tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post6948385365947299279..comments2024-03-28T01:17:43.262+01:00Comments on Temposchlucker: Finally some answersTemposchluckerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07977208394417444785noreply@blogger.comBlogger68125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-46255891609338901882021-07-11T04:17:48.636+02:002021-07-11T04:17:48.636+02:00PART II:
The Pomodoro Technique is highly adaptab...<b>PART II:</b><br /><br />The Pomodoro Technique is highly adaptable. If you get into the flow and find yourself wanting to continue past 25 minutes, that's okay. The length of the reward period is also flexible and can be longer than 5 minutes if your Pomodoro has gone longer than the usual 25 minutes. Just don't forget to that taking a mental break is important. One analysis of data from a time-recording app found that highly productive workers work for an average of 52 minutes with a 17-minute break. The key was that when these superstar workers focused, they <i>FOCUSED</i>, and when they took a break, they really took a break.<br /><br />If you have nothing else to do once you've finished your Pomodoro, good. But if you have still more work to do, take a 5-minute break (set a "break" timer is you need to), then start the next Pomodoro. If you're doing a series of Pomodoros, try taking a longer, 0- to 25-minute break after every third or fourth Pomodoro you complete.<br /><br />If you use the Pomodoro method to study new material, it's also wise to <b>SPEND AT LEAST SOME MINUTES OF THE POMODORO LOOKING AWAY FROM WHAT YOU'RE STUDYING AND TRY TO <i>RECALL</i>WHAT YOU HAVE JUST LEARNED</b>. As you will see in chapter 3, <i>RECALL</i> (also called "<i>retrieval practice</i>") is one of the most powerful ways to both remember and understand new information.<br /><br />Avoid your mobile phone during earning breaks. Using a mobile phone for a break does not allow your brain to recharge as effectively as the other types of breaks. If you feel anxious without a phone, researchers have found that you'll be better off with the phone out of reach.<br /><br />Be wary of multitasking while studying. Whenever you switch your focus to a new task, you activate information stored in your brain related to the new task. When you then switch to a different task, you activate a different set of information. This leaves what's called an <i>attention residue</i>—some leftover attention from your previous task that means your attention is not fully on the new task. Frequent task-switching increases susceptibility to distraction, causes ore errors, slows work, makes writing worse, <b>DIMINISHES LEARNING AND CAUSES FORGETTING</b>.<br /><br />When you are focused on a task, you can become cognitively fixed on it. This reduces your ability to step back and take another approach or perspective It seems that task-switching reduces cognitive fixation. [Perhaps this is the basis for Botvinnik's suggestion to think concretely (calculating variations) while your clock is ticking and to think more abstractly (more generally and strategically) while your opponent's clock is running.] The question then arises, how often should you task-switch? There are no easy answers, because it depends so much on the task, and how often you might get cognitively "stuck."Robert Coblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12427520849707914818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-34740338694703459622021-07-11T04:15:00.602+02:002021-07-11T04:15:00.602+02:00PART I:
Learn Like A Pro: Science-Based Tools to ...<b>PART I:</b><br /><br /><b><i>Learn Like A Pro: Science-Based Tools to Become Better at Anything</i></b>, by Barbara Oakley and Olav Schewe.<br /><br /><b>Why the Pomodoro [Stoyko] Technique Works</b><br /><br />You might wonder how something so simple can be so powerful. The reason is that the Pomodoro Technique captures important aspects of how your brain learns.<br /><br />- Pomodoro-fueled bursts of <b>FOCUSED ATTENTION</b> give your brain practice in focusing without disruption, which is much needed in today's distraction-ridden mobile phone world.<br /><br />- Short mental breaks where you get away from focusing are ideal to allow you to transfer what you've just learned into long-term memory, clearing your mind for new learning. You can't feel this process taking place, which is why you might tend to skip it—but <i>don't skip it</i>!<br /><br />- Anticipation of a reward keeps you motivated throughout the Pomodoro.<br /><br />- It's much easier to commit and recommit yourself to short bursts of <b>DEDICATED STUDY</b> than to seemingly endless sessions.<br /><br />- Your studies begin a pattern of <b>FOCUSING ON THE PROCESS</b>—putting in certain amounts of time—rather than the <i>goal</i> or <i>outcome</i>. In the long run, having a good process in place is much more important than any one individual session or goal.<br /><br />- When you even just think about something you don't like or don't want to do, it activates the insular cortex, causing a "pain in the brain." This pain diminishes after about 20 minutes of focus on the activity. Twenty-five minutes is therefore perfect to get you into study mode.<br />Robert Coblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12427520849707914818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-3660490904029381792021-07-10T11:46:37.477+02:002021-07-10T11:46:37.477+02:00There is a detailed explanation of WHY this kind o...