So I've decided to take--*gasp*--a balanced approach to my chess study. I have now heard from two reputable sources that the purpose of endgame study early in one's career is not necessarily for the purpose of playing the endgame better. Rather, by doing so, one gets a feel for the power of each piece as an individual, as well as how, say, two pieces work together in harmony, e.g. learning to mate with Bishop and Knight. Of course, I won't necessarily study the B+N mate just yet; I do, however, have respect for the concept, used in the Soviet School of training and relayed to me by recent acquaintance Olexsandr Lozitskiy from Ukraine (USCF 1938.)
The other reputable source is the amazing Josh Waitzkin. Quoting from his latest book,
"Once he had won my confidence, Bruce began our study with a barren chessboard. We took on positions of reduced complexity and clear principles. Our first focus was king and pawn against king--just three pieces on the table. Over time, I gained an excellent intuitive feel for the power of the king and the subtlety of the pawn. I learned the principle of opposition, the hidden potency of empty space, the idea of zugzwang.... Layer by layer we built up my knowledge and my understanding of how to transform axioms into fuel for creative insight. Then we turned to rook endings, bishop endings, knight endings, spending hundreds of hours as I turned seven and eight years old, exploring the operating principles behind positions that I might never see again. This method of study gave me a feeling for the beautiful subtleties of each chess piece, because in relatively clear-cut positions I could focus on what was essential. I was also gradually internalizing a marvelous methodology of learning--the play between knowledge, intuition, and creativity. From both educational and technical perspecties, I learned from the foundation up." ("The Art of Learning, "pp. 34-5.)
In any case, I've purchased Silman's Complete Endgame course, and I'm working my way through it in addition to my opening studies and, of course, tactics. Speaking of which, if any of you followed Ziatdinov's "Training Tips" on jeremysilman.com, you would have found his rather bold claim that if you take a collection of 1000 tactical problems and learn them "by hand" (i.e. so automatically that all your calculations are actually subconscious) then you "will have the tactical ability of a Grandmaster." I don't know whether or not this claim is true; however, I'm going to, ah, pretend it's true, and spend the next year or so (as long as it takes) internalizing all main lines and side variations of the problems in CT-Art, to perfection.
As for openings, I've decided to switch to a more "solid" repertoire, for some very dark reasons of my own. (I'm very, very curious to see how this repertoire will combine with my "tactical ability of a Grandmaster," once I've earned it over the next year or two.) I still want to play gambits, but perhaps only against weaker players <:-)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I am curious to hear from some other people who have completed all of the CT-Art problems. I definitely think that if one can see the tactical lines in every problem in the set quickly and confidently that one has achieved a certain tactical mastery.
However, many of the problem solutions given by the software are unsatisfactory to me. They more than occasionally miss better continuations or secondary winning moves by the winning side and leave out the toughest defense of the defending side. My latest post gives a few examples of this. There are several more examples scattered through my blog. Though I'd estimate I've posted well under half the issues I've come across.
Do you have any comments on the quality of the problem set?
It is a very cool and strange feeling to solve problems 'by hand.' That is a good description, though. It feels like cheating, as I don't have to look around at all, except at the piece, the square I want to move it to, and bam. It is incredibly fast, effortless, thought-free problem solving. So far I've learned about 1000 problems to this level, with about 300 to go before I'm done.
I am very curious about whether I will be able to generalize, i.e., see similar but somewhat different patterns quickly. My hunch is that I will, but it depends on how close the new pattern is to the one stored in memory.
this is the best post, bravo!
thank you. most inspiring.
you most obviously know 'what it is all about', which is why i have you high up in my side bar, even though your posts are relatively rare.
warmest, dk
http://amchesscoaching.com/Articles/im_rashid_ziyatdinov.htm
thought you might find this of interest. I am exploring the King and Pawn endgames in Gm-ram currently.
Post a Comment