<![CDATA[ChessWatch Blog]]> https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/ EN Thu, 27 Feb 2025 21:51:00 +0200 Incomedia WebSite X5 Pro <![CDATA[The youngest European champion: how a 7-year-old chess player from Dnipro trains and wins]]> imblog
Myron Netrebka, a young chess player from Dnipro, won the gold medal at the European Championship. The young talent is only 7 years old, and he can already confidently beat his older colleagues. It's hard for the boy to find a free minute. Constant training, competitions - and all this at such a young age! Myron's mother and coach tell us about Myron in life and at the chessboard.

“Myron played every game with a desire to win and as a result played very risky. Nevertheless, he managed to win 7 games out of 9, which earned him the title of European U8 Champion. The tournament was attended by boys from different countries, Myron had rivals from Poland, Armenia, Romania, Bulgaria, and the Czech Republic. The fights were very fierce! Character, will and home training led to victory,” says Gennadiy Gutman, the gold medalist's coach, about his participation in the European Championships.



The boy first showed interest in chess when he was 4 years old. The different pieces, the markings on the board - it aroused his interest and desire to learn everything about the game. But it is difficult to develop professional skills at home. So his parents decided to follow his aspirations. Myron started training with a professional coach and participating in various tournaments. The hard work paid off. Still very young, he was not idle, but diligently memorized strategies.

His mother Kateryna shares her memories of the beginning of his career: “To be honest, we didn't plan our son's development in this direction. Myron was introduced to chess at home. We, as parents, had no idea that a year later chess would become such an important part of his life.”

The boy made his debut at the age of 5 at the regional championship, where he took an honorable 3rd place. The success did not overshadow him. According to his mother and coach, the great result motivated Myron to move on. Through the long and tense hours of training, when his nerves were on edge, he kept mentally returning to his cherished goal of taking first place. The European Championship was a new school of experience for Myron. His rivals were older players. He played intense matches with representatives of different countries. But Myron was the winner, as he won most of the games. The dream came true, but how did the very young player manage to do it?

Training. That's the secret. “Classes are held 4-5 times a week, I use a variety of chess techniques, as well as many years of experience working with students. Raising a champion is not magic, but a long process. The main thing is not to slack off, but to work to the fullest!” says Myron's coach about the peculiarities of Myron's training and adds: “But a certain style, which, as many people think, is crucial, is inherent in more experienced chess players. It is formed over the years. With the attainment of high ranks, the outlines of a chess player's handwriting begin to appear.”



His parents also notice his perseverance. They motivate him to keep improving his skills. Myron watches his coach closely and tries to be just like him. Sometimes it is not easy. According to Kateryna, it takes a lot of moral and material strength to develop her son. But the fatigue disappears when the boy's eyes light up and demand new tournaments and training sessions.
Myron's mother and coach look forward to the future with great hope. According to Gennadiy Gutman, new victories await the boy, provided he is dedicated to his favorite pastime.

“In today's realities, not only hard work or talent are important, but also perseverance, memory and a great desire to win,” says the chess player.

But for new achievements, you also need to have a lot of patience. The boy's parents see his future in Ukraine. Despite the difficult times, they are ready to support their son and go through all the moments of his life with him.

Oleksandr Hladush
]]> Thu, 27 Feb 2025 19:51:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?the-youngest-european-champion-how-a-7-year-old-chess-player-from-dnipro-trains-and-wins https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000075 <![CDATA[Didactic support of the development of the ability to "operate mentally" in preschool children in the context of learning to play chess (part 3)]]> imblog
the beginning...
(on the basis of materials of the author's abstract)

The toolkit for developing the ability to “operate mentally” using our system of didactic tasks is based on P.Ya. Galperin's theory of step-by-step formation of mental actions:

At the first stage, children learn to move pieces on the chessboard according to the rules of the game and solve tasks by physically moving pieces on the board.
At the second stage, children solve chess problems not on the board but using diagrams—without moving the pieces, instead pointing to the correct move or route with their finger.
At the third stage, children provide correct answers using chess notation while verbally articulating their thought process.
At the fourth stage, problem-solving with notation is done in a whisper.
At the fifth stage, solutions are entirely performed "in the mind."

The research results showed that this system of tasks helps children acquire not only methods of activity and experience in creative problem-solving but also the emotional-value component of social experience.

Methods of activity are learned through introductory tasks using the informational-reproductive method of teaching. Experience in creative activity is gained through step-by-step, maze, poly-maze, and dynamic tasks using the partially search-based (heuristic) method of problem-based learning.

At the same time, the assimilation of the second and third components of social experience under the conditions of using the system of didactic chess tasks necessarily relies on emotional engagement—the fourth, emotional-value component of social experience.

An emotionally engaging atmosphere is ensured by making each chess lesson simultaneously:
  • A fairytale lesson (a didactic chess story is read),
  • A theater lesson (a small dramatization is performed),
  • A game lesson,
  • A laughter lesson (use of humorous material),
  • A mystery lesson (use of surprises),
  • A lesson without losers,
  • A lesson of immersion in solving fascinating tasks.

Taking these seven factors into account allows chess lessons to be health-preserving.
The system of didactic tasks was developed in accordance with general didactic principles and is derived from them:
  • The principle of cultural relevance is ensured because chess is a game with unique traditions recognized worldwide.
  • The principle of natural congruence—chess aligns with the leading type of activity in preschoolers.
  • The principle of a positive emotional learning environment—achieved through engaging tasks and the absence of losers.
  • The principle of visual representation—using chessboards, pieces, and illustrated manuals.
  • The principle of accessibility—tasks are selected according to children's age-related capabilities.
  • The principle of "from simple to complex"—gradual complication of tasks for each piece, starting with the simplest.
  • The principle of systematicity and consistency—ensured by spiral learning: after mastering one piece, tasks with the next piece begin at the first level.

The proposed system resembles a three-dimensional spiral funnel: after mastering tasks for the rook, the child moves on to the bishop, then to the queen, gradually expanding the variety of combinations.

The principle of retention is guaranteed by repeating already learned material in new situations. Most tasks are designed with a single correct solution.

Conditions conducive to the development of the ability to “operate mentally” in preschoolers:

I. Organizational conditions:
  • Lessons in the first year of study should be organized so that there are no losers.
  • The primary form of the learning process should be problem-solving.
  • Extensive use of chess fairytales, especially for younger children.
  • Use of theatrical elements.
  • Creation of an atmosphere of mystery and secrecy.
  • A mandatory element of lessons—laughter.

II. Procedural conditions:
  • Using parts or fragments of the chessboard (fragmentation), making chess accessible to different age groups of preschoolers. The younger the child, the more time should be spent playing on board fragments (primarily from 2×2 to 4×4 squares). Different sets of game positions should be used for each age group.
  • Alternating task formats: it is necessary to switch between solving tasks on the full chessboard and its fragments.
  • Working with diagrams: solving problems on the board should be alternated with solving them using diagrams.
  • Pre-mate training stage: ensuring a sufficiently long training stage where tasks with six different pieces play a key role. The younger the child, the longer this stage should last.
  • "Elimination game": the central element of the first stage of learning should be the game "piece vs. piece."
  • Engaging nature of tasks: tasks should be interesting and encourage active participation.
  • "Live chess": using "live chess" is recommended, where children themselves take on the roles of chess pieces, moving on a large "floor chessboard" (e.g., made of cardboard or drawn on the floor).

A survey was conducted among 964 children aged four to six (631 boys and 333 girls) to determine whether they were engaged by chess lessons using the system of didactic tasks (ensuring the specified didactic conditions). Of these, 932 children (96.7%) stated that they found the lessons interesting.

At the third stage of experimental work, in the mini-school "Znay-M," the developed system of didactic tasks was tested in teaching children aged four to six. The experimental groups included 107 six-year-olds, 64 five-year-olds, and 59 four-year-olds, who were trained using the described system of didactic tasks.

The number of children in the control groups (who did not receive chess lessons) was 102, consisting only of six-year-olds.

The diagnostic experiment helped determine the initial stages of development of the ability to “operate mentally” in both the control and experimental groups. This was assessed using the traditional diagnostic methodology of Ya.A. Ponomaryov, "Knight and Pawns." The essence of this method is that the preschooler first learns the physical movement of the chess knight. Then, they are given a task requiring the construction of a system of actions consisting of several identical elements—to move the knight from one square of a nine-square chessboard to another.

Each component of this system was an action the child had already learned, but they were not taught how to construct the sequence of actions. The children solved problems in two ways: looking at the board and solving them without looking at the board. The board was encoded, and the child had to learn the code and mentally move an imaginary piece according to a verbally provided coordinate system.

The experiments were conducted in three forms:
  • (a) The preschooler solved tasks while looking at the board with placed pieces,
  • (b) The preschooler solved tasks without looking at the board,
  • (c) The preschooler solved tasks using a mixed approach.
...
We assumed that the key characteristics of the overall development of the ability to “operate mentally” are distribution formulas (DF) and average indicators (AI). DF indicated the percentage of children in each group who were at stages I, II, III, IV, or V of development at the time of assessment.
AI represented the total experimental results for each group, obtained by processing the corresponding DF data.
...
Diagnosing the Stages of Mental Calculation Development
The assessment of the stages of development in the ability to “operate mentally” was conducted in both control and experimental groups at two key points: the initial assessment in September and the final assessment in April.
...
After completing the chess course, only 4% of children in the experimental groups remained at the first stage of mental calculation ability, whereas in the control groups, this figure was 39%. At the same time, the number of children in the experimental groups who reached the third stage increased from 4% to 48%, while in the control groups, the increase was from 6% to 13%.

To test the research hypothesis, tasks based on unfamiliar material were given to children from the experimental groups at the beginning and end of the academic year. The selected tasks included symbolic materials such as letters and numbers.

Three types of puzzles were used:
a) Latin squares,
b) Sudoku,
c) Kakuro.

Latin square puzzles were invented by L. Euler in the late 18th century, while Sudoku and Kakuro puzzles emerged more recently. Even the simplest tasks involving Latin squares, Sudoku, and Kakuro pose significant challenges for preschool children, making their use in this study particularly relevant.
...
These types of puzzles were presented to 107 six-year-old children at the start (September) and the end (April) of their chess training, which incorporated a structured system of cognitive exercises.
The percentage of correctly solved puzzles was as follows:
  • Latin squares: initial – 11%, final – 78%.
  • Sudoku: initial – 4%, final – 37%.
  • Kakuro: initial – 13%, final – 79%.

The obtained results indicate that the ability to “operate mentally” was successfully transferred from familiar material to new, unfamiliar content.

Conclusions
The study summarized the findings and drew the following conclusions:
The achievement of priority educational goals within the national education system is closely linked to transmitting social experience to the younger generation. This process requires the proper development of children's ability to “operate mentally”.

This ability is an intellectual skill that goes beyond merely accumulating knowledge and skills—it develops through structured learning. The development of this ability is a complex and long-term process that should begin in early childhood, utilizing play-based activities as the primary means of learning at this stage.

One of the most effective tools for fostering this ability is chess. More precisely, chess-based exercises not only enhance cognitive skills but also activate the developmental potential of other intellectual games, such as checkers.

The study identified the optimal organizational structure for chess lessons aimed at developing mental calculation skills—the "problem-solving" format.

A system of didactic exercises was developed to enhance children's ability to “operate mentally” from an early age. This system aligns with the principles of assimilating social experience and consists of:

a) Exercises for testing the understanding of chess terminology and rules (fixing the second component—methods of activity—within the structure of social experience through reproduction).

b) Exercises aimed at training the ability to “operate mentally” (fixing the third component—experience in creative activity—within the structure of social experience through problem-based learning methods).

For each of the six chess pieces, which have distinct movement rules, five types of exercises were developed, progressing in complexity: introductory, step-by-step, maze-based, multi-maze, and dynamic. These five types of exercises correspond to five levels of mastering chess material: orientation, execution, planning, opposition, and overcoming challenges.

Through this system of exercises, children assimilate methods of activity, develop creative problem-solving skills, and experience the emotional-value component of social learning.

  • Methods of activity are learned through introductory exercises using an information-reproduction approach.

  • Creative problem-solving experience is gained through step-by-step, maze-based, multi-maze, and dynamic exercises utilizing heuristic problem-based learning methods.

  • The emotional-value component is fostered by transforming each chess lesson into:
    1. A fairy-tale adventure
    2. A theatrical performance
    3. A game-based activity
    4. A humorous experience
    5. A mystery-solving session
    6. A lesson without winners and losers
    7. A deep immersion into engaging challenges

Considering these seven factors ensures that chess lessons contribute to the child's overall well-being and cognitive development.

Two key groups of didactic conditions, which must be ensured by the educator, were formulated:
a) Organizational conditions – related to the overall structure of learning;
b) Procedural conditions – concerning the specific methods of implementing the developed system of exercises in the learning process.

The effectiveness of the proposed system was verified in experimental groups, demonstrating significant improvements compared to control groups.

The research hypothesis was confirmed through testing with unfamiliar material, providing evidence that the ability to “operate mentally” was successfully transferred from familiar to new contexts.
]]> Sun, 05 Jan 2025 15:37:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?didactic-support-of-the-development-of-the-ability-to-act-in-the-mind-in-preschool-children-in-the-context-of-learning-to-play-chess-part-3 https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000074 <![CDATA[Didactic support of the development of the ability to "operate mentally" in preschool children in the context of learning to play chess (part 2)]]> imblog
the beginning...
(on the basis of materials of the author's abstract)

MAIN CONTENT OF THE STUDY

...
The ability to "operate mentally" is understood as a newly formed cognitive skill in preschool age—an integrated characteristic of human consciousness that represents an inseparable unity of imagination, attention, memory, and thinking. This ability allows an individual to manipulate representations of real objects in an imaginary space without performing physical actions on them.

In this dissertation research, we rely on the cultural concept of learning content, according to which the primary goal of education and upbringing is to transmit the accumulated human culture and social experience to the younger generation. The structure of this experience includes:
  1. Knowledge,
  2. Methods of activity,
  3. Experience in creative activity,
  4. Experience in emotional and value-based attitudes toward the world.

Recent studies have shown that the development of the ability to "operate mentally" is closely interconnected with the process of assimilating social experience. Therefore, for a child to acquire elements of social experience, they must develop the necessary cognitive tools, including the ability to operate mentally.

Preschool children assimilate social experience primarily through play, which is the leading type of activity at this age. According to age classification, a child’s transition to school is associated with a shift from play-based activity to learning-based activity. Learning activities have a complex structure, which includes the following components: need, motives, learning tasks, learning actions, and operations. The need for learning gradually matures through the execution of learning actions aimed at solving educational problems.

The learning actions include:
a) Accepting or independently formulating a learning task,
b) Transforming the conditions of the learning task to identify general relationships of the studied object,
c) Modeling the identified relationships in material, graphical, or symbolic form,
d) Transforming the model to study its properties in a "pure form,"
e) Constructing a system of specific tasks that can be solved using a general method,
f) Monitoring the execution of previous actions,
g) Evaluating the mastery of a general method as a result of solving the learning task.

Successful mastery of these learning actions assumes that all children already possess a developed ability to "operate mentally" from the first days of school. However, this is often not the case. Initially, the ability to "operate mentally" was interpreted as an “internal plan of actions,” referring to the possibility of acting mentally.

Since some researchers interpreted the term "internal plan of actions" only as planning (one of the components of theoretical thinking, along with meaningful abstractions, generalization, analysis, and reflection), the term was later replaced by the ability to "operate mentally" by Y.A. Ponomarev.

There are five known stages in the development of the ability to "operate mentally":
  1. Background stage – where a verbally presented task cannot be solved either mentally or through physical manipulation.
  2. Reproduction stage – where the task can only be solved through physical manipulation with objects.
  3. Manipulation stage – where the child can occasionally solve a problem mentally.
  4. Transposition stage – where, through trial and error, the child reaches a solution and bases subsequent actions on it.
  5. Programming stage – where the child analyzes the task and aligns further actions according to a plan.

Apart from the stages, researchers describe structural components, levels, and types of the ability to "operate mentally", as well as the duration of its formation.

The key components of a developed ability to "operate mentally" include:
  1. Imaginary analysis of the problem’s conditions,
  2. Planning a solution,
  3. Awareness of the methods of action.

Known types of the ability to "operate mentally":
  1. Manipulative,
  2. Step-by-step,
  3. Near-future planning,
  4. Rational planning.

Researchers have identified the levels of formation of the ability to "operate mentally":
  • Zero level,
  • Initial level,
  • Partial level,
  • Complete level.

It has been proven that the ability to "operate mentally" must be specifically cultivated, and its development is a slow process requiring prolonged cognitive upbringing of the child, typically completing around the age of twelve. Experimental studies show that this ability reaches an optimal level in only 5% of people.

Research has established that early forms of the ability to "operate mentally" emerge long before children enter school. By the end of preschool age, most of a child’s cognitive operations become internalized. However, the exact timing of its emergence remains an open question. N.N. Poddyakov identified this ability in children aged 2.5 to 4 years. A.V. Bolbochanu found that all children in their second year of life can solve problems requiring mental operations. S.Yu. Meshcheryakova observed the simplest forms of such acts in infants at 6–8 months in interaction with adults, while G.Kh. Mazitova identified them as early as 3–4 months.

Since our research is related to developing a system of didactic games for preschoolers, we have examined the concepts of "children’s play," "preschool play," "rule-based play," and "didactic play," defining their relationships within different classifications.

Two main concepts outlining the stages of children’s play development relevant to preschool age were considered. According to D.B. Elkonin’s concept, children’s play development follows these stages: object-based play (up to three years), role-playing (three to seven years), and rule-based play (from six to seven years). Jean Piaget’s concept suggests that up to two years, a child predominantly engages in sensorimotor play (repetitive and varied movements or object manipulation). From two to six years, symbolic play dominates, involving the use of symbols—individual representations of things, people, and events. Around six to seven years, rule-based play emerges, where organization is structured around a shared rule mandatory for all participants. Both Elkonin and Piaget emphasize that while the age boundaries of each stage are flexible, their sequence remains unchanged. Analyzing the overall development of children’s play, Piaget notes that its character aligns with intellectual development and is determined by three sequential structures: exercise, symbol, and rule.

There is no universally accepted typology of children’s play (or play in general). O.S. Gazman identifies two main types of children’s play: with implicit rules and with explicit (fixed) rules. Games with explicit rules are further categorized into physical games, intellectual games, playful entertainment, attractions, and didactic games. N.A. Korotkova and N.Ya. Mikhaylenko differentiate children’s games based on two criteria:
  1. By specific characteristics—dividing them into narrative games and rule-based games,
  2. By their organization and degree of adult regulation—distinguishing between independent play activities and didactic games.

We focused primarily on didactic games—games whose structural components include a didactic task, a game task, game actions, game rules, content, result, and didactic material. The potential hidden within didactic games can play a crucial role in developing the ability to "operate mentally" in preschool children.

Several studies highlight techniques for fostering this ability in general education schools, such as mental arithmetic and the analysis of words and sentences.

Among the favorable conditions for developing the ability to "operate mentally", researchers identify solving theoretical problems, modeling, step-by-step refinement of this ability, group work, and oral tasks. While these methods are primarily applied in schools, they can be adapted for preschool education.

It has been noted that the search for resources necessary for developing the ability to "operate mentally" is carried out spontaneously and falls within the realm of pedagogical artistry.

The second section, "Content and Structure of Didactic Tasks for Developing the Ability to Operate 'in the Mind,'" emphasizes that research on developing this ability in preschoolers using chess was conducted in three stages.

At the first stage, relevant literature on the topic was studied, analyzed, and synthesized.

The second stage involved experimental work conducted at School No. 317, the studio at DEZ-23, and the mini-school "Znay-M" with 422 preschoolers aged four to six.

To determine the optimal form of lessons, three approaches were cultivated:
a) solving chess problems ("problem-solving" format),
b) playing against the instructor ("simultaneous play" format),
c) playing against peers ("competitive" format).

When children played against each other, all preschoolers were engaged in productive activity; however:
a) the teacher could not fully control the learning process,
b) some children lost games,
c) the development of the ability to operate "in the mind" occurred spontaneously.

When children played against the instructor (a simultaneous exhibition), the teacher could easily monitor each child, but lesson time was used inefficiently. When solving chess problems, the teacher could effectively control the session, all children remained engaged in productive activity, and the development of the ability to "operate mentally" was purposefully guided.

As a result, it was concluded that, from a content perspective, the "problem-solving" format was optimal. Following this, we compared two fundamentally different lesson formats ("problem-solving" and "competitive") from the perspective of children's motivation. We based this on the assumption that the fourth component of social experience—the emotional-value component—plays a crucial role in transmitting social knowledge to preschoolers.

Only the social experience that strongly impacts a child's emotions and feelings can be effectively internalized. At the end of each academic year, we conducted surveys among children. When asked whether they preferred playing against a peer or solving chess problems, 331 out of 422 preschoolers (276 boys and 146 girls) chose problem-solving (78.4%). Among those who preferred solving problems, 130 were girls (89%) and 201 were boys (72.8%). When asked if they liked winning, 415 preschoolers (98.3%) answered affirmatively. When asked if losing at chess upset them, 359 children (81.1%) said yes.

The survey data and experimental work indicate that not all preschoolers enjoy playing chess against each other (due to the fear of losing), but almost all of them willingly solve chess problems if the tasks are engaging, accessible, and presented with emotional appeal.

Thus, the study established that the leading format for conducting chess lessons should be the "problem-solving" format. Based on this conclusion, along with the research goals and objectives, a system of didactic chess problems was developed to enhance the stage of developing the ability to "operate mentally".

The study showed that the initial process of teaching children the fundamentals of chess should consist of three stages:
  1. "Pre-mate" stage (learning without introducing the concept of checkmate),
  2. Training in delivering checkmate in one move,
  3. "Mate" stage (playing with all pieces from the starting position).

Not all four- to five-year-olds can grasp the concept of checkmate. Six-year-olds understand the term, but even for them, delivering checkmate remains a challenge. Therefore, a significant portion of lessons with all preschool age groups should consist of tasks from the first stage, as these serve as the foundation for developing the ability to "operate mentally".

From the perspective of social experience acquisition, the system of didactic tasks proposed by the researcher includes:

  • Tasks for verifying the assimilation of chess terminology and rules (fixation of the second component in the structure of social experience—the methods of activity learned through reproduction).

  • Tasks for training the ability to "operate mentally" (fixation of the third component—experience in creative activity acquired through problem-based learning methods).

Initially, a child learns and consolidates the rules of the game element by element (reproduction). The primary functional load is carried by creative tasks—exercises aimed at training the ability to "operate mentally".

For each of the six chess pieces, which have different movement rules, five types of tasks were developed, arranged in order of increasing complexity. The structure of the task system includes the following components:
  • Introductory tasks that develop the ability to reproduce chess rules.
  • Step-by-step tasks that develop the ability to reach a goal using specific pre-defined "steps" (moves).
  • Maze (static) tasks that develop the ability to choose the optimal solution from a small, limited number of alternatives in a static, well-defined goal scenario.
  • Poly-maze tasks that develop the ability to choose the optimal solution from a large number of alternatives.
  • Dynamic tasks that develop the ability to choose the optimal solution in a shifting, evolving goal scenario.

Description of task types:
  • Introductory tasks: The child performs actions with a single piece on an empty board (opponent’s pieces are absent).
  • Step-by-step tasks: Both white and black pieces are on the board, but only the child moves their pieces, while the opponent's pieces remain stationary, acting as markers.
  • Maze tasks: The child moves a piece within constraints where certain squares are inaccessible.
  • Poly-maze tasks: Both white and black pieces are present; the child moves their piece but cannot place it under attack by the opponent's pieces.
  • Dynamic tasks: Moves are alternated between both sides, as in real chess play.

Five levels of mastering the learning material:
  1. Orientation level: The child becomes familiar with the rules and learns how to move pieces.
  2. Execution level: The child executes their threats without opposition.
  3. Route level: The child gains proficiency in moving a piece along the optimal path.
  4. Counteraction level: The child learns to track opponent-attacked squares and counteract threats.
  5. Overcoming level: The child accounts for the best moves of the opponent and overcomes their resistance.
]]> Sun, 05 Jan 2025 15:37:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?didactic-support-of-the-development-of-the-ability-to-act-in-the-mind-in-preschool-children-in-the-context-of-learning-to-play-chess-part-2 https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000073 <![CDATA[Didactic support of the development of the ability to "operate mentally" in preschool children in the context of learning to play chess (part 1)]]> imblog
(on the basis of materials of the author's abstract)

AUTHOREFERAT
dissertation for a degree

The successful implementation of priority educational tasks is closely linked to the transfer of social experience to the younger generation. This experience includes knowledge, methods of activity, creative problem-solving skills, and emotional-value attitudes towards the world. The transfer of accumulated experience is particularly important in early childhood education, which serves as a fundamental and socially necessary stage of the educational system.

Research has shown that preschool-age children possess immense potential, but only a small fraction of it is utilized. Effectively harnessing these capabilities presents a complex challenge.
Studies indicate that many children entering school exhibit underdeveloped essential cognitive functions such as attention, memory, logical thinking, speech, and the ability to organize activities. A significant portion of children struggle to master the primary school curriculum if they have not been purposefully engaged in preparatory activities beforehand.

However, it is well known that the acceleration of preschool development using traditional school-based teaching methods is detrimental to children's mental and physical well-being. Ignoring this fact has led to a situation where no more than 10% of older preschoolers can be considered in perfect health.

Experts argue that rather than accelerating development, preschool education should enrich it through play-based learning. This includes not only role-playing games but also structured games with rules. Studies confirm that children begin mastering rule-based games at around the age of four, and these games play a crucial role in the lives of older preschoolers. One particularly valuable type of rule-based games for transmitting social experience is didactic games, which are specifically designed to facilitate learning through a combination of play and educational tasks.

Despite this, recent research suggests that play activities among preschoolers are insufficiently developed. Children play less and struggle to adhere to rules. Traditionally, the creation and implementation of didactic games in educational settings have been left to the discretion of teachers. Therefore, an essential requirement for modernizing the educational process is the development of scientifically grounded methodologies and systematic approaches to incorporating play-based learning.

To address this issue, it is necessary to identify key indicators whose training is directly related to the assimilation of social experience and is crucial for preschoolers' development. One such critical indicator is the ability to "operate mentally", extensively studied by psychologist Ya. O. Ponomaryov. His research aimed to determine whether learning fosters a specific intellectual capacity beyond the mere accumulation of knowledge and skills. The conclusion was affirmative—learning cultivates the ability to "operate mentally," a universal characteristic of human cognition. This ability is not confined to any singular cognitive process but emerges as an inseparable unity of imagination, attention, memory, and logical reasoning.

Studies indicate that this ability develops most intensively during preschool years, yet existing educational systems rarely focus on fostering it explicitly. Since every preschool activity requires executing actions in a specific sequence, developing the ability to "operate mentally" is crucial for all aspects of early childhood learning.