<i>There is a detailed explanation of WHY this kind of exercise works, and more details of how to gain maximum benefit from doing (and repeating) these types of exercises.</i><br /><br />I look forward to some elaboration.Temposchluckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07977208394417444785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-9868829925769719332021-07-08T19:52:24.006+02:002021-07-08T19:52:24.006+02:00Allthough my experiences with the Stoyko exercises...Allthough my experiences with the Stoyko exercises have been poor, rereading my latest posts convinced me of that it is indeed the way to go. I have to learn to do it in the right way, though. The problem is to become easily overwhelmed bij too much information.Temposchluckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07977208394417444785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-17194447432546642252021-07-06T05:25:44.403+02:002021-07-06T05:25:44.403+02:00I just got a new book: Learn Like A Pro: Science-B...I just got a new book: <b><i>Learn Like A Pro: Science-Based Tools to Become Better at Anything</i></b>, by Barbara Oakley and Olav Schewe.<br /><br />On page 1, I found this:<br /><br /><b>The Pomodoro Technique</b><br /><br />[*This technique was invented by Italian Francesco Cirillo in the 1980s and named after his round tomato-shaped kitchen timer. "Pomodoro" means tomato in Italian.]<br /><br />Use this approach to structure your study session:<br /><br /><b>1. Sit down where you'll be studying or working and remove all possible distractions.</b> This means ensuring there are no pop-ups or extraneous open tabs on your computer, dings from your cell phone, or anything else that could draw you off-task. <br /><br /><b>2. Set a timer for 25 minutes.</b> Yu can use a mechanical or silent digital timer. You can also use the timer or an app on your phone. If you use your hone, place it out of sight and beyond arm's reach so you won't be distracted while focusing. <b>[NOTE: FOCUSING IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF THIS TECHNIQUE!]</b><br /><br /><b>3. Dive in and study or work as <i>INTENTLY</i> as you can</b> for those 25 minutes. If your mind wanders (as it inevitably will), just bring your attention back to the task at hand. Most things can wait or be postponed for 25 minutes. If distracting thoughts come up that you feel like you should act on, write them down in a to-do list so you can tackle them after the Pomodoro session is over.<br /><br /><b>4. Reward yourself</b> for about 5 minutes at the end of the Pomodoro session. Listen to your favorite song, close your eyes and relax, go for a walk, make a cup of tea, cuddle with your dog or cat—anything to let your mind comfortably flow free. It's also best to avoid checking your cell phone or email during this break time—more on why later.<br /><br /><b>5. Repeat</b> as appropriate. If you want to study for 2 hours, you can do four Pomodoros with the break lasting roughly 5 minutes each time. If you have trouble getting yourself back to work when the break is done, set a timer for the break as well.<br /><br />In the chess world, we call that kind of thing a <b><i>Stoyko</i> exercise</b>.<br /><br />There is a detailed explanation of <b>WHY</b> this kind of exercise works, and more details of how to gain maximum benefit from doing (and repeating) these types of exercises.<br /><br />This is confirmation of the efficacy of doing Stoyko exercises regularly, with the proper focus of attention on the task at hand.Robert Coblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12427520849707914818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-41722620740036842762021-06-21T18:34:40.286+02:002021-06-21T18:34:40.286+02:00Combinative Motifs, Problem 721 - M. Blokh
FEN: r...<b><i>Combinative Motifs</i>, Problem 721</b> - M. Blokh<br /><br />FEN: <b>r1bqr1kb/3npp2/p2p2pB/1ppP4/4PQ2/2N3PB/PP3PK1/n6R w - - 0 1</b><br /><br />This is an interesting example of addressing the <i>salient</i> aspects of the position. Another way of looking at this concept is: <b>"<i>SEE</i>" what's relevant!</b><br /><br />It's definitely NOT about Pawn promotion. It is most probably not about material gain. By process of elimination, it must be about checkmate.<br /><br />White to move.<br /><br />Black has 7 pieces and 7 Pawns; White has 5 pieces and 6 Pawns. On the surface, there doesn't appear to be any way to regain sufficient material to re-balance the position. (This also supports the hypothesis that this problem is about checkmate.)<br /><br />Forcing (CCT) moves:<br /><br />1. White can recapture on a1, remaining an Exchange and Pawn down.<br /><br />2. White can capture on d7, but Black can recapture with ether Bishop or Queen.<br /><br />Neither of those two possibilities redress the material imbalance.<br /><br />3. White can capture on f7 with check, forcing Black to recapture with the King.<br /><br />All of these possibilities are visible on the surface, and provide "clues" as to the direction in which we should look for a solution.<br /><br />"In for a penny, in for a pound," as the English might say. Since White is already down in material, there's nothing to lose by tossing more wood on the dumpster fire. So, we'll first take a look at the 1. Qxf7+ variation.<br /><br /><b>1. Qxf7+ Kxf7</b><br /><br />Apply the <b>Attack Motif</b>: never let the attack die! As Emerson said, "<b><i>When you strike at a king, you must kill him.