.
I played 6 action chess games (Game in 30 minutes per player) yesterday. I won all 6, so I must have done something right. So, here is a review the games and how my thinking seemed to go.
First, I traveled to another city and found myself playing one of my own club mates. Well, as there were only 10 players in the tournament I ended up playing 6 of the 9 available. It was almost inevitable.
Game one: We played an opening that we had played dozens of times before at the local club (a Pirc Defense, Byrne variation) and I think he was a bit tight because he played an unusual move or two early and I pushed forward when he wasn't ready to retreat. This actually cost him a piece very quickly and soon after he lost another without seeing that it was happening. I'm happy with my thinking in this game. I was thinking in terms of patterns, where the pieces should be played for maximal effect and safety, and didn't have to think logically very much. I stopped on one or two moves for a while, but most of the game went very smoothly. His (uncharacteristically short) loss was due far more to his tightness than to my abilities.
Game two: This game was much more tense as my opponent developed actively (a Nimzo-Indian Defense, Rubinstein variation with Nge2) and held a safe position without trying to force anything. I tried to gradually place my pieces where I could pressure his position to force him into unwanted exchanges. He exposed one pawn a bit on the queen-side and that gave me a target. On the other side of the board I used a free piece to maneuver to pressure another pawn (directly in front of his king). This plan was partly opening pattern and middle-game logical thinking -- to find the targets and pressure them. He immediately felt the pressure and tried to push back. In the next few moves some exchanges happened and he let me have a pawn for some good piece activity and then he offered a draw. But, he had overlooked a small problem in his position. I chased one bishop, which he retreated, and then I double attacked another undefended bishop and the weak pawn in front of his king. He was going to be checkmated or lose the bishop, so he resigned. He simply didn't see the potential threat and when it occurred he had no defense. I'm very pleased with my thinking in this game as it involved both standard patterns and some maneuvering to probe weaknesses, ending with a couple of tactical moves.
Time for some lunch and a chance to enjoy the beautiful weather.
Game three: This was (already) the big match-up with the second-highest-rated player. It was a nice game (Najdorf Sicilian with 6. Be2 e5) with a few difficult trade decisions, which I think he might've done better on, and I gradually took a small positional advantage. But, it cost me some time to get there and he was holding on pretty well. He also was trying to play quicker to make the time differential a big factor. I decided to change the position of a bishop and forgot it had been required to defend a pawn. So, he snapped up the pawn. I simply kept applying pressure which gave me equality and then I sped up play with some determination to watch him try to figure out what to do and to not lose on time. Well, he had a tough time deciding what to do and it cost him time. My play was easier, so I just maintained my advantages as well as I could and fought his pieces as he tried to activate them. This process took him a lot of time. In fact, he couldn't activate his king and that let me neutralize his play. Then, I traded off one of his pieces and completely destroyed his pawns. This is when he more or less panicked and let me win his pawns. He was finally down to my time and still taking long on each move. Finally I was ahead two pawns (!) and he ran out of time. I'm not sure how much time I had left, but it was around 30 seconds. This left my nerves jangling for a while. He was very unhappy, but it was just a tough chess game. My thinking in the game was solid throughout except for the poor timing to change bishop position which cost the pawn. My recent practice playing faster probably helped me stay clear-minded when the time ran low.
After that game I wished I had time to calm down!
Game four: I played a lower-rated player who felt a great deal of strain during the game, but who managed his army rather well and safely. I, on the other hand, was not in a perfect state of mind. I wanted to play safely in one way, but aggressively in another. In the end I achieved neither to my satisfaction. I wasn't feeling very intuitive, but I did manage to use logic to compensate. I had the black pieces and didn't really get equality from the (English) opening. But his pieces weren't ideally placed and he was very fearful. Against a master I would've been worried. Well, I decided to fight where I had to and he made a mistake. He was perhaps trying to calculate too many irrelevant variations (as he explained to me afterward) and simply let me take a pawn without recapturing. Then I was able to construct a plan to build on that and everything went smoothly. Using logic helped through the more difficult parts of the game. Intuition was really failing me, perhaps because the positions I got weren't very familiar. That was probably one of my mistakes: not playing familiar positions where intuition could play a bigger role. But then, maybe I didn't play familiar positions because my intuition wasn't leading me there. Which failed me first the chicken of the egg (intuition or familiar positions & patterns)?
