Separate the goal from the price tag
A combination must be judged by what the total of subtasks accomplishes.This means that worrying about the price tag of an isolated subtask will only distract you.
 |
| White to move |
r3rk2/2pb3Q/2q2bp1/2n1p3/1pP1P3/1B2RN1P/P4PP1/3R2K1 w - - 0 31
Salgado Lopez, I. vs. Granda Zuniga, J. Quito 2012
Chessable 1001 Chess Exercises for Advanced Club Players.
White has sacrificed a bishop for two pawns and an attack
- 31.Nh4 Bxh4
- 32.Rf3+ Bf6
What has white accomplished, and what has been the price tag?
Goal:
clear the f-file for the rook
Price tag:
a knight
Means:
Nh4 threatens mate in 1
Rf3+ is with check
Rf3 pins the bishop
The point is, that the moves are measured in time. As long as you gain time, there is no need to evaluate the price tag of the individual subtasks.
Follow up
- 33. Rxd7 an exchange sacrifice. Threatening mate in 1
- 33. ... Nxd7
- 35 c5 opening another LoA (line of attack). Threatening mate in 1
opening a LoA
Price tag:
An exchange
Means:
Rxd7 threatens mate in 1
c5 threatens mate in 1
Notice how the defending pieces become clumsy. There are too many potential invasion squares to defend.
Notice how white is only interested in the LoAs and ignores worries about the price tag.
That is what we need to learn:
look at the goals
treat the means as just means
manipulate the time to accomplish a goal
don't let worries about the price tags of subtasks cloud your vision.
I made a comment on 23 Dec 2015 about this in response to your blog post:
ReplyDeleteAn example
December 22, 2015
I won’t repeat it here.
Essentially, it is important to separate the material values of the pieces from the attack/defense values (which are always binary: 1=1 attack/defense on 1 square by 1 piece; 0=no attack/defense). This simplifies evaluating the success/failure of attacks/defenses because the cumulative values are integers with a maximum value a maximum value of 7.
There are two “schools” of thought regarding keeping track of material values during tactics.
Side 1 carries the cumulative material values won/lost during tactics along with the attack/defense values. By adding the material values to the “thinking,” it is harder to keep juggling everything in limited working memory.
Side 2 ignores the cumulative material value, focusing only on the attack/defense values. At quiescence, the material value is totaled once for the overall result.
I’ve found over the years that the Side 2 method is easier for ME to keep track of what’s going on during tactics.
The blog discussion has “evolved” beyond the club player level.
ReplyDeleteAt the club player level, there is a heavy dependence on general “principles,” stereotypical tactical moves (forks, pins, skewers, back rank mates, etc.) and the knowledge of the “standard” material values (Reinfeld or Kaufman); it really doesn’t matter which scale is used because it is a major oversimplification and virtually inapplicable in any specific tactical situation.
At the advanced player level, there is a trend toward (but not yet total) reliance on concrete aspects of each individual position. There is a better appreciation of Tal, the Magician from Riga as well as of TAL (Targets, Attackers and Lines of attack). There is a realization that the material count is not the primary valuation that must be performed when analyzing logical sequences. There is an increasing awareness of and skill in handling logical sequences with broader positional nuances as well as the endgame nuances. What was previously learned at the club player level begins to focus on and drill down into subtler concepts and applications of those concepts. Skill in handling different types of positions begins to merge at the boundaries, so that more and more areas are covered by overlapping mini-skills.
The transition period is marked by the intuitive recognition that your opponents are not playing at their usual level. That is actually an indirect indication of the advanced player’s increasing skill. It may appear that the rating is telling a different story, but the rating does not directly measure skill. Continuing to drill into the nuances (broadening and deepening what you can “SEE”) will result in an eventual commensurate rating increase.
At the end of the advanced player transition period lies expert/master level skill.
FWIW: Here's the game score between two 2600+ Grandmasters.
ReplyDelete[White "Ivan Salgado Lopez"]
[Black "Julio Granda Zuniga"]
[WhiteElo "2621"]
[BlackElo "2640"]
[Date "2012.4.22"]
[Round "5.3"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Event "IV ch-IberoAmerican Final GpA"]
[Site "Quito ECU"]
[Eco "C60"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.d3 d6 5.c3 Bd7 6.O-O a6 7.Ba4 g6 8.Re1 Bg7 9.Nbd2 O-O 10.Nf1 b5 11.Bc2 Re8 12.h3 Qb8 13.Be3 Qb7 14.Ng3 d5 15.Qc1 dxe4 16.dxe4 Na5 17.Bh6 Nc4 18.b3 Nd6 19.Qg5 a5 20.Qh4 Qc6 21.Re3 b4 22.c4 Bh8 23.Rd1 a4 24.Bg5 Nb7 25.Nf5 axb3 26.Nh6+ Kf8 27.Bxb3 Nc5 28.Nxf7 Kxf7 29.Bxf6 Bxf6 30.Qxh7+ Kf8 31.Nh4 Bxh4 32.Rf3+ Bf6 33.Rxd7 Nxd7 34.c5 Re6 35.Bd5 Qa6 36.c6 1-0
The two sacrifices (Nh4, Rxd7) opent LoA's towards the black king. The technique was: avoid time loss at every cost. Then there were so much holes around blacks king, that the defenders could not cover them all.
