Wednesday, March 27, 2024

Plugging the holes

I finally seem to have created some basis for future developments.

In the past 24 years I have paid little attention to other parts of the game than tactics. Now I seem to book some results in that department, the omissions start to show themselves.

I work like a madman to repair the holes and to get the water out.

Of course it is an insane idea to throw all your openings out of the window and to replace them all at the same time at once. Especially when you do that so rigorously that you start all over again when an opening doesn't work out as you thought it would. Throwing an effort of two years out of the window. That happened quite a few times.

Opponents seem to have a nose for the holes in my repertoire. Or they avoid the main lines that I trained, or they throw obscure gambits at me that take too much time to learn the theory. Or they play rare openings that I only encounter once every five years. The past two years I encountered the Dutch Defense six times, while a friend of mine hasn't seen it in six years. And an anti Dutch system isn't in my repertoire yet.

Slowly a secure opening repertoire emerges which act as a stabile basis from where I can plug the holes one by one. Matters are less complicated when you don't feel obliged to through whole variations out of the window time and again, but only to plug the holes where it leaks.

Last weekend I spend two days to choose a way to combat the dutch defense.

With white I play the Colle/Barry/London family of openings, so it is logical to start with 1.d4 f5 2.Nf3 against the Dutch.

With black I'm not so far yet. The French Defense is a keeper, which makes 1.d4 e6 a logical response to d4. But when white refuses the invitation to go into the French, I haven't decided on the best route yet. I hope to get more clarity this summer, when I play another tournament.

All in all, a stable basis starts to emerge. For the first time I get usable feedback from my games. I play for instance 1.d4 d6 2.Nf3 Bg4 Ne5. Just because it is advised by some grandmasters. It is aiming at gaining the bishop pair, and indeed I managed to get the bishop pair a few times. That showed another hole in my boat: I don't know how to play with the bishop pair. But at least I'm trying AND learning. Knowing what the problem is, is much better than just fiddling around with moves with no clue what you are after.

Another hole that showed itself is the vulnerability to knight forks. In time trouble I tend to overlook those pesky beasts. So I have created a database with knight forks lately.

Furthermore, I slowly build on the scenarios that belong to the tactics department. It is not that I now throw masterpieces of tactical combinations to my opponents time and again. But slowly I start to become more confident. In the past, my positional plans were always spoiled by some tactics. Now I'm more often than not able to pursue my positional goals. Often showing that I followed the wrong plan, but hey, it is a step further, mind you!

So progress is slow, albeit I work like a madman. One day it will pay off.



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.