Given that education serves as the primary driver of cognitive development and that the ability to "operate mentally" plays a fundamental role in intellectual growth, it is necessary to identify effective didactic tools for its cultivation. Chess emerges as one such tool. Both domestic and international researchers have repeatedly highlighted the benefits of chess as an educational subject. It has been recognized for fostering creativity, enhancing planning skills, improving cognitive flexibility, developing logical thinking, and supporting overall academic success. Chess also strengthens memory, promotes imaginative thinking, and serves as a reflection of human consciousness and strategic thought, making it a valuable addition to the school curriculum.

In recent years, chess has been increasingly incorporated into educational systems worldwide, not only in developing countries but also in leading nations such as the UK, Germany, Spain, Italy, Canada, and the United States.

From our perspective, chess is equally valuable in preschool education due to its crucial role in interiorization—the psychological process through which external activities and social interactions are transformed into internal cognitive functions. (Interiorization, derived from the Latin interior—"internal," refers to the mental development of internal thought processes through the assimilation of external actions and social interactions.)

However, this is not about simply teaching preschoolers to play chess, where the ability to "operate mentally" might develop spontaneously. Instead, the goal is to design a system of didactic chess-based tasks specifically aimed at cultivating this ability.

These chess tasks encompass a broader range of intellectual games, leveraging chess materials to stimulate cognitive development. The tasks integrate chess-specific elements (piece movement, checkmate achievement) alongside principles from other strategic games such as checkers (elimination-based play, multiple captures), maze-type games (multi-step movement planning), and racing games (reaching a target field faster than an opponent).

The significance of systematically developing preschoolers' ability to "operate mentally" through chess-based educational materials, combined with the lack of structured pedagogical approaches in this area, underscores the importance of our research topic:

Research Object: Preschoolers' play-based activities.

Research Subject: The development of the ability to "operate mentally" in preschoolers through play-based learning.

Research Goal: To develop a system of didactic chess tasks that foster the ability to "operate mentally" in preschoolers and to identify the necessary conditions for the effective functioning of this system.

Hypothesis: If a structured system of progressively challenging didactic chess tasks is developed, it will enable preschoolers to achieve higher levels of cognitive planning, allowing them to transfer this ability to other learning contexts.

Research Objectives:
  1. To study the state of the problem regarding the development of the ability to "operate mentally" as a factor in transmitting social experience to the younger generation, as discussed in scientific literature. To identify and describe the structural components of this ability, its content, stages, and formation period.
  2. To develop a system of didactic tasks designed to foster the ability to "operate mentally" in preschool children, using chess-based material.
  3. To determine the didactic conditions under which the developed system of tasks effectively contributes to the development of this ability in preschoolers.
  4. To conduct an experimental assessment of the effectiveness of the didactic chess task system in developing the ability to "operate mentally" in preschool children.
  5. To experimentally test the transferability of the acquired ability, formed through the didactic chess task system, from chess to other domains.

Methodological Basis of the Study:
The study is grounded in:
  • The cultural-historical concept of education content,
  • Research in the field of didactics,
  • Works on methodology, activity theory, and personality development,
  • The theory of stepwise formation of mental actions,
  • Studies in preschool pedagogy and psychology,
  • Research on the stages of developing the ability to "operate mentally",
  • Studies on play-based learning.

Main Research Methods:
Theoretical methods include:
  • Analysis of pedagogical and psychological literature,
  • Review and systematization of works on the ability to "operate mentally",
  • Modeling the learning process for chess fundamentals,
  • Methods of classification, comparison, explanation, induction, deduction, and abstraction.

Empirical methods include:
  • Examination and generalization of teaching practices in preschool chess education (interviews, teacher surveys, including online surveys),
  • Observation, questionnaires, and experimentation.

Research Sources:
The study is based on materials from international conferences, internet sources, publications in domestic and international periodicals, and psychological-pedagogical literature on the subject.

Research Stages:
Stage 1 (1982–1984): Literature review on the research topic, assessment of the problem's development level, analysis, and synthesis of collected data.

Stage 2 (1984–2003): Formulation of research objectives and hypothesis, identification of theoretical foundations. Exploration of chess lesson formats at School No. 317, the studio at DEZ-23, and the "Znay-M" mini-school. Development of a system of didactic chess tasks.

Stage 3 (2003–2008): Experimental work at the "Znay-M" mini-school, parallel testing of the didactic chess task system at the "Sema" center and its branches. Analysis and synthesis of results, compilation of theoretical and practical research materials.

Scientific Novelty of the Study:
1. The study highlights the specificity of using chess material as a means to develop the ability to "operate mentally" in preschoolers. Chess is viewed as a structured system of didactic tasks that gradually increase in complexity and incorporate elements of other intellectual games. Chess instruction is not an end in itself but a means of education. For preschoolers, chess is not a competitive sport but a structured learning process tailored to each age group.

2. The optimal format for conducting chess lessons aimed at developing the ability to "operate mentally" is identified as the "task-based" approach.

3. A system of didactic tasks based on chess material has been developed. This includes:
  • Tasks for assessing understanding of chess rules (fixation of the second component in the structure of social experience—methods of activity acquired through reproduction).
  • Training tasks to develop the ability to "operate mentally" (fixation of the third component—experience of creative activity acquired through problem-based learning methods).
  • The system also integrates the fourth component—the emotional-value experience.                                  
It was found that mastering the emotional-value component is facilitated by ensuring that each chess lesson is simultaneously:
a) A fairy tale lesson,
b) A theater lesson,
c) A game lesson,
d) A humor-filled lesson,
e) A mystery lesson,
f) A lesson without defeats,
g) An immersion into solving engaging problems.

Considering these factors helps make chess lessons health-preserving.

4. Two groups of didactic conditions, ensured by the teacher, have been formulated. These conditions contribute to the development of the ability to "operate mentally":
  • Organizational conditions related to structuring the educational process.
  • Procedural conditions concerning the specific application of the didactic task system within the learning process.                
                                                                                                                 
Theoretical Significance:
The study expands the understanding of methods for transmitting social experience to the younger generation. It enriches didactic knowledge on developing the ability to "operate mentally" in preschoolers and contributes to the scientific understanding of child development tools.

The research refines methodological tasks related to developing students' thinking skills.

Practical Significance:
Since 1991, the developed system of didactic chess tasks has been used both domestically and internationally in preschool education and home-based learning. The organizational conditions identified through research have been incorporated into the primary school curriculum. The Chess Learning Website, created in 2003, has enabled wider dissemination of research findings and increased the number of educators applying this task system in teaching.

Implementation and Testing of Research Results:
The research findings have been published in pedagogical journals, textbooks, developmental and instructional literature, and teaching manuals, including "La bolsita mágica del ajedrez: El ajedrez para los más pequeños" (Spain, 1992). They have also been presented at scientific-pedagogical events, a national seminar on chess education for preschool and primary school children, and an author's seminar.

Validity of Research Results:
The study's validity is ensured by the clarity and systematic approach of its methodological foundations, the consistency of theoretical and practical research approaches with the study’s objectives, and the extensive duration and scope of practical work.

Key Findings for Consideration:
1. The "task-based" format is the optimal organizational structure for chess lessons aimed at developing the ability to "operate mentally".

2. Preschool chess instruction for developing the ability to "operate mentally" consists of three stages:
  • Pre-mate stage (without introducing the concept of checkmate),
  • One-move checkmate training,
  • Mate stage (full introduction to checkmate).

The majority of lesson time should be dedicated to pre-mate tasks, differentiated by age.

3. The system of didactic chess tasks consists of five progressively complex types:
  • Introductory tasks (reproductive learning of chess rules).
  • Step-by-step tasks (achieving an objective through a chain of precisely determined steps).
  • Maze tasks (choosing the best solution from a few alternatives in a static goal setting).
  • Poly-maze tasks (choosing the best solution from many alternatives).
  • Dynamic tasks (choosing the best solution in a moving target scenario).

Each task type is practiced sequentially, using different pieces: rooks, bishops, queens, knights, pawns, kings, and various combinations of these.

4. The five types of tasks correspond to five levels of mastery:
a) Orientation,
b) Implementation,
c) Route planning,
d) Opposition,
e) Overcoming challenges.

5. The didactic conditions for using the chess task system to develop mental action skills include:
  • Organizational conditions: ensuring inclusive participation, task-based lesson formats, and the use of storytelling, theater elements, and humor.
  • Procedural conditions: fragmenting the chessboard for easier learning, alternating between board-based and diagram-based exercises, maintaining an engaging approach, and incorporating live chess activities.                                                                        

    Organizational Conditions:
a) Chess lessons in the first year of training should be structured so that no child experiences defeat.
b) The predominant form of the learning process should be problem-based instruction.
c) The extensive use of chess-themed fairy tales during lessons.
d) Incorporating elements of theatrical performance in the lessons.
e) Creating an atmosphere of mystery and intrigue in the learning process.
f) Laughter should be an essential attribute of the lessons.      
                                                               
   Procedural Conditions:
a) Using only parts or fragments of the chessboard (fragmentation) rather than the full board, making chess accessible to children of different age groups.
b) Alternating tasks between using the full chessboard and its fragments.
c) Alternating between solving problems on the board and on diagrams.
d) A sufficiently extended "pre-mate" stage of training.
e) The "elimination game" as the core of the pre-mate stage: piece versus piece.
f) Ensuring that all chess exercises are engaging and interesting.
g) Using "living chess" to play out positions on board fragments.
continued...
]]> Sun, 05 Jan 2025 15:37:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?didactic-support-of-the-development-of-the-ability-to-act-in-the-mind-in-preschool-children-in-the-context-of-learning-to-play-chess-part-1 https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000072 <![CDATA[Adults about children]]> imblog
chessboard: lichess.org

How should one teach chess to children?
To date, no books have been written on this subject. Meanwhile, children’s thinking has its own characteristics that a teacher must take into account. In children, concrete thinking dominates over abstract thinking. Abstract concepts are poorly perceived by them. As a rule, children are endowed with vivid imagination and creative fantasy. Coaches have often noticed that, alongside an excellently played segment of a game—or sometimes an entire game—children make the most glaring oversights. These are often explained by their attention being diverted by external phenomena, insignificant to adults (for example, the flight of a fly).

Moreover, young chess players grasp positional elements of the game much worse than they do tactical maneuvers. This is natural. Everything emotionally engaging or exciting is well-received by them. Typically, children calculate concrete variations quickly, though not always accurately.

One of the tools for organizing children’s focus is teaching chess notation, with the requirement to record and analyze every game they play. As practice shows, even children as young as seven or eight learn notation without much difficulty.

When analyzing games, the teacher must pass over what is still beyond the student’s understanding. The primary focus should be on tactical oversights and violations of basic opening principles.
It is especially important to analyze combinations—not only those that occurred in the game but also those that went unnoticed. For illustration purposes, it is helpful to use additional materials.

Analysis of a Game
As an example, let’s analyze the game played by 10-year-old Kolya Semenov (White) and 9-year-old Olena Ilyina (Black).

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. d3 d6

The first four moves demonstrate that both players are familiar with the basic principles of mobilization—they refrain from an early queen sortie and avoid wasting time on moves with flank pawns.

5. Ng5

An "active" move, but one deserving criticism. Attacking the easily defended f7 square with a developed piece, while the queenside remains undeveloped, is a waste of precious time.

5... Be6?

Interestingly, both players regarded this continuation as quite natural, while the correct move, 5... Nh6, wasn’t even considered. Here’s why: during lessons, instead of progressing from simple to complex and teaching students proper position evaluation, I became overly focused on specific principles: pieces should be developed towards the center, knights are weak on the edge, the fight for the center is the foundation of every opening, and so on. Insisting on the rigid memorization of these conditional truths imprinted them on the children’s minds as dogmas, which they deemed inviolable. As a result, despite frequent miscalculations and blunders of all types, children tend to undervalue pawns. Unsurprisingly, in this position, the “centralizing” move 5... Be6? was chosen over the “flank” move 5... Nh6!

6. Nxe6

A more precise sequence would have been 6. Bxe6 fxe6 7. Nxe6 followed by 8. Nc5.

6... fxe6 7. Bxe6 Nf6 8. O-O Qe7 9. Bc4 h5

An "active operation" in response. Correct would have been 9... O-O-O.

10. d4?

Another example of the caution required when introducing abstract concepts to children. This isn’t a blunder but rather a reaction to a "flank attack." Somewhere, the idea was picked up: "A pawn attack on the flank should be met with counterplay in the center." The result here is a senseless pawn sacrifice. A developing move like 10. Bg5 with 11. Nc3 would have given White a significant advantage.

10... Bxd4 11. c3 Bb6 12. Kh1 Ng4 13. f4

This move should have led to an immediate loss. White noticed that the pawn on f2 was under attack. By retreating their king earlier, they prepared to push the pawn, yet overlooked that after 13... Nf2+, they would lose material. The forced mate following 13... Qh4 14. h3 Qg3 15. hxg3 Qxh4# (or 15... hxg3#) was, of course, beyond their foresight.

13... exf4

Black targets White’s central pawn, disregarding other opportunities. This is no accident but a typical phenomenon explained as follows: children are easily influenced by first impressions. When it’s their turn, they make a move almost instantly, rarely considering alternative continuations. This trait of children’s thinking inevitably leads to mistakes. Combatting impulsive decisions requires patience, as focus and deliberation develop with age—sooner for some, later for others.

14. Bxf4 Qxe4 15. Qb3

Both players saw that 15. Re1 fails due to 15... Nf2+.

15... Nd4?

Strangely, this isn’t a blunder. Post-game analysis revealed that 9-year-old Ilyina simply didn’t see the pawn on c3. The small pawn was visually obscured by the large bishop.

16. cxd4 Qxd4?

Once again, we see straightforward tactics: attack and capture. Basic principles of development (in this case, queenside castling) are forgotten in the heat of battle.

17. Bf7+ Kf8 18. Qe6

Both players showed an unfamiliarity with the smothered mate motif, which could have been achieved with 18... Qg1+ 19. Rxg1 Nf2#.

18... Qxb2? 19. Bxd6+ cxd6 20. Qxd6#



White’s final combination is calculated accurately. Black’s loss is justified—they violated one of the fundamental rules by neglecting castling.

Most parents tend to overestimate their children’s chess abilities. This is likely due to the emotions elicited when others witness a child defeating an adult in a game of chess. Unfortunately, few realize that there is nothing extraordinary about this; adults can also be weak chess players.

While exaggerated opinions of a child’s abilities can be forgiven in parents, they cannot be excused in coaches.

Drawing public attention to a student is generally inadvisable. Praising a child’s chess abilities should be avoided entirely, as it risks causing irreparable harm.

There have been cases where six- to eight-year-old children were declared chess prodigies. Their photos appeared in newspapers and magazines, and articles were written not only by their immediate mentors but also by prominent chess figures acting as external experts.

As time went on, these prodigies grew older, but their level of play did not improve. Before long, they became indistinguishable from their peers. Their names were forgotten, leaving only the bitterness of lost fame and, as a result, a loss of interest in chess.

Looking at chess history, we can identify only a handful of renowned masters whose exceptional abilities were evident at a very young age: the legendary Morphy, Capablanca, Reshevsky, Spassky, Fischer, and Mecking.

It is important to refrain from rushing to conclusions about a student’s “potential” or “lack thereof.” A child’s improvement often occurs in leaps, and it is not uncommon for “less promising” students to catch up with or surpass their “promising” counterparts. This can be explained by the peculiarities of a child’s cognitive development, particularly the dominance of concrete thinking over abstract reasoning.

The age at which a child can transition from tactical operations to solving positional problems—selecting a plan suitable for a position and executing it—varies from one child to another.

Before this stage in their development, anything can happen in children's games. Here's an example from a match between two ten-year-olds competing in a 4th-category tournament.

Rafik Gordin – Misha Kogan (1969)
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Bc5 4. Nxe5 Bxf2+? 5. Kxf2 Nxe5 6. d4 Qf6+ 7. Kg1 Ng4



A basic trap. The resulting position was thoroughly analyzed during a theory lesson. I believed I had clearly explained the advantages of White's position, which features a strong center that would inevitably support the development of a dangerous initiative. The two isolated Black pieces attacking the opponent's king without support from the main forces would soon have to retreat. As a result, White would gain an advantage in both time and space. No one had any doubts; everything seemed clear to everyone...

However, children's decisions follow their own logic. Where there’s an opportunity to set a trap for an opponent, reasoning and advice are often ignored: “What if they fall for it?” It’s common to see a young player, having laid a trap, anxiously awaiting their opponent’s response, ready to gleefully execute their cunning plan if it works.

A prime example is the so-called "Scholar’s Mate":
1. e4 e5 2. Qh5 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6? 4. Qxf7#.



This illustrates a paradox where poor play can lead to victory.

Despite its potential success in competition, such tactics deserve criticism. P. A. Romanovsky put it sharply but accurately:
"A game based on the opponent's mistakes usually consists of poor moves and can only be justified competitively if the opponent falls into the trap. Creatively, however, it is never justified, because the opponent's blunder does not turn the winner's bad moves into good ones" (Middlegame, Part II).

8. Qd2.

The only move, around which a conflict arose during the game. Spotting the unprotected knight, White intended to capture it but noticed a mate just in time: 8. Qxg4? Qxd4+ followed by 9.. .Qxe3#. Instead of putting the queen back and rethinking the move, Rafik, without letting go of the queen, measured a potential move to f3 before ultimately playing 8. Qd2.

This method of moving the piece confused Kogan, who believed that 8. Qf3 had been played and demanded that his opponent place the queen on f3. Resolving this dispute was challenging, as the "testimonies" of the children nearby were conflicting. The arbiter had to reject Black's claim, which left Misha silently protesting and visibly upset.

8... d6 9. h3 Nh6 10. Nd5 Qd8

The disastrous results of Black's trap-based play became apparent. Their lone developed piece—a knight that had run a marathon from b8 to h6—only highlighted the grim state of their position.

11. Qc3 c6 12. Qg3 cxd5?

The pawn on g7 needed to be defended with 12... Kf8.

13. Qxg7 Qf6 14. Bxh6 Qxg7?

Emotionally distraught, Misha made the first moves that came to mind, without any calculation. After 13... Qxh6 14. Qxh8 Kf8! Black could have resisted further, as it would have been challenging for White to activate their queen. For example:

15. Re1 Bxe6! 16. e5 Qd2 17. Re2 Qxd4+ 18. Kh2 Bf5 19. c3 Qb6 20. exd6 f6!

Now, however, the end is immediate.

15. Bxg7. Black resigned.



This game gives rise to serious reflections.

Can we consider its outcome to be logical? Undoubtedly, the incident that occurred during the game had a significant impact on Black’s performance. The boy, feeling wronged by what he perceived as an unfair decision, lost his emotional balance. This disruption in his composure led to his loss of interest in the game, which explains the elementary blunder on move fourteen.

The conclusion is clear: such incidents should be avoided whenever possible. This can only be achieved by strictly adhering to the rules of the chess code, presented in a way that is accessible to children.

"Touch-move"—the cornerstone rule for beginner chess players—must be unwavering. Wandering a piece around the board in search of the correct move, although not formally punishable, deserves criticism. It unnerves the opponent and can lead to misunderstandings.

It is well known that theory and practice are inseparable. Theory without practical application is meaningless. Teaching theory in isolation from practice is futile, especially considering that the primary interest for children lies in the process of playing the game itself, while theoretical lessons are often viewed as a bitter necessity.

Children dream of reaching grandmaster heights, and they see achieving a chess title as the first step toward their goal. For them, the cost of victory is irrelevant; the important thing is to score a point—another step toward achieving their title.

Unfortunately, many coaches, unable to stem the "turnover" of students, take the path of least resistance. From the very beginning, they replace proper educational processes with rating tournaments. The harm caused by this practice is undeniable; we pay the price with a declining level of play.

Given the current rating system, where the fifth category has been abolished (it would be worth reintroducing it for children's tournaments, aligning it with junior categories in other sports), it makes sense to replace rating tournaments with training and thematic tournaments during the first year of study, up until achieving the third category. Rating titles could then be awarded at the end of the academic year. During this period, theoretical lessons should focus on explaining the fundamental principles of mobilization of forces, illustrating examples of violations of these principles, analyzing games, and studying elementary pawn endgames.

Particular difficulties arise in teaching the basics of endgames, as children often find this phase dull and uninteresting. Here, the coach must carefully prepare the lesson. The presentation of the main topic can be interspersed with engaging stories and jokes, as “the feeling of gray boredom should be foreign to a child” (Nimzowitsch).

Lessons are livelier when the studied endgame is played out on a demonstration board by two members of the study group with differing evaluations of the position. Thus, before beginning the analysis, it’s useful to ask the students what they think about the position and how they believe the game should end.

If the group size does not exceed 12–15 students, the instructor can maintain direct contact with each student and analyze every game played during practice sessions.

Source: Chess in the USSR, 1971, Issue №4
]]> Mon, 23 Dec 2024 23:17:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?adults-about-children https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000070 <![CDATA[Encyclopedia of Educational Tools]]> imblog
(From the experience of working with preschoolers)

Our pedagogy often addresses the question: "How can we lower the age threshold for learning?" Naturally, this question interests chess instructors as well. Especially since we occasionally hear arguments against teaching young children chess at an early age. However, such arguments are rarely supported by facts. In Odesa, Ukraine, we have been successfully operating preschool chess groups for three years now.

Are Chess Suitable for Preschoolers?

This question was thoroughly addressed by A.V. Zaporozhets, Director of the Research Institute of Preschool Education of the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences: "Today, scientists worldwide are increasingly interested in the immense potential for development inherent in early childhood... Pedagogical, psychological, and physiological research conducted at the Institute of Preschool Education of the Academy, as well as abroad, demonstrates that the psychophysiological capacity for learning and overall development in children aged 5–6 years is significantly greater than previously assumed... As for the question of whether children as young as 5–6 years or even younger can and should be taught, pedagogy has long provided a positive answer."

This authoritative conclusion about the functional readiness of six-year-olds for structured learning allows for broader promotion of chess among preschoolers. In general, the preschool years are considered the "classical age of play."

It is well-known that Capablanca and Reshevsky began playing chess at age 4, Smyslov, Euwe, and Spielmann at age 5, Levenfish at age 6, and Alekhine, Zukertort, and many others at age 7. This early "specialization" did not prevent some of them from becoming world champions.

First, You Need to Inspire

Chess clubs, sections, and schools generally admit students who already know how to play. This simplifies the learning process, not because the basic skills were taught at home, but because the very act of joining demonstrates the student’s desire to learn chess. A desire to play is a crucial factor in mass education.

In the experimental group we created, preschoolers were accepted without any prior requirements.
As a result, not only did the children not know how to play, but many did not even show interest in chess. The desire was evident—but only from their parents. This naturally created a situation fraught with challenges.

Chess shows its attractive side to a child only when he learns to play, and at first there are 2-2.5 months of familiarization with the rules, which do not promise anything interesting. This period is the most responsible, as it is at the beginning that boredom, apathy and even aversion to lessons can begin. It is naive to expect a child to understand the folk wisdom: “The root of learning is bitter, but its fruit is sweet".

The psychological essence of play lies in voluntary participation, interest, and enthusiasm. You cannot force a child to play, but you can inspire them (as parents with experience in forcing children to learn music can attest).

What Captures a Child’s Interest?

Science suggests that a six-year-old child is nearly a fully-formed personality striving to assert themselves through independent activity. Who hasn’t heard a child exclaim, “I can do it myself!”?

This is a cry of action and a desire to defend their right to independence. However, this natural thirst for activity often encounters restrictions and prohibitions imposed by "home pedagogy." This parental miscalculation has, for the time being, become our ally.

Crossing the threshold of the classroom, a child first satisfies their innate need for social interaction with peers, beginning a unique form of social life for a preschooler. They should be greeted with a friendly, welcoming atmosphere. Seated at their own table, the child experiences a sense of complete independence. Their name is called during roll (respecting their individuality). When they want to ask or answer a question, they raise their hand. While answering, they stand up. If necessary, they approach the demonstration board and move the pieces independently.

In the early stages, strict “moral lessons” can be avoided, allowing the children to play with pawns like soldiers or engage in any other imaginative activities on the chessboard. The teacher must approach these “activities” with understanding and interest while gently steering their attention toward learning the board, pieces, and rules of the game. Everything in the learning environment should appeal to the child, evoking a sense of joy and satisfaction. Children should look forward to attending chess lessons as though it were a celebration.

Children are naturally drawn to the military romance they encounter in stories and films. By tapping into this interest, we teach them to view the game as a battle between two chess kingdoms and to see themselves as commanders. This transforms chess into an extension of their imaginative play.

As soon as children learn how the king and pawns move, we temporarily “reform” the rules to organize a competition. For instance, the board contains only a king and pawns, and the winner is the first to promote a pawn. This approach is pedagogically justified because children’s games are characterized by a spirit of competition and the necessity of identifying a winner. Subsequently, rooks, bishops, and their combination—the queen—can be gradually introduced. Typically, mastering the knight presents the greatest challenge.

Once children learn to play with all the pieces and understand that the ultimate goal is to deliver checkmate, they develop a stable interest and desire to play. However, within any group, the skill levels of players will naturally vary. To address this, the teacher should temporarily divide the group into pairs of roughly equal ability. Otherwise, repeated failures may lead to a loss of confidence and enthusiasm.

How to Motivate

Teaching is the transfer of knowledge from teacher to student using rational methods and tools, the primary tool being speech. Thus, every word and phrase the teacher uses must be comprehensible to the child. But should we limit ourselves to the child’s existing vocabulary? Certainly not. Chess terminology is entirely new to them, so every lesson must introduce new terms in measured doses, explained in an accessible way. After repeated usage during lessons, these terms will be remembered and become part of the student’s vocabulary. Students’ use of new terminology should be immediately encouraged through verbal praise. For children’s intellectual development, enriching their vocabulary is of immense importance.

Initial chess knowledge should be presented to children in a form they can easily grasp—categorically. For example:
  • Begin with the king’s pawn to open a path for the bishop.
  • After a brief explanation of the center, instruct them to develop the knight to f3, as this is closer to the center and provides more options for the knight.
  • Castle quickly.
  • Do not move the pawns shielding the king.
  • Avoid moving heavy pieces early in the game.

Such temporary dogmas are nothing to fear. As the educational pioneer K.D. Ushinsky wrote: “The younger the students under a teacher’s care, the greater the pedagogical expertise required.” Indeed, working with preschoolers presents unique challenges.

For a child, playing is living in a magical world with as much genuine emotion as adults experience in their activities. Chess pieces are not just “wooden objects” but a living army under their command. If we want to connect with a child’s heart, we must abandon our “adult” perspective and immerse ourselves in their magical world, rather than disrupt it. True spiritual unity arises when the teacher becomes the child’s companion in play.

The remarkable Polish educator Janusz Korczak wrote about the necessity of elevating oneself to a child’s spiritual world rather than condescending to it. Indeed, the “child’s world” is richer than ours.

A child sits on a stick and feels like a rider. It’s no surprise that they imbue chess pieces with life.

This is entirely natural. Childhood would lose its charm and wonder if children viewed the world through the experienced eyes of adults.