</i></b>"<br /><br /><b>2. Be6+ Kf6</b><br /><br />The Black King is forced out of his fortress, toward the enemy camp. That has to be good!<br /><br />The Black King is almost immobile, so throw something else at it.<br /><br /><b>3. e5+</b><br /><br />Since we already decided that this is a "do or die" situation, shovel on a little more coal.<br /><br />Now we get our first (very short) variations. Black is forced to capture on e5.<br /><br />3. ... dxe5 4. Ne4#<br /><br />3. ... Nxe5 4. Ne4# (Reusing the same idea, already found)<br /><br /><b>3. ... Kxe5</b> (Forced, by process of elimination)<br /><br />Now is a good time to create a "stepping stone" mental picture. Why? Because the Black King is on the verge of slipping out of the "box" and escaping to the queenside via d4. The most important "rule" for a King hunt is to make sure the "box" around the King remains closed. (This is some of the "knowledge" we must acquire if we want to improve through pattern recognition.)<br /><br /><b>4. Rd1</b><br /><br />Back can't really do anything, so it seems like a good idea to protect the d5 Pawn, while cutting off the Black King. It also threatens 5. f4+ Kf6 6. Ne4#.<br /><br /><b>4. ... Kf6</b><br /><br />An alternative is to try to gain some luft on g6 with 4. ... g5, but White can keep the "box" closed with 5. Bxg5 Rf8 6. f4+ Rxf4 7. gxf4#. If Black tries to get back within the fortress, White can force it back out.<br /><br /><b>5. Ne4+ Ke5</b><br /><br />Back toward those deadly enemy pieces.<br /><br /><b>6. Bf4+ Kxe4</b><br /><br />Almost there!<br /><br /><b>7. f3#</b><br /><br />By carefully analyzing the <b><i>salient</i></b> surface level features, and carefully visualizing the step-by-step positions that occur, it is relatively easy to solve this type of complicated position.<br /><br />I tried to find the game score (Varavin-Zavarnitsyn, USSR, 1991) without luck. I was curious as to what led up to this position. Black obviously went after a Rook on a1, without carefully considering if his King was in mortal danger. Alas, checkmate ends all questions about relative material balance.<br />Robert Coblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12427520849707914818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-69134745608913345282021-06-21T18:32:06.105+02:002021-06-21T18:32:06.105+02:00Robert Coblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12427520849707914818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-1376969932966024952021-06-21T03:40:15.021+02:002021-06-21T03:40:15.021+02:00I'm not trying to usurp Temposchlucker's r...<i> I'm not trying to usurp Temposchlucker's role and prerogatives as the blogger.<br /></i><br /><br />No worriesTemposchluckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07977208394417444785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-33495406457901604932021-06-20T15:52:21.112+02:002021-06-20T15:52:21.112+02:00PART VI:
Errata: Position 4 above has an error: t...<b>PART VI:</b><br /><br />Errata: <b>Position 4</b> above has an error: there should be a <b>BLACK</b> Bishop on a2 instead of a <b>WHITE</b> Bishop.<br /><br /><b>Position 4:<br /><br />FEN: 8/8/8/8/5k2/1p3pR1/bK5P/8 b - - 0 1</b><br /><br />Mea culpa - my apology.Robert Coblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12427520849707914818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-45002771714510719712021-06-20T04:27:09.108+02:002021-06-20T04:27:09.108+02:00PART V:
Rather than continue the theoretical disc...<b>PART V:</b><br /><br />Rather than continue the theoretical discussion, let's look at some chess positions. All of these positions were contested under tournament conditions between Experts or higher rated players.<br /><br />I have discussed these problems in previous comments on this blog. I do not give anything here other than the positions so that there are no "hints" whereby to look up the corresponding previous discussion. Take a "look" at these problems, asking GM Aagaard's or Aox's three questions in order to narrow the focus to the <b><i>salient</i></b> points in each position.<br /><br /><b>Position 1:<br /><br />FEN: 8/4rk2/4Rp2/3K1P2/6P1/8/8/8 b - - 0 1</b><br /><br /><b>Position 2:<br /><br />FEN: k7/8/P1N5/8/2K5/6p1/5bB1/8 w - - 0 1</b><br /><br /><b>Position 3:<br /><br />FEN: r2qk2r/p2p1ppp/1pbbp3/7n/2P1P3/P1N1B3/1PQ2PPP/R3KB1R w - - 0 1</b><br /><br /><b>Position 4:<br /><br />FEN: 8/8/8/8/5k2/1p3pR1/BK5P/8 b - - 0 1</b><br /><br /><b>Position 5:<br /><br />FEN: 7k/1b1r2p1/p6p/1p2qN2/3bP3/3Q4/P5PP/1B1R3K b - - 0 1</b><br /><br />The point of the exercise is to develop the capacity to "SEE" deeper clues.<br /><br />Quoting Hofstadter and Sander again:<br /><br />"<b>The royal road to the depth of a thing, to its core, to its essence, is precisely what lies at its surface. The surface gives us clues — deep clues — as to what is hidden inside, affording glimpses of the depths at the core. . . . not all combinations [funny how that word has a different meaning from chess!] of properties are equally likely; rather certain properties tend to co-occur in our [chess] environment. . . . In other words, when we perceive surface-level features, that activates in our minds other features that are correlated with those first features. These secondarily activated features are ones that our experience tells us tend to be present when the first ones are, but in themselves they are not instantly perceptible. . . . an object's <i>affordances</i>, meaning the possible actions naturally suggested to a person who perceives the object. . . . In most situations, THE SURFACE-LEVEL CUES THAT WE PICK UP QUICKLY FURNISH A RELIABLE GUIDE TO THE SITUATION'S ESSENCE.</b>" <br />Robert Coblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12427520849707914818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-81949353884495599012021-06-20T04:25:59.990+02:002021-06-20T04:25:59.990+02:00PART IV:
Returning to GM Aagaard's book:
One...<b>PART IV:</b><br /><br />Returning to GM Aagaard's book:<br /><br />One of the recommendations in GM Aagaard's book is to ask a series of questions in order to get "inside" (deeper into) a position. Here's another short quote from the book:<br /><br />"<b>At one point, by means of an abstract association with another subject, I realized that often the problem is not that we are unable to come up with the right answers; but rather that WE FAIL TO UNDERSTAND WHAT QUESTIONS WE SHOULD BE ASKING.</b>"<br /><br />"<b>One day I spent an afternoon writing a long list of recurring questions; I then pruned it. I wanted a very short list: one I could remember.</b>"<br /><br />"<b>1. Where are the weaknesses?</b>"<br />"<b>2. What is my opponent's idea?</b>"<br />"<b>3. Which is the worst placed piece?</b>"<br /><br />"<b>These three questions are the most relevant ones. Games are decided on the weaker squares [1]; our opponent moves roughly as often as we do [2]; and your position can always be improved by bringing in the worst placed piece, or by preventing your opponent's worst placed piece from getting into the game or being exchanged.</b>"<br /><br /><b>IF WE DON'T HAVE KNOWLEDGE [IN THE FORM OF PATTERNS BUILT AS CATEGORIES], THEN IT IS HIGHLY PROBABLE THAT WE CANNOT "SEE" WHAT IS RIGHT IN FRONT OF US.</b><br /><br />But that is not always the case. In some cases, we may have the requisite expertise (knowledge AND skill) but our attention is directed toward something that is not relevant for that specific position at that specific time.<br /><br />Aox gave some excellent advice regarding focusing attention on the relevant aspects of a given tactical problem. First, determine what the goal of the problem is:<br /><br /><b>(1) Is it giving mate?<br />(2) Is it gaining material?<br />(3) Is it promoting a Pawn (which is an alternative way of gaining material other than by capturing)?</b>Robert Coblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12427520849707914818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-70657437027904424292021-06-20T04:24:59.861+02:002021-06-20T04:24:59.861+02:00PART III:
". . ."
"What do we all...<b>PART III:</b><br /><br />"<b>. . .</b>"<br /><br />"<b>What do we all do? Among all the diverse memories to which we are led by our knowledge (or lack of knowledge) of a given situation, WE RELY ON WHICHEVER ONE IS MOST RELEVANT. . . . the features that guide our retrieval of a specific memory are chosen not because they reside on the surface, but because — quite to the contrary — among all the potential retrieval cues to which we have access, they are the <i>deepest</i> ones.</b>"<br /><br />"<b>. . . categories constructed by experts in a given domain are very different from those constructed by novices, and that experts don't rely on the same cues as novices do in categorizing new situations.</b>"<br /><br />"<b>Only as an individual's knowledge of a particular domain increases can there be a gradual evolution from categorization based on obvious features to categorization based on more abstract ones. When people eventually [IF EVER] attain a high enough level of abstract knowledge [PATTERNS] of the important types of situations that frequently arise in a domain, then they are able to reliably apply this abstract knowledge BY ANALOGY to new situations whose façades are very different from the situations they encountered during their learning phase. . . . IN ORDER TO ACQUIRE THE ABILITY TO SEE SUCH THINGS, ONE HAS TO GAIN EXPERTISE. . . . For an expert in the domain, the <i>deep</i> features are not elusive or hidden; rather, they are the <i>most salient</i> features! . . . the feature people tend to notice in any domain are as deep as their perception allows, which is a function of the set of categories they have evolved over their lifetimes.</b>"<br /><br />"<b>It is for this reason that <i>the deepest clues available</i> are what guides a person who is searching for analogies between fresh situations and ones in memory. . . . Its not what is <i>superficial</i> but what is <i>salient</i> that catches one's attention, and this applies equally to novices and experts. The difference, however, is that AS ONE GRADUALLY ACQUIRES GREATER EXPERTISE IN ANY DOMAIN, THE IDENTIFYING FEATURES OF DEEPER CATEGORIES GRADUALLY GROW MORE SALIENT. . . . no matter what one's level of expertise is, when searching in memory for an analogous case, one goes as deep as one's expertise allows.</b>"<br />Robert Coblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12427520849707914818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-19168200130230793892021-06-20T04:23:27.504+02:002021-06-20T04:23:27.504+02:00PART II:
In this regard, I am reminded of an insi...<b>PART II:</b><br /><br />In this regard, I am reminded of an insight gleaned from Douglas Hofstadter and Emmanuel Sander's excellent tome <b><i>Surfaces and Essences: Analogy as the Fuel and Fire of Thinking</i></b>.<br /><br />"<b>We Go as Deep as We Can Go</b>"<br /><br />"<b>A superficial feature [of a chess position] is an aspect of a situation that can be modified without touching the core of that situation. Thus the color of my gearshift — originally black, it was recently repainted yellow — has no effect on how it works as a gearshift. Color is quite obviously a surface-level feature for the category <i>gearshift</i>. Likewise, when it comes to problems on a test [such as solving a tactical problem under a time constraint], superficial features are those that can be modified without affecting the problem's goal or the pathways allowing it to be solved.. . .</b>"<br /><br />"<b>. . . On the other hand, when features are CRUCIAL to a category — when their modification changes the category itself — then one speaks of <i>structural features</i>. In the case of problems to be solved, structural features are those whose alteration would change the goal of the problem or the pathways to solving the problem. They are those features that one needs to pay attention to in order to find the solution, whereas superficial features are those that one can ignore.</b>"<br /><br />"<b>. . .</b>"<br /><br />"<b>. . . by definition, a novice [or anyone who is less than an "expert"] in a particular domain [like chess] cannot tell what the essence of a concept in the domain is. In other words, the distinction between <i>surface-level</i> features and <i>deep</i> features doesn't apply to novices, because to them any trait that they perceive could equally plausibly be shallow or deep.</b>"<br /><br />"<b>. . .</b>"<br /><br />"<b>Novices have not built up the deeper categories of the domain, hence THEY DON'T PERCEIVE THEM. . . . novices try as best they can to recognize what is important and relevant in a NEW situation, but lacking crucial knowledge, they most often cannot do so, and therefore they have to settle for shallow and most likely irrelevant features. As a result, the analogies they draw to prior situation [pattern recognition] tend to be shallow rather than deep, but this is only because the deeper analogies are not available to them, given the current state of their conceptual repertoires.</b>"Robert Coblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12427520849707914818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-51177247148296919622021-06-20T04:22:10.792+02:002021-06-20T04:22:10.792+02:00PART I:
Commenting is my way of trying to keep th...<b>PART I:</b><br /><br />Commenting is my way of trying to keep the blog going in Temposchlucker's absence. I'm not trying to usurp Temposchlucker's role and prerogatives as the blogger.<br /><br />Sorry for the long series of comments, but (I think) they will prove helpful for improving how and what we "SEE" — if we think about it and train properly. <br /><br />I got my Father's Day gift a little early: GM Jacob Aagaard's <b><i>Grandmaster Preparation: Thinking Inside The Box</i></b>. My interest had been peaked by a reference to Dr. Daniel Kahneman's <b><i>Thinking, Fast and Slow</i></b>, from which I learned a lot about System 1 and System 2.<br /><br />In the <b>Author Preface</b>, GM Aagaard explains his choice for the book title.<br /><br />"<b><i>Thinking outside the box</i> has become one of those trite phrases that once seemed edgy and cool, but now sounds as hollow as any other clichë.</b>"<br /><br />"<b>. . .</b>"<br /><br />"<b><i>Thinking inside the box</i> has a number of meanings to me. It comes from a basic philosophy that there are so many things to learn that we should not preoccupy ourselves with finding exceptions or wildly original perspectives, but rather LEARN WHAT THERE IS TO BE LEARNED FIRST.</b>"<br /><br />"<b>The box is both metaphorical and a metaphorical tool box. In chess, there are many ways to look at a position and many ways to deal with the problems we get the chance to solve during the game. There will never be complete agreement as to which way a position should be approached, which is part of the beauty of chess. It can be played in many different ways, none of which can be said to be inherently superior.</b>"<br /><br />"<b>But it is my firm belief that LASTING IMPROVEMENT IN CHESS INCLUDES THINKING IN A DIFFERENT WAY.</b>"<br /><br />"<b>. . .</b>"<br /><br />"<b>You will see concepts and structures in the positions that you were previously unaware of and these will guide your thinking in an entirely different direction.</b>"<br />Robert Coblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12427520849707914818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-27893332433281499532021-06-09T15:54:00.391+02:002021-06-09T15:54:00.391+02:00WONDERFUL!!!
I can hardly wait to see your though...WONDERFUL!!!<br /><br />I can hardly wait to see your thoughts!Robert Coblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12427520849707914818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-33167692697957026092021-06-09T14:34:50.897+02:002021-06-09T14:34:50.897+02:00I'm okay. But my energy level is terribly low....I'm okay. But my energy level is terribly low. I don't read every detail. But enough to get the main idea. I expect progress from august on.Temposchluckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07977208394417444785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-87715940305259272302021-06-08T15:06:31.721+02:002021-06-08T15:06:31.721+02:00Temposchlucker:
Are you okay?