Game five: My opponent in this game (Philidor's Defense) hadn't played tournament chess for 25 years and was having great difficulty. He lost a piece on move 9 and another on move 17.
Game six: Except for game 3 this was my most intriguing game. I don't know my opponent, but he played the opening (Alekhin's Defense, Larsen/Miles ...c6 variation) very well. At one point he could've traded bishops to have a fine position and instead he retreated a knight which let me trade two minor pieces to give him doubled pawns (a weakness) and to give me a queen-side pawn majority. After that I aimed to trade rooks, so my pawns might move forward more safely. He didn't seem to realize the danger of this and simply allowed it. I think my thinking was more logical in this game since I hadn't played any tournament games with this variation. In fact, I had perhaps played one or two casual games with it. So, without a lot of memories and only study material in mind I played a normal developmental pattern and really only analyzed moves once we got beyond that. He seemed to have done the same except that when that moment came he made a mistake...and then others. At one point he offered a bishop trade and offered a draw. First, I wasn't going to accept a draw when I had the positional advantage (even a small one) and second he had just blundered a piece away. The game lasted only a few moves more. However, I feel this player has great potential. Again, I was quite happy with my move choices and logical continuation of the opening pattern and (for the most part) calculations.
So, for the tournament had ups & downs, but I was able to manage the rough spots pretty well and played a couple of excellent games. I don't think I was in danger of losing, though a couple of games were quite tense for a while. My thinking varied from excellent, even in time pressure, to blankness until I could logically work out a plan.
My prize? $ 70.00 !!!! Woo hoo! :-)
Sunday, June 30, 2013
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Left Brain, Right Brain, Hypnosis, Emotional Tiredness ...
.
I have noticed that the way I think changes when I'm in a tiring event. This is noticeable whether it's a long day or two days, but it becomes hugely significant for longer events (4, 5 or more days). I also know that emotional draining can occur when we have to make a long series of difficult decisions whether, in the end, one feels good about the performance or outcomes. Decision-making is emotional work and it leaves us feeling slow, dull and weighed-down. A long series of tasks requiring emotional decision-making can drain us without necessarily making us physically much weaker. We will still feel the need to consume massive calories and to sleep. One chess grandmaster was asked his hobby and he said "sleeping". Sleeping helps to reset the emotional nervous system to do its work properly and that's crucial for decision-making.
Given all that, it makes sense to understand how to do the mental work with less decision-making draining effort and in some way to maintain a steady consistent way of thinking with high efficiency and effectiveness over days of heavy mental work involving (potentially) lots of decisions (as happens in a chess tournament with long games over many days).
I have noticed many times when a potential move would pop into my mind almost instantly when viewing a new chess position. I'm sure diagnostic physicians also have such intuitions when they're seeing a steady steam of new patients. Probably many business leaders or stock traders or sports coaches who have a steady flow of decisions to make have the same experience. "Get in the *flow* and intuit what to do" -- that's been a common suggestion for everyone to do better. But, often intuition fails us and in a game like chess or with anything which has lasting and serious consequences you want more from your choices if you have time to consider options and ramifications.
So, a typical approach suggested for chess (and perhaps other things) is to intuit something and then to rationally, logically & consciously analyze it before committing to it. In chess the second part is sometimes called the Blumenfeld Rule or the Blunder-Check. One reviews the intuited candidate action by whatever angles you understand are important to see if the candidate stands up to scrutiny. One problem with that is that our conscious efforts are very slow and very very tiring and we're still not very good at it. Another is that we can talk ourselves out of a candidate action which in fact is alright. Having the Left and Right Brain arguing against each other doesn't always help.
What do you do when your intuition becomes hard to recognize and many moves/actions seem equally good or when all seem bad?
Without intuition how do we, how can we, approach a situation or problem to find the next thing to do or the solution?
If hypnosis is truly a way to 'speak directly to the subconscious', and many believe that it is, then it means the Left Brain and the Right Brain operate separately and may become tired separately (remembering the whole body is involved in thinking and decision-making). If intuition is slow or indecisive or somehow ineffective when it becomes tired, then perhaps that is the time we really have to lean on other means to think clearly. People under stress, like policemen or commercial airplane pilots or soldiers or firefighters or ER doctors need sleep and a good diet, but they also need good thinking techniques and regular procedures.
