Sunday, March 17, 2024

Surprise!

 I'm easy to surprise. And then again, I'm surprised that I am so easy to surprise by something that actually isn't surprising at all. It feels as is I'm rather naive, chesswise.

It reminds me of an old post about focal gamma bursts. Where brain scans of amateurs showed that the they see every position as new, while in grandmasters the Long Term Memory and the region of complex motor skills showed much activity.


White to move

3r2k1/ppq2pp1/3Np1b1/1N1nP2p/3Q4/Pn3B1P/5PP1/4R1K1 w - - 0 1

[solution]

Treating it as a tit-for-tat problem, the first move was not difficult to find.

1.Qxd5

But I was surprised by the answer of black

1. ... Qa5

Yet this is completely logical. I continued against Stockfish.

2. Qd1 Bc2

And again I was completely surprised.

3.Qe2 Bd3

And again I was completely surprised.

What does this show?

Apparently my trial and error habit is very strong. I only focus on my own moves and am completely blind for what my opponent can do. Despite that my tree of scenarios prescribes to have a look at my opponent's position every now and then.

The good news is:

  • It totally explains why I suck at chess
  • It is not rocket science
  • The fix is a matter of discipline and not of learning something new
  • I finally am quite aware of the scope of the problem and the importance
  • It totally explains the "trick" of child prodigies
All the tactical elements are not too difficult to see. 



Sunday, March 10, 2024

What I did not see

 In the begin position of a problem I see certain salient cues. I know that there are salient cues that are not readily be seen, but which reveal themselves when you apply some logic.

On the other hand, there are salient cues that are perfectly seeable already in the begin position, but which I do not see because I'm not looking for them. Those salient cues are the ones where I can make progress because they form my blind spots.

Black to move

2r3k1/Q4n1p/p2Brpp1/1p1R4/4P3/2q2P1P/6P1/3R3K b - - 1 1
[solution]

What I did see:

  • target: Bd6
  • defenders: Rd5, Rd1
  • overloaded Rd1 => Bd6 AND back rank
What I did NOT see:

  • double attack Qe5 => h2 AND d6
  • back rank defense by Qg1
  • counter attack white Qd7 => Re6 AND Rc8
Scenarios
  • Exchange on d6 until a LPDO is left
  • Chase K to h2
  • Prevent Qa7 from interfering
With hindsight, my blind spots are staggering and amazing. A training method must focus on these blind spots.

I can't see what I'm not looking for. Initially, logic should guide my seeing. But I feel that is just a kind of side wheels for this position. Almost everything is salient in the diagram. Maybe only the difference between Qc1+ and Qa1+ should be found by reasoning. And the difference between 1. ... Nxd6 and 1. ... Rxd6. But then again, Qg1 as blockader is already perfectly visibible. When you look for it.


Saturday, March 09, 2024

Simultaneity

 A lot of the combinations in my database exist of two tactical elements which intersect. The elements make themselves manifest by salient cues. While the intersection is revealed by asking the right questions.

Black to move


4r1k1/p2r3p/2q1p1p1/2P3N1/8/P1BnQ1P1/4R2P/3R2Kb b - - 1 1

[solution]

There are two tactical elements here.

Discovered attack

Salient cues:

  • Target: Rd1
  • Attackers: Rd7, Nd3
Mate in one

Salient cues:

  • Target: Kg1
  • Attackers: Qc6, Bh1
  • Defender: Re2
Intersection

How do the two tactical elements interfere with each other?

The sheer seeing of the salient cues is the main skill what we should care about. Once that skill is obtained, the next step in our learning process will present itself. I assume.

Monday, March 04, 2024

Asking the right questions

 Sometimes the salient cues are easy to see. The diagnosis seems to be more or less clear. But to see the remedy, you must first ask the right question. Which is a task of system 2.

White to move

r1q2rk1/p4pp1/2B1nb2/2N1p2p/2Pp4/P2P2PP/4PP2/R2QK2R w KQ - 1 1

[solution]

The static salient cues of both sides' targets and defenders are clear enough.

  • White's targets: Ra8, Ne6 with additional punch Rf8.
  • Fighting the defenders Qc8, f7
  • Black's targets Bc6, Nc5, Rh1
It might not be immediately clear what to do after 1.Bxa8 Qxa8
That is the moment to ask the right question: Is there a move that can save both the knight and the rook?
It turns out that there is a dual purpose move that does that very same.


Saturday, March 02, 2024

Reshuffling the tree of scenarios

 There are static cues which are geared around the line of attack:

State of the target

  • balance of attackers and defenders
  • invasion square
  • killbox around the target present
  • wrong target (need exchanges first to get the right target into position)

State of the defender

  • pinned
  • overloaded
  • has the wrong properties (must be exchanged for a defender with the right properties)
State of the line of attack
  • blocked
  • target not on the endpoint yet
  • attacker not on the beginpoint yet
  • pivot point present
  • LoA can be closed by defenders
State of the attacker
not on the beginpoint yet

It doesn't make a difference which cue pops up first. It is a matter of getting a complete picture of the line of attack from attacker to target. Each static cue triggers the related standard scenario.

