Mini skills
What are the mate it ones that take me some time? What do they have in common?
 |
| White to move |
3R4/1p6/1K6/5p1p/2k4P/4Bp2/1PB3p1/4q3 w - - 0 14
I noticed two elements that take me time.
- When there are a lot of empty squares around the king (like in the diagram)
- When certain pieces have a FUNction (are pinned, for instance), so that they don't have their usual reach
Point 1 seems to indicate that all my attempts in the past to see the auras of the pieces have failed.
My main rating progress (from 1530 to 1780) back in 2004 was due to studying mate in 1 from Polgars brick. I noticed the change in vision from pieces to squares, back then.
So I will investigate whether applying the Trick will have an influence on the mini skill of seeing the auras of the pieces.
I suggest looking for the "box" surrounding the king rather than looking at the piece auras individually. SEEing the "walls" and "corridor" inside the "box" obviously require SEEing at least some of the auras of the pieces creating them. It's just a different focus of attention to me.
ReplyDeleteIn the example, the White king creates one "wall" of the box, and the duo WPb2+ WBc2 form the opposite side "wall." The WRd8 forms a third "wall." That leaves a "corridor" inside the box where the Black king can still try to wiggle out (move to b4). That movement is along a horizontal corridor between the "walls," which requires a horizontal line-moving piece (Queen or Rook) to attack and cutoff the king. Solution: use the WRd8 to maintain the end "wall" (protected by the WBe3) and attack down the corridor.
That is a logical pattern - SEEing the "walls" and the "corridor" and realizing that only one move crushes the king inside the "box."
I could be totally off-base but that approach seems to work for ME. The fact that it's a mate-in-1 may bias my approach, but I'm not aware of that bias in regular problem solving when I don't KNOW it's a mate-in-1 problem. There's something about a king surrounded by multiple enemy soldiers, and unprotected or inadequately protected by his own forces, that triggers my pattern recognition of "build the box."
Here’s another example of “SEEing” the walls of the “box” and then “SEEing” the solution because the solution REQUIRES a Queen or Rook to close the “box.” This is a Chess Tempo “Hard” Mate-in-1 problem.
DeleteFEN: RQ6/4k3/2K2p2/P2P4/8/8/2q5/1r6 b - - 0 1
Sorry, I transposed digits in the FEN:
DeleteFEN: RQ6/4k3/2K2p2/P2P4/8/8/5q2/1r6 b - - 0 1
FEN: 8/8/1p3Qp1/p1p1Pn2/P4k2/7R/1q3PP1/6K1 w - - 0 1
DeleteBlack’s last move was 0.… Kf4.
Another “corridor” mate with the “walls” keeping the Black king in the “box.” In this case, the White pawns form the lower “wall.” The WQf6 pins the BNf5 as part of the upper “wall.” Again, a Queen or Rook is required to crush the Black king along the "corridor."
FEN: 8/8/1p3Qp1/p1p1Pn2/P4k2/7R/1q3PP1/6K1 w - - 0 1
Black’s last move was 0.… Kf4.
Sorry about the double entry of the FEN in the previous example.
DeleteThat should be sufficient to illustrate the point. I did over 50 Chess Tempo "Hard" mate-in-1 problems in a very short time just to find those clear examples.
Does that 1 pattern cover the majority of mate-in-1 problems? NO. But it does show how finding a logical pattern gives an immediate answer when the pattern is recognized. I suspect (and I'm not going to try to prove it) that there are some other logical patterns in all of those problems that you cannot solve immediately. Ferreting out those logical patterns is left as an exercise for the student. As you've noted numerous times, YOU still have to do the work yourself!
The fact that it is in the "hard" section indicates I'm not the only one.
DeleteAfter review last night, I realized that I started looking for the “box” surrounding a king somewhere around December 2015. I put the following (and a lot more “word salad”) in a comment on 23 DEC 2015:
ReplyDeletePeter Romanovsky in Soviet Middlegame Technique, pp224-225, Quality Chess.
"The peculiarities of a position that express a certain potential for combination can most conveniently be called combination motifs.”
Motifs are at a more abstract level than the concrete tactical themes/devices. A motif is the “trigger” for System 1 to recognize the potential for a logical sequence of tactics. There is value in “SEEing” motifs before looking for tactical themes/devices.
I gave the motifs that were described by Dr. Lasker in Lasker’s Manual of Chess. One that I (unintentionally) left out of that comment was:
“Motif #7: King in the “box” – The King is confined to (or can be confined to) a box, reducing its mobility to zero (eventually).”