The subconscious is powerful, though we're not always directly conscious of what it's effecting. I've seen it in action and realized that my conscious efforts were simply not that powerful. That's why I think hypnosis or other ways of leading the subconscious to behave a certain way is indeed powerful and a great lesson to us all. Don't be sold by the P.R. department known as the conscious mind with its story-telling. A lot of it is justification made of cobwebs and isn't to be trusted.
I think this also has ramifications for education. We feed information to children and hope they can remember it. We show them methods for doing things and hope they practice it and remember how to do it. But, when it comes to new things or creative things or especially difficult and stressful things I wonder if they have any education or ways of arriving at good thinking techniques. It's sometimes thought to be too personal and not something one should be taught. But, learning thinking techniques is like learning mathematics or scientific experiment protocols or engineering practices and these are all important for people to achieve greater things than intuition alone can provide.
I'm curious what stories people from various fields would tell about how they think under duress and during long events. What works and what is just 'old wives tales'?
I have noticed that the way I think changes when I'm in a tiring event. This is noticeable whether it's a long day or two days, but it becomes hugely significant for longer events (4, 5 or more days). I also know that emotional draining can occur when we have to make a long series of difficult decisions whether, in the end, one feels good about the performance or outcomes. Decision-making is emotional work and it leaves us feeling slow, dull and weighed-down. A long series of tasks requiring emotional decision-making can drain us without necessarily making us physically much weaker. We will still feel the need to consume massive calories and to sleep. One chess grandmaster was asked his hobby and he said "sleeping". Sleeping helps to reset the emotional nervous system to do its work properly and that's crucial for decision-making.
Given all that, it makes sense to understand how to do the mental work with less decision-making draining effort and in some way to maintain a steady consistent way of thinking with high efficiency and effectiveness over days of heavy mental work involving (potentially) lots of decisions (as happens in a chess tournament with long games over many days).
I have noticed many times when a potential move would pop into my mind almost instantly when viewing a new chess position. I'm sure diagnostic physicians also have such intuitions when they're seeing a steady steam of new patients. Probably many business leaders or stock traders or sports coaches who have a steady flow of decisions to make have the same experience. "Get in the *flow* and intuit what to do" -- that's been a common suggestion for everyone to do better. But, often intuition fails us and in a game like chess or with anything which has lasting and serious consequences you want more from your choices if you have time to consider options and ramifications.
So, a typical approach suggested for chess (and perhaps other things) is to intuit something and then to rationally, logically & consciously analyze it before committing to it. In chess the second part is sometimes called the Blumenfeld Rule or the Blunder-Check. One reviews the intuited candidate action by whatever angles you understand are important to see if the candidate stands up to scrutiny. One problem with that is that our conscious efforts are very slow and very very tiring and we're still not very good at it. Another is that we can talk ourselves out of a candidate action which in fact is alright. Having the Left and Right Brain arguing against each other doesn't always help.
What do you do when your intuition becomes hard to recognize and many moves/actions seem equally good or when all seem bad?
Without intuition how do we, how can we, approach a situation or problem to find the next thing to do or the solution?
If hypnosis is truly a way to 'speak directly to the subconscious', and many believe that it is, then it means the Left Brain and the Right Brain operate separately and may become tired separately (remembering the whole body is involved in thinking and decision-making). If intuition is slow or indecisive or somehow ineffective when it becomes tired, then perhaps that is the time we really have to lean on other means to think clearly. People under stress, like policemen or commercial airplane pilots or soldiers or firefighters or ER doctors need sleep and a good diet, but they also need good thinking techniques and regular procedures.
The subconscious is powerful, though we're not always directly conscious of what it's effecting. I've seen it in action and realized that my conscious efforts were simply not that powerful. That's why I think hypnosis or other ways of leading the subconscious to behave a certain way is indeed powerful and a great lesson to us all. Don't be sold by the P.R. department known as the conscious mind with its story-telling. A lot of it is justification made of cobwebs and isn't to be trusted.
