How does the extra tempo materialize?
In an equal game. the tempi are in balance. The first step to a win is to get the initiative. You do something, and your opponent must react. This already points in the direction that there must be some targets in the position. No targets, no initiative. The creation of targets is another chapter where we need to talk about. But for now I want to focus on the mysterious tempi. Having the initiative alone is not enough. You need an extra tempo.
If you look at tactical puzzles, then you notice that you can only convert a combination into a win, when you are able to gain an extra tempo along the way. That looks logical, because only when you get an extra tempo while your opponent does not, you can expect to execute the extra tempo and convert it into a gain of some sort. Whether that gain is enough to win the game is a totally different question.
Little is known about the materialization of this extra tempo out of the blue. Logically it can't come out of the blue. How does this mechanism work?
Example 1
 |
| Diagram 1. White to move |
8/2p2kp1/6n1/5p2/1p2pP2/4P3/r2PB2P/6RK w - - 0 1
1.Bc4+ is a double attack. It exercises two threads at the main time.
Example 2
 |
| Diagram 2. Black to move |
8/5ppk/5Q2/3b4/8/P1r5/1P1n3P/K5R1 b - - 0 42
#112. Nikolova, A. vs. Theissl Pokorna R., Germany Frauen Bundesliga 2015/16 from 1001 Chess Exercises for Advanced Club Players
If black continues the game in the most straightforward way, he plays
- 42. ... gxf6 (variation 1)
- 43. bxc3
- 42. ... Rc1+ (variation 2) a double attack
- 43. Rxc1 but now can white defend against it by taking the two tempi out of the game by 1 move.
 |
| Diagram 3. Black to move |
- 43. ... Nb3+ double attack on king and rook
- 44 Ka2 Nxc1+ fetching the rook with tempo (variation 3)
- 45. Kb1 gxf6
- 46. Kxc1
- 43. ... Nb3+
- 44. Kb1 Be4+
- 45. Rc2 putting the rook in a pin, so he can be picked up later (variation 4)
- 46. ... gxf6
well stated.
ReplyDeleteHere you can see how constraint is related to tempi. It is a matter of chance. The less mobility the king has, the more difficult it is to escape the checks.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think there is an additional tempo, any more than the first move of the game gives White an “extra tempo.”
ReplyDeleteI think it is a consequence of a series of forcing moves at the highest level. In the hierarchy of forcing threats, there is nothing greater than a check. As long as you can check the opponent in a series of moves, you leave him no time to do anything other than respond to the checks. In addition to being the highest forcing level, a check is also the highest constraint level, maximally narrowing down potential responses. At the end of a series of checks, there may be the possibility of gaining material in an “exchange of captives.”
In your Example 1, White has the right to move first. If he spends that move wisely, he can gain material. 1. Bc4+ is a “double attack” (bishop fork) but IMHO that is NOT the crucial factor. The crucial factor is that Black is IN CHECK. Check overrides all other levels of forcing moves (mate threats, capture and material gain threats). Any threat without a check allows more freedom of choice (lack of constraint) to the defender: he can ignore it (perhaps at a cost) and do something else (perhaps something totally unanticipated by the attacker) when it is his turn to move. That is the essence of the Equal or Great Threat idea.
In your Example 2, the constrained position of the White king is an enabling factor for looking for a decisive combination. At the beginning of the combination, the White king is completely IMMOBILIZED by the Black bishop+knight! THAT WHICH IS IMMOBILE M-U-S-T BE ATTACKED!! So, given the current comstraining function of the bishop+knight pair, what piece is available to directly attack the White king? The BRc3, which is doing nothing particularly useful on c3, in addition to being en prise from WPb2 and WQf6. Surely it is the “worst placed piece” in Black’s position!
