Introduction to Visualization pt. 3

Here is the long awaited... introduction to part 3! Support and feedback allows me to accelerate this discussion so please leave comments! My mind is everywhere at once, I will work on the series on Mechanics soon!! While editing my series on visualization I felt the need to expand on my ideas due to my latest search

For those who do not know the author Jonathan Rowson, he is one of the leading authors on the discussion chess psychology. In contrast to Dvoretsky, whose discussion of chess psychology is largely based on the concrete operatives of the game, Rowson discusses more of the nuances that may be plaguing the thinking process in itself.

His two books, Seven Deadly Chess Sins, and Chess for Zebras, he discusses the pitfalls that our mind falls into, without our very conscious. My endeavor is to define "visualization" and its relevance to our subconscious (which inadvertently will also be a discussion of whether or not this is by virtue of nature or nurture as discussed in Part 2)

In part 3, I wish to tackle his first publication, the 7 Deadly Chess Sins, in regard to our search for an answer of the operations of visualization. What part of our subconscious is it important to evaluate in the way we evaluate evaluation?! And how is it pertaining in the way we are conducting the game as a whole?

An Answer to this discussion?

As defined by Aagaard, the learning process has four phases, "The first phase is called unconscious incompetence, the second conscious incompetence, the third conscious competence, and fourth phase is called unconscious competence"

• Chess pieces are pieces of wood. No knowledge of the rules at all.
• Knowledge of the rules but with a great amount of possibilities that can not truly be evaluated. This is the situation of the beginner. All the legal moves are possible candidates.
• A greater knowledge of chess and evaluation of moves. The amount of possibilities become greatly reduced. This is the level of club player and developing players.
• Chess positions immediately make sense and obvious moves appear in the subject's head. This is the situation of a very strong chess player with a fully developed intuition.

So at what point does our subconscious play into our development as a player? And at what point does it translate into the process of "visualization" in chess?

Another question is in this four phase process, can it not be that the mind starts the compilation of chess paterns starting from phase 1 transitioning into phase 2? Is it even relevant to examine our subconscious in the context outlined by Aagaard?

I will try to tackle this discussion head on and offer the reader insight to these questions, and alternatives in which Rowson offers as a solution to the 7 "sins", and to generate some ideas how this is relevant to our discussion of "visualization". As we get closer to some clearer ideas, we can begin to identify the features in which defines this historically confused word. In the book, Rowson (I think rightly) left for the reader to discover these nuances of overcoming our subconscious, but at the same time if he does not offer a solution to the problem, are we mere philosophers?

Tune in for updates!

Update before continuing series

Hello,

I haven't kept up with this blog but here is an update. I am still playing chess and I am currently teaching the game to a few select students(!) and have attained expert rank and very close to master. For readers who have been interested in Knights Errant (or just interested), please consider reading this blog and leaving comments! I will refer to methods as appealed to by De La Maza, Rowson, Aagaard, and several other authors in this article, which may be of interest to readers who are specifically engaged in the discussions risen by these authors. It will motivate me to keep my thoughts updated about this subject, and answer any inquiries to my furthest abilities on the topic of the psychology of chess improvement.


I'm revisiting my old posts and refining a lot of the material I have previously posted in terms of grammar, spelling, and presentation of the material without removing any of its original content.

For me it is an effort to see how I developed as a player, and the way I have previously examined the game. So before I continue with the series, I will be reading my own previous posts.

EDIT: After short review, I will comment a little the assistance I had while paying for professional coaches. As a coach, he/she has zero obligation to teach you anything. They are not magic, and any amount of money you are paying them will not increase any part of the chess learning experience IF the player himself/herself is not engaged in the work, and when I mean engaged, I mean completely IMMERSED.

This is why there is often discontent with the teachers, when much of the attitude of the approach of the game stems from the player him/herself. So while you are here, keep an open mind and enjoy the process. For where your heart is, the attitude will follow, and similarly, if you approach chess with the attitude of learning, then the rest will follow!

I also feel a blog is more alive when the blog involves people who are directly learning from the discussions. So I have adopted my own personal philosophy to make it a point to show that this blog is a "living" one, and that I am continuously learning and showing results! If what I divulge does not work for myself, I have no business in continuing this blog. But I have been putting up some good results I will be posting rating graphs and associated information at the end of the Mechanics of Combinations series.

Mechanics of Chess Combinations Introduction

MoCC Part 1

I want to share a series of ideas that I've personally assembled during my quest, and a little bit on my philosophical feeling of how chess is largely approached today and I hope the reader will get something from this.

My desire to start this series is due to a discontent where I feel a lot of the development of chess information is clearly not in the direction of how to approach the middle game. At large, it has little to do with how to approaching some unifying ideas which constitute the core of the game, which is arguably the art of calculation.

The combination has been defined many different ways in the past millennium and I will not try to define it here. However in conducting combinative operations, it is clear that it is important not to make a single misstep. This is obvious, however what is less clear are the mechanics and operatives in which how a combination operates.

With the era of computers, we are looking at an ever growing flow of information regarding openings. Databases, books, informants, encyclopedias, or what have you. Even since the golden years of chess, we can see traces of this trend, especially in the players that are largely now highly engaged in copying the trendiest openings but however are incapable of conducting the middlegame properly. The discussion here will not be one of investigation of the positional properties of middlegames, but the tactical operatives which dictate a majority of chess games.

A "little" analysis

Now what I'm going to do in this series isn't to promote any specific methodology or training methods to increase ones calculative abilities. But want is for the reader is to think about how chess operates, and reconsider what they read in chess books, before taking any comments in any chess text at face value. While there is no alternative to hard work, some authors present absolutely ludicrous method, and claim as a "secret" of chess improvement, and this I personally think is unacceptable.

I do not feel anything I present is anything of absolute truth, but in the end, I would like the reader to begin thinking about the process of understanding of combinations, and calculation, which I feel is largely the key skill needed in chess, which I will demonstrate, invariably is examination of chess as a whole, as the ideas permeate openings, middlegames, and endgames.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now consider, that the knight moves in a defined fashion that is known to all chess players. Two squares and one over.

Example 1.1

This is fairly simple, but when we start to consider the indirect power of the knight, its power increases dramatically.

Example 1.2

Now we can consider that besides the original 8 squares that the knight was attacking, the Knight current indirectly controls 10 squares. So adding it together, the mechanism of threat as traditionally known as a fork, allows the knight to control 18 squares, of which some are less obvious to the naked eye.

---Will continue in free time