I think this also has ramifications for education. We feed information to children and hope they can remember it. We show them methods for doing things and hope they practice it and remember how to do it. But, when it comes to new things or creative things or especially difficult and stressful things I wonder if they have any education or ways of arriving at good thinking techniques. It's sometimes thought to be too personal and not something one should be taught. But, learning thinking techniques is like learning mathematics or scientific experiment protocols or engineering practices and these are all important for people to achieve greater things than intuition alone can provide.
I'm curious what stories people from various fields would tell about how they think under duress and during long events. What works and what is just 'old wives tales'?
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Democrats Support People while Republicans Try To Trivialize Them
.
Democrats have created the Minimum Wage law and the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act to help the disenfranchised and the poor. Today, because of Republicans (and frankly their hatred of the poor) the minimum wage is $3,000 less than the poverty line and it hasn't been increased since 2009. Democrats hoped with the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act that the African-Americans and other ethnic groups could get past discrimination and vote to elect some of their own representatives for government. Now the Supreme Court Conservatives (what are they conserving) have gutted the Voting Rights Act provision which lets the federal government regulate voting laws & practices in states where discrimination at the polling place has been prevalent.
Chief Justice John Roberts can say the law is out of step with the times, but can he really claim ignorance that today's Republicans in Congress won't create new legislation to deal with the issue.
It seems clear the Conservative Republican Absurdity Parade (CRAP) is destroying America even as the American people twice elected an African-American to be president and have become more and more open to homosexuals and are moving on past the racism of the past. Do the Republicans believe they can turn back the clock? Do they think we will ignore their efforts to impose terrible voting laws in their states? Do they think America will stand still for their CRAP?
Turn your back on that Parade and yell to your member of Congress to move America forward, not back.
Democrats have created the Minimum Wage law and the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act to help the disenfranchised and the poor. Today, because of Republicans (and frankly their hatred of the poor) the minimum wage is $3,000 less than the poverty line and it hasn't been increased since 2009. Democrats hoped with the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act that the African-Americans and other ethnic groups could get past discrimination and vote to elect some of their own representatives for government. Now the Supreme Court Conservatives (what are they conserving) have gutted the Voting Rights Act provision which lets the federal government regulate voting laws & practices in states where discrimination at the polling place has been prevalent.
Chief Justice John Roberts can say the law is out of step with the times, but can he really claim ignorance that today's Republicans in Congress won't create new legislation to deal with the issue.
It seems clear the Conservative Republican Absurdity Parade (CRAP) is destroying America even as the American people twice elected an African-American to be president and have become more and more open to homosexuals and are moving on past the racism of the past. Do the Republicans believe they can turn back the clock? Do they think we will ignore their efforts to impose terrible voting laws in their states? Do they think America will stand still for their CRAP?
Turn your back on that Parade and yell to your member of Congress to move America forward, not back.
Sunday, June 23, 2013
Tree...Apples...Falling...etc.
.
“George W. Bush’s Great-Great-Great-Great-Grandfather was a Slave Trader.” Thomas “Beau” Walker “died at sea in 1797 when his own crew mutinied and threw him overboard”.
This shows people will take action when the insanity is obviously a threat. In America you've got to yell really loud. Fight government spying, Republican absurdity, Syrian use of chemical weapons, the huge wealth gap with so much wealth and so many living in poverty and all the other terrible things we face.
“George W. Bush’s Great-Great-Great-Great-Grandfather was a Slave Trader.” Thomas “Beau” Walker “died at sea in 1797 when his own crew mutinied and threw him overboard”.
This shows people will take action when the insanity is obviously a threat. In America you've got to yell really loud. Fight government spying, Republican absurdity, Syrian use of chemical weapons, the huge wealth gap with so much wealth and so many living in poverty and all the other terrible things we face.
Saturday, June 22, 2013
"Absurd" Republicans have Absurd Ideas
.
Congressman Steve King (R) believes you should be free to hide your income from the tax man.
Secret Income Is Part of Freedom
Meanwhile, tax avoidance is on the rise!
It's twice the amount of Social Security and Medicare.
Maybe if all the hidden income was taxed we wouldn't have the so-called 'unfunded liability' problem.
The Supreme Court Conservative Justices are at it again.
Even Small Businesses can't shake mega-corporations chokehold on access to the courts.