Some children may experience losses emotionally, even crying at times. The issue here is not so much the defeat itself but rather the emotional impact of the “fall of their entire army.”

Time for a Break

During chess lessons, a teacher must be attuned to early signs of fatigue before students begin to lose focus. Children tire not only from mental effort but also from prolonged sitting, as their need for movement is significantly greater than that of adults. The first signs of fatigue manifest in physical restlessness: children frequently shift positions and start talking to one another. Attempts by the teacher to restore discipline at this point are futile—it is time for a break, which the teacher should determine at their discretion.

At the teacher’s command, children eagerly form a line (inspired by the allure of military themes) and head to a spacious hallway. Here begins “free time,” which, however, should not be entirely devoid of educational influence. We place great emphasis on breaks, as active games help alleviate fatigue and restore children’s capacity for learning. The teacher should participate in the break, ensuring safety and moderating activity levels to prevent children from returning to the lesson overly exhausted.

At the start of the year, some children may struggle to “cooperate” within the group. Such behavior often stems from the overindulgence of parental affection and supervision. However, the influence of peers, along with classroom and playtime discipline, gradually fulfills its educational purpose, helping children shed this trait without difficulty.

The Benefits for Children

In a group setting, children gradually acquire interpersonal skills, enabling them to adapt seamlessly to school life later on. Preschoolers are highly impressionable and readily respond to educational guidance. This allows teachers to instill valuable habits quickly: removing hats indoors, greeting and thanking others, raising hands to speak, standing when called upon, organizing, tidying up, and properly handling chess sets.

Since the introduction of new curricula in 1969–1970, primary school became three years long.
However, the key change was not the reduction of a year but the shift from traditional rote-learning methods to a teaching approach incorporating elements of theory and abstraction. This adjustment gave rise to the now-infamous "ICS" (Individual Creative Strategy), which initially alarmed many parents.

More advanced education requires both practical and psychological preparation. Practical preparation includes reading and arithmetic skills, while psychological readiness involves attentively listening, recalling information, exerting mental and volitional effort, and functioning effectively in a group throughout the school day. While parents often manage the practical aspects, psychological preparation can prove more challenging. This is why, in recent years, many parents have introduced their preschool-aged children to chess through our Youth Chess and Sports School. And they were right to do so.

Here’s what teacher O. Frolova from School No. 9 wrote about three of our students in her class:
“They immediately stood out from their peers with their emotional expressiveness, ability to form friendships, and leadership in playground games. In lessons, they were attentive, focused, and always ready to answer. They displayed quick and logical thinking. I believe their chess training in the group of six-year-olds contributed significantly to these qualities.”

Just as physical development is impossible without physical effort, intellectual growth depends on a child’s independent mental activity. Chess plays a major role in fostering this. There is no other game or activity where children willingly and enthusiastically make sustained mental efforts over an extended period, all while exhibiting perseverance, focus, and resilience. Chess is a sport—a contest that develops willpower. Thus, the game combines intellectual effort with volitional strength. These qualities are fundamental for success in academics and work.

Today, pedagogical science emphasizes creating “problem situations” in lessons, where students solve challenges independently rather than reproducing pre-digested knowledge. For younger students, this involves answering questions or solving puzzles. However, the effectiveness of this advanced teaching method depends entirely on the teacher’s skill. In chess, each move by an opponent presents a “problem situation” requiring creative, independent solutions, which are then objectively evaluated by the opponent.

Chess also requires adherence to rules, fostering fairness, honesty, and respect for one’s opponent and their rights. The competitive nature of the game teaches purposeful action and self-control. These form the roots of discipline, which develops and solidifies through activity.

In an era of overwhelming information, the ability to filter and select essentials is highly valued—a skill inherently nurtured by chess. Before every move, a player faces a typical scenario: mentally sorting through numerous possibilities, selecting a few candidate moves, and ultimately choosing the optimal one.

The aesthetic beauty of chess games, combinations, and studies cultivates a sense of artistic appreciation. While the list of chess’s merits is extensive, this summary suffices to highlight its profound impact.

It is no exaggeration to say that chess is an encyclopedia of educational tools—provided it is pedagogically structured and applied. Chess has yet to receive due recognition from pedagogical science because its value lies not in immediate, tangible outcomes but in long-term benefits that manifest later in learning and work.
I. NETIS,
Instructor, Youth Chess and Sports School (Odesa, Ukraine).
"Chess in the ussr," 1974
]]> Sat, 21 Dec 2024 10:04:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?encyclopedia-educational-tools https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/00000006F <![CDATA[On the aesthetics of scientific discovery (part 2)]]> imblog

Let us begin with a brief excursion into epistemology. How does knowledge emerge? Its source lies in sensory data. "There is nothing in the intellect that was not first in the senses," Locke said.

However, Leibniz added significantly: "Except for the intellect itself." One cannot build on an empty foundation. The intellect is the construction site of knowledge, where the foundation is already prepared and the framework erected in the form of the historically developed categorical apparatus of thought and language. Knowledge arises as a result of the synthesis of sensibility and understanding, the processing of sensory data through the use of categories. The principal instrument of this synthesis is the spontaneous, that is, unconscious, power of productive imagination. Imagination performs the "invention of that which serves as a rule without being guided by rules." (13)

Before Kant, imagination was considered the prerogative of poets. The dry pedant from Königsberg recognized a poetic element in science, in the act of concept formation. According to Kant, the intellect is a free artist.

A pertinent question arises: where is the guarantee that our imagination will generate the sought-after concept rather than some nonsense? This is the problem of the truthfulness of knowledge.

Materialist philosophy recognizes an infallible criterion, which is called practice. Moreover, the creative activity of the imagination is conditioned, first, by pre-existing structures (categories) and, second, by the available construction material—empirical data. This is why the imagination does not build castles in the air but rather a solid edifice of science. (14)

Kant saw an active principle in the intellect but failed to recognize it in sensory knowledge; for Kant, the senses are a passive automaton, a lifeless mirror. Meanwhile, contemporary epistemology views the matter differently: "Perception is more akin to a creative process of cognition than to a blind copying of reality, in which, as in any form of creativity, elements of fantasy and the unconscious are seemingly present." (15)

Now to the unconscious. This issue arose in science in the 17th century. Locke rejected the possibility of uncontrolled mental activity: "To think that the soul thinks and the person does not notice it is to make one person into two personalities." (16)

References:
13 Kant I. Briefwechsel. Hamburg, 1972, p. 576.

— This is what Kant wrote to A. M. Beloselsky, who independently, albeit somewhat later than Kant, arrived at the discovery of the role of imagination in cognition. Beloselsky's book Dianology, which received Kant's approval, was published in 1790.

References:
14 For more details, see: Boroday, Yu. Imagination and the Theory of Knowledge. M., 1966.
15 Zinchenko, V. V., Vučečić, G. G., Gordon, V. M. The Generation of the Image — In: Art and Scientific-Technical Progress. M., 1973, p. 440.
16 Locke, J. Selected Philosophical Works, vol. 2. M., 1960, p. 138.

Leibniz, however, held a different opinion. In fact, it is from Leibniz that the philosophical doctrine of unconscious thinking originates. "The conviction that the soul contains only those perceptions of which it is conscious is the greatest source of errors," (17) wrote Leibniz in his polemic with Locke.

Leibniz referred to the unconscious as "minute perceptions" and believed that their role is significant, as they shape habits and tastes—the imperceptible yet solid foundation of our psyche.

Uncontrolled thought, beyond the rational mind, attracted Kant's close attention. His term for such phenomena was "obscure representations." Reason is sometimes unable to escape their influence, even when it deems them absurd and strives to resist them. This is the case, for example, with sexual love. The scope of our unconscious representations is far broader than one might imagine—practically boundless: "On the vast map of our soul, so to speak, only certain points are illuminated—this fact might evoke in us wonder at our own existence; for if some higher power were to say, 'Let there be light!'—then without the slightest effort on our part, as if half the world, so to speak, would be revealed before our eyes." (18)

Creativity, according to Kant, can operate in complete darkness of consciousness. Imagine, writes Kant, a musician improvising on the organ while simultaneously conversing with someone standing beside him. One wrong movement, one incorrectly played note, and the harmony would be destroyed. Yet this does not happen, even though the performer does not know what he will play in the next moment, and after performing the piece, he may not even be able to transcribe it into musical notation. Similarly, scientific activity sometimes proceeds in such a manner. Among Kant's drafts is a remarkable (for a rationalist) confession: "Reason operates most effectively in darkness"; the unconscious is the midwife of thoughts.(19)

By the late 19th century, the problem of the unconscious became the subject of experimental study by psychologists and psychiatrists. Sigmund Freud attempted to construct a theory—to explain the origin of the subconscious and outline its hypothetical structure. According to Freud, the subconscious emerged due to the repression of animal instincts—the instinct of pleasure (sexual) and the instinct of destruction. In this regard, apes are subject to no restrictions. The dominant male rules the herd, and maturing males are expelled from the group until one eventually kills the alpha male and takes his place. Then the cycle repeats.

Human culture, according to Freud, is a system of prohibitions that accumulate and become more complex throughout history. Animal instincts are suppressed and relegated to the realm of the subconscious. This constrained energy seeks an outlet and finds it in creativity.

References:
17 Leibniz, G. W. New Essays on Human Understanding. M.-L., 1936, p. 106.
18 Kant, I. Collected Works, Vol. 6. M., 1966, p. 263.
19 Kant, I. Gesammelte Schriften, Vol. XV. Berlin, 1923, p. 65.

A peculiar refinement into higher spheres occurs—sublimation. However, repressed instincts continually make themselves felt, as if a person senses another within themselves; hence the phenomenon of ambivalence and the split personality, familiar to psychiatrists and writers.

Freud's works are abundant with contradictions, omissions, and arbitrary assumptions, amplified in the works of many of his followers. The Viennese psychiatrist unjustifiably prioritized the sexual sphere, overlooking the relative autonomy of spiritual culture. Freud's philosophical views represent a curious blend of idealistic and crudely materialistic principles. (20) However, in this context, we are not concerned with Freud's errors and misconceptions but with the rational elements present in his works, particularly his attempts to unify the unconscious and the aesthetic.

The perspective of I. P. Pavlov on Freud is particularly illustrative, as he consistently distinguished the weak and strong aspects of psychoanalysis: "When I think of Freud and myself, I imagine two teams of miners who began digging a railway tunnel through the base of a great mountain—the human psyche. The difference, however, lies in the fact that Freud dug slightly downward and buried himself in the thickets of the unconscious, whereas we have already reached the light… Freud can only speculate with greater or lesser brilliance and intuition about the internal states of a person."(21)

As noted by A. Spirkin, "What deserves scientific attention in Freud's theory is primarily the concept of repression—a specific defense mechanism of the psyche. I. P. Pavlov was particularly approving of this hypothesis… The unconscious is precisely that distinct psychic realm where all elements exist in a repressed state, unable to find an outlet in overt behavior." (22)

Like Pavlov, the theory of repression was highly valued by A. Einstein. On April 21, 1936, he wrote to Freud: "Until very recently, I could only feel the speculative power of your train of thought, with its enormous impact on the worldview of our era, but I was unable to form a definite opinion about how much truth it contained. Recently, however, I have come across several cases, not very significant in themselves, but in my view precluding any interpretation other than that provided by the theory of repression." (23)

References:
20 For a detailed discussion of Freud's views and their critique, see: Lejbin, V. "Classical Psychoanalysis and Neo-Freudianism" in Bourgeois Philosophy of the 20th Century. Moscow, 1974, pp. 182–216.
21 Quoted in: Wells, G. Pavlov and Freud. Moscow, 1959, p. 5 (recorded by Y. P. Frolov).
22 Spirkin, A. Consciousness and Self-Consciousness. Moscow, 1972, p. 182.
23 Quoted in: Jones, E. The Life and Work of Sigmund Freud. New York, 1963, p. 493.

In our view, it is impossible to overlook the method identified by Freud for delving into the structure of the unconscious, which consists in the interpretation of dreams. During sleep, the psyche operates with consciousness switched off. Since a person remembers the content of their dreams, there arises the opportunity to penetrate the realm of their subconscious. Sometimes, this is required for therapeutic purposes. The interpretation of a patient's dreams allows the physician to delve into the deep processes of their psyche, bringing to light what the patient themselves is unaware of. Identifying the repressed cause of the ailment, once expelled from consciousness, contributes to recovery.

The study of dreams is one of the pathways leading to an analysis of creative imagination. On this matter, the English Marxist Christopher Caudwell writes: “Before the advent of psychoanalysis, no psychologist had seriously undertaken the study of dreams. Thanks to Freud, we now clearly see the harm in such neglect. Due to their elemental nature and peculiar characteristics, dreams shed light on the nature of imagination and the role of thought.”(24)

What, then, is the structure of a dream?

First, dreams are striking in their incoherence, absurdity, and the accumulation of nonsensical elements. “I have resolved the problem of the absurdity of dreams,” Freud asserted, “in the sense that the thoughts concealed within them are never absurd in nature—at least, in mentally normal individuals.”(26) Freud explains the absurd form of dreams by a specific "displacement" of meaning.

The fact is that the subconscious does not have absolute dominion even during sleep. The dormant consciousness seems to have its representative within the realm of dreams—a kind of intermediate form known as the preconscious, a guardian of prohibitions, a sort of censorship. Thus, everything repressed and pushed into the subconscious cannot fully reveal itself even in dreams—it encounters the censorship of the preconscious.

References:
24 Caudwell, C. Illusion and Reality. M., 1969, p. 260.
26 Freud, S. The Interpretation of Dreams. M., 1913, p. 313.

In its attempt to bypass censorship, the subconscious resorts to allegory. Behind the absurdity lies its own logic and meaning.

However, uncovering this meaning is complicated by another factor. Compared to the vastness and richness of the thoughts behind it, a dream is sparse, impoverished, and laconic: “Essentially, one can never be certain that a dream has been fully interpreted: even when the interpretation completely satisfies us and the dream has no gaps, there remains the possibility that the same dream holds yet another meaning.”(27) This inexhaustibility of a dream (its second structural element) Freud terms “condensation.” Behind the condensation of images lies a condensation of thoughts and feelings.

The third structural element of a dream is the “pictorial representation of an abstract concept.” Dream creation is visual by nature: “Among the various associations with the thoughts underlying the dream, the one is chosen which allows for visual representation, and the dream does not shy away from any difficulties in transforming an abstract thought into another verbal form, even the most unusual, as long as it facilitates visualization.”(28) The psychoanalyst’s task is to deprive the dream of its visual form and translate it into the language of abstract concepts.

At the same time, another aspect must be taken into account (the fourth structural element of a dream)—its “tendency to adopt a rational form.”(29) A dream consists not only of absurd elements that mask meaning. The psychic instance that performs the role of censorship (the preconscious) intervenes in the process of dream creation, attempting to organize it and bring order to the chaos of images. As a result, certain parts of the dream create an “illusion of coherence.” Something similar can be observed in the primitive waking consciousness. Freud illustrates this idea with the following example:

At a session of the French Parliament, a bomb thrown by an anarchist exploded. The presiding officer, however, exclaimed: “The session continues!”—thereby preventing panic. The audience in the gallery was later interrogated. Among those questioned were two provincials visiting the Parliament for the first time. One of them testified that after a deputy’s speech, he heard the explosion but perceived it as a parliamentary custom—a shot signaling the end of a speech. The other, having presumably heard several speeches, made a similar error, except that, in his opinion, the shots were salutes to particularly distinguished speakers.

References:
27 Freud, S. The Interpretation of Dreams. M., 1913, p. 233.
28 Ibid., p. 283.
29 Ibid.

According to Freud, this is the structure of a dream. We have not touched upon its substantive aspects; Freud's proposed symbolism is debatable and often demonstrably incorrect. We have limited ourselves solely to its formal side, which cannot be disregarded due to a remarkable circumstance: the hypothetical structure of a dream coincides with the structure of a specific type of artistic image—the one created by the effect of defamiliarization.

The purpose of defamiliarization, according to Bertolt Brecht, is to break free from the "automatism of perception," to look at the ordinary with an unusual gaze, to see in it something strange and new, to provoke thought and teach one to think. Brecht regarded his art as a product of the scientific age; he sought to ensure that aesthetic emotion would arise through the act of cognition and, in turn, stimulate it. The art of defamiliarization is directly and inherently linked to knowledge. Moreover, the structure of a defamiliarized image, in broad strokes, replicates the structure of a dream.

Indeed, an analogue of Freud’s “displacement” is allegory—a universal device in the art of language, present even in its simplest forms. In modern intellectual art, allegory is often elevated to the level of a cipher: behind the external, visible content, there always lies a hidden meaning that sometimes requires not only intellectual effort but also substantial education to uncover. Discovering this hidden meaning provides additional aesthetic pleasure. Examples of this are widely recognized.

Equally well-known is the fact of the polysemy of artistic imagery, which corresponds to the "condensation" of dream formation. The distinguished philologist Alexander Potebnya regarded polysemy as a defining “property of poetic works.”(30) At any rate, contemporary poetry and prose increasingly employ this technique.

The aforementioned Christopher Caudwell observes: “Just as poetry can be likened to a dream, so too can the poet’s creative method be compared to the process of dreaming.”(31) Caudwell identifies similarities in two key aspects—“displacement” and “condensation.”(32)

It is somewhat more difficult to identify “plasticity” in art, as it refers to secondary plasticity—not of the object, but of the concept. Nevertheless, this can be observed. The technique is called “realization of the metaphor,” i.e., a literal interpretation of allegory. This is a favorite method of defamiliarization. In this case, the task of the reader (or viewer) is analogous to that of the psychoanalyst: to reconstruct the thought from the image.

References:
30 Potebnya, A. A. From Lectures on the Theory of Literature. Kharkiv, 1930.
31 Caudwell, C. Illusion and Reality, p. 269.
32 Psychologist I. E. Volpert also identifies certain similarities between the mechanisms of dreaming and artistic creativity (Volpert, I. E. Dreams in Ordinary Sleep and Hypnosis. L., 1966, p. 134).

In Bertolt Brecht's play The Good Person of Szechwan, the main character appears in two personas: the benevolent Shen Te and her malevolent cousin Shui Ta. Essentially, this is the realization of a metaphor about the duality of personality in an antagonistic society.

Finally, there is the "illusion of correctness," the effort to bring clarity and explanation to the confusion caused by allegory, polysemy, and the vivid depiction of abstract thought. Without this technique, defamiliarization (ostranenie) cannot function, for its purpose is to disrupt habitual perception without causing complete bewilderment. Therefore, into the illogical situation crafted by the author, a certain logic must eventually emerge. In The Good Person of Szechwan, as soon as the three gods appear on stage, it becomes evident that nothing supernatural is actually happening—these are not gods, but rather bureaucrats sent for inspection. There is no need to multiply examples further.

Thus, all four structural elements of dream formation are present in artistic creation that generates the effect of defamiliarization, serving as its integral components. Together, they exhaust the possibilities of this technique—defamiliarization knows no other methods beyond those mentioned above.(33)

The coincidence of structures prompts reflection. Most likely, it indicates that contemporary intellectual art, in its techniques, has approached certain fundamental principles of creativity in general and, therefore, of scientific creativity as well.

It is interesting to note in this context that, in recent years, humanities and specialized artistic disciplines have increasingly become part of the mandatory curricula in natural and technical sciences in Western educational institutions. Moreover, in some companies and institutions, during competitions for scientific and technical positions, candidates are assessed for their artistic culture—not merely their knowledge, but their ability to interpret works of contemporary art. This is seen as a guarantee of developed imaginative capabilities and, consequently, creative potential, as well as the ability to quickly adapt to changing circumstances and identify optimal solutions.

Thus, two tasks arise. First, it is necessary to take the concept of "scientific beauty" with full seriousness and cease to view it as merely a metaphorical expression. We must study the intersections between abstract and artistic-imaginative thinking, as well as the peculiarities of aesthetic elements in different fields of knowledge. Second, we must undertake a serious examination of contemporary art in this context—art that has emerged from the scientific and technological revolution and demonstrates a clear tendency toward convergence with scientific thought. Both tasks are crucial for understanding the creative process.

References:
33 The most comprehensive analysis of the structure of Brechtian defamiliarization is found in: Grimm, R. Bertolt Brecht. Nuremberg, 1965. — Seven chapters of this book describe seven groups of formal techniques used by Brecht (ranging from three to six techniques per chapter). Upon closer examination, all of them can be reduced to the four factors outlined above. A more detailed discussion of the structure of defamiliarized imagery can be found in the author's article "On Typologization in Art" (Philosophical Sciences, 1975, No. 2).

Albert Einstein’s widely known remark that Dostoevsky gives him more than Gauss has sparked debates, although its meaning is quite clear: the work of an artist, particularly someone like Dostoevsky, has the power to liberate the creative consciousness of a scientist and to inspire their scientific imagination more profoundly than anything else.

This observation applies to all types of scientific activity. In a recently published article by the Polish philosopher W. Marciszewski, it is noted that philosophical theory, like mathematical theory, is capable of eliciting an aesthetic experience through its simplicity, the perfection of its logical structure, and the comprehensiveness of its approach. In this sense, aesthetic sensibility also serves a heuristic function.(34)

Of course, an appeal to authority is not a definitive proof. Yet, it serves as a useful reinforcement in argumentation. In my firm belief, one of the most fruitful paths for the further development of philosophical thought lies in the fusion of theoretical and aesthetic engagement with the world. To this day, I remain uncertain as to whether Bertolt Brecht’s play Life of Galileo contains more art or more philosophy.

Perhaps the proportion of each component is determined by the extent to which they mutually permeate one another.

References:
34 Marciszewski, W. "Kryteria dobrej roboty w twórczości filozoficznej," Studia filozoficzne, Warsaw, 1974, No. 1, pp. 39–51.

Source: The Creative Process and Artistic Perception, L.: Nauka, 1978.
]]> Sun, 15 Dec 2024 17:17:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?on-the-aesthetics-of-scientific-discovery-part-2 https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/00000006E <![CDATA[On the aesthetics of scientific discovery (part 1)]]> imblog
Among the issues that attract the attention of modern heuristics, two remain the least explored: the unconscious components of the researcher’s psyche and the aesthetic dimension of their thinking.
This article attempts to examine the interrelation of these aspects. The principal conclusion we aim to substantiate—or at least propose as a hypothesis—is that any creative act, at its deepest levels, inherently possesses an aesthetic character.

The starting point of this discussion is the idea, supported by several authors, of the four stages of the invention (scientific discovery) process: preparation, incubation (maturation), illumination (insight), and completion. The first and fourth stages pertain to conscious activity, while the second and third stages involve the unconscious components of the psyche. What is under the control of consciousness—common sense and accumulated knowledge—simultaneously facilitates and obstructs illumination. It facilitates by concentrating attention on the problem, the collected data, and the difficulties of interpretation. It obstructs by anchoring one to entrenched ideas and established stereotypes of thinking, which inadvertently misguide, pushing one along a familiar path when the task is to forge a new one. Discovery requires the breaking of old paradigms. The habitual mode of thinking is its adversary.

Illumination often occurs when the conscious components of thought are weakened or entirely suspended. Sometimes, this happens in sleep. Notable examples include Kekulé and Mendeleev.

This does not imply that discovery is spontaneous or accidental in nature. Only the highly developed consciousness of a scientist can create a heuristic situation, fix attention on new data, and perceive their contradiction with the existing theory. Only consciousness can formulate a problem and provide the general direction for the search.

What happens next? A completely different type of thinking is activated, one that is not the habitual kind associated with a clearly defined system of signs adapted for communication. Creative thinking demands more flexible forms. “For me, it is beyond doubt,” writes A. Einstein, “that our thinking predominantly proceeds outside symbols (words) and is also unconscious.” (1) Many concur with this. “Words are completely absent from my mind when I think,” states the renowned French mathematician J. Hadamard. Instead of words, he uses “spots of indefinite form.” (2)
Hadamard references an intriguing observation by the linguist R. Jakobson, who agrees that creative thought requires signs less standardized than language. Jakobson distinguishes between conventional, widely accepted signs and individual signs. The latter, in turn, can be subdivided into signs used consistently and episodic signs created solely for a specific case, participating in a singular act of creation.

Another testimony comes from G. Meyer-Leibnitz, a West German scientist, who writes about the process of discovery: “Thinking does not occur with the help of words (I have never heard any natural scientist claim they think using words)—more often, it occurs with dynamic images.” (3)

Concerning the unconscious, A. Poincaré, while apologizing for the crude analogy, suggests imagining its elements as “atoms,” which, prior to the commencement of mental work, are in a motionless state, as if “attached to a wall.” The initial conscious effort, which mobilizes attention to the problem, sets these atoms into motion. Subsequently, only consciousness rests, while the unconscious mental process continues. The movement of these “subconscious atoms” does not cease until a solution emerges. “After the impulse given to them by our will, the atoms no longer return to their original motionless state. They freely continue their dance.” (4)

To create is to make choices, discarding unsuitable options, and the unconscious choice is guided by a sense of scientific beauty: “Among the numerous combinations formed by our subconscious, most are uninteresting and useless, which is why they fail to affect our aesthetic sense and are never recognized by our consciousness. Only some combinations are harmonious and thus simultaneously beautiful and useful. These are capable of triggering our specialized geometric intuition, which draws attention to them and allows them to become conscious.”

References:
  1. Einstein, A. Physics and Reality. M., 1965, p. 133.
  2. Hadamard, J. The Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Field. M., 1970, pp. 72–73.
  3. Die deutsche Universitäts-Zeitung. Bonn, 1974, No. 19, p. 809.
  4. Cited in: Hadamard, J. The Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Field, p. 144. (The American mathematician M. Kline agrees with A. Poincaré. See the book: The Creative Experience. New York, 1972, p. 93).

Special aesthetic sense is a peculiar filter that allows through only that which, due to its harmony, may turn out to be true. "Those who lack it will never become true inventors." (5)

This is the perspective of mathematicians. What can aesthetics add to this? It cannot be said that the topic of "art and science" lies outside its scope. Beginning with the exchange of views published in the journal Voprosy Literatury in 1964 (No. 8), this issue has drawn increasing attention. However, the discussion primarily revolves around the study of art using modern scientific methods, the depiction of scientists in contemporary art, or, less frequently, the mutual influence of artistic and scientific creativity. Rarely does it touch upon the search for their shared nature. This search is hindered by deeply rooted notions that separate beauty from truth, artistic thinking from conceptual reasoning.

We often hear that beauty is synonymous with sensory concreteness. It is said that without vivid perception, beauty does not exist. But is this true?

The ancients recognized another kind of beauty—suprasensory, intelligible beauty. A classical exponent of ancient aesthetics is Plato. "In the final analysis, beauty in Plato’s philosophy is nothing other than measure, proportion, symmetry, harmony, order, and everything that can be reduced to number or numerical orderliness." (6) In the dialogue Symposium, Plato speaks of how one "spiritually pregnant" prepares for intellectual birth and "seeks the beautiful everywhere to be delivered of this burden."