The same pattern of using the highest level of forcing moves applies. Checks override ALL other considerations. The non-intuitive first move 42.… Rc1+ is a fork WITH CHECK. (It’s also a “sacrifice” for position but that classification is unimportant.) It is not the threat of material loss (the WRg1) that forces White to capture on c1; it is the CHECK with no exit square off the back rank (because of BBd5 controlling a2). The logical sequence splits after 42… Rc1+ 43. Rxc1 (the only way of removing the check) 44.… Nb3+ (again, continuing with the highest level of forcing move).
Now a pattern somewhat similar to the idea of the “windmill” can be executed.
45. Ka2 (the White king can now move to the previously controlled square) Nxc1+ WITH DOUBLE CHECK 46. Kb1 and now Black can capture the White queen, NOT because he has somehow miraculously “gained an extra tempo” but because Black can now afford to give up the knight in exchange for the queen.
45. Kb1 (out of check) Be4+ (WITH CHECK) 46. Rc2 [or 46. Ka2 (the only available escape square) Nxc1+ WITH CHECK 47. Kb1 and Black can now capture the White queen because that is now Black’s greatest threat (giving up the knight for the queen)] and again, Black can now capture the White queen because the White rook is absolutely pinned and will be captured after capturing the queen (the highest priority being to capture the highest material value).
White cannot save his queen because he has no means of countering any of the Black checks with a check of his own (Equal or Greater Threat). Imagine if Black decided to improve the position of his bishop with 44.… Be6 (to make sure it is “safe” from the White queen). White would no longer be forced to respond to check, so he could save his queen.
Popiel vs Marco, 1902 is a classical example of the threat (forcing) hierarchy, with an apparent “extra tempo.”
ReplyDeleteFEN: 7k/1b1r2p1/p6p/1p2qN2/3bP3/3Q4/P5PP/1B1R3K b - - 1 36
If we accept that Check, Mating threat, Capture, Other Threats [CMCT or the more well known CCT] represent the forcing hierarchy levels, then the idea of Equal or Greater Threat comes into play—without an extra tempo.
It is fairly easy to determine what happened to Marco. He failed to consider the entire threat hierarchy and resigned in a position where he could have won. After White’s last move 36. Rd1, Black is threatened with the loss of his bishop on d4 [3:2], going from B.A.D. to worse. There are no checks or captures available to create an Equal or Greater Threat. However, material loss is the lowest level of threat. There are three (not two!) levels of threats above it. What Marco failed to “SEE” was that a mating threat trumps a material gain threat, and is in fact the second highest threat level. [Maybe he was only familiar with CCT and not CMCT. ]
Another salient “clue” is that White’s king is over in the corner, with no other piece protection of his pawn shield. The h2-square is B.A.D. [1:1] and attacked by the Black queen. DANGER, WILL ROBINSON!
The simple counter-threat 36… Bg1 should have caused Popiel’s resignation: Black would have won White’s queen due to the discovered attack combined with the mating threat—an excellent example of a combination of threats (threats to win material or checkmate).
[Event "Monte Carlo"]
[Site "Monte Carlo MNC"]
[Date "1902.02.03"]
[EventDate "1902.??.??"]
[Round "1"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Ignatz von Popiel"]
[Black "Georg Marco"]
[ECO "C41"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "71"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bc4 c6 4. Nc3 Be7 5. d4 Nd7 6. Be3 Ngf6
7. Qe2 Qc7 8. Ng5 O-O 9. f4 b5 10. Bd3 a6 11. O-O Bb7 12. Rae1
h6 13. Nf3 Ng4 14. Nd1 c5 15. c3 exd4 16. cxd4 Nxe3 17. Nxe3
cxd4 18. Nxd4 Nc5 19. Nef5 Bf6 20. Bb1 Rfe8 21. Qf3 Ne6
22. Nxe6 fxe6 23. Qb3 Kh8 24. Ng3 Bd4+ 25. Kh1 Qc4 26. Qd1
Bxb2 27. Qxd6 Rad8 28. Qb6 Rd7 29. Qf2 Bd4 30. Qf3 Rf8 31. Rc1
Qb4 32. Qd3 e5 33. fxe5 Rxf1+ 34. Rxf1 Qe7 35. Nf5 Qxe5
36. Rd1 1-0
I realize that my language has been sloppy. It is about an extra threat. The defender is the one who needs an extra tempo, not the attacker.