And, it isn't just the Justices who believe corporations are people. During the last presidential race the Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, said "corporations are people too, my friends" and now Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky and Senate minority leader) believes corporations deserve 'free speech'.
"Absurd" to ban corporations from having same rights as people
Of course, the free speech he's referring to is when corporations seek to be active in the political world by giving money to Republicans. He also believes it's crucial for them to be able to act in secret, so Democrats can't "go after" their donors. I don't know what he's almost alleging, but it's weasel words like that we have come to expect from Sen. McConnell. If he wants to say Democrats are attacking donors to Republicans he should say so. Well, he can point to the IRS scandal, but that was begun by Republicans in IRS's Cincinnati office and not the White House.
Apparently the Republicans are simply scared that without corporate dollars they won't have sufficient support from real American citizens. Boo hoo! Become a real political party which represents a majority of the public.
I might begin to believe corporations are somewhat like people if Texas ever executes an innocent one, like the innocent people they've executed. Somehow corporations seem to be superior.
Congressman Steve King (R) believes you should be free to hide your income from the tax man.
Secret Income Is Part of Freedom
Meanwhile, tax avoidance is on the rise!
It's twice the amount of Social Security and Medicare.
Maybe if all the hidden income was taxed we wouldn't have the so-called 'unfunded liability' problem.
The Supreme Court Conservative Justices are at it again.
Even Small Businesses can't shake mega-corporations chokehold on access to the courts.
And, it isn't just the Justices who believe corporations are people. During the last presidential race the Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, said "corporations are people too, my friends" and now Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky and Senate minority leader) believes corporations deserve 'free speech'.
"Absurd" to ban corporations from having same rights as people
Of course, the free speech he's referring to is when corporations seek to be active in the political world by giving money to Republicans. He also believes it's crucial for them to be able to act in secret, so Democrats can't "go after" their donors. I don't know what he's almost alleging, but it's weasel words like that we have come to expect from Sen. McConnell. If he wants to say Democrats are attacking donors to Republicans he should say so. Well, he can point to the IRS scandal, but that was begun by Republicans in IRS's Cincinnati office and not the White House.
Apparently the Republicans are simply scared that without corporate dollars they won't have sufficient support from real American citizens. Boo hoo! Become a real political party which represents a majority of the public.
I might begin to believe corporations are somewhat like people if Texas ever executes an innocent one, like the innocent people they've executed. Somehow corporations seem to be superior.
Thursday, June 20, 2013
Beware, Conservatives at Work !
.
Bridges are in disrepair. Will Conservatives in Congress vote for an infrastructure spending bill?
Apparently our Constitution is also in disrepair and the Conservatives like it that way. Who will stand up to them and call for the impeachment of the idiot Justices who say we have no Constitutional right to remain silent? How can they be textualists or even originalists when they say the police can interpret fidgeting as guilt?
This is not "sour grapes" because of the 'scandals' the Right has found in the administration. Remember, the Right backed the movie-maker who angered the Muslims in the middle-east, there was a riot over the movie in Tripoli and several other cities before the attack in Benghazi, the IRS scandal was begun by Republicans in the Cincinnati office of the IRS (and that was admitted by the Republican Bush-appointed IRS commissioner) and the AP news scandal was done according to the law which was written by Republicans (the PATRIOT Act).
Republicans are just absolutely killing America and now the Supreme Court Conservatives say we can't remain silent. So, it's time to yell very loud!
Update: The Supreme Court says corporations are BETTER than citizens!
Bridges are in disrepair. Will Conservatives in Congress vote for an infrastructure spending bill?
Apparently our Constitution is also in disrepair and the Conservatives like it that way. Who will stand up to them and call for the impeachment of the idiot Justices who say we have no Constitutional right to remain silent? How can they be textualists or even originalists when they say the police can interpret fidgeting as guilt?
This is not "sour grapes" because of the 'scandals' the Right has found in the administration. Remember, the Right backed the movie-maker who angered the Muslims in the middle-east, there was a riot over the movie in Tripoli and several other cities before the attack in Benghazi, the IRS scandal was begun by Republicans in the Cincinnati office of the IRS (and that was admitted by the Republican Bush-appointed IRS commissioner) and the AP news scandal was done according to the law which was written by Republicans (the PATRIOT Act).
