Monday, March 12, 2007

Chess III

How’s it going with my thinking rules? Well, some problems have occurred.

I said I would think about positional stuff (including doing a tactical inventory) during my opponents turn, and specific calculations during my turn. One problem is: it is way to vague to have "think about positional stuff" as a mental guide. Out of all countless "positional" things to think about, which should I choose? I want rules that are as independent of the actual position as possible, to have the same rules as often as possible (some people, those who do not understand the way in which abstractions covers many different concretes, would immediate brand that as "inflexible" and tell me about the necessity of adapting the thinking to the actual position. Of course I would agree about adapting the thinking, in a certain sense different from the one I was talking about.)

Another related question is: how do I go from identifying positional aspects to finding a move? Okay, there’s an open diagonal, there’s a well placed piece, and there’s... okay, so what? The aim is to find a good move, and the connection between a positional analysis and a good move isn’t always obvious. Maybe I slant my analysis too much on what is rather than what could be? In any event, I need specific questions, and I want to integrate into the mix the following: Keres/Kotovs four positional areas, the question of purpose (what I want to achieve), plan (how to achieve it) and the question "what are my opponents weaknesses And of course the tactical inventory, which I think will help a lot when integrated fully.

Another problem: the checks/captures/threats-rule (CCT-rule?) It’s easy enough to check all checks and captures, and know you’ve looked at all. But the threats-part isn’t as clear. How do you know you’ve looked into all possible threats? Of course, I’m talking about immediate (or near immediate) threats here (otherwise it doesn’t fall under tactics), but it’s still much more difficult to handle than checks and captures. I need to break it down. Does it come down to "threaten to make a move which the next move will check and/or capture something"? Maybe, or should count such things as "moving a black knight e5, threatening to move it to a secured position at d3" (a black knight at d3 is kind of threatening regardless of captures and checks, but it is more a positional advantage than a tactical one unless some immediate tactical manoeuvre is possible).


No comments:

Locations of visitors to this page