ReplyDeleteIt needs a whole different way of thinking. Focusing at the goals of the subtasks.
PART I:
ReplyDeleteRuminating about some of the latest “discoveries”:
Temposchlucker observed:
“It needs a whole different way of thinking. Focusing at the goals of the subtasks.”
IMHO, not a “different” way of thinking but “SEEing” at a finer grained (deeper) level using the same way of thinking. If we begin to focus on subtasks instead of tasks, we are looking at a finer level of granularity. Recognize subtasks and we can aggregate them into tasks.
As we gain skill, the granularity of what we can “SEE” gets finer. As a consequence, we are able to take advantage of smaller and smaller “imbalances” that arise in the course of the game. As we progress, we improve our ability to “SEE” those finer levels of granularity, the more subtle details of differences.
We work from the middlegame outward. After acquiring a certain level of skill in gross tactical themes/devices, we begin to look for ways to get to positions where those types of tactics occur. We also begin to look for the ways to “cash in” the (almost) gross benefits gained from those tactics (an extra queen, an extra rook, an extra minor piece, and finally, an extra pawn). It is estimated that a typical club player (or below) must obtain an advantage of at least a minor piece in order to win a game. An advanced player may be able to win with a smaller advantage (perhaps one or two pawns). An expert/master level player should be able to win with a single pawn, or even smaller advantages such as slightly better pawn structure around the respective kings. The entire idea of the Carlsen “squeeze” is that there are subtle differences between the two positions that can be “squeezed” over many moves (20-30) eventually forcing the opponent into a position (usually Zugzwang) whereby he loses.
There is no such thing as a truly balanced position in chess. Chess is too coarse-grained to support a true balance between the two side. Material may be numerically balanced on the Reinfeld or Kaufman scales, but both of those scales are incapable of measuring even centi-pawns accurately in terms of the differences between targets, attackers/defenders and lines of attack. Although material values are one of the first thing we learn in order to evaluate exchanges, the material values are totally useless in evaluating an exchange of material for non-material advantages. How many times do we see combinations that exchange material for lines of attack or access to a single focal point? Speaking of which, I do not like the term “sacrifice” for describing an investment of material in exchange for a non-material advantage. It is merely a profitable exchange (if correct) and no sacrifice at all.
IM Silman stated that his system of “imbalances” is not intended for the stronger players, but for the amateurs. It is a short-cut method for gaining an apparent understanding of what to look at from a positional point of view, which is nothing more than “SEEing” at a finer level of granularity than “gross” tactics. Hopefully, after study and application, some of it will enable a deeper and more nuanced understanding of how to play chess at a higher level of skill. The higher the skill level, the finer grained the evaluations become. Conversely, the finer grained the evaluations become, the higher the skill level.
IM Silman noted that we have to identify the imbalance(s) between the two opposite players positions and then to enhance our own imbalance(s) while preventing (if possible) the opponent from enhancing his imbalance(s). Imbalances are nothing more than relative differences between the two sides. They can be as subtle as one piece being relatively better placed than its counterpart in the enemy camp, or as gross as one side being ahead in material by a queen and yet behind in protecting his own king.
PART II:
ReplyDeleteLasker summarized Steinitz’ maxims for practical play as the transformation of small (almost imperceptible) transient advantages into more permanent advantages AND accumulation of them whenever possible. The general process is to obtain transient advantages (one better placed piece, a slight advantage in space, a minor weakness in the opponent’s pawn structure, etc.) and to (eventually) convert them into more permanent advantages. For example, the right to move first is a minute advantage that can be critical in any concrete situation. It does not matter if these small advantages accrue due to the opponent’s poor play (often ignoring the impact of small disadvantages) or our own “brilliant” play.
The lasting advantages are illustrated (not exhaustively, by any means!) in this list:
1. Isolation of a hostile pawn
2. Majority of pawns on the queenside (assuming that kingside castling by both sides has taken place)
3. Weakening of the hostile pawn phalanx, especially in the vicinity of the hostile king
4. A securely placed advanced post (outpost)
5. Domination of open lines (lines of attack)
Each one of these small transient advantages has a corresponding “strategy” for accumulating and increasing it. A slight lead in development of a single piece provides an opportunity to make a threat sooner than the opponent can threaten us. Accumulate enough of these similar small advantages and “suddenly” there is a possibility of a combination that cashes them out into a larger long-term advantage. It is NOT accidental that accumulation of small advantages in a localized area enable a combination that uses those small advantages.