Republicans are just absolutely killing America and now the Supreme Court Conservatives say we can't remain silent. So, it's time to yell very loud!
Update: The Supreme Court says corporations are BETTER than citizens!
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
"Observe patiently while attacking ruthlessly" -- a martial artist
.
Recent technological advances are allowing people to analyze eye movements for various purposes. For example, Eye-Tracking Software May Reveal Autism or Eye Movements when Examining an Image or Eye Movements of Doctors Spotting Cancers orTracking Cricket and Baseballs to Hit Them.
Studies done long ago showed chess players who are better consider empty squares more than weaker players. Soccer pros seem to study the empty spaces between players more than do amateur audience watchers. Could it be the player is considering what COULD happen and their creative mind must consider all the area involved?
Then there is the 'secret' of boxing: Where to Look during a Fight and how that works compared to studying the gloves, shoulders or other parts of your opponent's body.
What these studies say in common is that the more expert people don't have quicker eyes which see everything, but that they have specific skills which help them focus on specific things related to their work. Ball hitters can't follow the ball if it's too fast, so they may see it as it leaves the pitcher's hand and judge a path for it with an attempt to see it somewhere else on the way. Chess players may look at open lines to see where pieces may soon move. Boxers may look at nothing specific to avoid being misled by feints. Each isn't being faster, but smarter.
It's also true chess experts (meaning certified masters of all kinds) are somehow faster at getting to the relevant bits. This may relate to their quicker ability to recognize (chunk) patterns in the position before them and then to move on to the logic of their task. One thing I'm curious to learn is how much of the thinking of a top player is about the dynamics (calculating variations) and how much is about imagining the creation of another position they consider as good or better than their current one. Do they move from position to position or are they always looking for the path forward which is better and better?
Recently I looked at a YouTube.com video of Radjabov and Carlsen discussing the latter stage of a game (I presume they had just played). In that they didn't seem to discuss abstract plans (and in particular Radjabov seemed completely to not understand Carlsen's one and only way to win), but to focus entirely on move sequences.
It is sometimes said you just need to focus on what's important to learn to become expert in something. But, it's not always obvious what is the important thing to learn. Maybe eye-movement analysis, and some other things, can help us figure it out.
Recent technological advances are allowing people to analyze eye movements for various purposes. For example, Eye-Tracking Software May Reveal Autism or Eye Movements when Examining an Image or Eye Movements of Doctors Spotting Cancers orTracking Cricket and Baseballs to Hit Them.
Studies done long ago showed chess players who are better consider empty squares more than weaker players. Soccer pros seem to study the empty spaces between players more than do amateur audience watchers. Could it be the player is considering what COULD happen and their creative mind must consider all the area involved?
Then there is the 'secret' of boxing: Where to Look during a Fight and how that works compared to studying the gloves, shoulders or other parts of your opponent's body.
What these studies say in common is that the more expert people don't have quicker eyes which see everything, but that they have specific skills which help them focus on specific things related to their work. Ball hitters can't follow the ball if it's too fast, so they may see it as it leaves the pitcher's hand and judge a path for it with an attempt to see it somewhere else on the way. Chess players may look at open lines to see where pieces may soon move. Boxers may look at nothing specific to avoid being misled by feints. Each isn't being faster, but smarter.
It's also true chess experts (meaning certified masters of all kinds) are somehow faster at getting to the relevant bits. This may relate to their quicker ability to recognize (chunk) patterns in the position before them and then to move on to the logic of their task. One thing I'm curious to learn is how much of the thinking of a top player is about the dynamics (calculating variations) and how much is about imagining the creation of another position they consider as good or better than their current one. Do they move from position to position or are they always looking for the path forward which is better and better?
Recently I looked at a YouTube.com video of Radjabov and Carlsen discussing the latter stage of a game (I presume they had just played). In that they didn't seem to discuss abstract plans (and in particular Radjabov seemed completely to not understand Carlsen's one and only way to win), but to focus entirely on move sequences.
It is sometimes said you just need to focus on what's important to learn to become expert in something. But, it's not always obvious what is the important thing to learn. Maybe eye-movement analysis, and some other things, can help us figure it out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)