Seeing the auras (maximal rays – extending from the piece to the edge of the board, regardless of obstructions) emanating from each piece helps to SEE the “box” that is (or will be) surrounding the enemy king. The “corridor” metaphor is based on the “box” motif.
“Everything old is new again.”
The point is to find the mini skills where you (I) fail. The stopwatch is your friend. Immediate feels different from fast feels different from deploying System 2.
DeleteSeeing the squares instead of the pieces in a mini skill. Seeing the function of a piece is another mini skill.
I guess that all basic relations can be tested for being "not immediate".
Immediate = a single chunk = skill
ReplyDeletefast = interaction between logic and multiple chunks = skill
takes time = System 2 in action. "calculation" instead of seeing
Logically, the first step must be to develop the mini skills to the max. Hence the mini skills must be inventoried. First these holes in the bucket must be plugged.
ReplyDelete"Hence the mini skills must be inventoried.
ReplyDeleteThe currently available chess tools do not lend themselves to extracting and cataloging mini-skills (with examples), presuming we can define those skills in the first place. I hate the thought of manually attempting such an enormous task.
Do you have anything in mind to suggest?
You are approaching it from the wrong side. How many logic can there be in one move?
DeleteThe amount of logic is finite. How many logical scenarios are there?
My caveman mathematics is meant to explore the outer limits of what is needed.
I have all puzzles already. Actually, I have way too much. The key is how to extract the relevant skills.
Lasker put another constraint on it: how many logical mini skills can you acquire in 200 hours?
If we can extract the logic from 2000 puzzles (2x Ehrwich's 1001 tactical problems) how many logical scenarios do we get? How many motifs, how many themes?
Say, I have difficulty to see the squares instead of the pieces. As my mate in 1 puzzles showed. How many calculations will be influenced by acquiring just this one skill?
PART I:
DeleteSeveral things to explore in that comment!
The easy one first: Lasker ASSUMED (did NOT prove) that a skilled teacher using an appropriate training method (based, for instance, on his Manual of Chess) could lead to a person with no special talent for chess to gain sufficient OVERALL skill (identified as sufficient to produce a first-category level player who could not be given odds without insuring loss by the odds-giver). Perhaps, in his day, the required skill set was smaller than it is now with the accretion of all the “received wisdom” from the Classical era and afterward. It’s an intriguing training claim that (AFAIK) has never been attempted.
How many logical mini skills can be acquired in 200 hours? Without a clear definition of a mini skill and designation of the required mini skill set at a specific rating level, there is no way to determine how many mini skills can be acquired PERIOD, never mind in 200 hours.
The amount of logic is finite. [AGREED.] How many logical scenarios are there? How many motifs, how many themes?
If we’re not going to investigate what constitutes a mini skill so that we can identify it and its components [and thereby count them], then these questions become rhetorical. A short (and useless) answer is: ALL OF THEM.
The key is how to extract the relevant skills.
Is a mini skill synonymous with a logical pattern or is a mini skill supported by a variable number of various kinds of logical patterns? I can understand extraction of recurring logical patterns from concrete examples; I do not understand extracting mini skills from concrete examples unless the goal of that process is to identify/categorize the mini skill set, which leaves me “approaching it from the wrong side.”
“The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.”
Let’s switch discussion to a specific problem. [1001 Chess Exercises for Club Players: The Tactics Workbook that Also Explains All the Key Concepts, Frank Erwich, New in Chess, 2019, pg 19, Puzzle 73.]
FEN: 5r1k/2q4b/p3p2Q/1pp4p/8/1P3r2/P1P4P/1KBR2R1 w - - 3 27
Black’s last move was 26…. Bh7.
Applying the patzer’s [and Charles Hertan’s “Forcing Moves First”] approach [“Always CHECK: it might be mate!”], 27. Bb2+ might be promising. Unfortunately, Black’s response 27…. e5 puts a damper on that because the BPe5 is protected by the Black queen.
Let’s stop right there: WE ARE ALREADY ON THE WRONG TRACK IN THE TUNNEL!