To comprehend beauty in its universality, one must ascend a kind of ladder: to move from the contemplation of "a single beautiful body to two, from two to all, and then from beautiful bodies to beautiful souls, and from beautiful souls to beautiful thoughts, until one ascends from these thoughts to the ultimate knowledge of beauty itself, and finally understands what beauty truly is.
And in contemplating beauty itself... only then can a person truly live."

"Don’t you see," Plato asks, "that only by beholding beauty as it ought to be beheld, will one be able to give birth not to mere shadows of virtue but to true virtue? This happens because one apprehends truth, not mere illusion. And the one who gives birth to and nourishes true virtue will be loved by the gods and, if any human can achieve immortality, it is surely this person." (7)

References:
5. Hadamard, J. The Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Field, p. 143.
6. Losev, A. F. History of Ancient Aesthetics. The Sophists, Socrates, Plato. M., 1969, p. 669.
7. Plato, Collected Works in 3 volumes, Vol. 2. M., 1970, p. 142. — Plotinus presents a similar gradation of beauty, the highest level of which exists "without any sensory form" (see: Plotinus. Auswahl. Frankfurt am Main, 1958, p. 45).

Before us stands an inspired hymn to creativity, which makes a human equal to a god, worthy of immortality. Creativity is the act of bringing forth in beauty. In other words, every creative act is inherently aesthetic; to gain the capacity for creativity, one must cultivate their aesthetic sense to the utmost level of universality.

In modern times, in Puritan England, expressions were more restrained than in ancient Greece during Plato’s era. However, Francis Hutcheson was concerned with essentially the same matters and arrived at similar conclusions. His aesthetic treatise draws attention to the section titled "On the Beauty of a Theory." Hutcheson discusses that alongside "comparative" beauty, i.e., the beauty of representations, there exists the "original" beauty of the objects themselves, which include not only material bodies but also thoughts. Beauty, he claims, is "unity in variety."

When we take measurements or conduct experiments, we uncover truths each time, but we do not yet experience the sensation of beauty because our minds are in a "restless state." However, upon discovering general principles, upon reducing diverse data to some unity, we experience intellectual joy and satisfaction. There is little beauty in axioms, as their truth is self-evident. Simple theorems do not bring as much pleasure as those that are less obvious and evoke wonder in their proofs. Hutcheson writes:

"If we hear that a cylinder is larger than the sphere inscribed within it, which, in turn, is larger than a cone of the same height and base diameter, we find no pleasure in this knowledge of general relationships of greater and lesser without any precise distinction or proportion. But when we observe the universal, exact correspondence of all possible dimensions of such systems of geometric bodies, whereby they retain a constant ratio to each other of 3:2:1, how beautiful is this theorem, and what joy do we feel upon its first discovery." (8)

Scientific beauty, then, is the discovery of non-obvious truths.

Hutcheson identifies a second feature of scientific beauty—the universality of the discovered truth:
"A theory has another beauty that cannot be overlooked, which lies in the fact that a single theorem can contain an enormous number of consequences that can be easily derived from it. When investigating nature, such beauty is found in the knowledge of certain great principles or universal forces, from which countless consequences flow. Such is the principle of gravitation in the scheme of Sir Isaac Newton. We take pleasure in this beauty, even if we have no prospect of deriving any other benefit from such a method of deduction beyond the immediate enjoyment of contemplating beauty." (9)

References:
8. Hutcheson, F., Hume, D., Smith, A. Aesthetics. M., 1973, p. 74.
9. Ibid., p. 75.

At the same time, Hutcheson makes an important caveat: beauty is not equivalent to knowledge. Knowledge is "always monotonously the same," whereas aesthetic experience is a rapidly growing ecstasy. Beauty, therefore, lies not in the knowledge itself but in its acquisition, in the proof, in discovering unity where it could only have been hypothesized.

However, this "love for uniformity" can lead to errors. The possibility of "distortions of common sense undertaken in the pursuit of beauty" is not excluded (10). For instance, Descartes conceived the promising idea of deriving all human knowledge from a single theorem—"I think, therefore I am."

Hutcheson refers to this as "contrived beauty." Discovered truth is beautiful, but not everything beautiful is true. Aesthetic sense offers a range of solutions, but a discerning mind selects only one.

Thus, if we follow Hutcheson (and there is no reason not to), the beauty of thought should be considered purely in a heuristic sense. Its domain lies in discovery, proof, and invention. Let us recall that Bertolt Brecht, who believed in the possibility and timeliness of creating an "aesthetics of exact sciences," defined beauty as "overcoming difficulties" (11). This conclusion has been shaped by centuries of aesthetic history.

When identifying points of contact between heuristic situations in science and artistic activity, one should also consider a critically interpreted Kantian definition of the beautiful as a "play of cognitive faculties." Kant drew on Hutcheson, noting both the differences and similarities between truth and beauty. The term "play" was chosen as a mediating concept between the two.

At this point, it is essential to distinguish between "play" in the narrow sense, as a specific form of entertainment, and "playful behavior" as a principle of activity. A wakeful organism cannot remain in a passive state. When its activity is not directed toward the reproduction of life (acquiring means of subsistence, consuming them, reproduction, etc.), it turns on itself, and energy seeks an outlet in activity as such, albeit carried out according to certain rules. This is "play" in the broad sense. It is equally inherent in all higher living beings and, to some extent, serves as an analogue of art in a world where humans do not yet exist.

As for playful behavior, it exists in two forms (competition and imitation), which sometimes merge. Competition requires the presence of a rival but can also do without one: one can compete with oneself, improving one's achievements. A person strives to reach a consciously "programmed" result in the course of competition and then surpass it. This limitless "atonality," free from external interests unrelated to this goal, drives individuals to exert their efforts in both art and scientific inquiry. The obsession of a creator of a scientific idea is, in this sense, akin to the obsession of an artist or a virtuoso performer.

References:
10. Ibid., p. 76.
11. Brecht, B. Schriften zur Politik und Gesellschaft, Vol. 1, Berlin, 1968, p. 253.

Even more significant for our discussion is the second aspect of play—imitation. In a child's life, imitation holds immense educational and cognitive value; it broadens horizons and develops skills: "One imitates something else, something surrounding—something more beautiful, elevated, or dangerous. The child becomes a prince, a father, a witch, or a tiger. At the same time, the child almost believes that 'it is so' and yet never loses the sense of 'ordinary reality'" (12). Play contains an inherent contradiction: the player constantly exists in two spheres—the conditional, playful one, and the real, "serious" one. Forgetting the dual nature of the situation means ending the play.

The same applies to art: even with the most realistic representation of life, the conditional aspect never disappears for a moment. Losing the conditional aspect is akin to failing to perceive reality through the convention. In both cases, the phenomenon of art vanishes. Enjoyment of art involves participation in the play.

And what about scientific inquiry? Upon closer inspection, we see the same ambivalence, the same duality. On one side, there are certain established principles, laws, and mechanisms; on the other, there are facts that suggest the possibility of a new principle, law, or mechanism, encouraging belief in it and perceiving it as something real, though not yet understood. A pioneer lives in two spheres: the existing one constantly reminds them of its presence, but the sought-after one is also perceived with a measure of reality. Only thus can imagination leap to a "new orbit" of reasoning and conduct the "selection of combinations" described by Poincaré and Hadamard.

If this is the case (and it seems it indeed is), then art (not only creative artistic activity but also its perception) can serve as a stimulant of heuristic capability, priming the intellect for discovery and inspiring bold ideas that might seem incredible to common sense. As the famous aphorism states, an idea, to become true, must be sufficiently crazy. Consciousness tests truth, but everything "crazy" is born in the subconscious. Let us turn to it.

Reference:
12. Huizinga, J. Homo Ludens. Reinbek, 1956, p. 21.
]]> Sun, 15 Dec 2024 17:17:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?on-the-aesthetics-of-scientific-discovery-part-1 https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/00000006D <![CDATA[The Devil's Gambit]]> imblog
(from the stories of a not-so-strong chess player)
 
I was a third-category chess player when a fruitful opening idea came to my mind—the idea of a variation that was destined to revolutionize all chess theory.
 
However, to tell the truth, there wasn't any actual variation yet, no vague idea even. But in my imagination, there was already a name that would be assigned to this future discovery. In my mind, I was telling potential interlocutors:
 
"You won't find it in any textbooks. I came up with this variation myself. Now it's called the 'Latsis Attack.'"
 
There are many chess players who love playing the game, but who equally enjoy reading about chess, discussing it, and dreaming about their future chess triumphs.
 
That was me: dreaming and reading, reading and dreaming. Even when I memorized opening variations, I found it easiest to remember all sorts of chess-related details: names, surnames, cities, and dates.
 
When playing "by the book," I tried to avoid making any "original" moves for as long as possible. I would play out the openings automatically, without really thinking about the position. I was thrilled to win with the help of a textbook trap. But even more satisfaction came from the chance to drop the line after the game: "This already happened in the Tarrasch vs. Marco game, Dresden, 1892."
 
Hearing "Dresden, 1892," my opponent would sharply feel how little he knew about chess. Stunned, he would be in awe of my deep knowledge. It’s no wonder that I found opening theory far more interesting than endgame theory. After all, almost every move in openings has someone's name attached to it. But in endgames, names like Berger, Cheron, and Grigoriev rarely flash by.
 
The theory of the King's Gambit, in particular, is filled with grand names. Just take the Muzio Gambit—it's packed with all sorts of titles! Asharin's Attack. Brentano's Defense. The Berlin Defense. The Paulsen Move. The Zukertort Variation. Lina's Attack from the town of Brighton. Chigorin’s Idea.
 
There’s no need to continue the list. The decision was made without hesitation: I would inscribe my still-unknown name into this sharpest and most romantic chapter of chess theory.
 
Since the task was so clearly formulated, the future of the "Latsis Attack" seemed straightforward. Despite the opinions of Louis Paulsen, Johannes Zukertort, Emanuel Lasker, and Mikhail Chigorin, and yet in full agreement with Siegbert Tarrasch, I came to the conclusion that in the Muzio Gambit, White wins.
 
Tarrasch wrote about this gambit, embellishing his speech with aphorisms and even musical terms:
 
"The Muzio Gambit cannot be played andante, like a Chopin nocturne; this devilish gambit should be played allegro furioso, like the first movement of the Pathétique Sonata!"
 
...If this move were incorrect, then the whole game of chess would be wrong.
 
What did Chigorin respond to this stream of eloquence? Almost nothing, except for an analysis of regular chess moves, leading to the brief conclusion: "and Black must win."
 
So, on one side, we have the logic of facts, and on the other, the logic of words. I bravely stood on the side of words, on the side of illusions and hopes. If Tarrasch lacked facts, no concrete winning variations—no problem! That means I, and only I, will find them!
 
And thus, the variations of the Muzio Gambit became the subject of my first analytical exercises. A special notebook, of course, ceremoniously titled "Latsis Attack," began to fill up. Since all kinds of continuations were considered, even obviously weak ones, most of the analyses ended with simple mating combinations. Gradually, it seemed that White really did win in the Muzio Gambit, and with extraordinary ease. The centuries-old mystery was being solved all too simply. Could it be that for so many years no one had seen such obvious, so-called "self-propelled" continuations? But I wasn’t pondering the past, I was focused on the future.
 
The future looked like this: I play an easy game against Lasker himself, using the Muzio Gambit, and win brilliantly. After the game, I eagerly show him the variations of the "Latsis Attack." Convinced by the accuracy and completeness of my analysis, Lasker uses the Muzio Gambit in a tournament game and defeats Capablanca. Lasker tells the journalists that he owes his victory to a young chess player with only a third category ranking. The King’s Gambit, as in the mid-19th century, becomes the most popular opening again. But no one dares to play the Muzio Gambit with Black because there is no salvation from the "Latsis Attack."
 
This is where my modest flight of fancy came to a stop.
 
It cannot be said that the youthful dreams had no real basis. First of all, an international tournament involving Lasker and Capablanca was to begin in a few months. Second, I had been firmly promised that I would soon be taken to visit Dr. Emanuel Lasker, so he could assess my chess skills. Thus, only a small detail remained before the full triumph of my fantasy: I just needed to check all the variations once more.
 
* * *
 
Dr. Lasker, who was to predict my future and determine my chess fate, lived in our city at the time.
 
My mother, of course, didn’t want me to make a bad impression on her long-time friends. Before we entered the house, she reminded me:
 
“Don’t start talking about chess yourself, don’t suggest playing, and remember, Lasker is already 68 years old—you mustn’t tire him.”
 
In youth, it’s very hard to master the art of idle chatter. On your own topic, about what occupies your mind at the moment, you can manage to say something—here, shyness almost completely disappears. But speaking of nothing in particular, you just can’t get into the conversation, you can’t utter a word.
 
I came to the great chess player on very important chess matters. But here was a small table set for four, a coffee pot, small cups, and cookies. Neither the cups nor the plates interested me. My head was filled with one thought: soon, they’ll finish their coffee—I had already quickly drunk mine—and the doctor will say, “Let’s see what the young man knows about chess. How about we play a game?” And then we play a game, maybe even two, and I had prudently brought along score sheets. And after the first game, Lasker asks: “What’s your rating? Third category? Oh no, you play much stronger!” And then he asks me to show one of my serious tournament games. And I have that game with me—my best game—with my own annotations to it: “A subtle positional pawn sacrifice, the consequences of which aren’t immediately clear, especially since after sacrificing the pawn, White unexpectedly goes for an immediate exchange of queens.”
 
Then Lasker will finally be convinced that he’s facing a true chess player and will ask if I have any opening ideas of my own. And that’s when I’ll show him all the variations of the “Latsis Attack,” the attack that overturns the established evaluation of the Muzio Gambit.
 
But now the coffee is finished, my mother has gone with Martha Lasker to her room, and Frau Martha will read her new poems to my mother. Emanuel Lasker invites me to another table—the one with the chessboard.
 
But no. He doesn’t offer to play a game. He doesn’t ask to see my best game or my opening innovations. Instead, Lasker himself makes a few moves for White and for Black. A position arises on the board—it’s a Sicilian Defense, but a completely unfamiliar system to me, something I’ve never seen in textbooks.
 
Lasker asks what I think of this position. I reply that Black’s position is bad because they have weakened their queenside and fallen behind in development.
 
“I’m currently studying this position,” Lasker explains, “because it might appear in the tournament that will be played in the Hall of Columns. So you think White has a big advantage. How would you play to prove this advantage?”
 
I suggest moves—natural, straightforward ones—which, as it immediately turns out, prove absolutely nothing. It’s a strange, uncomfortable position. White should have an advantage, but no matter what I try, nothing works. Everything slips away like sand through my fingers.
 
The pieces and pawns are reset to their starting positions. Another position is set up, again something not found in the textbooks, and once again I’m thinking, “This can’t be happening, because this simply can’t happen.”
 
At that point, Lasker pushed the chessboard aside and asked:
 
“What’s your current category?”
 
“Third.”
 
“You play stronger, roughly at the level of a first-category player. I think you’ll achieve that soon. If you continue studying chess, in time you could become a chess master. But what kind of master you’ll become—great or average—I can’t say right now. That will only be revealed later. Most likely, you’ll be average. You’re probably a capable young man in general, and whatever you pursue, you’ll achieve something in your field. But I don’t recommend dedicating your entire life to chess.”
 
Some of the phrases, coinciding with what I wanted to hear, pleased me, and I completely agreed with them. But the overall meaning of what was said didn’t sink in right away. A sense of inner disagreement stirred within me; I wanted to argue, to prove something, but I didn’t even know what exactly.
 
It seemed to me that Lasker had reached his conclusion too quickly. He says this, but he didn’t even play a single game with me.
 
It also felt like Lasker had underestimated my chess abilities.
 
We were already getting up from the chess table—it was time to thank him for his attention and apologize for taking up his time. And then, I brought up the subject of chess again. I started explaining that I had discovered a new attack in the Muzio Gambit, where White wins by force.
 
“No, no,” Lasker said, “I won’t look at your new attack, and here’s why. At the end of the last century and the beginning of this one, young people often came to me, showing me sure ways to win a chess game right away. Mind you, if such a way existed, chess would have long ceased to exist; no one would play it anymore. It would be better if you review your variations yourself.”
 
“But it’s been several months…”
 
“Yes, yes, of course, I understand... But I want to give you a little piece of advice. Turn the board around. Look at the position from the other side. You see, you were playing as White, and you really wanted them to win, so they did. Now look at the position from the perspective of Black. And not just from the Black side—look at it through Black’s eyes!”
 
I came home and set up the chessboard. Fifteen minutes later, the "Latsis Attack" ceased to exist.
 
Since one of Lasker’s predictions had immediately come true, I couldn’t ignore the rest of what he had said—everything I disagreed with, everything that didn’t sit well with my ambition. I had to think over everything that was said. I had to understand why Lasker structured this chess conversation the way he did, and not differently.
 
Yes, he was right not to play a game with me. It wouldn’t have clarified anything, except for confirming for the thousandth time what was already obvious—that Lasker played chess incomparably stronger than I did.
 
Yes, he was right not to look at my best game. Someone who has written one good poem is not yet a poet. Someone who has played one good game is not yet a chess player.
 
Without distractions, focusing on the essentials, Lasker determined the main thing: did I have pure chess talent? In other words, did I have independent chess thinking?
 
Lasker expressed his opinion tactfully, politely, and yet quite clearly.
 
The dreams of a great chess future stopped. I continued studying chess, and soon, about a year later, I achieved the first category.
 
As for the "devilish gambit," I only managed to play the Muzio Gambit once in a tournament game. I won that game. However, I was playing with the Black pieces!
 
From "Chess in the USSR" 1964, No. 5
]]> Wed, 02 Oct 2024 12:30:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?the-devil-s-gambit https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/00000006B <![CDATA[Chess lesson at school]]> imblog
Chess lesson at school

There are books that are essential for every coach, for every educator working in chess clubs and circles with children. We mean not only specialized chess literature but also books on pedagogy and educational issues.

Among these works, a special place is occupied by the book of corresponding member of the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences V. О. Sukhomlynsky "I Give My Heart to Children" (Kyiv, "RSH", 1974. 287 pages, circulation 400,000).

The outstanding Ukrainian educator V. О. Sukhomlynsky (1918-1970) talks about his experience in school, about how to introduce children to the world of knowledge, how to make intellectual work easier for them. When talking about the cultivation of thinking culture, Sukhomlynsky pays serious attention to chess. Here's what he writes in the chapter "A Thousand Problems from a Living Problem Book":

"In the cultivation of thinking culture, chess played a significant role... Boys and girls often sat at the chessboard. Playing chess disciplined their thinking, cultivated concentration. But the most important thing here is the development of memory. Observing young chess players, I saw how children mentally recreate the position that was, and imagine what will be...

I taught them the game, and the children thought about the next moves. The chessboard helped me to discover the mathematical thinking of Lyuba and Pavlo. Before playing chess (these children started playing in the third grade), I did not notice the sharpness and acumen of their thoughts.

A complete education of mental abilities and memory is inconceivable without chess. Chess should become part of primary school life as one of the elements of intellectual culture. We are talking specifically about primary school, where intellectual education occupies a special place, requires special forms and methods of work."

Here's another statement by Sukhomlynsky:
"Chess is an excellent school for sequential logical thinking."

Sukhomlynsky's thoughts on chess are gradually gaining popularity among teachers of primary and secondary schools. Here's what V. Merkulova, a primary school teacher at School No. 70, writes:
"For three years now, chess has been taught in my classes. I simply cannot imagine the complete educational process without these chess lessons anymore. It's already important that the children acquire a certain element of human culture like the game of chess. But I feel how chess also influences the development of memory and quick thinking. Their educational role is indisputable; the classes have increased the activity of the children."

Here's what V. Kondakov, the principal of Secondary School No. 4, told the newspaper:

"In our school, chess lessons have been conducted for the second year. We received permission for such lessons, talked to parents, and obtained their consent. Last academic year, chess classes were held in all second grades, and now with the same students, they are in the third grades.

Chess lessons take place once a week and are included in the schedule. Attendance is mandatory for all students... The necessary number of chess sets (one set for each desk) and a demonstration magnetic board are available for the lessons. The lessons are structured according to a special program. Students attend the classes with interest and prepare for them. We decided not to limit our course to theory only. The main thing is practice. And for this, competitions need to be held. After all, competing, testing one's strengths is a natural need of children, a necessary step in the formation of personality...

Our experience in this new venture is still limited, but we clearly see that there is a benefit. This is what teachers working in the third grades and parents think. We plan to continue chess lessons in the fourth grades.

Unfortunately, chess has not yet received full recognition from educational science. Perhaps this is because their value is not immediately evident in direct tangible results, but in more distant ones, which are not immediately visible. The influence of chess has a beneficial effect gradually on learning, work, and the cultural formation of a person."

In the matter of organizing chess lessons in schools, there is still a lot of amateurism, and educational science does not generalize the accumulated useful experience. Yet, it would be worthwhile for educational workers to carefully heed the words and assessments of V. О. Sukhomlynsky.

A new school year has begun. The children sat at their desks, took their textbooks. In some schools, chess lessons have been introduced in the lower grades. While there are still few schools where such lessons are conducted, no one doubts the educational role of chess nowadays. It's just that not everyone knows how to organize chess lessons and where to start.

"First of all," says methodologist V. Filatov, former principal of School No. 194, "it is necessary to provide the material part for conducting classes: a sufficient number of chess sets, a portable demonstration board.

You won't find a demonstration board in the store right away, but the students themselves can make such a board. That's what we did. The students made a board during labor classes, painted the squares. They also carved out chess pieces during the same classes. Fifty sets of chess were purchased by the school (the costs were not so great) - everything was ready for classes.

Where to find a teacher? In our case, Master M. Yudovich conducted classes once a week in the third grades. It was fortunate. But, believe me, finding someone who could teach chess lessons is not that difficult. You just need to show initiative. Perhaps some of the teachers play chess. And surely among the parents of the students, there are those who know chess. Most likely, a chess teacher can be found among retirees who can conduct classes during the day. We surveyed the school, found out who in the family plays chess.

It is often heard that introducing chess into school as a mandatory lesson is not possible. It is believed that it will not be interesting for many children and will burden them. My experience shows that such an opinion is erroneous - only in rare cases did any of the third-grade students (and it was precisely here that we had a chess lesson) show indifference to chess.

Of course, it is necessary to remember that no matter how engaging the lessons are, without combining them with practice, it is difficult to achieve good results - children may gradually lose interest in chess. Therefore, we always simultaneously held tournaments.

The main goal of the lessons is by no means the preparation of high-class chess players. The main thing is to reveal the beauty of chess, to help children develop useful qualities that acquaintance with chess provides. And for those schoolchildren who will want to delve deeper into the theory in the future, the first lessons will be a good service.

One of the teachers of School No. 9, Honored Coach A. Khasin, talks about how to structure the plan for the first chess lessons:

"It is very important to thoughtfully select the material - much depends on whether the children will love chess. It is useful to talk about the history of chess, about our best grandmasters. Show beautiful games, spectacular combinations. You need to select examples where there is full-fledged competition. Play accurately - win, make the slightest mistake - lose.

I want to warn against one mistake - you cannot show too much right away. It's necessary for the children to think for themselves. And here the selection of examples for independent solution is very important. You need to give examples that children can handle on their own and at the same time impress with their unexpectedness and beauty.

A mandatory condition is the combination of theory with practice. Organize tournaments in classes, let the children play with each other. And not just play, after the games are over, they should be analyzed together with the teacher.

There are many techniques that help chess players develop various skills. Let's focus on one.

It is important from the very first steps of learning to develop in children such quality as attentiveness, which significantly reduces the percentage of gross "blunders".

On an empty board, you place, for example, a lonely white knight. Ask to show which squares it controls. Then you fill the attacked squares with figures of different values ​​and colors. Again, ask to show which figure needs to be taken. Then the same operation is useful to do with the queen.

At the next lesson, you can set several positions where there are many threats. Let the students think for a moment and ask them to show how the threats are being countered...

Of course, these tips are schematic. Much will depend on the resources available to a particular school. After all, in some schools, one of the teachers or parents may take on the role of organizing the club and teaching, while in others, it may be someone else. As for the lesson plan, the problem is quite solvable here - there are many chess teaching programs. They just need to be supplemented with examples from practice, taking into account the students' level - whether they are first graders or students in grades 2-4.

Organizing chess lessons in school is not as difficult as it may seem at first glance.
]]> Sun, 24 Mar 2024 23:02:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?chess-lesson-at-school https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/00000006A <![CDATA[Blunder as such... (part 2)]]> imblog
the beginning...
chessboard: lichess.org
(some observations and reflections)



This position arose in the game Ebralidze vs. Ragozin (10th USSR Championship). The action took place in Tbilisi (Georgia). Ragozin executed an amazing combination in this position: 39...Be7 40. Rd7 Rc7.

Ebralidze paused, contemplating for about five minutes. The hall buzzed. And one of the spectators got so excited that he shouted:
- Archil, take the rook...
No response, naturally.
- Archil, take the rook...
Ebralidze remained silent.
- Archil, take the rook...

... Great commanders before decisive battles uttered historical phrases: "The die is cast," said Caesar, crossing the Rubicon. "Soldiers! Forty centuries are looking down upon you from the height of the pyramids," said Napoleon.

- "Be quiet, I see it all myself," modestly said Ebralidze and played 41. Rd5. A few moves later, he successfully... lost.

And then something almost mystical happened. Two years after the game, one master advised black to play 39...Rc7 in the given position, not realizing that after 40. R:f8+, black would lose. Five years later, another master repeated the advice. Fifteen years later, the first master returned to his recommendation. Both of them classified the incident in the game as an unprecedented case of chess blindness!

But let's turn to the position on the diagram and try to understand all this heap of blunders. For this, we need a little analysis. Let's try not to blundered.

Black has an extra pawn that they would like to keep to win. Whites, naturally, have a different opinion. The threat of 40. Rd7+ is very significant. How should black play?

Ragozin, unlike the commentators, probably saw that 39...Rc7 was impossible. Other rook retreats on the "c" file do not protect against the threat. Only 39...Rb4 remains, but then 40. Ne6 R b7 41. Ra8 and pawn a7 dies, as 42. Nd8+ is looming. Also, 40...Rb6 doesn't help due to 41. N:a7 Ra6 42. Rd7+. Finally, it's very problematic to play 39...Ke7 40. R:f8 (worse is 40. bc K:d8 41. Nc6+ because of 41...Kc7 42. N:a7 Kb6 43. Nb5 Kc5).

So, should we agree to a draw?
We don't want to, especially since the game was progressing under the sign of black's superiority. And the zeitnot... We need to make a decision.

Of course, in such a position, the first thing you want to do is defend the seventh rank. All troubles come from it. But you can't play 39...Rc7. And here comes the "saving" thought: first, move the bishop to make taking on f8 impossible. It would be good to have a check, but the rook is blocking it. Well, not with a check, then with a tempo. Thus, apparently, the move 39...Be7 40. Rd7 Rc7 was found.

What is the main reason for the blunders? The incorrect assessment of the position. In quite forgivable bias, born from the development of events in the game. To convince yourself of this, let's go back a few moves and look at the position after black's 32nd move.