For now, I keep matters simple. Gaining wood or delivering mate is good enough for me to learn the ropes.
ReplyDeletePositional extensions like positional play or endgames are just a matter of extending the 20 scenarios.
To be able to find a move like Nh4 as in this position, I must think differently than I do. When you sac your second piece, you already know that the position is about mate.
In fact, we are talking about the Vukovic gap here. Being the architect of a kingside attack. Learning to look at the invasion squares and the LoA's.
In the post Architecture of a tactical combination on September 29, 2026, you gave a diagram of the components of a combination.
DeleteAre the “20 scenarios” the same as the paths from root of the tree to the leafs? IE, one patch root→leaf = one scenario.
For example, is the path “Root→LoA battle→[threat] trap” one scenario?
Sorry for being so obtuse. I recall that there have been different numbers of scenarios mentioned in the past and I want to make sure I understand the current discussion completely.
TIA
Yes, that is the idea.
DeleteYou can probably work things out and find more subtasks. 20 says: a little amount and finite. Whether that is 20 or 80.
I use the scheme as a help during analysis. Can I find the elements of the architecture of the combination and name them.
The work starts AFTER I have that list. The work is to work out how the subtasks are woven together by threats and tempi.
It is all about the goal:
*mate
*opening LoAs
*get rid of defenders
and the way how threats keep the opponent busy while you create your attack.
The LoA's point to the potential invasion squares. Look at how the defenders become clumsy when they have to cover too many invasion points. The black queen is put on a side track.
DeleteBy using a single framework for all tactics, you release mental resources. You no longer need to manipulate different unrelated chunks in your short term memory.
ReplyDeleteWhen the very existence of a tactic is not due to a blunder, it is caused by a concession your opponent had to make. E.g. giving up his queen to prevent mate. This adds to the importance of the kingside attack. The architecture of a combination provides a framework for such attack.
ReplyDeleteBy having a deeper look into the set of 1430 tactics, I try to fit every combination into the framework. That makes it easier to gain a more holistic perspective. In an attempt to give substance to the work of Vukovic.
Matters seem complicated when they are not connected. Now a workable framework connects the subjects, the mind becomes less confused. Hence analogies are beginning to emerge. And analogies are System 1 stuff.
ReplyDeleteThe scheme helps to formulate a logical narrative for each subtask. When you do that for all 1430 problems, and there are only 20 subtasks, then analogies between positions start to emerge.
ReplyDeleteWould you be so kind and listed all of these 20 subtasks here? I am going to check out the resources you study and try to solve the positions as many as I can and write down the conclusions which positions I was struggling the most and which on the concepts helped to make a real breakthrough!
DeleteTomasz
You find them in this post.
DeleteIt are the leaves at the end of the branches. The amount of 20 is not written in stone. Its just a number changing due to work in progress and position of view.
You need a different attitude. Instead of discovering the combination that others have hidden in this position, you try to build your own combination from your goals. That's the idea behind this post.
DeleteTomasz:
DeleteHere’s my capture of the scenarios:
(1) Root position→preparatory moves→exchange→get rid of own problem piece
(2) Root position→preparatory moves→exchange→get rid of potential counter attacker
(3) Root position→LoA battle→parts→target prepare→prevent escape→by blocking
(4) Root position→LoA battle→parts→target prepare→chase to LoA
(5) Root position→LoA battle→parts→target prepare→lure to LoA→by sacrifice→magnet
(6) Root position→LoA battle→parts→target prepare→exchange on LoA→defender becomes target
(7) Root position→LoA battle→parts→LoA→prepare→clearance
(8) Root position→LoA battle→parts→LoA→dominate pivot square
(9) Root position→LoA battle→parts→attacker prepare→targeting
(10) Root position→LoA battle→methods→duplo move→double attack
(11) Root position→LoA battle→methods→duplo move→discovered attack
(12) Root position→LoA battle→methods→duplo move→pin
(13) Root position→LoA battle→methods→duplo move→skewer
(14) Root position→LoA battle→methods→trap
(15) Root position→LoA battle→methods→change balance→add #attackers
(16) Root position→LoA battle→methods→change balance→#defenders→removal→capture
(17) Root position→LoA battle→methods→change balance→#defenders→removal→chasing away
(18) Root position→LoA battle→methods→change balance→#defenders→removal→deflect
(19) Root position→LoA battle→methods→change balance→#defenders→removal→interfere
HTH
Thanks a lot Robert! It helps a lot! Now I can see what is this list all about and slowly can create or analyze the positions with the categorization into these specific list of concepts. This way I can figure out what issues I experience the most often and address these step by step!
DeleteTomasz