ReplyDeleteI had neglected the equal or greater threat stuff in order to keep matters simple. But you made me realize that I maybe have thrown the baby out with the bathwater.
I have abandoned CCT due to the many false flags. But maybe it is time to use its capabilities to prune the tree of analysis.
And yes, additional tempo should become additional threat.
Totally off-topic.
ReplyDeleteToday I achieved a lichess puzzle rating I have never gotten close to before: 2301. The really "funny" part? I did it in a pure king-and-pawn endgame requiring several moves to reach the solution. I felt so excited I donated $26.00 to the cause.
Any idea how that relates ti USCF rating?
DeleteFrom several ratings comparison sites, it seems to be about 300 +/- 70 points difference. 2300 lichess would be approximately 1930-2070 USCF (in-between USCF Class A and Expert). The faster the time control, the more inflated the online rating becomes relative to the USCF OTB rating. The FIDE OTB rating runs about 100 points less than the USCF rating.
DeleteNone of the rating comparisons included solving lichess tactical puzzles. I “guess-timate” that OTB rating would be even lower compared to lichess tactics puzzle rating. So, I'd guess 2300 puzzle rating ≈ USCF 1850-1950 [S.W.A.G.].
That's not fantastic, but certainly above where I left off playing in the OTB chess wars! My official USCF Quick Chess rating is currently 1652, but I haven’t played for a few years. I haven't played USCF rated OTB classical in over 50 years: my last official USCF OTB classical rating was 1810 in 1975.
ReplyDeletei like to check my Halloween Gambit games against how Brause played the line. Here is a trick worth knowing how to force a Queen for Rook trade .
https://lichess.org/study/D2daG4dA/g97LFrTn
[Event "?"]
[Site "ICS Rated Blitz match, 131.24"]
[Date "1997.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Brause"]
[Black "DerAndere"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C47"]
[PlyCount "67"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nxe5 Nxe5 5. d4 Nc6 6. d5 Ne5 7. f4 Ng6 8. e5
Ng8 9. d6 cxd6 10. exd6 Nf6 11. Nb5 Qa5+ 12. Bd2 Qb6 13. Nc7+ Kd8 14. Nxa8 Qxd6
15. Bd3 Nxf4 16. O-O Nxd3 17. cxd3 b6 18. Qa4 Qb8 19. Bg5 Qxa8 20. Rxf6 Be7 21.
Rf5 d6 22. Bxe7+ Kxe7 23. Re1+ Be6 24. Qg4 g6 25. Rxf7+ Kxf7 26. Qxe6+ Kg7 27.
Qe7+ Kh6 28. Qh4+ Kg7 29. Qd4+ Kf7 30. Qf4+ Kg8 31. Qxd6 Qf8 32. Re7 a5 33.
Qe6+ Qf7 34. Qxf7# 1-0
Played this line up to Move 13 where I played c3 Bruase played it to force a queen for a rook exchange.
That looks like it is hard on the nerves through the middlegame! White continued to find ways to create more tactical shots and got rewarded for his persistence at the end. It ain't over till it's over!
DeleteWhite is a computer named Brause optimized to play the Halloween Gambit traps w h ice i try to copy.
ReplyDeleteOn another note, 1001 Chess Endgame Exercises for Beginners is not written with the endgame in mind. So the title is a bit misleading. It is about simple tactics with few pieces and an arbitrary amount of pawns, just for clarity.