And then there are the dynamic cues.

Dual purpose move 2:1
  • double attack
  • discovered attack
  • fork
  • skewer
  • capture the defender
A dual purpose move alters the state of a target. It tips the balance.

Single purpose move 1:1
  • "with tempo"
  • with additional punch
  • postponement move
A single purpose move accomplishes a certain task without altering the main line.
A dynamic cue plays a role in the tempo battle.

Positional play

I made a lot of progress lately in the department of positional play. It lets you define which goals you want to reach ("what"). Like getting a good knight against a bad bishop, for instance. These ideas have their own cues, of course. Often related to the position of the pawns. We talk about that later.

Tactics can be used as a means to reach positional goals ("how").


Thursday, February 29, 2024

Tree of scenarios REDUX

 


I found the original tree of scenarios with the 23 scenarios. Time to rebuild it and make it more practical. We now know that a branch must be triggered by a salient point that is seen in the position. Let me reshuffle matters a bit.

Trap/killbox related actions

  • pry the box open
  • squeeze the box
  • squeeze the box until the target pops out onto a line of attack
  • chase the target into the box
  • plug a hole in the wall of the box
salient cue: the killbox

Tipping the balance
  • add attacker
  • plan adding attackers in the future
  • clear the line of attack with tempo (= add attacker)
  • eliminate defender
  • cut off future defenders
salient cues: 
  • B.A.D. (Barely Adequate Defended) target
  • overloaded defender
  • pinned defender

Gain a tempo
  • double attack
  • discovered attack
  • fork
  • skewer
  • trade defender
salient cues:
  • insufficient defended target
  • high value target
  • low value attacker
  • defender under attack

Maintaining the initiative
  • move with additional punch
  • postponing move
Salient cue: the need for a preparational move like
  • clearing a line of attack
  • chase the target to its demise
  • bring your attacker closer to the line of attack
  • exchanging the target for a more appropriate one
  • exchanging the defender for a more appropriate one

Counter attack
  • defend first
  • defend with additional punch
  • defend after your attack is finished
Salient cue: when your move is not forcing enough

Just to get the juices flowing.

Monday, February 26, 2024

Lowest common denominator

 I have the feeling that we are really on to something. That focusing on the salient points slowly builds some feeling for salient points. But not every salient point is immediately visible for the mind's eye. 

You need some logic to make them visible. The problem is, that each node initiates diversity. Like a tree fork from where new branches are sprouting.

I advocate to ignore the complexity that sprouts from the nodes in favor for the most simple and logical continuation until the big picture emerges. Only when the big picture is clear, you go back for working out the details of the nodes.

Black to move

2r3k1/2r2ppp/1p1b1n2/pP1Bnq2/8/PP2B1P1/3R1PKP/1N1Q1R2 b - - 0 1

[solution]

There are three salient points here that aren't immediately visible before the mind's eye.

  • Bd5 doesn't look B.A.D. (Barely Adequate Defended).
  • Rd2 doesn't pop out as a critical defender
  • The diagonal d5/g2 looks taboo for the black Queen
Logic must reveal these salient points and make them visible for the mind's eye. You can only know that this are salient points with hindsight.

The point of pressure that pops into my mind is c1. If we invade a rook there we attack a Queen AND we deprive the white knight from a defender. It is a double attack.

The simplest reaction white can have is to trade a rook that invades on c1. That is the most straightforward idea.

Of course we can come back later, and investigate other branches that sprout from this node. But for now we prune those branches in order to keep it simple.

The trade of two rooks against a Queen changes the position. The white queen had a double function: to guard c1 AND Bd5.

So the bishop on d5 has become B.A.D. (Barely Adequate Defended). And our attention is guided to that BAD bishop. A new salient point has become visible.

And from the BAD target our attention slips to the defender Rd2. Because of simple logic. And another  new salient point has become visible. We cannot harass the defender. But we can trade the bishop and transform the BAD defended target into a NOT defended target.

As we know, LPDO. And only now a new salient point becomes visible: the double attack against the white King and rook.

Sofar, three new salient points have become visible:
  • Target Bd5
  • Defender Rd2
  • Vulnerable diagonal d5/g2

Only now the big picture emerges. By zooming out. We got here by following the most simple variation. And since the most simple line works in its most simple form it is now time to look back at the nodes and see whether we can see more complicated branches which refute the whole idea.

Summary
  • Start with the salient points that are already visible (by zooming out)
  • Follow the most simple and straightforward logic while ignoring the branches that sprout from the nodes (by zooming in)
  • See the new salient points that become visible along the road (by zooming out)
  • Follow the logic until you win a piece (by zooming in)
  • See the big picture (by zooming out)
  • Go back to the first node and look for alternative branches that might refutate the most simple and straightforward line (zoom in)
  • Lather, rinse, repeat