So What Do You Really Get Out of This?
So What Do You Really Get Out of This?
Earlier today I found and read Chris Kilgore's blog. I was particularly interested in what he had to say since he is a MDLM "graduate".
Chris and Don (about 2/3 through the MDLM program) have both mentioned the major improvements they have seen are more in "tactical muscle" than anything else. Basically you get better at calculating and are able to do it longer without tiring. Of course this makes complete sense. If you lift weights every day for months you will be able to do it more easily and without tiring as quickly as before you started training. This is no different, but just something I had not really thought about.
Having nearly finished the first pass, here's the minor effects I am beginning to notice:
- Improving recognition of tactical patterns. No surprise here. In particular I find myself looking for certain ideas in specific positions that will make a combination work based on ideas I have seen in prior problems.
- Improving confidence in my calculations. On the more difficult problems where I cannot calculate things out completely I'm getting better at weeding out variations that just don't work out. When I started I would often think that a line would not work, when it turned out I had overlooked something. Now I seem to be overlooking less and can discard lines with more confidence. Often the "correct" move in the more difficult problems is either a move I did not consider (happens often when I have no idea where a problem is going), or I can calculate only so far and I cannot hold the position in my head clearly enough to make a definite assessment. Overall it is not something dramatic, but a small but growing difference that I am beginning to notice.
How much do you see?
Another thing Chris noted on a comment on my Feb. 14 installment was the difference in OTB play versus doing tactics problems. Yes, in CT-Art you know there is a tactic, and without an entire game on the line it is easier to sac a piece or whatever to see if something works. But on some of the more difficult problems (say level 70+) I find it hard to believe that anyone could see everything in a problem. There are just so many variations and non-forcing moves that it seems impossible to do that. So I wonder how much strong players actually see before they embark on a long sacrificial line.
But I do have to remember watching the Kramnik-Leko post-game press conferences during their 2004 world championship match. Chessbase has video excerpts of these. If you have never seen world-class players talking about chess you simply must watch some of these. Until I saw the videos I really didn't appreciate how much GMs really know about the game. Just to give you an idea, Kramnik and Leko are fielding questions from the audience, stuff like "Why didn't you play 23...g5?" Immediately Kramnik and Leko would begin talking about that specific moment in the game, giving 10 move variations and then an evaluation of the resulting position as to why they did this or didn't do that. All without a board, and after playing a long game. Simply amazing. So it makes me wonder- maybe a GM really can see all these moves?
Update on Wednesday, February 16:
Finished 10 problems tonight, 1190- 1199 (I did 1188 and 1189 yesterday right before bed).
All level 90+, score 49%. Boy, they were brutally hard tonight. (I had no idea I could get 17 penalties and still score 60/140...) Some of them just went on and on and on. I was particularly amused by one problem that was from a correspondence game of M. Blokh (the CT-Art creator) that spanned two years (1987-1989 IIRC). How am I supposed to find in 10 minutes what Blokh spent years on? Sheesh.
However, I think I should get bonus points for finding a better move than the solution on problem 1192. My forced mate was 6 half-moves faster than the forced mate given. So surely that is worth +25% to my final score, right?
Funny thing though, I was doing so poorly that I sped up and actually scored better when I went faster (actually completing each problem in 10 minutes rather than 15-20). I don't know if the problems just got easier or what. Weird.
Only 10 more problems to go in the first circle. Tomorrow night is chess night with OJ, so I may not finish until Friday. This will be the first time I can use my brand spankin' new chess clock. There is the Lone Star Open chess tournament on March 4-6 that I'm considering entering, so it would be a good idea to get some practice at G/120 time controls. I am sort of torn on whether or not to enter or not. I've hardly played anyone OTB, much less gone to a tournament. I won't even know how to read the cross table postings. My wife and I were planning a weekend trip that same weekend, but we may reschedule it so I can play. Hmmmm.....
posted by fussylizard @ 7:11 PM
5 Comments:
Yes those press conferences used to crack me up to -- "On 27 Ng5 of course I take with the f pawn then Qb6,Kf2,h4,Nxc3 ... BXR, RXQ, ab,dc,gh,lmnop, NXB ... e8N and the resulting endgame is slightly better for black."
