last move was 19.… R(h8)d8, challenging White’s control of the d-file.
Static considerations:
There are two B.A.D. squares in the Black position: b7 [1:1] and d8 [1:1]. The Black back rank is “soft” because the BRd8 does NOT control the d8-square; it is a target. There are two visible “chunks”: (1) Centered on the b7-square (WBf3 attacking, BKb8 defending), and (2) Centered on the d8-square (WRd3 attacking, BQe7 defending). The B.A.D. squares are the PoPs; the pieces currently attacking/defending those B.A.D. squares provide the lines of attack.
Dynamic considerations:
The WQf4 and BNf6 are NOT currently currently involved in either “chunk.”
With 20. Qb4, White can bring the queen into play in both “chunks.” It adds an attacker against the b7-square AND it attacks the defender of the d8-square. The only move to answer (temporarily) these two new attacks is 20.… c5. Through a logical exchange sequence, White gains material and can enter the endgame with confidence in a winning position. 20. Qb4 c5 21. Rxd8+ Kc7 (21.… Qxd8 22. Qxb7#) 22. Qxb7+ Kxd8 23. Qb8+ Kd7 24. Qxa7+. After 24…. K(moves) 25. Qxe7+ Kxe7 White has a beautiful bishop on the long diagonal, and will bring his king over to the queenside to support the pawn advance.
[White "Ziaur Rahman"]
[Black "Debaraj Chatterjee"]
[WhiteElo "2520"]
[BlackElo "2316"]
[Date "2012.6.12"]
[Round "8.7"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Event "5th Mayors Cup 2012"]
[Site "Mumbai IND"]
[Eco "B01"]
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nf3 Bg4 4.Be2 Nc6 5.Nc3 Qd7 6.h3 Bxf3 7.Bxf3 O-O-O 8.O-O e5 9.Re1 Re8 10.Nb5 Kb8 11.d4 Nxd4 12.Nxd4 exd4 13.Rxe8+ Qxe8 14.Qxd4 Qe1+ 15.Kh2 Bd6+ 16.Bf4 Bxf4+ 17.Qxf4 Qe7 18.Rd1 Nf6 19.Rd3 Rd8 20.Qb4 1-0
Do you notice how logic becomes the guide of attention? That is only possible when every answer on a logic question can be given fast. That is a whole new coöperatioin between System 2 and System 1.
DeletePART II:
ReplyDeletePuzzle 75:
FEN: 4k2r/1p2npbp/p1b1p1p1/P1q3B1/4P3/2N2N2/1PW2PPP/3R2K1 w k – 0 18
Static considerations:
The d8-square is B.A.D. [1:1]. Both queens are undefended and on the same maximal ray (c1-c8). The two “chunks” are (1) the “vis-a-vis” between the two queens, and (2) the attack on the back rank via the d8-square.
Dynamic considerations:
White can discover an attack on the Black queen with 18. Nd5, threatening to check from the c7-square, driving the Black king away from the d8-square. (The knight move temporarily blocks the line of action of the WRd1, but the line of attack will be re-opened when the WNd5 plays to c7.) Black can reply 18…. Qxa5, escaping the discovered attack and gaining a pawn, while continuing to protect the c7-square and d8-square. 19. Qc5 forces the Black queen to give up defense of the c7-square and d8-square with 19…. Qxc5 20. Nc7+ Kf8 4. Rd8+ Be8 5. Rxe8#. Capturing with 18… Qxc2 allows a similar continuation. 18…. exd5 19. Qxc5.
Smirin-Kunche, Arlington 2015; no game score found.
Puzzle 76:
FEN: 3r2k1/1B3ppp/1b3q2/pP2pb2/P7/2Q5/2P1NPPP/5RK1 b - – 0 25
Static considerations:
The WBb7 is LPDO. The f2-square is B.A.D. [2:2], even though it is not directly attacked by both the BQf6 and BBb6—yet.
Dynamic considerations:
There is a dynamic battery (masked by the BBf5) against the f2-square. The White back rank is “soft.” Connecting the LPDO WBb7 and the unmasking of the BBf5, there are two possibilities of discovering a duplo attack against the LPDO and the f2-square: 25.… Bb8 and 25.… Be4. 25…. Bb8 allows the WBb7 to block the line of attack of the BQf6 on the f2-square with 26. Bf3. 25…. Be4 attacks the WBb7 AND unseals the battery against the f2-square. 26. Bxe4 (naturally) Qxf2+ 27. Rxf2 (the rook is now absolutely pinned) Rd1+ 28. Qe1 Rxe1#.
Abdullatif-Martins, World Youth Championship 2012; no game score found.
FEN 75 seems to contain an error
DeleteWRONG:: FEN: 4k2r/1p2npbp/p1b1p1p1/P1q3B1/4P3/2N2N2/1PW2PPP/3R2K1 w k – 0 18
DeleteRIGHT:: FEN: 4k2r/1p2npbp/p1b1p1p1/P1q3B1/4P3/2N2N2/1PQ2PPP/3R2K1 w k - 0 18
I found the game for puzzle 75 on Chess Tempo by using the FEN as the search criteria.