White, aiming to immediately equalize, played 33. B:c4? (correctly, as indicated by G. Lisitsyn, 33. Rc1, and if 33...Rfc8, then a double exchange on c4). This was followed by 33...R:c4 34. R:d6 fg 35. R:f8+. This exchange is forced, as 35. hg is not suitable due to 35...Be3+ and 36...Rc2+. And now, Black wins a pawn: 35...B:f8 36. Rd8 gh+ 37. K:h2, and after 37...Kg8 38. Nd4 Kf7 39. b3, the game reached the position shown in the previous diagram.

It's not very difficult to imagine what the players were going through at this moment. Blacks, of course, were delighted. No wonder: a pawn is won, the game has simplified, and only two moves remain until the time control. On the kingside, they have two connected passed pawns, and it's just a matter of eliminating some difficulties and getting out of the zeitnot, and everything will be over.

So set up Ragozin the episode with winning a pawn and the deceptive appearance of the position. He proceeded from the quite natural assumption that with an extra pawn, and moreover with two connected passed pawns, the outcome of the struggle is decided.

It is clear that these considerations made him seek a win. He didn't find it. But it must be there! And then he accepted a random option for what he was looking for. Moreover, this option is very plausible. Moreover, in this option, it was only necessary to "blundered" the combination, which, as we saw, is not noticed quite easily. But he couldn't check his calculations for a valid reason - there was no time.

Anticipating objections: why didn't Ebralidze check these calculations? He had time and thought for five minutes. Moreover, it was said: "Archil, take the rook."

All these circumstances only confirm our assumptions. Ebralidze assessed the position the same way as Ragozin. He was upset, losing a pawn, and believed that his affairs were hopelessly bad. Two more moves, and the game would be adjourned, and then all would be lost.

To all these motives, we must add a very significant one - trust in the partner. Ebralidze could hardly hope that Ragozin would sacrifice the rook so easily.

As for the replica from the hall, it only hindered finding the truth. Knowing the power of fans and their temperament, Ebralidze could assume that his adviser did not see the check with the bishop on d6. If the adviser had suggested that the bishop was pinned...

Our assumption that Ebralidze did not notice the pin because he had inwardly accepted the inevitability of defeat is somewhat confirmed by the subsequent move of the game. So, white played 41. Rd5. It was followed by 41...Bf6 42. Nb5 Rc2+ 43. Kg3 a6 44. Rd7+ Ke8 45. Rc7 Be5+, and white resigned.

Still, the bishop gave that bewitched check!

Let's consider another case of a pin, or more precisely, "pin on the pin."



This position is from the game Gipslis—Botvinnik (Team Championship of the USSR, 1965). White played 21. Bd4, pinning the black rook and their own queen. However, the latter circumstance is perceived as inconsequential—after all, the rook on e5 practically doesn't exist. Perhaps that's why, for a moment earlier than they should have, white included the rook in the list of their trophies, continuing to consider their queen as the strongest piece.

They did not see the response 21...Nc4! After 22. B:e5+ Nc:e5, black, maintaining approximate material equality, seized the initiative and won the game.

The Problem of Choice

This ancient problem has been facing humans for centuries, regardless of the field of activity they are engaged in. For the study of blunders, we are interested in only one aspect of this problem—not which variation is better, but which one to consider first. Imagine this scenario: the position requires us to calculate several continuations. We have to make one move, so we strive to choose the best one. We calculate one variation first, then another, then... Stop! Which "one" do we calculate first? This question may seem idle—what difference does it make, we have to check all variations anyway. But it's not entirely true.



Why, for example, did Flor (playing as Black) in the game against Smyslov (XVII USSR Championship) choose the move 52...hg, out of three possible continuations (52...K:g6, 52...Kg7), which cannot be called a continuation since it has no right to continue—53. Rb7#?

Didn't he see the checkmate? Of course. But why didn't he take on g6 with the king? Because after 53. c7! Kg7 54. Rg1+ Kh6 55. Rcg8, he would be losing. Does this mean he saw it? Possibly. Finally, why did he refuse 52...Kg7? Because after 53. gh K:h7 54. Kf6, there are two threats of checkmate, including one on b7. Does this mean he saw this as well? Quite likely.

In conclusion, the most crucial "why." Why, having seen these relatively complex variations, did the grandmaster not notice the checkmate in one move?

If all our previous assumptions are correct, the answer may be unexpectedly simple. He didn't see it—cannot be said. He didn't look—this would be more accurate. And he didn't look because there was no need to. If he started calculating with king moves, then there's no point considering capturing the pawn—it's not a different move anyway.

Now, let's consider another case. The blunder in the Smyslov—Flor game did not change the course of the struggle—the position for Black was hopeless. From this perspective, it doesn't look much like a blunder. However, a checkmate in one move did happen, and that's not always desirable.

In the next example, we can rely not only on our assumptions but also on the testimony of the "author of the blunder."



This position arose in the game Boeimeister—Botvinnik (Vageningen, 1958). Black continued with 27...d4 and went on to achieve a well-deserved victory. In the zeitnot, Botvinnik rightly concluded that the combination 27...Ra1 28. Q:a1 N:e3+ 29. Kg1 Q:f3 does not work due to 30. Q:b2 with a check. There was no time to continue the search, and the entire idea of the combination was rejected.

It's a pity. If Black had started calculating with the move 27...Rb1, the game would have ended differently. Meanwhile, the variation that occurred in the game would probably have gone unnoticed.

As it turns out, it is not always indifferent which of the possible continuations to consider first.

It's challenging to determine what guides a chess player when deciding the order of calculating variations. There can be many reasons, and this question is worthy of independent research.

A practical chess player reading this article would certainly like to know how to avoid blunders. I must confess: I don't know. We have only examined three types of blunders: domination of general considerations, pinned pieces, and the order of variation calculation. There are many more. In each case, there is a specific recipe: visualize the final position in the first, always "keep an eye on" the pinned piece in the second. But what about the third?

It's easy to give advice: first establish which moves need consideration, outline their sequence, and do not move on to the next without finishing the calculation of the current one. If, of course, you have time for it.

But don't think this will save you from blunders. All these well-known recommendations share one common property: they assume that at some point, you need to turn off the autopilot (subconscious) and turn on consciousness. Is that the right path to follow?

We've already mentioned the role of autopilot. We need it a lot. The richer its arsenal, the more representations stored in the subconscious that do not require control, the more energy and time we can devote to creative work.

And blunders? All world champions have "blundered," but it didn't prevent them from becoming champions. So, it's best to try to learn to play like them.

After all, we also know how to "blunder."
"Chess in the USSR" 1969
]]> Wed, 01 Nov 2023 20:24:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?blunder-as-such-p2 https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000069 <![CDATA[Blunder as such... (part 1)]]> imblog
chessboard: lichess.org
(some observations and reflections)
— How did you play?
— I lost.
— Why?
— Blundered a knight. The position was good, and then I blundered.

No more questions follow. Blundered, and that's it. Nothing to explain, nothing to ask about.

Such a conversation — almost word for word — can be heard in a chess club every day after the end of another round. A chess player will never ask, "Why did you blunder?" They won't ask their interlocutor, nor themselves. And if they ask themselves, they'll reply somewhat unclearly, "A mistake. Maybe I was tired. And there wasn't much time." They'll forget that this mistake has a tendency to repeat itself, that they've blundered not only in time trouble but when they were fresh.

They won't ask because they know they won't receive a satisfactory answer. Chess players are oblivious to the answer. Perhaps psychologists could help, but they don't deal with it.

The author is not a psychologist either and doesn't promise to solve all the mysteries of blunders. They don't set such a task for themselves. But years of sad experience regarding blunders give them a certain moral right to pose some questions.

What is a blunder?

Errors in chess can be divided into three types. The first are mistakes that a chess player, given their playing strength, can't prevent. In such cases, they are unable to identify the mistake during the game or in analysis. When facing a stronger opponent who can exploit such a mistake, defeat is inevitable. The only way is to learn to play better.

The second type is mistakes that a chess player doesn't yet know how to avoid over the board, but they can identify them in analysis. The solution is the same: learning.

Finally, the third type is gross blunders. These are mistakes that a chess player, given their playing strength, should never make under any circumstances, but they do. These are mistakes they can spot both during a game and in analysis. This is what blunders are.

The distinctive feature of a blunder is that it always seems like a vexing or tragic — depending on the context — accident. But is it always accidental? That's something we're yet to discuss.

Oh, these general rules!

The reader sees a position from the game Hessmkerk-Zatulovskaya. These female chess players met at a candidates' tournament in 1967.



The action takes place before the start of the game. The black side is recording the move. It's worth noting that this encounter was very important for Zatulovskaya.

Let's try to schematically reconstruct her thought process:
  1. To win, it's necessary to eliminate the white pawns, especially the a6 pawn.
  2. Capturing the pawn with a knight is not an option because the bishop would be lost. This is obvious.
  3. Capturing it with the bishop isn't advisable either, although this requires some proof: bishops are being traded, and two knights don't checkmate.

Notice that along her thought process, the black side perceived two "stop signs": the first one, which is absolute and applies to all positions, representing a fundamental rule we learn in the early stages of chess education, "Don't give up material without compensation." The second "stop sign" is not as general; it's only needed in positions with a specific balance of forces: "Don't exchange the bishop."
However, there's a threat from 2. Bb7, and White forces the capture on a6. Something must be done...

The task is defined, and the solution comes. In case of 2. Bb7 N:a6 3. K:d3 Nc5+ the piece is retrieved. The first "stop sign" vanishes. The path to equality is open, which is how the game concluded (with Black playing 1...Nf6?).

Strictly speaking, a chess player's creative process consists of just two mental operations: calculating variations and evaluating positions. We began discussing this example with an evaluation. It showed the need to eliminate the white pawns. Next, we calculated the variation 1...N:a6. We stopped the calculation when we realized that the bishop was lost. This is another evaluation. A chess player aims to end their calculation at the moment when their evaluation appears convincing. In this case, it seemed indisputable.

A chess player's thinking adheres to strict discipline. They must conserve time and energy; they can't afford to calculate everything they want. Practice develops in them the need for the strictest economy and automates evaluations. Is a piece lost for no good reason? There's no need for further thought.

The chess player owes a lot to this automation. It enables them to engage in productive work instead of calculating unnecessary variations. However, sometimes they have to pay the price, as among those countless variations, there's one that's essential.

According to an eyewitness, immediately after the game, the coach asked Zatulovskaya why she wrote down 1...Nf6. "I forgot that two knights don't deliver checkmate," his student sincerely replied. Although not entirely accurate. If she had forgotten, she would have captured the pawn on a6 with the bishop immediately.

She forgot about something else. A rule that could help avoid such blunders: after calculating a variation, mentally picture the position that arises at the end of the calculation.

For a complete picture, it's worth mentioning that 1...Be4 was the simplest path to victory.

Who was the first to say "check"?

It's not uncommon for a chess player to try to respond to a check by moving a piece to cover their king. Open checks, silently declared by the opponent, probably lead to blunders less frequently.

So, why do they forget about their pieces' connections? To answer this question, let's recall our very first games, the very first ones. We were just taught how the pieces are called and how they move. In our very first chess battle, we saw an opportunity to capture the h8 rook with the b2 bishop. Did we immediately understand if this move was technically possible? No. We took some time aiming, much like in billiards – would we hit the right spot or not? We thought about the bishop and its moves separately from each other, and the process of connecting the two required conscious thought.

Over time, we gained more experience, and the need for aiming vanished. To determine if a move is technically possible, no conscious thought is required. The concept of "bishop" already includes its moves. The bishop on b2 can capture on h8, and this is its natural, primary state.

But what if the bishop is pinned? This state is secondary, not as straightforward. To establish this, some thought work is needed. The notion of the bishop alone is not enough; you have to incorporate the idea of relationships between multiple pieces, yours and your opponent's.

These relationships, even between your own pieces, can sometimes be quite complex. In essence, the whole game is a process of clarifying these relationships. The deeper we delve into the lives of the pieces, the more accurately we'll achieve our goal.


For Black, it's clear that within the reach of the e5 knight (let's say, on f3), White's pieces shouldn't dare to appear. Therefore, the knight, indeed the knight, will capture on f3. And thus, the straightforward 1...Q:h2 is played, which is met, of course, by 2. Q:h2. Now, naturally, 2...Nf3+ follows. But the older (more significant) check by White...

What seemed like the unconditional conquest of the f3 square, secured by eliminating the h2 knight and the queen's retreat, did not happen because the black knight became incapacitated at the most crucial moment. It deceived the expectations of the player with the black pieces.

This game was played many years ago by two amateurs in a Vienna café. It's cited by R. Spielmann in his book "Practical Chess Tips." The advice given is, "Beware of pins!"

However, perhaps the café amateurs did not possess exceptional strength, and for them, blunders were not extraordinary incidents but rather the norm? Perhaps... Nevertheless, let's not offend modest amateurs. Let's examine examples from the practice of those for whom such a blunder is indeed a "critical situation."



Before us is a position from the Romanovsky - Kasparian game (Soviet Championship semifinal, 1938). The blunder's pattern repeats even in detail: 53...R:h3+?? 54. B:h3 Nf3X. This unique move was practically made on the board, and Kasparian only noticed that the knight was pinned when his opponent pointed to the black king.

The difference from the previous example is not insignificant. There, the pin occurred during a combination initiated by Black, making it easier to overlook. Here, the knight is pinned even before the combination.

Commentators expressed the opinion that Kasparian made a mistake because he was enchanted by the beauty of the combination. The author allows himself to doubt this. A well-known study composer, the creator of incredibly beautiful and complex works, captivated by the beauty of this simple variation? It's hard to believe.

Rather, the reason is different. Black saw the checkmate, saw the method to achieve it with the final knight move. These considerations dominated their consciousness, and the stop signal did not light up. It was replaced by the finger of Petrosian, but it was too late.

The stop signal "check!" did not activate because the chess player's consciousness, which was supposed to activate it, was absorbed in something entirely different and more pleasant: it was dominated by an image, depicting the checkmate picture. The final touch in it - the knight's move - is automatically recognized as possible, according to the rules of the game.

Sometimes both opponents overlook the pin. We can't do without considering one remarkable case that has served chess journalists well on many occasions. Well, let it serve us too...
]]> Sat, 21 Oct 2023 19:24:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?blunder-as-such-p1 https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000068 <![CDATA[Combination - The Soul of Chess (part 3)]]> imblog
the beginning...
chessboard: lichess.org
Lecture for the employees of the Hewlett-Packard laboratory in
Palo Alto, California, November 6, 1992

My lecture dragged on, but if you're not too tired, I would like to show you two games that are very dear to me. Both of them were played in March 1946 during the Moscow - Prague match.

The games are quite famous - and made the Old Indian Defense famous too! I think it would have become famous on its own, but it just so happened that these games marked the "big bang" from which modern chess began.

Old Indian Defense
PAKHMAN — BRONSTEIN
Prague, 3.03.1946

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d6 3.Nc3 e5 4.Nf3 Nbd7 5.g3 g6 6.Bg2 Bg7 7.O-O O-O 8.b3 Re8 9.e4.

Before you is the main position of the Old Indian Defense. The main conflict revolves around the confrontation of pawns d4 and e5. You see, there are three ways here: either White will take on e5, or Black will take on d4, or White will move the pawn to d5. Nothing more.

9...ed 10.N:d4. Half a century ago, it was considered an axiom, thanks to Alekhine, that this position was hopeless for Black. Because White fully controls their half of the board, while Black is confined to three ranks. Moreover, White dominates the important square d5, as the move c7-c6 is devastating for the d6 pawn... Fortunately, I managed to change this opinion! I showed that this position is not as bad for Black as is commonly believed. Perhaps even good.

10...Nc5 11.Re1 a5 12.Bb2 a4 13.Rc1 c6 14.Ba1. An interesting move. Apparently, anticipating the possible intrusion of the knight on d3 (Ng4-e5-d3), White is preemptively moving the bishop and later the rook away from the pin.

14...ab 15.ab Qb6 16.h3 (White prevents the move Ng4, and, as we will see in the next game with Zita, not without reason) 16...Nfd7 17.Rb1 Nf8!? I call this the "Lasker move": in the Queen's Gambit, he liked to place the knight next to the king - precisely on f8.

18.Kh2 h5! This is not my invention. But I so often and successfully launched the "h" pawn into the attack that I think I made this technical move popular. The point is that the "h" pawn in many cases is not needed to defend the king, and I always try to use it as a battering ram.

19.Re2 h4 20.Rd2. Remember I said that it's not necessary to develop all the pieces on the queen's side? Here's a clear example: the rook on a8 and the bishop on c8 actively influence the game from their initial positions. The rook on a8 has already struck.



20...R:a1! (this bishop held the entire position of White) 21.R:a1 B:d4 22.R:d4 N:b3 23.R:d6. As Pachman told me after the game, he not only foresaw the combination but even lured me into taking the a1 bishop with the move 20.Rd2 (instead of 20.Rc2), thinking that after the obligatory 23...N:a1 24.Nd5 Q:f2 25.Nf6+ Kh8 26.N:e8, victory would be his... So, the "Old Indians" should thank not me but Pachman for this game!

I managed to significantly improve the witty concept of the Czech master, changing the final evaluation from "+" to "-+".



23...Q:f2! No need to take the a1 rook – it threatens no one. It's much more important to eliminate the support for the g3 pawn.

24.Ra2. Capturing the knight would lead to a beautiful mate: 24.Q:b3 hg+ (possibly even the prosaic 24...Q:g3+ and Q:d6) 25.Kh1 B:h3! 26.Rg1 B:g2+ 27.R:g2 Qf1+ 28.Rg1 Qh3#! Relatively better was 24.Rd3, but even in this case after 24...N:a1 25.Q:a1 Nd7, with the idea of Ne5, there's no salvation.

24...Q:g3+ 25.Kh1 Q:c3 26.Ra3 B:h3! (it's the bishop's turn now) 27.R:b3 B:g2+ 28.K:g2 Q:c4 29.Rd4 Qe6 30.R:b7 Ra8 31.Qe2 h3+! White resigned.

Now, let's see what happened nine days later.

Old Indian Defense
ZITA - BRONSTEIN
Prague, March 12, 1946

1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Nf3 d6 4.d4 Nbd7 5.g3 g6 6.Bg2 Bg7 7.0-0 0-0 8.b3 c6 9.Bb2 Re8 10.e4 ed 11.N:d4 Qb6. I'm changing the move order a bit, but the main strategy is the same as in the game against Pachman.

12.Qd2 Nc5 13.Rfe1 a5 14.Rab1 a4 15.Ba1 (the bishop is confident that the projectile won't hit the same funnel twice) 15...ab 16.ab Ng4! Remember in the first game, the knight had to retreat to d7 and f8 because the pawn was already on h3? Here, Black has a tactical opportunity, and they should play more aggressively.

17.h3. Can you imagine what happened here? No? Well, I think you can guess.



17...R:a1! The same rook captures the same bishop! I'm still amazed that my opponent allowed me to execute the same idea on the same stage for the second time. Perhaps Zita expected 17...Ne5, but the knight didn't move to g4 just to retreat.

18.R:a1 N:f2! This combination clearly exhibits geometric motifs. The d4 knight serves as the pinnacle of two pyramids, one white with the base on Kg1 and Ra1, and one black with the base on Qb6 and Bg7. The move 18...N:f2! strikes at this critical junction. If now 19.K:f2, then 19...N:b3, and the catastrophe on d4 is evident. And if 19.Q:f2, then 19...Nd3 leads to the same outcome. White tries to patch up the holes in their camp.

19.Re3 N:h3+! 20.Kh2. Black's position is so good that the knight can simply retreat to g5. But as they say, "appetite comes with eating," and I decided to provide the spectators with a bit more enjoyment.



20...Nf2! (in a winning position, it's easy to make beautiful moves)

21.Rf3 (21.Q:f2 B:d4!) 21...Nc:e4. In principle, it's all clear by now, but in shock, White can't come to terms with the inevitable.

22.Qf4 Ng4+ 23.Kh1 f5 24.N:e4 R:e4 25.Q:d6 R:d4 26.Qb8 Rd8 27.Ra8 Be5 28.Qa7 Qb4 29.Qg1 Qf8 30.Bh3 Qh6! And only here, White finally... ran out of time. They couldn't bring themselves to resign!

Of course, I could show you another dozen games, but I understand that you're tired. I could continue, not because I'm so strong or young, but simply because I'm used to playing chess for five hours, and in recent years, even six. Now I play in rapid chess tournaments, and there, you have to play three games a day. It's fortunate that they didn't accept my old idea of playing matches of eight games in an evening, with 15 minutes each for a game. At my age, that would have been too much! But, as you know from your own experience, an inventor inevitably becomes a victim of their idea...

I'm very grateful to you for your attention. You've shown a sincere interest in me and given me the opportunity to express some of my intimate ideas about chess. Thank you!
]]> Tue, 26 Sep 2023 23:36:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?combination-the-soul-of-chess-part-3 https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000067 <![CDATA[Combination - The Soul of Chess (part 2)]]> imblog
the beginning...
chessboard: lichess.org
Lecture for the employees of the Hewlett-Packard laboratory in
Palo Alto, California, November 6, 1992

The Royal Gambit
"Morphy" - "Amateur"

1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef! (Black accepts the challenge) 3. Nf3 g5 (a healthy idea: Black wants to play g5-g4 to chase the knight and threaten check on h4) 4. Bc4 g4 5. O-O! The Muzio Gambit, very popular in the past century.

5... gf (and this is already greed) 6. B:f7+! By sacrificing the bishop, White immediately forces the king to occupy the fatal "f" file. Usually, players would go for 6. Q:f3 Qf6 7. e5 Q:e5 8. d3 Bh6 9. Nc3 Ne7 10. Bd2 Nbc6 11. Rae! Qf5 — and now, you won't believe it, the theory of that time assured that it should end in a move repetition! Indeed, Black managed to defend their main weakness - the f7 pawn. And this happened because White conducted the attack too academically.

6... K:f7.



This position clearly illustrates the idea of chess: to attack the king as soon as possible! By sacrificing two pieces, White is already prepared to launch the decisive assault along the "f" file. However, they cannot do without the pieces on the queen's side.

7. Q:f3 Qf6. The first Black counterattack has been thwarted. The question arises: how to continue the attack? You can bring the knight into play - Nc3, or you can open the diagonal for the bishop - d2-d4. Which move is better? I don't know, and that's the challenge of chess. Another option is to attack the queen with e4-e5. When you have three good moves, each in its own way, the problem of choice arises - a fundamental issue in our lives.

The most correct decision would be to find a way to combine all three moves. From this perspective, the best move is 8. e5!

After 8...Q:e5 9. d4, the difference is evident: the pawn not only opened up a path for the bishop but also attacked the queen. In the case of 8. d4, Black would have had time to play 8...Bh6.

9...Q:d4+ 10. Be3 Qf6.



And once again, White faces a choice. Some might spend time calculating lines starting with either Qd5 or Qh5 check. But a player familiar with classical principles knows that it's essential to get the rook on a1 into play as quickly as possible. Morphy, for instance, liked to advance the b1 knight early, so it wouldn't hinder the rook's mobility.

As an example of a game without the b1 knight, I'll show a game played in 1865 by Wilhelm Steinitz, the founder of the new school of chess! In his later years, he criticized Morphy, but in his youth, he played in Morphy's style and brilliantly combined pieces. It's essential not to confuse what Steinitz said about chess with how he played it (the same can be said for Tarashe, a "dogmatist" who loved and was skilled at executing complex combinations).

Here's the twin game to the one I composed: 1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 g4 5. O-O gf 6. Q:f3 Qf6 7. e5 Q:e5 8. B:f7+ K:f7 9. d4 Q:d4+ 10. Be3 Qf6. We have a position on the diagram, but there's no knight. This allows White to launch a direct attack: 11. Qh5+! Qg6 12. R:f4+ Nf6 13. R:f6+! Q:f6 14. xg6 hxg6 15. Bf1+ (this is key!) 15...Kg8 16. Qe5! Bg7 17. Qd5+! Qe6 18. Qg5! Qh6 19. Qd8+! Bf8 20. Qe8! The queen's magnificent work. Black resigned.

11. Nc3! This is the dynamics of chess: White is willing to sacrifice the bishop, which has already played its role, to get the rook into play.

11...ef. Although White is down by three (!) pieces, it seems they are in control of the position. This happened because of White's energetic play that froze Black's pieces in their starting positions. And now, we'll capture the hyperactive queen.

Since there's nothing more to sacrifice, it's time to attack: 12. Qh5+ Kg7 13. R:f6 N:f6 14. Qg5+ Kf7 15. Rf1! (right on time) 15...Be7 16. Nd5! A central move in the game. In general, a knight's invasion into the opponent's territory often heralds a breakthrough.

16...e2 (a desperate attempt to save the game) 17. R:f6+ Ke8.



18. Re6!! A move like this, seen in one's childhood, can make someone fall in love with chess for life. It's quite challenging for beginners to find. Several elements are combined here: the bishop is pinned, a path is cleared for the queen to e7, and, importantly, control over square e1 is asserted.

18...de 19. Q:e7#. Victory of the spirit over matter! All of White's pieces participated in the attack, while Black's queenside didn't even flinch.

The example we've looked at is from the old style of chess. Today, grandmasters play somewhat differently. Let me start with a game I'm very proud of. Against the backdrop of the cascade of sacrifices we've just witnessed, it might seem dull. But in reality, it's full of tremendous underlying tension.

This game was played 30 years ago in the Moscow-Leningrad match. This traditional friendly match on 40 boards was very popular in the Soviet Union at the time, and its outcome meant as much to us as the result of the traditional regatta on the Thames means to the English. I led the Moscow team, and my opponent was one of the world's strongest chess players, Viktor Korchnoi.

Through this example, you will be able to see how challenging positional play can be at the grandmaster level.

The Spanish Game
BRONSTEIN - KORCHNOI
Moscow - Leningrad Match, November 4, 1962

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O N:e4 6. d4 b5 7. Bb3 d5 8. de Be6 9. c3 Be7 10. Bc2. The standard path is 10. Nbd2 0-0 11. Bc2, attempting to immediately drive away the knight.

10...0-0. It's interesting, what were Black thinking about for half an hour? In principle, they could have considered 10...Bg4, intending to reply to 11. Bf4 with 11...Nc5, creating ideas for ...Ne6. Or maybe they thought of the option 10...Qd7 Δ 11. Nbd2 Bf5... Korchonoi was an excellent connoisseur of the Open Spanish and was familiar with many nuances. However, if you look at the clock times, you'll notice that Black didn't spend any time on the next two moves. Therefore, it's reasonable to assume that at this moment, Korchonoi already had the idea to sacrifice a pawn for better development.

11. Qe2 f5. A few days before this, at the finish of the Soviet Team Championship, I played the same variation against Korchonoi. He replied 11...Nc5, and after 12. Nd4 Qd7 13. Nd2 N:d4 14. cd Nb7 15. Nf3 Bf5 16. Bg5 B:g5 17. N:g5 c5 18. f4 cd 19. Qd2 Nc5 20. Q:d4 B:c2 21. Q:c5 Rac8 22. Qd4 Rc4 23. Qd2 Bf5 24. b3, the game ended in a draw.