Are you still read...Temposchlucker:<br /><br /><b>Are you okay?</b><br /><br />Are you still reading this blog, even if you're not writing anymore?<br /><br />Thanks! Robert Coblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12427520849707914818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-22025588525226646252021-05-29T17:30:44.416+02:002021-05-29T17:30:44.416+02:00PART IV:
Here's some examples of "drop&q...<b>PART IV:</b><br /><br />Here's some examples of "drop" puzzles (made up from Puzzle Streak problems on lichess.org).<br /><br />(1) FEN: <b>1k6/p1r5/PpP2p2/2r4p/6p1/8/5PPP/42K1 w - - 0 1</b><br /><br />Black has just played 1. ... Rc7. Drop two White Rooks on the board so that White can play a 3-move checkmate, while preventing a back-rank mate by Black.<br /><br /><br />(2) FEN: <b>r1bq1rk1/pp2bpp1/3p1n1p/4n3/2Bp1B1P/3Q4/PP3PP1/2KR3R w - - 0 1</b><br /><br />Black has just played 1. ... Ne5. Drop two White Knights on the board so that White can play a 2-move checkmate, while preventing the loss of a piece.<br /><br />(3) FEN: <b>5b2/5rkp/5pp1/P2Rp3/8/8/r5PP/6K1 w - - 0 1</b><br /><br />Black has just played 1. ... Kg7. Drop a White Rook and White Bishop on the board so that White can win the Exchange in two moves.Robert Coblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12427520849707914818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-29616902803130729392021-05-29T05:25:28.721+02:002021-05-29T05:25:28.721+02:00PART III:
GM Averbakh's second example is (b)...<b>PART III:</b><br /><br />GM Averbakh's second example is <i>(b) Mating with the rook</i>.<br /><br />Place a White Rook on c8. Here restricting contacts have to be created with two squares (a7 and b7), with the White Rook restricting the b8 square while providing the attacking contact on a8. The task of restricting the Black King can be performed e.g. by the White King or a White Rook. A finish in which only White pieces attack/restrict is conceivable (such as the following).<br /><br />An alternative is to place a White Knight on c6 and a White Rook on b8. Now the White Knight provides a restricting contact on a7 and a defending contact on b8, while the White Rook restricts b7 and attacks a8.<br /><br />Again, is this a totally different <b>PATTERN</b> or is this just a variation on the theme of "cornered king in the box"? Are there multiple <b>PATTERNS</b> associated with this configuration or just one <b>PATTERN</b>? Is it a different <b>PATTERN</b> if there is a Black Pawn or Rook on a7, or a Black Pawn or Knight on b7?<br /><br />There are many other <b>PATTERNS</b> on this theme of "cornered king in the box" shown in the book using various other pieces; I'll not bore you with them all.<br /><br />One other thought from the book and I'll end this comment sequence.<br /><br />"<i>A combined attack ALWAYS involves an attacking contact, a confining contact and occasionally a protective contact. In this connection I would like to emphasize that <b>THE COORDINATED ATTACK ON OTHER PIECES</b>, which we discussed at the beginning of part 2, <b>IS BASICALLY THE SAME AS A MATE ENDING.</b></i><br /><br />As I was thinking about this, I realized that we could set up basic typical positions and then create puzzles around them. The puzzle idea is simple. Put down a stereotypical piece configuration without all of the required contacts remove some of the contacts), then "drop" pieces into the position as needed to accomplish a particular goal (using the dropped pieces as needed to establish the contacts). This trains us to do the same kind of thing PRIOR TO jumping into the "thicket" of calculating variations using "I go there, he goes here, I go there..." until we've lost sight of the original objective.<br /><br />Or maybe this is just too simplistic an approach to have any benefit. I don't know the answer (yet), but I'm going to give it a try.Robert Coblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12427520849707914818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-83155826763564114682021-05-29T05:24:59.134+02:002021-05-29T05:24:59.134+02:00PART II:
We are trying to train System 1 to "...<b>PART II:</b><br /><br />We are trying to train System 1 to "see" <b>PATTERNS</b> and trigger the appropriate response needed to achieve mate, not to "solve" a tactical problem through logical calculation.<br /><br />GM Averbakh's first example is <i>(a) Mating with the queen</i>.<br /><br />Place a White Queen on c8. A restricting contact is only required on square a7, because the Queen attacks a8, and simultaneously restricts the movement of the Black King to b7 and b8 squares. The a7 square can be restricted by any other White piece or Pawn. An important point: a7 could also be occupied by a Black Pawn or Rook with the same checkmating effect, but not with a Queen, Bishop or Knight, which would allow an interposing contact to block the check.<br /><br />We have our first <b>PATTERN</b> for checkmating in the corner of the board. This <b>PATTERN</b> can be replicated in the other three corners of the board.<br /><br />A serious question: <b>Are there FOUR separate and distinct PATTERNS (one for each corner of the board) <i>OR</i> are all of these duplicated positions literally ONE PATTERN?</b><br /><br />If we take the (to me, extreme) position that in order to be a <b>PATTERN</b>, the exact same position must be exactly duplicated across the board ("pieces on squares"), then there are four separate and distinct <b>PATTERNS</b> that must be burned into System 1. (If this is true, then I can understand why there are estimates that masters have 10,000, 50,000, 100,000, 300,000 or millions of "patterns" burned into their brains.) On the other hand, if we presume (and I do) that a <b>PATTERN</b> does NOT have to be exactly duplicated but merely "suggest" truth through abstraction, then I maintain that there is one and only one <b>PATTERN</b> in the four different positions. That certainly seems to be a direction in which we can cut down on the total number of <b>PATTERNS</b> that we have to learn!<br /><br />Moving right along. . .<br />Robert Coblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12427520849707914818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-31355096947893913302021-05-29T05:24:30.343+02:002021-05-29T05:24:30.343+02:00PART I:
Excerpt from Think Like A Grandmaster, Gm...<b>PART I:</b><br /><br />Excerpt from <b><i>Think Like A Grandmaster</i></b>, Gm Alexander Kotov, pg. 170<br /><br /><i>Once in a lobby of the Hall of Columns of the Trade Union Centre in Moscow, a group of masters were analyzing an ending. They could not find the right way to go about things and there was a lot of arguing about it. Suddenly Capablanca came into the room. He was always fond of walking about when it was his opponent's turn to move. Learning the reason for the dispute the Cuban bent down to look at the position, said, "Si, si," and suddenly redistributed the pieces all over the board to show what the correct formation was for the side that was trying to win. I haven't exaggerated. <b>Don Jose literally pushed the pieces round the board without making moves. He just put them in fresh positions where he thought they were needed.</b><br /><br />Suddenly everything became clear. The correct scheme of things had been set up and now the win was easy.</i><br /><br />Do you ever just reposition the pieces as needed for whatever the goal is, with no calculation of variations or consideration of moves? I don't.<br /><br />I got to thinking about this story while studying GM Averbakh's <b><i>Chess Tactics for Advanced Players</i></b>. (I strongly suggest getting a copy of the book, if you don't have it. Time spent studying it will pay rich dividends.)<br /><br />The section which triggered these thoughts is <b><i>The co-ordinated attack</i></b>, <b>1. The cornered king</b>, pp. 178-182. I am fond of referring to this as the "king in a box" position, but in this case, the reference is to a literally "cornered" king - in one of the four "corners" of the board.<br /><br />Gm Averbakh first details the type and minimum number of contacts that are required to checkmate the king in this "box" position.<br /><br />"<i>If the cornered king is to be checkmated it has to be cut off from three squares and attacked on the fourth. The mating <b>PATTERN</b> varies according to the attacking piece.</i>"<br /><br />Well, <b>DUH!</b> you might think. But let's go back to that Capablanca story and rethink that initial reaction. Suppose that we use Capablanca's idea of just redistributing the pieces as needed to achieve a particular goal as a training idea.<br /><br />For purposes of this comment series, set up a board position with the Black King on a8, and nothing else on the board. Mark the 3 squares a7, b7, and b8 with an <b>X</b>. These three squares must have <b>restricting</b> (controlling) or <b>blocking</b> contacts which prevent the Black King from moving to one of them to escape the attacking contact. Draw a circle around the a8 square. This is the square that must have an <b>attacking</b> contact.<br />Robert Coblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12427520849707914818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-45063541638764430172021-05-26T23:10:33.442+02:002021-05-26T23:10:33.442+02:00PART III:
Let's take a look at a tactics prob...PART III:<br /><br />Let's take a look at a tactics problem as an example.<br /><br />FEN: 2r3k1/pp2bp2/2q3p1/3pPp2/3P1Q2/1P5P/PB4P1/R5K1 b - - 0 1<br /><br />This position is taken from a YouTube video (at approximately 7:25):<br /><br />LINK: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bs7jebwwgWI" rel="nofollow"><b>How to DETECT Tactics in your Games</b></a><br /><br />What could be more "natural" than attacking the unprotected White Bishop on b2? 1. ... Qc2 comes immediately to mind.<br /><br />It also ignores (unless you begin to calculate ahead) potential ramifications of this move. The Black Queen and Rook are on the same line of attack. Not to worry: they "protect" each other AND White "must" do something about his unprotected Bishop. Hope Chess at its finest!<br /><br />Unfortunately, 2. Rc1 exposes the fallacy in the "thinking" process. Yes, Black gets to capture the White Bishop, but it comes at too high a cost. 2. ... Qxb2 3. Rxc8+ and Black as lost the Exchange.<br /><br />How many times have we "seen" an attack and jumped right on it, missing the significance of other elementary factors in the position?<br /><br />If we were totally aware of the elementary contacts (actual as well as potential) in a given position, we would not fall into these traps nearly as often - and we would play better as a result!<br />Robert Coblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12427520849707914818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-55484063378209148982021-05-26T22:32:13.588+02:002021-05-26T22:32:13.588+02:00PART II:
The goal of all education is to change t...PART II:<br /><br />The goal of all education is to change the brain. Acquiring new knowledge and skill, which is what education is supposed to do, requires the construction of new neural machinery.<br /><br />Learning banjo rolls is the equivalent of using the "whole language" method for learning to read. It is essentially learning to play a whole pattern and skipping the fundamental (foundational) elements from which that pattern is constructed. In 3-finger rolls, you have melody notes, harmony notes, drone notes, all being played in succession, all being played against a rhythmic background. In order to play this style successfully, you must be able to change some of the notes "on the fly" by varying the volume or timing more than others, in order to make the melody stand out, in order to create certain rhythms, in order to create "drive." Yet if the brain has stored a specific pattern as the fundamental unit or building block, it becomes exceptionally hard to emphasize any of the specific individual components of that unit. The brain treats all individual components of the unit as the same. The individual notes may all be there, but the nuances that are key to the sound are missing. This causes trouble jamming with others, which requires flexibility; you will not be able to play exactly as you practiced on your own. You may have to deviate from your "canned" patterns. On the other hand, starting with the most fundamental elements (and building up from there) provides optimum flexibility. It is possible to learn via the "whole language" approach, in spite of it. There may be early success, but over time, the phonics approach works much better for developing skill. [Similar to the results of "massed practice" in chess.]<br /><br />How we learn is the ultimate driver of eventual success of learning to do anything well. Often, it is the learning method that hinders the learning process.<br /><br />Beginning with Averbakh's <b>Theory of Contacts</b> is an ideal way to apply a parallel method to phonics to the process of learning chess tactics. Start with the elementary contacts, learn to "see" those contacts in every position, and then connect them together to create more complex "words" (tactical devices/themes). Eventually, the process of "seeing" tactics becomes effortless and automatic.<br /><br />Contrast this approach with the usual "solve tactical problems until the patterns get burned into your brain" approach. The problem with this "whole word" approach is that unless a significant portion of the patterns seen previously are repeated almost verbatim in a new (unknown) position, there will be little aid from System 1 in recognizing the important pattern required to "solve" the problem. Think of solving tactical problems as trying to learn a 3-finger roll on the banjo.<br /><br />We wonder why we don't improve. It's because we have a crappy foundation which is not based on the elements. We need to learn the alphabet and how to put the letters together to form the words.<br />Robert Coblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12427520849707914818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-91061872323648129872021-05-26T22:20:40.361+02:002021-05-26T22:20:40.361+02:00PART I:
One of my band mates (I play harmonica in...PART I:<br /><br />One of my band mates (I play harmonica in a bluegrass/country band) sent me the following link:<br /><br /><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8YFJf1phjI" rel="nofollow"><b>Why the Path You Take Matters</b></a><br /><br />You may have absolutely ZERO interest in learning to play banjo; I know I don't have any interest in it. However, I do have an interest in playing dobro, having taken it up about a year ago. I also have a continuing interest in chess improvement, especially methods for adult improvement.<br /><br />I took notes as Dr. Josh Turknett, a neurologist, musician, neuroplastician, expounded on why the path taken matters to the eventual success. The notes encapsulate the video lecture. I think there is some "food for thought" here that is applicable to chess. I'll leave it to you to figure out the parallels. Take the road less traveled!<br /><br />Brainjo Method - Why the Path You Take Matters<br /><br />The traditional method for teaching reading is via phonics. Start with phonics - recognize the letters and the sounds that go with them. Begin by mapping the graphemes (the smallest functional units of a writing system) to phonemes (the unit of sound that distinguishes one word from another in a particular language, and associated with a corresponding grapheme). Identify the "print to sound" correspondences. Sound out the words as they are encountered while reading, combining the two units together. This process is analogous to how we learn to speak. After learning the basic units, begin combining them into words. In essence, words are "seen" (understood) as sequential combinations of individual letters and sounds. This approach is based on sound cognitive science.<br /><br />There is a modern method for teaching reading called the "whole language" approach. When faced with an unfamiliar word, look for other clues as to what that word might be, i.e., the context in the "story," or picture(s) on the page. Recognize the words as whole units without concern for the constituent letters and sounds. In this approach, the individual letters and sounds of those letters don't carry much meaning. Recognize words similarly to how you recognize pictures, as one whole discrete unit. Grasp the word holistically rather than trying to identify and fit the individual parts together to create the "whole" word. <br /><br />Over time, the "whole language" method has been shown to be problematic. Students who learned the phonics method were much more likely to become skilled readers, whereas those who learned via the "whole language" method struggled to advance, with reading always remaining effortful - and unpleasant. Using the phonics method, reading eventually became effortless and automatic, just like learning to talk.<br /><br />Cognitive scientists knew for decades that the "whole learning" method was a bad idea. They knew that eventual success was determined by how well a reader could map letters to sounds. The most skilled readers do not use context at all to decode words and determine meaning. Academic educational advocates for "whole learning" were ignorant of cognitive science and the empirical evidence for what actually works. <br /><br />There is a tight connection between successful reading and educational success via life-long learning. Differences between readers had everything to do with how they learned to read and nothing to do with their innate ability or aptitude. <br /><br />"<b>If we don't know how the brain learns, then how can we know how to teach?</b>" That is a question that doesn't often get asked in academic educational theory circles.<br />Robert Coblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12427520849707914818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-70004940141984444442021-05-25T18:49:41.996+02:002021-05-25T18:49:41.996+02:00Chess Tactics for Advanced Players, by GM Yuri Ave...Chess Tactics for Advanced Players, by GM Yuri Averbakh<br /><br />FEN - Position 341: 3rkn2/3b3R/3b1PP1/8/8/8/8/6K1 w - - 0 1<br /><br />FEN - Position 458: 8/8/8/p7/kpK5/7R/1P6/6q1 w - - 0 1<br /><br />I recently re-read an article on chess.com about pattern recognition:<br /><br /><a href="https://www.chess.com/article/view/pattern-recognition-fact-or-fiction" rel="nofollow"><b>Pattern Recognition—Fact Or Fiction?</b></a><br /><br />The author's definition of "pattern" is "pieces on squares" encompassing the <b>entire position</b>, not just localized parts of it. He then proceeds to dismiss the concept of pattern recognition as a pathway to chess improvement because it is extremely rare to have the exact same position repeat (except perhaps in the most extremely limited endgame positions). Consequently, how can you learn on the basis of "patterns" if the exact same positions never repeat?<br /><br />His definition is flawed, to say the least. If we did not have repeated patterns, we would be unable to function in life, never mind at playing chess.<br /><br />The two positions given above have a common "pattern." If you "see" the solution to one of them, it should be easy to quickly "see" the solution to the other.<br /><br />The basis for the common "pattern" is the idea of the "king in a box." There is nothing in common between the two positions based on "pieces on squares."<br /><br />In re-reading and studying Averbakh's book, I was struck that the functional relationships (based on contacts) is the basis for pattern recognition, not the relationships based on "pieces on squares." Perhaps this is the reason it is so hard to figure out how many tactical patterns must be ingrained in order to develop more skill. <b>What You See Is All There Is</b> (Kahneman) is certainly true, especially for lower-skilled players.<br /><br />That merely shifts the question to: What is a "Pattern"? What "patterns" must we learn in order to play at a higher skill level? How do we learn "patterns"? How many of these "patterns" must be acquired? How long does it take to ingrain the requisite "patterns"?Robert Coblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12427520849707914818noreply@blogger.com