LUCH04
User
Newbie
| Posts: 7 |   |
Karma: 0
|
re:Chess calculation : an analogy - 2005/11/09 08:22
Kotov in his book identified various types of "trees of analysis", and maybe the idea of this systematic identification was to help the person doing the analysis adjust their thinking appropriately, but I think your idea of making an analogy to physical movement is better- after all, its easier to think about trees than be running round the house all the time. If you wanted to improve the performance of one`s thinking, then taking a model where the punishment of not being efficient is very tangible sounds like a good idea. Also, so what if you identify the position as being a "thicket" or a "bare trunk". Does this actually help one`s thinking to know the tree pattern ?!? Or is it good for after the game, when you can say to your opponent- "That was a bare trunk in that position.."
Within the area of physical modelling, I studied the subject of Simulation modelling. By doing simulation models of physical processes, the software could help identify bottlenecks. For example, at a local library, there might be bottlenecks for people checking out the books. Solution: get another book checker-outer. The queue bottleneck might be resolved, and the whole library operates more effectively.
Maybe the principle of identifying bottlenecks applies to our chess thinking. Maybe the Grandmasters have finely tuned their analysis of variations by removing their "bottlenecks", or coversely employing "accelerators". I suppose "accelerators" are commonly known as "thematic ideas". For example, The greek gift sacrifice when one plays Bxh7+ to be followed by Ng5+ and Qh5+. This is a thematic tactical idea. The Grandmasters have a massive arsenal of such prepared thematic tactics. They can look at a position and often quickly relate it to a theme or a tactical thematic idea, such as deflection, decoy, pin, etc.
So how do we identify our thinking "bottlenecks"? Maybe we are not good at analysing knight movements, or appreciating the power of pins. Maybe these tactical elements, or pieces could be taken in isolation, and training could be carried out to be a master of pins, or a master of analysing knight movements ahead. Maybe in certain kinds of positions, our thinking is far less efficient than other positions. Maybe the position suits our style of play, and every move we seem to think of, fits the position nicely. I for example like closed positions where lines can be later opened. My choice of opening reflects this. I play the kings indian as black, and love doing pawn storms on the kingside. But I hate positions which are very open and tactical in nature. I`m too lazy to analyse lots of variations just to make sure I dont lose all my bits. Maybe the Grandmasters are adept at handling every type of position and not just being able to play appriately to the position, but also to THINK appropriately to the position, thereby minimising "bottlenecks". What do you think about the identification of bottlenecks idea?
Best wishes
Tryfon Gavriel webmaster www.letsplaychess.com
---------
I don't think there's anything to be afraid of. Failure brings great rewards -- in the life of an artist.
Popular posts by LUCH04
Best openings to start learning/ ga...
Chess Webmasters- a nice Javascript...
GM Wolff Rest of World match - will...
|
post new topic