One thing I have also noticed is that the tactical them sometimes becomes obvious even if I don't know how it will work out. I'll look at a position and think "I don't see anything but I bet I sac my knight on the e pawn". Sure enough, I'll look and see that this leads to a combo.
My roommate made it about halfway through the program. He's a class E player, and his ability to notice tactical opportunities soared, as a lot of the basic patterns from even the level 10 and 20 problems were fairly new to him.
I agree with you that on the harder CT-ART problems it's nearly impossible to see everything beforehand, and even in OTB games that's the case. While many GMs are calculating monsters, I've heard some of them talk about not calculating everything out; they sometimes stop when they get a feeling that a line is good enough to pursue solely based on the dynamic potential in the position. That's typically been hard for me to do. In a recent tournament game, I played the White side of the famous Deep Blue vs Kasparov game where Kasparov messed up the Black side of the Caro-Kann, and Deep Blue sacrificed a knight for long-term positional pressure (1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxd4 Nd7 5.Ng5 Ngf6 6.Bd3 e6 7.N1f3 h6 8.Nxe6). Deep Blue won fairly quickly, and I eventually converted the positional advantage into a material one, but in time trouble settled for a draw. This was very new to me, sacrificing material like that and trusting in my technique to not let Black untangle himself and just be better.
What Don said is very instructive. Chess is a game of ideas, even with tactics. So it's common to notice a tactical theme in a position first, with no idea how it'll work out. Many moves are discovered by trying to get an idea to work, such as, "If only my opponent's queen wasn't on the fifth rank...". I think the program can help you to notice these tactical themes in a position more easily, but for me the key is to remember to look! I've noticed that I sometimes get distracted by other ideas and forget to look for tactical shots.
I think the biggest problem for me is still my thinking process (which I plan to take up in a coming installment). I need to be more diligent about checking for checks, captures, etc., playing "real chess" on every move as Dan Heisman talks about, etc.
Focusing on ideas is definitely the way to go, such as noting a loose piece and finding a way to exploit it. However, I find that on some of the more difficult CT-Art problems the only thing I have to work with is a slightly weakened king position (or so-says CT-Art- the king position will often look fairly safe to me), and I often have no clue how to proceed. So I spend three or four penalties trying to find just the first move. Hopefully on the next pass I will remember some of the moves or ideas and will have a better success rate.
I have a hard time sacrificing material without seeing a forced win. Sacrificing to simplify when I am already winning is fine, esp. if I get in a resulting endgame that I can evaluate as winning. Sometimes when I am losing I will give up more material than necessary to keep things unbalanced. A few months ago I was on the losing end of a vicious attack and instead of giving up a piece for nothing, I gave up my queen for a rook just to keep things more unbalanced. I actually ended up winning the game when my opponent lost focus and fell into a mating attack later in the game. After the game he told me he was not at all expecting the queen sacrifice. Objectively it may have been worse than dropping the piece, but in practical terms it worked out. I guess that is what one terms "counterplay". :-)
There often seems to be a struggle between the objective and the practical. Hmmmm, sounds like an interesting blog entry. For example, do you play an opening that is theoretically unsound but gives you good practical results?
I choose always the practical solution. Even if it is theoretically unsound. I play a lot of gambits, some are not so sound. Every half year I go through all my games and look if the openings are productive. If not, I drop the opening. For example, a few years ago I quit playing the Sicilian with black, because I hated when someone played the Morragambit against it.
At the same time I started to play the Morragambit myself. I played it two years, but it is not productive anymore on this level. So I dumped it. What I have gained is that I now know what do do with black. So if I like I can play the Sicilian again with black. (Which I'm not going to do because the Sicilian is a positional opening and I'm trying to master tactics). So be practical. What is playable by Kramnik is not playable by me en vice versa.
fussylizard, looking for threats and captures is a great way to start. Keep at it and let it become second nature. Then, it will be automatic when you play, and your performance should improve.
Post a Comment
<< Home