Perhaps Korchonoi found an improvement for White and decided to be the first to deviate.

12. ef. Seeking an open fight. After 12. Nd4 Qd7, the position would take on a more closed character, which could favor Black.

12...C:f6?! This was Korchonoi's novelty. Theory recommends 12...R:f6!, and after 13. Ng5 (13. Bg5 Rf7!) Black can play not 13...Bf5, which after 14. N:е4 leads simply to pawn loss - 14...dе 15. Nd2 е3 16. Bb3+, but 13...Bс5! with very interesting complications.

13. Nbd2! This comes at the right moment. White is now winning a pawn: 13...Bf5 14. N:e4 B:e4 15. B:e4 de.



16. Q:e4. I spent 30 minutes on this move, and for 30 years, I've been wondering why. I never found an answer. I remember not liking this move, and I tried to calculate possible variations. I really wanted to play 16. Nd2 with the idea of 16...N:e4. However, I suddenly noticed that after 16. Nd2, there could follow 16...e3! The position after 17. Q:e3 did not appeal to me at all, so I decided without hesitation to capture the pawn on e4 with my queen.

16...Qd7. The position looks quite straightforward. White has an extra pawn, but Black's game is more active. The same problem arises — what move to make? First and foremost, it's important to remember that this is not just a chess position; it's a central position in the match. It's a game between two capitals, a match that only happens once a year, and you need to be very focused. Most importantly, you need to awaken your imagination; otherwise, you might get bored and risk making a random mistake.

I think it's appropriate for me to complain right now. For many years, I have been fighting with FIDE. I try to explain to them that if grandmasters played ten times faster, they would play ten times better! Why?

Because during fast play, your brain automatically filters out all the unnecessary noise, and you see the essence of what's happening on the board more clearly. No matter how much they criticize time pressure, it is well known that under time pressure grandmasters manage time superbly and carry out complex plans and fantastic combinations in a stressful environment. No wonder: creative upswings are possible only with maximum concentration.

And illumination, inspiration, revelation - these are, in fact, synonyms for concentration. I remember how Reshevsky's face would light up when, in his time pressure, his partner made a strong, unexpected move. Reshevsky was transformed, his whole appearance expressing one feeling: "At last I have a task worthy of my mind". In a creative frenzy he would jump up on his chair, look at his watch, at the board, and often in such a situation he would find a phenomenal solution. And when playing slowly, your brain is actually asleep.....

However, changing these rules is very difficult. Because in the world, there is a huge army of chess judges, and they don't like to work quickly. During tournaments, they want to rest. And when you're playing a five-hour game, their "breaks" last four or even four and a half hours. Only when time trouble is looming do they approach the boards, putting on their serious faces. Excellent job! Quick play would necessitate changing everything. That's the problem.

...White should now aim to bring the rook on a1 into the game, so starting with the bishop makes sense. The bishop has three reasonable moves: Be3 seems passive, Bg5, on the contrary, is too aggressive, and Bf4 might seem a bit risky because of the rook on f8. But from my own experience, I know that risky moves are often the most logical ones.



17. Bf4! Later, Korchnoi wrote a section about the Open Variation in the Yugoslav Encyclopedia of Chess Openings and based on our game, he evaluated this position as "+/-."

17...Rae8 (at the cost of a pawn, Black previously occupied an important highway) 18. Qc2 Bh4. Sensibly refusing the tempting capture 18...R:c3 since it was hard to see all the consequences behind 19. Ng5. For instance: 19...Qf5 (19...g6? 20. Qb3+-) 20. Q:c3 Q:f4 21. N:h7. Here, we could, of course, throw variations at each other as is the fashion today, but... let's trust Korchnoi. If such a pawn-grabber as he didn't take the pawn, there must have been something there.

19. Bg3. In the case of 19. N:h4 R:f4 20. Nf3, Black could have sacrificed the exchange, exposing my king: 20...R:f3!? 21. gf Ne5 Δ Qh3.

19...B:g3 20. hg. I understood that at this moment, my extra pawn had lost some of its value, but I wanted to prove that even half a pawn is worth something. Here, I gathered myself and prepared for a tough battle!

20...Ne5 21. N:e5 R:e5. If Black doubled their rooks and invaded on e2, I would have to part with my dream of winning. Also, the threat of Rh5 was spoiling the king's mood. So, I needed to hurry.

22. Rfe1 Rd5?! It would have been more logical to play 22...Rfe8, but apparently, Black didn't like the move 23. R:e5 R:e5 24. Rd1 Qe7 25. Qd2!, and there is no move 25...Re2 due to 26. Qd5+. The threat of invading with the rook on e2 was illusory. It would have been tempting to play 25. Kf1 right away, but after 25...Rh5, I would have to go back (26. f3? Qe3 27. Qb3+ Kf8, and the roles reversed).

23. Rad1 c5 (defense against 24. Qb3) 24. a4! It was time to apply my technique. The golden rule of chess says: attack on both flanks. I wanted to weaken Black's pawns on the queenside.

24...Rd8 (Korchnoi doesn't abandon the idea of invading on the 2nd rank)

25. R:d5 Q:d5. The position seems fresh. But, ahead of time, I'll say that any combination requires significant preparatory work that may seem routine but requires immense concentration and the ability to look beyond the horizon.

26. ab ab. It is well known that in heavy-piece endings, the side with the better-protected king always has an advantage. But that's theory. In practice, converting this advantage into a full point can be quite challenging. Therefore, White continues to play on both flanks. I planned a direct attack on the king, but for that, I needed to stretch Black's defense.

27. Qe2! Threatening an invasion on e7 and, at the same time, targeting the b5 pawn. Black needs to decide how to defend it: with Qd7 or c4-c5? Korchnoi found a third way: 27...b4?! (I think this aggressive move was a mistake) 28. cb cb 29. Qg4 b3. Attacking on both flanks bore fruit: the b3 pawn became a sore spot in Black's position.



30. Kh2! This quiet move prepares for a decisive attack. The reckless 30. Re7? Qd1+ 31. Q:d1 R:d1+ 32. Kh2 Rd2 would have nullified all of White's efforts.

30...Qf7 31. Qg5 (Δ Re7) 31...Rd7 32. f3 (putting Black's pieces into a passive position, White improves the king's position) 32...h6 33. Qe3 Rd8. Threatening 34. Qe8+ with a winning rook endgame.

34. g4! My "half pawn" finally came in handy. The king is now protected from checks on h5, and White can focus on the b3 pawn with moves like Qb6 and Re3. If this weren't my game, I would have thought that White had seen the entire combination in those eight minutes that Black spent contemplating 33...Rd8. In reality, I only saw this fantastic idea after 34. g4. It was like a mirage in the desert! And I thought, what a pity that it's not my move now, and these combinations will remain only in my imagination. Unfortunately, in chess, you can't buy a turn. This combination is worth a yearly salary, and I wouldn't hesitate to pay it! Many things in life happen only once...

However, I didn't dwell on it for long. After Korchnoi played 34...Kh8, I suddenly realized that the position hadn't changed, and I could try to implement my plan.

Now, I'll ask you to listen more carefully because this is one of the best combinations of my life, if not the best. I remember well that I couldn't sleep for two weeks after the game. It surprises me now, but back then, those five moves beyond the horizon drained two weeks' worth of my energy.

35. Qb6! I'll try to explain this move, which is mainly psychological. I'm using the fact that Korchnoi knows me, and he will reason something like this: "David knows that I know that retreating the rook from the 8th rank is not good, and since I know this, he will never move it. But he also knows me, that I will check the move carefully in this specific situation to see if it's dangerous. If I don't see anything, I'll still move the rook. Moreover, I have the tempting move Rd2."

And, after contemplating the situation, Korchnoi decided to punish me for my "abstract" knowledge and boldly went on the counterattack!

35...Rd2 36. Qb8+ Kh7 37. Re8. There's only one move left before "the time control"! While my opponent was thinking, I tried hard to guess his choice. He could have gone 37...Qd7, freeing the f7 square for the king. Or he could take the rook on b2 with his rook... But I'm not a computer to calculate every variation with the precision of a clock mechanism. Korchnoi was right: my knowledge was indeed abstract. I knew that in an attack along the 8th rank, the queen, contrary to beginners' wishes, should be behind the rook. But the variations were a matter of luck...

But here, Korchnoi surprised me! After thinking for five minutes, he boldly captured the pawn with 37...Q:f3? You can explain this move. Apparently, he believed that I simply hadn't noticed that his rook was not only attacking the b2 pawn but also indirectly pinning the g2 pawn — and in the heat of the moment, he missed this capture. And the standard move for the attack, 38. Rh8+, which I had threatened him with, leads to nothing: after 38...Kg6 39. Qe8+ Qf7 40. Qe4+ Kg5 41. Qe5+ (41. Qe3+? Qf4+) 41...К:g4 (41...Кg6? 42. Qh5+ Кf6 43. Qf5+ Кe7 44. Qе5+ Кd7 45. Rа8), the black king is safe.

Before making a move in response, I waited politely for a minute, then quietly moved the rook — 38. Rh8+ and gently pressed the clock. But after the immediate 38...Kg6, I didn't want to torment either myself or Korchnoi and quickly removed his pawn with the rook — 39. R:h6+!!



Korchnoi remained unperturbed, as if saying, "We've seen stranger things." He recorded my move on his scoresheet and began to study the position carefully. I think he found it incredible that one could sacrifice the last rook (and I couldn't believe my eyes either!). Only after four minutes of contemplation, and being convinced that there was no escape for the king in any of the four variations, did he stop the clock.

And now, you can enjoy these variations yourself:
  1. 39...Kf7 40. Qc7+ Kg8 41. Qc8+ Kf7 42. Qe6+ Kf8 43. Rh8#;
  2. 39...Kg5 40. Qe5+ K:g4 41. Rg6+ Kh4 42. Qg5#;
  3. 39...gh 40. Qg8+ Kf6 41. Qf8+;
  4. 39...Kh6 40. Qh8+ Kg6 41. Qh5+ Kf6 42. g5+!
Without this humble pawn, my entire combination would crumble like a house of cards...

The combination is truly beautiful. And you know my opinion: beauty is paramount in chess. We play games in tournaments, and the most beautiful ones end up in books, books find their way into libraries, and then a new generation takes these books from the shelves and looks at these games. Perhaps, many years from now, some young chess player will discover a collection of my games. And they will smile, looking at this position, just as I once smiled when I saw a beautiful move by Morphy or Andersen. I believe that this is what life is all about. We pass on our knowledge and our understanding of beauty to the next generations, and that's how life continues eternally.

I'm slightly obsessed with my love for chess combinations. And I never tire of repeating: you must believe in the magic of combinations! Unlike the highly respected Philidor, I believe that it's not pawns but combinations that are the soul of chess. Without combinations in our game, no one would ever think of comparing chess to art.
]]> Sun, 17 Sep 2023 23:36:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?combination-the-soul-of-chess-part-2 https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000066 <![CDATA[Combination - The Soul of Chess (part 1)]]> imblog
D. Bronstein
January 8, 1963
Photo: Wikimedia Commons
Lecture for the employees of the Hewlett-Packard laboratory in
Palo Alto, California, November 6, 1992

— Good day! First of all, I want to express my gratitude for the invitation to Palo Alto. It's a great pleasure for me to be among you and feel the atmosphere of your globally renowned laboratory. And, of course, I understand that your work holds far greater significance for humanity than all our game of chess.
 
Therefore, I find myself in a sort of psychological trap. I can't quite imagine what I could talk to you about, as in my eyes, you already live in the 22nd century... My dilemma is that I've always found some connection between chess and life. And I would like to tell not only about how I achieved my fame in chess, but also about how I have desperately tried all my life to break free from their mystical circle. And simultaneously felt that I'm diving deeper and deeper into this strange, mysterious world that attracts like a magnet.
 
There's a problem that greatly intrigues me. I can't understand why today, when humans have walked on the Moon, people still find chess fascinating. There's some secret in it. But I can't decipher it. That's why I often ask enthusiasts why they play chess. And I hear in response: "It's so interesting! So captivating! So unfathomable! And I always object: 'No, it's not like that at all. Chess is a simple and clear game.'"
 
When I started playing, there weren't as many masters in the world as there are now. But there were plenty of amateurs who enjoyed playing a game or two after work. And they had a great respect for chess players who played a bit better than they did. What does "a bit better" mean? A little more precision, more attention to details. It's often said that masters have a high playing technique. But what does that mean? In my opinion, in every profession, attention to the nuances of one's work is necessary. Working with maximum concentration naturally makes your work better.
 
I know this from the experience of playing chess. When facing a difficult situation, I often find the only correct solution in a state of stress. At the same time, if I think that the position is easy and my pieces are not threatened, and it seems that any move is good — that's when, in a state of euphoria, I make some mistake (laughter in the hall). I can see from your reaction that this happens not only in chess.
 
But chess constantly remind me of this law. When I was six years old, my grandfather showed me how the pieces move, and I'm very grateful to him for that. But he quickly stopped playing with me because I started winning. He enjoyed playing, but he didn't want to lose to a little kid... Chess didn't immediately become the main thing in my life. I had many other hobbies. I loved roller-skating, skiing, played football, climbed trees, made model airplanes, once assembled a radio receiver...
 
I didn't attach much importance to my ability to play chess. But unexpectedly, at around ten years old, I learned that there were books about chess. I generally loved to read. And somehow I got drawn into chess books. I particularly liked the books by Saveliy Tartakower, Siegbert Tarrasch, and Emanuel Lasker. They told stories about chess in a very captivating way, and under their pen, the pieces came alive, like in a puppet theater.
 
At the same time, chess books provided a lot of food for a curious mind. Reading them required constantly engaging one's intellectual abilities. Just like in math class, which I loved very much. I still believe today that chess are a part of mathematics. Take the same computers that don't understand a thing about chess, but through complex mathematical calculations can make reasonable moves.
 
I want to repeat: chess is a simple game. Its rules are simple, the initial position is the same, and all the opening moves are known. The difficulty of chess lies elsewhere: in the clash of two personalities! Each person is confident that if they play logically, they must inevitably win, forgetting that their opponent thinks the same way.
 
How does a game usually start? Leaving aside professionals, millions of amateurs approach it roughly like this. You call a friend, invite them to play chess. It all starts very friendly. But as soon as the pieces engage in battle, you want to win. Understand this: you invite someone to play, but deep down, you want to win! That's the truth. And you start getting nervous: why am I not winning? And often, a chain reaction occurs. Your partner also gets annoyed, and instead of enjoying a well-spent evening, both of you are left with a bitter taste. What a shame! After all, in reality, the game is much more important than the result.
 
Just as a tennis player simply needs to hit the ball over the net, in chess, you can only make one move. And there's no need to look for a move that "wins immediately," your task at the amateur level is to maintain approximate balance on the board. But if you want to win, the task becomes much more complicated. Especially if you play with someone regularly: they know your character, your favorite moves, and they know for sure that after five minutes of contemplation, you'll move this pawn forward. And they are waiting for that move because every chess player, including grandmasters, has their own style (more or less everyone plays the same in the opening). That's why people consider chess a very complex game.
 
Since the board is confined within its "borders," like an ice hockey rink, a chess position often resembles a picture in a frame or a beautiful photograph. We've all grown accustomed to evaluating positions with our eyes, as if they were works of art. When I look at a certain position, I often think: ugh, how ugly! But about another one, I say: what beauty! And although it's entirely possible that the ugly one is easily winnable, I say I don't like it, it lacks harmony. The other position looks very aesthetic, but I don't want to play it either because I can see that it's bad for me. But there are fortunate exceptions when a position is both beautiful and very strong.
 
This is why the name of the American Paul Morphy is inscribed in golden letters in the history of chess. He was a genius among geniuses! Although he played on the world stage for only two years. In 1857, he won the first American Chess Congress: he brilliantly triumphed in matches against all opponents and essentially became the champion of the New World. Then Morphy went to Europe, where he won matches against almost all the best chess players of the Old World. After that, he returned to his homeland and never played again! But to this day, Morphy's style is considered the epitome of chess play. It's no wonder that Capablanca, in his article about the ideal style published in the Uruguayan magazine "Mundial" on the eve of his match against Alekhine, stated that starting with Labourdonnais and ending with Lasker, "the purest style belonged to Morphy." He explained: "Contrary to popular belief, Morphy's main strength lay not in his ability to execute multi-move combinations, but in positional struggle and the overall style of play."
 
Playing Morphy's games always brings pleasure—like classical music or the paintings of old masters. His style is very clean, very open, very bold and sharp. He always went straight to the goal, taking the shortest path, making no unnecessary moves, and never attempting to evade or wait. He always attacked directly, like the great Pelé!
 
I got acquainted with chess at an age when people love such games. There was another chess player whose combinations fascinated me: Adolf Anderssen, the winner of the first international tournament in London (1851). And from the very beginning, I sought to develop my style in this direction—to seek out beautiful combinations. In other words, not to play bluntly, but always to move forward, intensify the game—and always try to win with each move. What does that mean? If your partner attacks a pawn or a piece, you think: okay, I won't defend it. Because knowing their next move is a significant advantage!
 
Additionally, I gain a tempo to make the move I need. And when they take my pawn or piece, I'll make another move. In the end, I'll gain two tempos, which increases my chances of a successful attack...
 
I am trying to explain to you the essence of the game of chess in simple words. It is much clearer than what is said in thousands of intricate books that clutter the shelves of bookstores (nowadays, there are a huge number of experts, and many churn out books like pancakes). They present thousands and thousands of opening variations as examples to follow, all of which can be obtained from the same initial position. But believe me, in all this opening frenzy, there is absolutely no sense! And I can only feel sorry for chess enthusiasts who want to learn how to play but are forced to struggle amidst the jumble of fragments from actual games.
 
The real life of chess pieces looks quite different. They have their own very simple logic both in attack and defense. For amateurs, I can offer good advice. There is no need to study all the variations that start with the fashionable moves 1.e4 and 1.d4: even grandmasters get lost in the avalanche of possibilities. I have seen many chess enthusiasts who have been playing for many years but never learned how to play because they got caught up in studying specific variations but never grasped the strict logic of chess play.
 
It is much wiser to start the game with moves like 1.Nf3, 2.g3, 3.Bg2, and 4.0-0. In just four moves, you have built a house for your king, which in terms of its safety resembles a castle on a rock (you can build it the same way for Black). I assure you that not every experienced chess player knows how to skillfully storm such a "house."
 
This task is only within the reach of true masters of their craft and requires enormous preparatory work (two popular openings—the Old Indian Defense and the Grünfeld Defense—are based on understanding this phenomenon).
 
Just don't try to change anything in this initial setup. You have plenty of fighters on the queen's flank and in the center — there you can let your imagination run wild, move the pieces as your heart desires. Gradually, by playing game after game, you will gain the necessary experience. I can't promise that you will win, especially against more experienced opponents, but what's certain is that you won't face defeat in the opening. I understand, of course, that playing this way might be dull for beginners, but it's a good school. By building the king's fortress, you relieve yourself of the psychological burden — the fear of quick loss.
 
I'd like to give beginners another piece of advice. I must warn you: it contradicts the commonly accepted opinion. Textbooks assert that you need to develop all your pieces in the opening. But when it comes to the queen's side, there are two ways to do it. The traditional way is to bring the pieces to the center of the board and place them ahead of the pawns.
 
But after all, the 1st (or 8th) rank is part of your home, so why should you unnecessarily go out onto the street? The center is already quite cramped, and pieces there often come under fire.
 
Therefore, there's a more subtle way of development. You just need to slightly move the pawns, giving the pieces space. For instance, after the move d2-d3, the bishop on c1 is already well developed (the h6 square is available to it) and is in a safe position. And if you then play c2-c4 and Nc3, consider the entire flank already developed. When the battle heats up, the rook and the bishop can easily join the game. By "forgetting" about the development of these pieces, you gain two extra tempi in the opening to create an attack.
 
But that doesn't mean you've already won. The struggle is just beginning. And it's not guaranteed that an attack will lead to success; it's entirely possible that luck will be on the opponent's side, who will defend brilliantly and even launch a counterattack. In chess, it's important not only to be able to make good moves but also to anticipate your opponent's moves. After all, you're not playing with individual, even good moves, but with ideas! That's how friendly matches between players of equal strength unfold. Ideas are exchanged, and luck accompanies one and then the other. This is where the joy of the game lies.
 
Did you notice that I keep talking about friendly matches? This is not by chance. If you look at what has happened in top-level chess, you can see with sorrow: young players have completely twisted the idea of chess. They think they are surrounded by enemies! In our time, the "enemies" were only on the chessboard, and on the eye level, mutual respect and understanding prevailed, people smiled—there was absolute peace, with rare exceptions. But now? On the board, there's often complete stillness, everything is studied at home with the help of computers, and the pieces seem to play on their own, but on the eye level, a real war is being waged: today's stars stare at each other, engaging in an intense psychological battle "for defeat."
 
Clearly, with such an approach to the game, they have no time for friendly smiles. But that's no longer chess. It's a major sport, or even more accurately, a big business, where there's no room for nobility, sympathy, or pity. This reminds me of tennis, where, as experts claim, it's hard to reach the top without having a "killer instinct." But I believe that in chess, this phenomenon is temporary. A new generation will grow up that will restore the beauty and nobility of the royal game.
 
Now I will show you a game that I composed for my new "Self-Teacher." I needed a visual example of what constitutes a good attack and what makes for a poor defense.
]]> Fri, 25 Aug 2023 23:36:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?combination-the-soul-of-chess-part-1 https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000065 <![CDATA[Methods of teaching chess to younger pupils of V-II ranks (part 4) ]]> imblog
Chess coaching
28 April 2019
Photo: Wikimedia Commons
the beginning...
MOST IMPORTANT STAGES OF CREATIVE DEVELOPMENT.
 
1.    "The game is played by the principle: attack - retreat, didn't retreat - capture."
2.    The basis of opponents' game is elementary traps.
3.    Fascination with tactical operations without considering the position's demands.
4.    Ability to see and create a harmonious interaction between pieces, leading to combinations.
5.    Ability to find the correct strategic plan that matches the position's spirit, calculating multi-move variations in the desired direction"
(V.G. Zak).
 
INDIVIDUAL WORK OF THE COACH.
 
First and foremost, the question arises whether individual work is even needed at this stage. My practical experience has shown that the benefit is evident - provided the student approaches it consciously, starting from the first year of training.
 
In this case, meticulous material selection and a certain level of knowledge accumulated by students in group lessons are necessary. In general, it's about refining nuances, i.e., adding detail.
 
In my opinion, the main guide for this could be A.P. Sokolsky's "Chess Textbook" (1959), where the material for individual learning is ideally presented in a general form. The value of the book also lies in its systematic presentation of material from simple to complex. Additional guidance could come from V.G. Zak's works "About Little Things for Big Ones" (1973), A.A. Ivashchenko's "Collection of Chess Combinations" (1988), A. Grin and others' "Selected Compositions" (1985)…
 
What is required from the educator during joint practical work with the student? Here are the main points:
1.    Sequential coverage of the program material;
2.    Skillful redirection of the student's attention (to counter fatigue);
3.    In solving difficult positions, the ability to "hint" at the direction of the search, highlighting the main nuances of the position;
4.    Using TEST POSITIONS to assess the level of understanding of the covered topic.
 
The duration of the lesson cannot be too long. It's better to limit it to one hour, considering the student's age. At the same time, the goal should be to "pack in" as much diverse information as possible into each session (solving combinations, problems, studies, analyzing short games in 10-15 moves, studying openings and endgames, etc.).
 
Here's a "chess" profile of my student D. in 1991 (8 years old, third rank):  
1.    Quick perception;
2.    Impulsiveness;
3.    Extraordinary interest;
4.    Superficiality.
 
During individual work with this specific student, it's necessary to highlight their positive and negative qualities and work on eliminating the latter. Methods can vary: selecting "individual" positions, analyzing games played by this student, focusing their attention on typical errors, and so on. And so it goes with each student, depending on their personality.
     
ACQUIRED STUDENT SKILLS.
 
After three years of schooling, a student should acquire the following skills:  
1.    Sacrificing during a game and when solving combinations;
2.    "Reading" the opponent's intentions, mentally visualizing emerging positions (calculation technique);
3.    Sensing the moment for a combination over the board (developing intuition);
4.    Maneuvering while having a specific goal in mind (maneuvering);
5.    Being able to believe in their success before it happens.
 
BEHAVIORAL CULTURE AND MORALITY OF A YOUNG CHESS PLAYER.
 
But is it really the most important thing for us, chess educators, to teach a child to play chess well?
 
It seems that developing a high culture and morality in children is equally important. It's no secret that many young chess players are very self-confident and sometimes simply rude. They are capable of outbursts during lessons; in their actions, disrespect towards the teacher sometimes borders on cynicism.
 
So, should educators discipline and expel students, accepting that the "train has already left"?
 
In my opinion, from the very first day of working with a student, it's important to start working on shaping their character, showing interest in their school studies, relationships with parents, and peers. The student's parents should become the educator's first assistants...
 
The morality of a student in chess is primarily shown in their attitude towards the result of their game, their self-control, and their ability to concentrate for extended periods. If self-criticism is not developed from the very beginning, the student's chess progress will slow down. Morality is also shown in modestly evaluating one's achievements, consistent and diligent independent work at home, and the desire to assist the teacher during the lesson – attentiveness, curiosity, diligence...
 
It's unfortunate when a promising student moves to another coach! And it's not necessarily due to a conspiracy; differences in temperament, taste, and outlook on life can be the cause...
 
In conclusion, I will say: we, the coaches, need to work more on general and chess psychology, profiling our "base" students. And these profiles should not only include competition results but also the student's inclinations and psychological characteristics.
 
The less a coach is needed, the better! We need to firmly combat the dependence of students who are used to receiving knowledge only in a "pre-digested" form! If a student assists the teacher during the lesson (encouraging their peers to be orderly), gives presentations to the study group, and persistently asks the teacher questions about topics they haven't covered in class, it can be said that their culture and morality are developing.
 
The educator's task is to form a core group of such students, transforming themselves from administrators to educators and creating a festive atmosphere in each of their lessons...
 
ACQUIRED TEACHER SKILLS.
 
School chess lessons are about the improvement of not only the student but also the teacher.

The following skills of the educator are manifested:
1.    The ability to teach a child to wonder (having a "highlight" in every lesson);
2.    The capacity to captivate them with the beauty of combinations and ideas;
3.    Accurate assessment of the student at the moment and their developmental prospects;
4.    Balancing group and individual work in the classroom (during both types of lessons);
5.    The ability to "immerse" themselves in the student while explaining new material (achieving their full engagement and discipline).
]]> Wed, 23 Aug 2023 08:55:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?methods-of-teaching-chess-to-younger-pupils-of-v-ii-ranks-part-4 https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000064 <![CDATA[Methods of teaching chess to younger pupils of V-II ranks (part 3) ]]> imblog
Jude Acers Simul at Lusher Elementary School.
Fundraiser simul by Jude Acers at New Orleans elementary school.
15 November 2014
Photo: Wikimedia Commons
the beginning...
Chess Education and Training Group (CETG-2). III - II Ranks, 9 - 10 years old
(third year of education).
 