Let’s “experience” the position as it is. THE BLACK KING IS IMMOBILE! “Obviously,” White has a strong attack on Black’s king with two heavy pieces bearing down on the Black king position: WQh7 and WRg1, and with mate threatened on g7 or f8 or f6. Is there another White piece (the worst placed piece, maybe?) that can increase the mate threats? Yes, the WRd1 is currently not actively supporting the attack on the Black king. White can increase the pressure with 27. Rd7, attacking the Black queen (and temporarily cutting off its defense of g7 and h7), while threatening mate on either g7 or h7. If Black captures the cheeky rook with 27.… Qxd7, what is the next worst placed piece that can be brought into the attack? The WBc1 can occupy the long diagonal with 28. Bb2+ [gain of tempo]. Interposing the BPe6 on e5 [which WAS “protected” by the Black queen before White’s 27th move] delays the reckoning by one move: 28.… e5 29. Bxe5+ [gain of tempo]. Interposing on g7 with 29.… Qg7 30. Qxg7#. Interposing with either rook on f6 [29.… R8f6; 29.… R3f6] results in the same thing: 30. Qf8+ (or 30. Qxf8+) Bg8 31. Qxg8#.
PART II:
DeleteIs “bringing the worst placed piece into the attack” a mini skill or a logical pattern or one of those deprecated “rules” that we no longer use in modern chess? Is it combining an attack on the Black queen with a checkmate threat a mini skill or a logical pattern? Is SEEing the deflection of the Black queen from where it can “protect” the BPe5 a mini skill or a logical pattern? Is SEEing that the role of the WRg1 is to keep the Black king immobile on h8 a mini skill or a logical pattern? We can continue to add these types of questions, but I’ll stop here.
To me, the “mini skill” is SEEing the immobility of the Black king, the two White heavy pieces in close proximity (line-moving pieces are always in close proximity along their auras) to the Black king, the immobility of the BBh7 (because it is absolutely pinned), the combination of an attack on the Black queen AND checkmate threat, and the relatively ineffectiveness of Black’s major pieces (all three of them!) in providing a defense are the components constituting this mini skill.
Any of the components are reusable in other situations that may have totally different pieces-on-squares. The mini skill is in System 1 pulling together the components into an overall logical sequence. We can “tell” System 1 to pay attention to this configuration and combination of components, but the “magic” either happens or doesn’t happen, and we have no conscious control over whether the abstraction will be available for future problems.
All I do know is that the road to mini skills requires multiple attempts at solving logically similar positions until there is no longer a need to work out what must be done through a step-by-step thinking process (System 2).
“YOU WORK IT OUT; I SEE IT!” - Capablanca
[White "Ivan Saric"]
[Black "Marin Bosiocic"]
[WhiteElo "2657"]
[BlackElo "2611"]
[Date "2018.3.21"]
[Round "5.3"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Event "19th ch-EUR Indiv 2018"]
[Site "Batumi GEO"]
[Eco "B48"]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3 Qc7 6.Be3 a6 7.Qd2 Nf6 8.O-O-O Bb4 9.f3 O-O 10.g4 b5 11.g5 Nh5 12.Kb1 Rb8 13.Nxc6 dxc6 14.f4 c5 15.Be2 g6 16.Bxh5 gxh5 17.f5 Bb7 18.g6 fxg6 19.fxg6 Bxc3 20.gxh7+ Kxh7 21.Qxc3 Bxe4 22.Rhg1 Rf5 23.Bc1 Rf3 24.Qd2 Kh8 25.b3 Rbf8 26.Qh6+ Bh7 27.Rd7 1-0
The stopwatch is your friend. Do you need time? Dive deep to unearth the mini skill that you lack. It might cost you days or weeks to get clarity about what is missing. But mini skills are skills that you use multiple times in each and every game. So the effect of mastering just one extra skill will be enormous. It will effect all your games.
ReplyDeleteLogical skills solve the transfer problem. Approach them that way.
A logical pattern is conceptualized knowledge. It is piece and position independent. System 1 works its miracles by recognizing the logical pattern by analogy from some seemingly random geometrical pattern in the position (the salient cue). It is not necessary to have seen the geometrical pattern (or the particular cue, for that matter) before. That is the miracle. Just like you don't need to have seen a particular face in the bark of a tree. System 1 sees the elements of the face by analogy.
ReplyDeleteThe amount of logical patterns (the generalizing concepts) is a fraction of the amount of geometrical patterns (the details). 1:n
That is the difficulty of the trick. To work with logical patterns (unearthed by System 2) and to learn System 1 to see the analogies.
ReplyDeleteThe method is simple: both System 1 and System 2 look over the shoulder at everything where your attention is going. The problem is: to guide your attention in the right direction.