Delete[White "Ilia Smirin"]
[Black "Kumar Nikhilesh"]
[WhiteElo "2663"]
[BlackElo "2235"]
[Date "2015.7.1"]
[Round "1.3"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Event "43rd Annual World Open"]
[Site "Arlington USA"]
[Eco "B31"]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 g6 4.c3 Bg7 5.d4 Qb6 6.a4 cxd4 7.O-O a6 8.Bxc6 dxc3 9.Bxd7+ Bxd7 10.Nxc3 Bc6 11.a5 Qb4 12.Bd2 Rd8 13.Qc2 Qc4 14.Rfe1 e6 15.Bg5 Ne7 16.Rad1 Rxd1 17.Rxd1 Qc5 18.Nd5 1-0
I started working with the book Excelling in Chess Calculation by Aagaard which consists of 500 puzzles all from games in the Open Sicilian . The first 2 puzzles I got wrong even though I understood the elements in them . I did not see the coordination in them. Going back to the Poploafun method and am doing better. If you want to see something interesting ask your AI engine what it the Aagaard Puzzle Method.
ReplyDeleteTakchess wrote (in part):
DeleteIf you want to see something interesting ask your AI engine what is the Aagaard Puzzle Method.
That is an excellent suggestion!
I had several of GM Aagard’s books in the Grandmaster Preparation series, including Excelling in Chess Calculation. Unfortunately, when I did a book library “dump” in anticipation of moving (the move did not happen), that book went elsewhere along with most of my other chess books. Fortunately, I retained Aagaard’s Thinking Inside The Box, which is a summary of the entire series.
I posed this question to Copilot:
What is the Aagaard Puzzle Method?
Here’s the introductory statement:
The Aagaard Puzzle Method is a chess‑training approach built around deep, deliberate calculation rather than fast‑paced puzzle grinding. It comes from the training philosophy of GM Jacob Aagaard, especially his Grandmaster Preparation series and the broader Quality Chess ecosystem. The method emphasizes slow, high‑quality work on difficult, human‑played positions, not speed‑based puzzle rushes. [chessdojo.club]
(I won’t bore you with the extended answer.)
What struck me as most significant was these assertions (among many):
Pattern recognition under pressure
Puzzle training works when it builds a pattern library, but only if done slowly and with full verification.
Here’s the summary statement:
Summary
The Aagaard Puzzle Method is a high‑discipline, deep‑calculation approach to chess puzzles. It emphasizes:
• Slow, focused solving
• Human‑played positions
• Full‑line calculation
• Mental stamina
• Pattern recognition
• Reviewing mistakes
It is one of the most effective ways to build real over‑the‑board calculation strength — especially for serious improvers.
Sounds a lot like ideas this blog has been developing!
This was my followup request:
Provide a comparison between the Aagaard Puzzle Method and Stoyko exercises.
Concise Takeaway
Aagaard = deep tactical/strategic solving of given positions.
You solve a single tactical/strategic puzzle:
1. Identify candidate moves
2. Calculate deeply
3. Verify lines
4. Commit to a solution
5. Compare with the book/engine
You are solving a problem.
Stoyko = full‑board calculation exercise where you generate all candidate lines and variations.
You perform a full calculation dump:
1. Identify all candidate moves
2. For each candidate:
- Calculate all relevant lines
- Write down every branch
- Evaluate each leaf node
3. Compare your tree to engine or master analysis
You are building a calculation tree.
GM Anatoly Lein's quote popped up in my mind: "I don't think like a tree - do you think like a tree?" (GM Jonathan Tisdall, Improve Your Chess Now). I infer that all GMs do NOT think alike, chopping down trees.]
Cognitive Skills Trained
Aagaard Method trains:
Pattern recognition
Tactical motifs
Deep calculation
Forcing‑move prioritization
Mental stamina
Error detection
Practical decision‑making
Stoyko trains:
Visualization depth
Branching discipline
Variation tree organization
Long‑line memory
Evaluation stability
Calculation hygiene
Structured thinking
Aagaard is closer to “solve this position.”
Stoyko is closer to “calculate like a GM.” [I don’t think this is true!]
Aagaard trains accuracy and stamina in solving. Stoyko trains calculation structure, branching, and disciplined notation.
They overlap, but they are not the same skill.
Thanks for the suggestion!
I really am annoyed when I miss a HTML end bold mark. It definitely erases my intended emphasis. I'm sorry about that.
DeleteThanks. Aagaard method does seem a little Stoyko-ish, You might enjoy this story . I showed the position from Think outside the Box which Aagaard speaks of showing to 16 Grandmasters and only one solving it to a fellow club player. A recently retired software engineer who my guesstimate was over 2000 at his peak , He gave it a half hour one week and looked at it again a week later and solved it.
Deleteit might be interesting to see you involved here and the additional comments you would receive. https://benjohnson.substack.com/p/perpetual-chess-linkfest-178-aug?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1052251&post_id=211192734&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=bm0d6&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
ReplyDelete