General Pedagogy
 
Among the difficulties faced by educators, one can note the intellectual passiveness of students, their reluctance to think. Often, the students listen attentively to the teacher, meticulously completing tasks that involve simple copying. Difficulties arise only where intellectual efforts are required. And these efforts are unfamiliar to the child...
 
The teacher's reaction should be calm, businesslike, and approving. Let the student feel that the teacher believes in their abilities, expects effort and responsibility from them, and is ready to provide assistance.
 
Regarding the position of parents, first and foremost, they should support the school and the teacher in everything, fostering and nurturing the child's interest in school subjects. Unfortunately, this is not always the case...
 
Therefore, the teacher should rely primarily on their pedagogical skills, actively develop methodical techniques that can "break the ice" in relationships both with students and their parents, work individually with each student during lessons, and maintain discipline in the group at an appropriate level.
 
Chess Pedagogy
 
And here, the students achieve their first "peak" - they achieve the III rank.

How to work with them further?

The third year of education sharply differs from the first two. The best students have grown from being novices, demonstrating a good understanding of the board and demanding a certain quality of knowledge from the teacher.
 
We recommend further detailed study of elementary tactical maneuvers:
8. Destruction of Defense;    
9. Blocking;
10. Interference;
11. Clearing a square;
12. Clearing a line;
13. Destruction;
14. Occupying a square;
15. Pawn promotion;
16. Draw combinations.  
 
A teacher can be greatly assisted by A.S. Volchk's book "Self-Training - Chess Practitioner's Trainer," 1991. An approximate lesson plan involves analyzing two examples (using the " PENCIL METHOD"), while the third example is solved by the students at home. After every two topics covered, a tactical exam (contest) is conducted. With each exam, we suggest reducing the time for solving positions and increasing the number of positions. The combination of theoretical material (with vivid combinations) and regular exams will enable students to significantly enhance their tactical vision, foster the ability to grasp the position on the board as a whole, rather than in parts.
 
How to study openings?

V.G. Zak notes: "For the first two years, chess theory should be taught, developing their ability to make combinations." It's necessary for them to clearly understand the initial moves and basic ideas of openings such as the Two Knights' Defense, Italian Game, French Defense, English Opening, etc. "Once they (the students - V.G.) get rid of systematically recurring... mistakes, you can begin to cultivate their taste for various gambit systems..." V.G. Zak writes further. It's best to start with classics: the Evans Gambit, King's Gambit, Scotch Gambit, and Vienna Game (for white); the Sharpe-Hennig Gambit, Albin Counter-Gambit, Volga Gambit, and Budapest Gambit (for black) - At this stage of the young chess player's development, the statement of Czech grandmaster R. Reti is completely justified: "... one must have imagination, but not always an extra pawn." After studying classical gambits, it's possible to conduct a gambit tournament for both "colors" (at least one per year). The sections "Combination" and "Openings - Gambits" are beneficial to study IN PARALLEL, as they often complement each other.
   
"... they (children - V.G.) can be completely helpless in situations where forced continuations are absent... it is necessary to outline a clear plan of action or execute subtle maneuvers" (V.G. Zak).
 
As elements of strategy in the third year of education, we recommend studying:
1.    Open (semi-open) lines;
2.    "Bad bishop";
3.    Flank blockade;
4.    Exclusion of a piece;
5.    Two-bishop advantage;
6.    Weak square (pawn);
7.    Zugzwang in middlegame;
8.    Strategic coordination.
 
The book "The Young Chess Player's Book" by R.Ya. Gorenstein, 1956, can serve as a guide on strategy. It's recommended to analyze a game or a segment of about 30-40 moves in a lesson using the "PENCIL METHOD". By "opening up" well-known strategic truths, students will grasp the essence of each element and learn to apply them consistently on the board. During explanations in contests, it's crucial to connect tactics with strategy, convincingly proving that combinations don't arise out of nowhere...
 
Starting from the third rating, systematic study of endgames becomes necessary.

Endgames can be divided into four types:  
1.    STANDARD (pawn, rook, bishop, knight, and queen);
2.    ARTISTIC (studies);
3.    COMPLEX (with a large number of pieces);
4.    VARIOUS (R - K, K - R, R + B + PP - Q...) In this year of education, it's recommended to study standard (pawn and rook), artistic, and complex endgames. The teacher explains the fundamental elements of pawn ("fortress", "shoulder pawn", "distant and protected passer"...) and rook ("hedgehog method", "rule of five" by A. Cheron...). A solid understanding of endgames, this "small war of pieces", enhances the confidence of the young chess player.
 
Studying technical positions, primarily endgame-related (continuation of the "MATERIAL ADVANTAGE REALIZATION TECHNIQUE" section - second year of education), gives students a lot. B.M. Blumenfeld points out: "In the vast majority of endgames, one must think in terms of plans. We design the necessary piece placements... Then we check through variations for the possibility of achieving this position..."
 
Again - just like in the first two years of education - it's strongly recommended to turn to puzzle problems, now connected with complex or standard endgames. Solving such positions is recommended in group sessions using the "PENCIL METHOD".
 
Independent work at home is very important, including solving elementary combinations (recording solutions in a separate notebook) and studying the first moves characterizing the main openings and gambits. At the end of each quarter - and sometimes during it - conducting contests (exams) to summarize the acquired knowledge of each student is beneficial.
 
In the fourth quarter, we turn back to the opening, but from a different perspective. We recommend studying the theme of "CONCRETE-TACTICAL OPENINGS" (a term introduced by grandmaster A.A. Kotov). Essentially, this involves teaching chess "knockouts". If the opponent violates opening principles, falls behind in development, engages in "pawn-grabbing", we develop in the student the LIMIT OF CONCRETE THINKING OVER THE BOARD, THE ABILITY TO IDENTIFY ATTACKING TARGETS, AND BOLDLY CREATE TACTICAL COMPLICATIONS. This theme is recommended to be studied based on games of the former world champion A.A. Alekhine.
       
"The study of the biographies of outstanding chess players from the past and present (primarily world champions and contenders among men and women) holds immense importance. The presentations of students on the history of chess in front of their peers in CETG-2 are of great value.
 
What should be considered when selecting students for CETG -2 (from BG and CETG -1)? SPECIFICITY OF THOUGHT, ABILITY FOR LOGICAL CONNECTION, SUSTAINED ATTENTION, AND QUICK REACTION. These indicators are the main guide for the coach's work with students in the III - II ranks phase.
 
The main goal at this stage is to build self-confidence. Many students at this age experience mood swings, fragile mental states, and inability to handle defeats gracefully. CONFIDENCE EMERGES ONLY WHEN THERE IS COMPLETE TRUST BETWEEN THE TEACHER AND STUDENT, AND AN AUTOMATED SKILL OF FINDING A MOVE, developed by the student in training (standard) and game positions. A solid understanding of at least four to five typical chess tactics significantly reduces the time needed to meet rank norms.
 
Individual work by the coach is also very important. As my practical experience has shown, an individual learning group should consist of 1-4 people (compare this to CETG -2 - 8 people). It's these students who should receive maximum additional knowledge. However, corresponding demands should be placed on them: they all should be accustomed to independent work at home. It's very useful to analyze the "PSYCHOLOGICAL SHADE OF A MISTAKE" with the student during these individual sessions (oral commentary on their game). In the presence of the student, the coach identifies the CAUSE OF THE MISTAKE, understanding the thought process of the player at that moment. Reviews during calculations of variations are particularly instructive, where the student realizes with horror that a piece occupied a different square or was missing altogether during the calculation. Such analysis helps the student to SEE THEMSELVES FROM A DISTANCE and realize that mistakes are always fixable if their nature and roots are understood. I am confident that this is no less important than solving a thousand combinations! We provide Appendices for the IV - III and III - II rank phases to assist the teacher.
 
In conclusion, it's worth noting that the teacher's effort will not be in vain if they establish a mechanism for coordinated work during lessons and FULL TRUST IN THEIR WORK from both parents and students. The main skill of a young chess player, which they should achieve by the end of the third year of education, is a CONSTANT SENSE OF CONNECTIONS BETWEEN THE PIECES DURING THE GAME."
continued...
]]> Sun, 20 Aug 2023 10:55:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?methods-of-teaching-chess-to-younger-pupils-of-v-ii-ranks-part-3 https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000063 <![CDATA[Methods of teaching chess to younger pupils of V-II ranks (part 2) ]]> imblog
Jude Acers Simul at Lusher Elementary School.
Fundraiser simul by Jude Acers at New Orleans elementary school.
15 November 2014
Photo: Wikimedia Commons
the beginning...
Chess Education and Training Group (CETG-1), IV - III ranks, 8 - 9 years old
(second year of study).
 
GENERAL PEDAGOGY.
 
Eminent psychologist S.L. Rubinstein proved that "chewing" complex, pivotal concepts only leads schoolchildren to helplessness. The teacher needs to structure lessons in a way that each class contains a hidden "spark" allowing the student - under certain tension on their part - to independently "uncover" the essence of the newly studied concept.
 
He writes: "... it is not enough to provide students only with ready-made action schemes (although this cannot be avoided). It is also necessary to think about creating INTERNAL CONDITIONS for their productive use... to find new generalizations, new techniques, new methods of action ourselves."
 
The main thing in this is to instill in the student the desire and ability to "use their brains". In this challenging period for the student, the teacher's approval is an important push when storming the "granite" of chess science.

It is very important to study no more than one topic per lesson, focusing students' attention on nuances. "The feeling of 'grey boredom' should be completely unknown to students" (A.I. Nimzowitsch).
 
The coach's key task is to help the student experience such an important FEELING OF SUCCESS when the nearest sports goal is achieved, and a specific skill is mastered.
 
CHESS PEDAGOGY.
 
At this stage, it is necessary to highly specify the studied material, constantly fixing (repeating) what has already been learned in classes.
 
In chess, memory and logical thinking are closely interconnected, improving in parallel. So, where should the direct study of the board and the fixation of emerging positions in the mind begin?
 
Outstanding grandmaster and methodologist G.Ya. Levenfish gives this recommendation: "Memorizing the chessboard in your mind with altered arrangements of pieces and pawns is a 'stumbling block'..." First of all, the attacker should ... clearly see in their mind all the squares of an empty board, the board should be clearly and distinctly visible in front of the eyes, and each square should be imprinted in the mind. This is achieved by performing a whole cycle of exercises.
For example:
1) all possible knight moves from the d3 square;
2) in how many moves does the knight from the g4 square reach ... f5 and so on.
Gradually, STEP BY STEP, the board will be populated with pieces and pawns...
And the student will acquire the ability to clearly see the position on the board after the nearest moves in their mind." For the consolidation of the rules of the game, it is necessary to constantly - with the simplest examples - reveal the properties and characteristic features of chess pieces.

Here it is noted:
1.    the strength of pawns (double attack, the movement "Avalanche", displacing pieces);
2.    the strength of the knight ("fork", overcoming obstacles, "elusiveness");
3.    the strength of the bishop (long-range power, diagonal binding, double attack);
4.    the strength of the rook (long-range power, capturing open lines and the 7th rank, the construction or formation of heavy pieces);
5.    the strength of the queen (huge range of action, diagonal binding, long-range power);
6.    the strength of the king (centralization in the endgame, interaction of the king with a passed pawn, double attack). For practical play, the properties and behavior of pieces are reinforced with positions containing tasks:
7.    which moves of the pieces are possible in this position, which are not?
8.    which pieces are under threat for white and black?
9.    who has a material advantage?
At the stage of transitioning to the III rank, the student should be able to find "mate patterns" in practical play. When analyzing the games of the children, it is important to teach them to find all the defenses against checkmate - with a detailed analysis of each possibility. This poses certain difficulties.
      
Here - for control and reinforcement - different didactic materials are needed. They consist of "forced" positions with checkmate in one, two, three, and more moves (with obligatory checks to the king). It is recommended to first solve the positions on the demonstration board and then individually (during lessons and at home). This will help the children better orient themselves in positions with a greater number of pieces, keep the opponent's king in sight, and find forced checkmates more quickly.
 
At this stage, the educator needs to begin working with the played games of the students, recorded by them in separate notebooks. The coach's task is to find and carefully analyze games with characteristic mistakes for this learning period. However, one should not dwell on details that are inaccessible to young chess players (as this will only complicate the learning process).
 
What should be explained about the opening at the stage of rank III? First of all, decoding the weakness on f7 (f2) based on open, semi-open, and closed openings.
 
Children should not be overloaded with openings, yet studying typical opening combinations, traps, and sacrifices is beneficial.

The analysis of the following opening themes is useful:
1.    drawbacks of an early queen and heavy piece development;
2.    the "significance" of pawn moves;
3.    backwardness in development;
4.    harmony and sequence in mobilizing forces;
5.    favorable and unfavorable squares for pieces and pawns;
6.    the concept of the center, its importance, and the struggle for the center;
7.    the significance of losing a tempo.
    
Renowned coach V.E. Golenishchev points out: "Games between beginners often occur with a material advantage, and the results are often irregular." This is a crucial theme that educators sometimes don't give serious attention to. Essentially, it's about developing the technique of exploiting a material advantage at the stage of rank III. It is thought that after studying this theme, it is useful to continuously revisit it when analyzing the students' games.
 
According to B.M. Blumenfeld, "ONLY THOSE GENERAL FORMULATIONS THAT ARE BASED ON THE PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE OF A CHESS PLAYER AT A CERTAIN LEVEL OF QUALIFICATION ARE USEFUL" (1936).
 
Based on this principle, in the process of analyzing the students' played games, one can start formulating more complex concepts.

Here's an approximate list of topics, formed solely on a practical basis:
1.    open file;
2.    opponent's pieces' poor positioning when attacking their king;
3.    "disabled pawns" in the middle and endgame...
    
The relative strength of the pieces must be clearly identified (no longer just comparative). All of this, collectively, leads to the transition to the next stage of a young chess player's creative development: WHEN CHOOSING A MOVE, THEY ALREADY CONSIDER THE OPPONENT'S RESPONSE WITH MINIMAL SPECIFICITY.
 
Further, it's recommended to detail elementary tactical motifs:
1.    discovered and double check;
2.    double attack;
3.    open attack;
4.    deflection;
5.    attraction;
6.    clearance of squares for piece movement;
7.    pins (full and partial).  
 
The orientation of didactic materials changes in this context. Students begin to work on positions with mandatory tactical strikes and checks leading to checkmate. As the experience of psychologists shows, the meaning of moves that have a "relief" meaning is easier to uncover..." (O.K. Tikhomirov).
         
All of this, alongside the study of programmatic topics ("Discovered Check," "Typical Endgame," etc.), leads to the transition to the next stage - BEING ENTHUSED BY THE FIRST NOTICED COMBINATION OR TRAP. It is during this period that a significant shortcoming of the student becomes apparent - the tendency to deliver checkmate at any cost, regardless of material losses. Now it's time to teach the children a careful attitude towards chess material, constant vigilance, and a reduced number of glances…
 
The memory and attention of a young chess player experience a new "turn" in the middle of the school year. However, the vulnerability of the student continues to be blunders. G.Y. Levenfish suggests the following "remedy": "Exercises are arranged in order of difficulty... Then come problems with a hidden idea, where not only knowledge of the rule is needed, but also ingenuity, which will suggest how and where to apply the rule that has been discussed... First and foremost, one should learn to see all one-move threats from both one's own and the opponent's pieces and pawns."
 
One of the exercises for developing attention involves a detailed study of two tactics:
1.    Attacks (dangerous and safe);
2.    Defenses (active and passive).
    
For their assimilation, the lesson "Puzzles - Tricks" is considered.
 
The work on developing attention should be carried out by the student throughout the school year. G.Y. Levenfish emphasizes: "The tendency of some strong chess players (masters are meant - V.G.) to blunders... can be explained by the fact that in the early stages of learning chess, they neglected training in chess vision" (1957). After all, you can't obtain a complete higher education while bypassing the middle one!
 
How to maintain interest in chess? "...the development of children's interest in chess takes place... based on imparting to them a certain amount of new knowledge - not very simple, but not overly elementary either" (V.G. Zak, 1973). In this process, students who find "quiet" and "intermediate" moves that conclude a combination enter a qualitatively new stage of growth. V.G. Zak goes on to say that "the analysis of each position should be conducted in detail, with questioning of those who want to express themselves... It is necessary to give the students the opportunity to confirm or refute the skills of previous contributors."
 
Now let's talk about the endgame. "...it often happens that having expended tremendous efforts and gained a clear advantage... in the endgame, a close victory slips through the fingers" And further: "As practice shows, studying the endgame does not evoke special enthusiasm in children" (V.G. Zak). Here, recourse to chess composition is useful. The monumental book for this purpose is F.S. Bondarenko's work "Gallery of Chess Studies," 1968.
 
In conclusion, V.G. Zak points out: "...there are many positions when even a significant material advantage is insufficient for victory. They arouse children's curiosity, mixed... with skepticism…” It is in this direction that the study of the endgame with children should start. As an example, you can consider the examination of a basic pawn endgame based on the book by M.A. Zinar and V.M. Archakov "Harmony of Pawn Studies," 1990.
 
By the end of the school year, "THE FIRST INDEPENDENTLY CREATED COMBINATION WILL GIVE (the student - V.G.)... A SENSE OF CREATIVE SATISFACTION AND AWARENESS THAT A CERTAIN LEVEL OF CHESS MASTERY HAS BEEN ACHIEVED." G.Y. Levenfish, 1957). I would like to add that the most important thing for an educator is to engage the students, as enthusiasm is the foundation of all successes.
]]> Wed, 16 Aug 2023 10:55:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?methods-of-teaching-chess-to-younger-pupils-of-v-ii-ranks-part-2 https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000062 <![CDATA[Methods of teaching chess to younger pupils of V-II ranks (part 1) ]]> imblog
Children being taught how to play chess.
Instructor is Jonathan F. Allen (Dallas, TX),
2008 Texas Amateur Champion.
Photo: Wikimedia Commons
chessboard: lichess.org
 
Beginner Group (BG): V – IV ranks, 7 - 8 years old
(first year of study).
 
GENERAL PEDAGOGY.
 
This group is characterized by the fluidity and instability of interest in chess.

What should be done to prevent the interest from fading quickly among beginners at this stage of learning?

The prominent psychologist L.S. Vygotsky proposed and substantiated the hypothesis about the DEPENDENCE OF THINKING FORMATION ON THE NATURE OF TEACHING, suggesting that teaching not only changes the content, but also the methods of learning. According to Vygotsky, one can actively "INFLUENCE the pace of children's intellectual development, IDENTIFY and USE its hidden reserves..."
 
It has been noticed that this leads to a significant increase in schoolchildren's interest in the subject they are studying, which is expressed in an active attitude towards knowledge and a desire to master techniques for independent expansion of their horizons. Without such a aspiration, one cannot possess a developed mind.
 
"The interest in what is being studied and explored DEEPENS as the truths that the student masters become his personal convictions" (A.V. Sukhomlinsky).
 
CHESS PEDAGOGY.
 
At the first stage of work, it is crucial to get each student interested in chess.

Beginners are characterized by several FEATURES:
1.    making moves based on random motives;
2.    aimless playing;
3.    a tendency towards material gains (at any cost).

The teacher's task is not to fight these shortcomings, but to instill in the student an interest in practical play with a focus on checkmating the king.
 
A student who has reached the V rank knows only "a little about everything." This is why, as they transition to the IV rank, the teacher must CONCRETIZE the material to the maximum extent. The behavior of pieces must be understood in COMPARISON, with absolute and then relative strength of the pieces clearly defined.
 
Children respond vividly to EXCEPTIONS, for example, when a pawn turns out to be stronger than a queen. In this regard, an in-depth study of PUZZLE-TASKS is recommended. Such tasks create a "background" for the lesson, excite the novice's soul, and train them in independent work. The classic example is the task "With a single swoop, defeat ten kings!" (checkmate ten kings simultaneously in one move).


checkmate in 1 move
 
Prominent psychologist and professor O.K. Tikhomirov points out: "A very important feature of VISUAL THINKING is establishing unusual, 'incredible' combinations of objects and their properties."
 
Familiarity with the board, field notations, and their colors should start immediately after studying the "chess" Latin letters (from "a" to "h"). Here's a possible set of exercises for beginners: verifying the color of fields, mentally identifying the intricate path of the knight (and other pieces), finding the field where two diagonals intersect (diagonals and horizontals). All of this is done "BLINDLY," without directly using the board and pieces.
 
The goal of a chess game is to checkmate the opponent's king. This is the central theme of this stage of learning. Besides linking checkmate with a check using analogy, it's essential to explain two characteristics of a checking piece that is in contact with the opponent's king.

Here it's indicated:  
1.    its lack of protection;
2.    its defense by another piece (pawn).

This will prevent mistakes in the children's subsequent games.
All checkmates can be divided into four types: 1) linear (along lines); 2) edge (on the board's edge); 3) battery (using two or more pieces and pawns); 4) "in the box" checkmates (when your own pieces and pawns hinder the king).

There are eight types of checks:
1) linear;
2) edge;
3) battery;
4) "in the box" - analogous to mate types;
5) skewer (also known as "out of the way" check - white: Kg1, Bh5, Pg2; black: Kc6, Ra4. Solution: Be8+);
6) discovered;
7) double;
8) perpetual.


...Be8+
 
Such classification is clear and facilitates understanding of the topic.
 
At this stage, it's helpful to find checkmates on a demonstration board. Pay attention to the GROUP as a whole to the TYPES, CONSTRUCTIONS, and SPECIFICITIES of checkmates with a small number of pieces on both sides.
 
V.G. Zak, a distinguished USSR coach, points out: "... predominance of concrete thinking is one of the typical features of childhood."
 
Based on this factor, psychologist and master B.M. Blumenfeld developed a series of methodological techniques. Here's one of them: "The teacher invites the student to play with them (in the presence of colleagues - V.G.). The novice plays illogically: moves the edge pawns, brings out rooks, 'jumps' knights in search of 'prey'... Meanwhile, the teacher systematically develops and delivers a checkmate on f7. The achieved checkmate is remembered much more strongly than the one demonstrated in lessons."
 
It's beneficial to play out such a game for the entire group on a demonstration board (for greater effect), repeatedly using this technique and sequentially replacing "assistants".
 
It's thought that students should be taught SHORT NOTATION right away (since calculation is carried out mentally in this way, the "PENCIL METHOD" can be helpful in this regard. Its essence lies in the problem-based (contest) lesson approach. Students must consistently find the best moves for one side in the discussed games or fragments. Initially, the move is written with a pencil, and after comparing it with the teacher's move, with a pen. The sum of correct answers determines the winner.

As a result, four educational tasks are addressed:
1) a new topic is learned THROUGH PLAY;
2) sports qualities are "honed";
3) notation is mastered;
4) chess memory "sprouts".

We will return to this method in the future.
 
Usually, the V - IV rank stage lasts until the student starts to PERCEIVE CONNECTIONS BETWEEN PIECES, sees one-move threats, and finds precise defenses.
 
The emergence of self-confidence is extremely important, which significantly shortens the achievement of rank norms. V.G. Zak emphasizes: "And it is essential (otherwise everything will be in vain) that each of your students occasionally experiences the joy of victory."
 
At the end of the academic year, it's recommended to conduct an exam in the form of a contest, done on sheets of paper. Tasks can include simple positions shown on the demonstration board, with tactical content, such as skewers, open checks, double attacks, and discovered attacks. Here, the "PEN METHOD" can be applied - 5-8 minutes are allocated for each position, the number of positions is predetermined by the teacher. The exam results - with assigned grades - are discussed by the coach during a parent meeting in the presence of young students.
Source: "Methods of teaching chess to junior schoolchildren of V-II grades" Dnipro, Ukraine, 1993.
]]> Tue, 08 Aug 2023 10:55:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?methods-of-teaching-chess-to-younger-pupils-of-v-ii-ranks-part-1 https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000061 <![CDATA[BRONSTEIN: Becoming a chess robot?]]> imblog
Bronstein (left) plays against the later winner Karalekas
IBM Chess Tournament 1968
August 3, 1968
Photo: Wikimedia Commons

They say humans are curious creatures. That's true. That's why I spent most of my life at the chessboard. But I never figured out which moves are the best. It seemed so simple: today I played with the black pieces, and now I know my mistakes. Playing with the white pieces will be easy: I just need to remember what the black pieces were afraid of. That's how I played for thirty years and three months.
 
The solution never came. Or maybe I never had the time to seriously think about it? Tournaments, tournaments... I had to take a timeout and think. Unfortunately, it soon became clear how wrong I was... In the heat of battles, I didn't notice how chess had changed. New methods of work appeared. My style stood out sharply as archaic. What was I to do?
 
"I understand!" I said to myself. "My fame grew from the ability to win tournaments. And what is it? Comparing who has more points. And how did I create points? I... I made opponents make mistakes. Hypnosis? No! I just fear nothing. I let the opponent do anything while I carefully watched. At first, he doesn't believe it, afraid of tricks, then I pretend not to know how to move, and then he becomes bold. You have to endure a lot, but it's interesting, and I am satisfied with myself for being able to complete the whole plan. Of course, the power of the mind is not infinite. My head hurts, signals: stop, fool, you might die like this!...
 
I had long conversations with myself like this, and, by the way, that's when they expelled me from all the national teams, extra time appeared again. One of those days, I remembered that when I read Weiner's book, what surprised me was not that the fox had intuition but that the machine did not. No, that's not true - what surprised me was that Weiner himself was somehow dissatisfied with it.
I started thinking about machines, reading about cybernetics. In short, it's a long story, and it ended unexpectedly: I decided to become a machine myself.
 
Now I got used to it, but at first, it was wild. I decided to analyze my games thoroughly. That's when a dispute came in handy. "Vechernyaya" (The Evening Paper) asked: "Why do many chess players like lightning tournaments?" And I replied, "You play the whole game on one intellectual breath, and the judges don't interfere with instructions on recording the game." The newspaper printed it.
 
And the magazine "Shakhmaty v SSSR" (Chess in the USSR) gave me a public reprimand. But I kept thinking. Now about lightning chess. And about clocks. About recording the game. I remembered that you can't keep a record during time trouble.
 
If you look away, you lose the PICTURE of the position. But maybe it's the movement of the piece, its path? What is it in time trouble? Either you respond to a threat or carry out your own. It's move by move. It's hard to talk about more. Understandably, what's wrong with recording moves? And why do they all, without exception, drop recording in time trouble? I thought about that too. After all, recording a move is the registration of events that have already happened. It only irritates the player. The move must be unexpected. Right after making the move, all the player's attention is on the board. Thousands of subtle feelings visit him, and he is told, "Put your emotions aside! Record the move, and then think as much as you like!.." This is the code of sports competitions. But still, you have to record, otherwise, how else to demand a draw by repeating moves...
 