ReplyDeleteBy serendipity, the resulting position after the solution often happens to be the exact type of position which I manage to screw up. When I have absorbed the whole dataset, I will start over again to fiddle with the resulting positions and try whether I could win them against Mr. Stockfish and his illustrious brothers.
It seems that we have arrived at the most important of Capablanca's recommendations—and also the reasoning behind it (which we so often misunderstand or miss altogether):
ReplyDeleteThe Chess Legacy of José Raoul Capablanca: Last Lectures, Chapter One: The Importance of the Endgame:
“In learning to play chess well it is helpful to divide the game into three parts, to wit, the opening, the middlegame, and the ending. Each one of these parts is intimately linked with the others, and it would be a grave mistake to study the opening without keeping in mind the subsequent middlegame and ending. In the same way it would be wrong to study the middlegame without considering the endgame. This reasoning clearly proves that in order to improve your game you must study the endgame before anything else; for, whereas the endings can be studied and mastered by themselves, the middlegame and the opening must be studied in relation to the endgame.”
“This obvious fact has been ignored by almost all of the chess authorities, with dismal results for the great mass of chess players. Thus, for example, you find innumerable works on the openings, wheres there are hardly half a dozen books on the endings. In addition, almost all the books on endgames are little more than repetitious collections of various endgame positions without notes of any kind or with very inadequate ones. The result is that the majority of players who undertake to study the endings soon discover that they lack the necessary aids which would enable them to derive some benefit from their labors.”
“In these pages I shall try to make up at least partially for those deficiencies. You must always bear in mind that, as I see it, you cannot have a well-grounded understanding of the opening, nor can you satisfactorily appraise a great many of the current opening variations without an adequate knowledge of the endings.”
In this quotation, think of “endings” not as the accumulated corpus of dry endgame technique collected over hundreds of years, but the attack/defense relationships between pieces and squares, isolated by reason of a minimum of interacting pieces.
We ASSUME that the reasoning is that training must begin with “simple” positions and progress to more complicated positions. That may be part of it, but not the most important part of it.
Per your note:
On another note, 1001 Chess Endgame Exercises for Beginners is not written with the endgame in mind. So the title is a bit misleading. It is about simple TACTICS with few pieces and an arbitrary amount of pawns, just for clarity.
It seems trivial to start with mate-in-1 puzzles, but the fundamental concept of coordination/cooperation of pieces toward a specific goal is exquisitely demonstrated in this type of simple position. This is what allows a child to “SEE” what adults generally cannot “SEE”.
Modifying another Capablanca aphorism slightly:
"Chess books should be used as we use glasses: to assist the INSIGHT, although some players make use of them as if they thought they conferred INSIGHT."
The most difficult part of any project is the beginning. I complained for years about endgame books that I don't know where to begin (after the Trebuchet). It turns out, there are no suitable books. With this course, I finally discovered where to start. Before anything else, I must learn to win a won position. There are no books for that.
DeleteThe solution of the puzzles gives you a piece ahead after solving. 1-0. But that are the positions I screw up! I'm often a pawn ahead, or two pawns, or a piece. But a knight ahead is not enough for me to stop those pesky fast forwarding rook pawns.
Capablanca isn't totally right as for as I'm concerned though. You must start the endgame with enough time on the clock and enough energy to calculate well. For that, you must be able to survive the opening and the middlegame in good condition. I'm not so far yet. But I make huge progress.
I agree with you. I just had a "curiosity" pop into my head.
DeleteLearning how to get a "won" position without knowing how to win it reminds me of the question facing a dog when he chases a car: does he know what to do with it if he catches it?
My oldest brother says I ain't right in the head; he's probably right.
I consider it a luxury problem.
DeleteI wonder if an answer would be found in studying high level bullet games. They appear to be played further to conclussion as there is always a chance to win on time.
ReplyDeleteHave you seen this ? https://dontmoveuntilyousee.it/tools/square-color-trainerhttps://dontmoveuntilyousee.it/tools/square-color-trainer
ReplyDelete