Why weren't they recording in the past century? It would have been useful, wouldn't it? Wait, wait... Useful, you say? So, if it were useful, you wouldn't have been nervous? Of course not. Then make this work useful.
 
Can the clock times be recorded? The code doesn't say anything about it. What a discovery! From now on, I'll record not the moves, but the time! And the moves, by the way, to know what the time corresponds to.
 
The solution was tested in the Moscow Championship of 1961. It was strange somehow, but... the results exceeded the boldest expectations. The need to keep a record completely eliminated emotional excitement. But when the excitement disappeared... so did the inspiration. And since I don't like to repeat old moves, and I can't find new ones in a calm state, then... I had no moves. It's like being caught in a cursed circle! No, there must be a way out. And then I realized that new moves are just an illusion! Why? In the starting position, you make the same moves, which means you're not leading the struggle and further play in such an original way. I didn't want to agree with that internally. I compiled a database of games and saw that while they may be beautiful and different from the games of other masters, the games of others are also beautiful and different from mine. Honestly, there are very few original moves, mostly just technical tactics, template solutions...
 
Then suddenly, I thought that someday, probably, machines will play chess with just set patterns. Oh, how boring it would be for them, almost like for me! I wonder, how exactly will they play? This intrigued me so much that I started to dissect and dissect my game, like a frog in a medical institute. Not an easy task. Even now, I haven't solved it completely. But, having partially figured it out, I was ready to play like a machine. Don't believe me? Well, then listen to what it is, but don't tell anyone—I'm already considered a weirdo...
 
So, pay attention. I divide myself into two: I am "myself" and I am "the machine." The idea is that the chess player himself doesn't participate in the game! The task of the human is only to manage during the game and... prepare the brain before the game. The entire mental apparatus of the human transforms into a machine and is divided into 12 subdivisions.
 
The External Memory is loaded on the day of the game and unloaded afterwards.
 
The RAM (Random Access Memory) serves for calculations and coordinates everything related to the position.
 
The Internal Memory is a repository of information about everything a professional chess player needs.
 
The Department of Technical Techniques contains simple combinations that a strong player has long forgotten.
 
The Sector of Personal Characteristics helps understand a particular complex move or trap, comparing it with previous examples from partners.
 
The Opening Specialization Sector helps discard unnecessary information and selects valuable data specifically for that game.
 
The Medical Control Sector monitors excitement, breathing, includes pauses, and reminds, "You are human, not a machine, you need to cool down." It signals the inevitable decline in the reliability of conclusions towards the end of the game.
 
The Technical Sector verifies moves suggested by different departments, conducts prevention of yawns, and suggests typical combinations based on positional features - Internal Technical Control (ITC).
 
The Strategy Sector monitors plans, both own and opponents'. It links individual moves together, suggests vulnerable points in the opponent's move chain, and carries out plans with minimal expenditure of combat forces.
 
The Psychological Corner. When there is no logical move, it helps make decisions based on psychological nuances.
 
The Sports Statistics Sector. During the game, it reminds that it's a tournament, not an experiment, and that vigilance is necessary. Sometimes, it asks to push harder in order to score by any means and keeps an eye on neighboring games, suggesting when to offer a draw.
 
The Department of Fantasy. If there is time, this purely human sector thinks aloud: "How would a human play here?" And the brain - all departments at once - listens and takes the most valuable insights.
 
So, the partner made a move. What now? The move enters the Operational Memory: were we expecting it or not? Depending on the answer, the Management Sector sends requests to the departments. Having received precise answers, the Management determines the difficulty of the task and the time for its solution. Based on where the difficulties lie, the Management activates specific sections and seeks their opinion. There is no exact program or order. The Operational Memory sometimes requests information two or three times due to new circumstances. At these moments, the Management Sector remains silent but observes from the sidelines and, if deemed necessary... In other words, the human listens to the machine's opinion and... corrects.
 
The downside of this machine method is the impossibility of creative flashes. However, it allows for the proper functioning of the brain apparatus. If needed, the human can be activated to organize a micro-explosion. Concepts like "I want," "I like," "this is absurd," "this is old," "this is boring," "this is original," "I must," etc., are all immediately doubted as human weaknesses. Thus, the weaknesses are turned into strengths, and they suggest, so to speak, from the opposite side. At every "I want," the signal is received, but the Medical Control immediately switches off the human and turns on the automatic mode. With this system, if both partners fight according to the program, the one who has more enriched reference centers, a better Medical Control, a stronger brain apparatus, and, most importantly... operates more economically with the Central Management, switching questions from one department to another, wins.
 
The most pleasant thing about working with this machine method is that there's no need to invent anything. You only need to compose from ready-made and known elements because that's exactly what inventing is, only conscious, not chaotic...
 
David vs. Goliath by David Bronstein
 
]]> Wed, 02 Aug 2023 19:12:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?bronstein-becoming-a-chess-robot https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000060 <![CDATA[BOTVINNIK: About my preparation methods for competitions]]> imblog
December 11, 1963
Amsterdam, North Holland
Photo: Wikimedia Commons

In the 11th championship, my main goal was to set sports-related tasks for myself. For example, currently, I'm trying to play calmly, not letting my nerves take over, which is not easy to achieve! I have to remind myself of this during the game.
 
Calmness is not just a decorative aspect; my mind works well only when I am composed. During the tournament, I deliberately trained myself to remain calm, and I am satisfied with the results achieved. Furthermore, I aimed to minimize time troubles. Completely eliminating them is not possible, nor would it be advantageous. There are moments during a game when careful analysis of the position is necessary, and extra 20-30 minutes might be spent on considering the next moves before the time control, but I consider this "normal" time trouble, and I won't abandon it. However, I taught myself to economize time and resolve this issue satisfactorily, even consciously sacrificing the quality of my game at times. There was no other way; how else can one learn to preserve minutes?
 
My third objective was to conserve energy throughout the entire tournament. In the past, in almost all long tournaments, I used to gain points quickly in the beginning, expending a lot of energy, and then barely managed to keep up towards the end. From the 12th to the 15th rounds, I often lost games. Clearly, such expenditure of energy is not desirable; it's better to use it consistently, avoiding drops in performance towards the end of the tournament and overall exerting less pressure.
 
In this championship, I successfully achieved an even expenditure of energy, and I preserved my strength until the end; however, it did require making several draws. Nevertheless, I did not lose a single game throughout the entire tournament.
 
I am not entirely satisfied with my tournament schedule. After breakfast, I took a walk (1 hour), then prepared for the game (25-30 minutes), and after that, I rested from chess. At 3:30 pm, I had lunch, and then I rested for about an hour. Lying down before a game is very beneficial; it leaves you feeling refreshed and, most importantly, prevents distractions from other matters. After the rest, I walked to the tournament venue, which was very convenient for me as it was close by, allowing me to walk for 20-25 minutes again before the game.
 
The games ended at 10:30 pm, I had dinner at 11:00 pm, and I went to bed at 12:00 am. Initially, I did not adhere to the last part of the schedule carefully; before sleep, I analyzed games and disrupted my rest. I fell asleep no earlier than 3:00 am, and as a result, my sleep did not fully restore my energy.
 
Now, during competitions, I will never engage in chess analysis before sleep - I will avoid repeating this mistake.
 
As for when to analyze unfinished games, I dedicated about 40-45 minutes to this task after my morning walk and also on the day before completing the game. However, I believe it is essential to minimize the number of unfinished games; only then can one preserve energy throughout the entire long tournament.
 
So, my fourth sports-related task - proper organization of the tournament schedule - was not fully resolved to my satisfaction.
 
The last sports-related goal I set for myself - winning the championship of the USSR - I achieved. I am quite content with the result, but I did notice a significant flaw in my game: my technique of converting advantages was lacking. In many games, I failed to convert significant advantages into victories. Perhaps this can be attributed to my desire to economize energy and time, as I mentioned before. However, one thing is clear: I need to pay attention to this aspect of my game. On the other hand, there was a pleasant surprise for me: I finally learned to play well with the black pieces. In eight games played with the black pieces, I scored 6.5 points, and I could have scored even more. This circumstance leads to a rather interesting conclusion.

Almost in all reviews of my games, I had to read about my "opening erudition" with which I defeated my opponents. Previously, I believed that these "reviews" were unsubstantial and took them ironically. It is true that I often won several games in the opening, but every chess player strives to decide the game as quickly as possible! However, this championship completely disarmed my "critics": playing with the black pieces, such a result cannot be achieved solely through "opening erudition" because, no matter how good that erudition is, you won't gain an advantage in the opening in all games with black. It means that I outplayed my opponents in the subsequent struggle, and my knowledge of openings had nothing to do with it, so our chess journalists will have to find another explanation for my successes.
 
So, how do I prepare for competitions?
 
This has never been a secret. As soon as I mastered the preparation technique, I presented my method in the book "Match Flor - Botvinnik." Then, I once gave a special lecture to Leningrad chess players of category 1, unfortunately attended by only 15 listeners. So, I'll have to repeat myself in many aspects.
 
First and foremost, before the competition, one needs to think about their health because only with good health can you count on sporting success. And for that, it is best to spend 15-20 days in the fresh air, outside the city. Unfortunately, our physical education organizations, understanding that football players need physical training, usually become surprisingly uncomprehending when it comes to the simple rest of chess players before important competitions.
 
I start my chess preparation by reviewing the literature that has accumulated since the time I stopped following it. This is necessary to get acquainted with new and interesting games; while reviewing the literature, I take notes on questions that interest me. At the same time, I mark all the games of my future opponents in the competition I am going to participate in. I study the peculiarities of these masters' play, their favorite opening variations, which will be useful in preparing for each game during the tournament.
 
Next, I prepare the opening schemes that I intend to use in the upcoming competition. It should be noted that, in my opinion, a chess player cannot and should not play all the openings known in theory. For one competition, it is sufficient to have 3-4 opening systems for white and the same number for black. But these systems must be well studied. If a master does not have such systems in their arsenal, they are unlikely to expect a good sporting result. Conversely, if a master plays only one opening, it is also very disadvantageous: firstly, their opponent will be well prepared for the game, and, secondly, the most important thing is that the chess horizon of such a master will be too narrow, and they will "flounder" in many positions.
 
So, the schemes are developed, but that's not enough. Some of them, the ones in which the author is not sure, must be tested in training games. Of course, these games should be played with a partner who will keep them secret; otherwise, all future opponents will know these schemes as well as their author, and the opening preparation will become worthless.
 
These preparatory games should be used not only to test opening schemes but also to train oneself in other aspects. In particular, I have long advised our masters who systematically fall into time trouble one simple way to combat this flaw. Unfortunately, they seem not to have taken my advice, yet it is very straightforward.
 
They should play training games while paying attention primarily to the clocks, rather than focusing on the quality of play or the game's result. They should continue these exercises until they develop the skill to manage time wisely, being able to calculate all necessary variations. I believe that with this method, 90 percent of those suffering from "time trouble disease" would be completely cured, except, of course, the "hopelessly ill."
 
This method should also be used to address other shortcomings. During special training games, one should pay particular attention to a specific weakness until it disappears.
 
As a result of such training, a master can definitively determine their already tested and practical opening repertoire for the upcoming competition. After that, it's only a matter of preparing for each game individually.
 
In the case where a master is weak in endgames, they should follow the example of Chekhover, who has been working extensively on endgames and especially studies lately, achieving notable success. In training games, they should strive for endgames, as it will help them gain relevant experience.
 
The same method can be used to fill gaps in middlegame understanding, although this question is more complex.
 
Lastly, about five days before the tournament, one should stop all chess-related activities. They need to give themselves a rest, and most importantly, this is necessary to avoid losing the taste for chess struggle.
 
One cannot overlook another opportunity for improvement that I have always sought to use.
 
What is the essence of a chess master's art? Primarily, it lies in their ability to analyze chess positions. Indeed, the master, while sitting at the board, must analyze rather quickly without moving the pieces. In the end, calculating variations to evaluate the position is the art of analysis.
 
Home analysis has its specific characteristics: the master is not limited by time and can move the pieces. Despite these differences, there is also much in common between analysis and practical play. It is known that almost all outstanding chess players were excellent analysts.
 
The conclusion is obvious: anyone who wants to become an outstanding chess player must also improve in the area of chess analysis.
 
But we must mention one significant difference between analysis and practical play: during a game, your analytical work is continuously checked by a critically minded opponent, whereas during home analysis, it is easy to become biased. To combat this and also address poor analysis quality, it is helpful to make some of your analytical work public. This provides an opportunity to receive objective criticism. In other words, published analysis or simply commenting on games for publication is the most reliable means of improvement.
 
Of course, notes to games written "on the fly" in 1-2 hours cannot be considered analysis. Such "analysis" only plays a negative role as it can turn into a bad habit.
 
Unfortunately, some of our chess players still disregard home analysis. In the past, I proposed that category 1 chess players in Leningrad create a special circle for commenting on games; around 15 people even joined this circle, but for some reason, it didn't progress further.
 
These are all the pieces of advice I can offer and which I try to follow myself. It is possible that they are less suitable for some chess players; each master must approach them cautiously and apply them while considering their individual characteristics and habits.

Source:  Analytical and critical works. Articles and memoirs. M.M. Botvynnyk
]]> Sat, 29 Jul 2023 23:30:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?botvinnik-about-my-preparation-methods-for-competitions https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/00000005F <![CDATA[Essay on chess Elite. FISCHER]]> imblog
Photo: vault.si.com
FISCHER
(1943-2008)
Robert James Fischer - the most mysterious and paradoxical figure in modern chess. There has been much written about him, and I would just like to briefly recount his biography.
 
Fischer was born in 1943 in Chicago. Later, he moved with his mother to New York, to Brooklyn, where his first major successes began. His father was German, who fled from Nazi Germany during the war, and he married a Jewish woman from Chicago, an extremely outgoing lady (she now lives in London). This marriage resulted in the birth of Bobby Fischer.
 
At the age of fourteen, he became the U.S. champion, and the Soviet Chess Federation invited him to visit Moscow; everyone wanted to meet this phenomenal young man. I was present at his meeting with Moscow grandmasters at the Central Chess Club when he played blitz games one after another with all comers. I witnessed the moment when he brilliantly defeated Vasiukov. I saw a very tall American teenager, fair-haired, with bangs, and gray eyes. His lack of a smile surprised me. He was dressed in jeans and a sweater. His sister, an extravagant girl, accompanied him to Moscow.
 
Fischer requested to play a short training match with one of the well-known grandmasters. The Federation considered this to be audacity and offered him a lesser-known chess player. Fischer refused, stating that he was fed up with this pigsty of a country and left. By then, relations between Fischer and the Soviet Chess Federation had considerably cooled.
 
The second time I met him was already in 1976, in Pasadena, where he lived after retiring from chess.
 
What is the strength and paradox of Fischer?

If I may put it this way - he was a chemically pure chess player, whose concentration during the game was absolutely incredible. I remember the characteristic Alexander Kotov gave him in the 1970s. It was precisely when Fischer scored one brilliant victory after another: first against Petrosian, then against Taimanov, and finally against Larsen - all with a decisive score. After defeating Spassky in Reykjavik, he became the world champion. It was something unprecedented. Fischer clearly wasn't satisfied with just winning; he needed to crush his opponent completely. People who knew him said that when he played table tennis or anything else, he aimed to win at all costs, and if he lost, he acted as if he were sick.
 
So, Alexander Kotov, who was in the same chess club as me, said, "Well, think for yourself: how can you play with such a guy? It's simply impossible!" - "Why is it impossible? Why?" - I asked. "It's very simple, imagine that you are sitting opposite a huge fellow with a horse-like face. He sits there and thinks intently. Not for long. And swiftly makes a move. You rack your brains about what to do in response. You come up with something, hoping that your partner will give you an opportunity to take a little walk, to stretch. But it doesn't happen that way. Almost instantly, he finds yet another move, now the most unpleasant one for you. And promptly delivers it without even rising from his seat. It's as if he's sitting on your shoulders, and after a while, you feel that nothing can save you. He's not a human, he's a machine!"
 
Many portray Fischer as an underachiever, a boy who dropped out of school at the age of fourteen, as someone undeveloped and infantile, who was only interested in chess. Indeed, he showed no interest in anything else.
 
However, education aside, what personally interests me more is the gift that God gave Fischer as a psychologist, his ability to assess his opponent and the situation, and his thinking skills. I don't recall any evaluation made by Fischer that turned out to be wrong.
 
His skill as a psychologist was astonishing. He prepared for the match against Spassky without any assistants, while Spassky had at least five. And psychologically, he was much better prepared than his opponent, even though the entire Soviet Chess Federation supported Spassky.
 
But what was Fischer like as a person? His actions after he withdrew from the World Championship in 1975 became the most paradoxical and strange. However, his behavior was already strange before that: he clearly feared the public and journalists. He increasingly refused to participate in tournaments. Once, he arrived at a match with Reshevsky just five minutes before he would have been counted as losing. But upon his arrival, he won swiftly.
 
When Bobby declined the world championship, there were inquiries from all over the world about what he was doing and how he was living. It was known that he turned down any kind of advertising that promised him millions. As he himself said, he wasn't willing to promote shaving creams that he didn't use himself. Therefore, all the rumors about his greed and love for luxury had no foundation whatsoever.
 
However, he always demanded gigantic fees - I believe mainly for prestige reasons rather than to earn large sums of money.
 
Many attempts were made to attract him to matches, as interest in his game remains huge to this day. Master Arnold Denker told me how he took the initiative to organize a meeting between Fischer and Gligoric in Yugoslavia. Denker asked him, "Bobby, what do you think if they pay you three hundred thousand dollars just for participating in the match?" Fischer replied, "That would be great!" - "Great!" - Denker said in turn. "I'm going to Yugoslavia." He managed to convince the Yugoslavs to pay him six hundred thousand dollars instead of three hundred. He returned in a wonderful mood. "Bobby!" - he said - "Everything's in order. You agreed to three hundred thousand, and I negotiated six hundred thousand! Sign the contract, and you'll start playing in a month." But Fischer replied, "And what about a million?"
 
According to Denker's words, Fischer was simply playing the fool and didn't want to play. At the last moment, he always came up with the most fantastic excuses just to avoid playing.
 
He joined the religious sect of Seventh-day Adventists, where he waged war with the leaders of the sect. I was told that at some point - on religious grounds - he became an anti-Semite and even put anti-Semitic slogans on car bumpers.
 
As I mentioned before, in 1976, I met Fischer in Pasadena. Pasadena is located sixty miles from Los Angeles. Fischer lives quite oddly - his apartment has absolutely no furniture, only a fridge, a chair, and a bed. He is unmarried, hardly communicates with anyone, and his phone is not listed in any directory. However, he has a secretary whose last name is Makarova - she is of Russian origin. If you manage to get in touch with her, you can convey any proposals or requests for him - it's impossible to write or call him directly.
 
My Los Angeles friend, Antony Seidy, who maintained contacts with Bobby, arranged the meeting for me. I stayed with another friend, also an immigrant from the USSR.
 
One day, the phone rang in his apartment: "May I speak with Mr. Shamkovich?" It was Fischer. His call was so unexpected that I thought someone was playing a prank on me. He said, "If you want, come to this restaurant, but only Antony will be there, no one else."
 
We went to the appointed place, and I immediately recognized this tall, gray-eyed blond, looking like an albino - his eyebrows and eyelashes were completely colorless. The conversation on political topics mainly took place between him and Antony. But I still brought up the topic of chess.
 
He responded politely, though not very willingly. It was evident that this was not a pleasant subject for him, and he didn't want to discuss it. Nevertheless, I asked him, "Why don't you play? You are still the best chess player in the world, aren't you?" He smiled and replied, "I'm extremely dissatisfied with American presidents' politics. They appease the Soviets too much!" I tried to argue, "But presidents change, don't they?" - "No!" he said, "They are all the same!" I didn't understand the connection with chess and continued, "But you should still play, Bobby!" - "I will play, I will play," he repeated twice. Then I took out pocket chess and said, "I want to show you a position that no one can solve, a very interesting study." He took the chess in his hands, covered them with his huge hand so that waiters or visitors wouldn't guess that it was Fischer in the restaurant. I already regretted starting all this and said, "You know, it's a long and difficult task to find the solution. Maybe I'll show it to you myself?" - "No, no, sir!" he almost got angry and, immersed in thought, gave the correct answer after two or three minutes. "How is this possible?" I was surprised. "No one can solve it!" - "I knew this idea!" he replied.
 
Fischer doesn't drink. He only drinks milk. But he eats a lot, probably because he's very large. In any case, he didn't drink a sip in the restaurant but ordered himself a giant steak.
 
Later, when we got into a conversation, I asked him, "Bobby, what do you think of Tal's creativity?" The question was certainly provocative. Fischer defeated him with a dry score, and someone else would probably say something derogatory. But Fischer answered, "In my opinion, he's a very good musician!"
 
After the restaurant, we went for a walk. He showed me several books about chess computers, and we talked again about different chess players; he highly praised Korchnoi's game. Overall, he gave the impression of being a good, companionable guy, talkative, and sociable. The only thing that seemed a bit strange was his bear-like, awkward gait.
 
Over the years, various rumors circulated about Fischer. For example, there's an Indian woman from Bombay living here in New York with whom he regularly corresponded. Fischer had promised her on several occasions to start playing again and even to come to India, but he always backed out at the last minute.
 
Once, he got into trouble with the police in Pasadena. The officers found him suspicious. They thought he resembled a criminal who had recently robbed a bank. They asked him for identification, but Bobby replied that he didn't have any documents on him. They took him to the police station, where he gave a fictitious name. Later, he admitted that he was Fischer, but the police had no idea who Fischer was. He later released a brochure about his experience in American police custody, claiming he was beaten and kept in a cold cell for a long time.
 
Eventually, they realized that he was not the criminal they were looking for, and they told him, "All right, kid, you can go." He exclaimed indignantly, "Where are my ten dollars?"
 
Another story from Fischer's life, from an earlier time, but also related to prison, is known. Fischer was giving a simultaneous exhibition in prison, and one of the inmates, seated at one of the boards, kept stealing pieces.
 
The first time, Bobby returned the missing piece, but the second time, he said, "Listen, buddy, if you do it again, I'll tell the prison warden to extend your sentence." To which the inmate, without blinking an eye, replied, "You won't succeed, sir, because I'm here indefinitely!"
 
Fischer's life is full of legends, anecdotes, and interesting incidents. For example, when he defeated Spassky in 1972 and became the world champion, the Soviet press, eager to explain his defeat, suggested that Fischer's chair was equipped with a special electronic device that disrupted Spassky's play but didn't affect Fischer's game. They examined the chair, invited experts, but, of course, found nothing.
 
Fischer's assistants told him about this while he was in the pool. Bobby laughed so hard that he sank into the water and couldn't come up for a while. Finally, when he resurfaced, he said, "I will send the Soviet delegation a bill - after all, because of this story, I almost drowned!"
 
Recently, it became known that Fischer befriended the Argentine grandmaster Kinteros. Kinteros told my friend Sosonko, also a chess player, that they meet regularly and play a lot, and that Fischer still plays like a god, like a devil - Kinteros can't manage to get a single draw in blitz games. According to Kinteros, by the end of this year, Fischer plans to return to chess. Whether this will happen is difficult to say, but if Fischer sits at the chessboard again, perhaps another brilliant page will be written in the world history of chess.
]]> Thu, 27 Jul 2023 19:12:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?essay-on-chess-elite-fischer https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/00000005E <![CDATA[Essay on chess Elite. PETROSIAN]]> imblog
IBM chess tournament
August 2, 1973
Photo: Wikimedia Commons
the beginning...
PETROSIAN
(1929-1984)
If Bronstein was a chess philosopher, then Petrosian was a typical practitioner. Much was said about the practical side of his mind. Perhaps too much. However, the fact remains that he became the World Champion. So, he was not just a cunning player who won through clever and tricky combinations.
 
I knew him from childhood when I first met him at the Tbilisi Pioneers' Palace. Who was Petrosian? First and foremost, he was a classic natural talent, bestowed with so much by God that it's simply laughable to explain his brilliant path with some trivial tricks.
 
He grew up in a janitor's family. Yes, that's right, his father was a janitor in one of the buildings in Tbilisi. Thanks to his talent, Tigran quickly attracted the attention of Tbilisi's chess players. He was a chess prodigy, and from an early age, he did not favor an attacking style that many of his peers were fond of. But who knows, perhaps his unparalleled positional mastery was the source of his strength that led him to the chess Olympus.
 
His positional play was distinguished by unparalleled elegance. This brilliance in positional maneuvering could not be achieved through practice or work alone. It was a gift from God. However, on the other hand, Petrosian truly possessed extraordinary pragmatism. Above all, it was chess pragmatism. He was a very subtle psychologist, always knowing how and with whom to play, when and which line to choose. His unique and patient style, from my point of view, had a philosophical undertone.
 
He was like a Nile crocodile, capable of lying in wait as long as necessary for his prey. Waiting until it makes a misstep, and then he would finish it off.
 
Remembering Petrosian, I would like to emphasize that in my memory, his personality seems somewhat two-fold. One Petrosian is a brilliant, sophisticated man, very witty, cheerful, and broad-minded. The other, in his later years when he became the World Champion, was a man indulging in luxury, playing with fate, and, by the way, for many years under the influence of his wife. And that influence was not for the better. But, as I said, this happened later, and in his youth, Petrosian was very sociable and enjoyed general sympathy. He was a person with a mocking and sharp mind.
 
Once, I witnessed a scene. We were analyzing some position during the Soviet Championship. Tigran was also examining it; everyone was silent. Then someone asked, "What's the threat?" — a typical and not too clever question that chess players like to ask each other. To which Tigran unexpectedly turned to the one who asked and, with an ironic smile, said, "My dear, if there were any threat, then Black would know what to do. The point is, there is no threat!"
 
In this passage, a deep understanding of chess philosophy is reflected. Indeed, sometimes one move, seemingly harmless, can be stronger than two or three active ones, as this "one" move can lead the opponent to defeat.
 
Petrosian's talent was recognized by both friends and foes. No one claimed he was untalented. Some may have said he was dull and uninteresting, but his talent was never questioned.
 
However, like every member of this chess elite, Petrosian had his peculiarities. He couldn't stand young chess players. I remember in 1979, he came to Rio de Janeiro with two young chess players - Vaganian and Balashov. During the tournament, Petrosian boldly declared that these two were intentionally playing poorly to help his opponents, so he wouldn't achieve a good place.
 
But he truly changed, for the worse, in 1964 when he became the world champion after defeating Botvinnik.

In the article "Why I Lost the Match," Botvinnik wrote, "The era of geniuses in chess is over!" (Clearly, he didn't foresee the emergence of Bobby Fischer and Garry Kasparov.)
 
"In our days, talent alone is not enough," claimed Botvinnik. According to him, Petrosian had a strange, defensive style that he couldn't understand. In his article, Botvinnik wanted to portray Petrosian as mediocre, someone who couldn't compare to him, Botvinnik. However, with the passing of years, Botvinnik gave a much higher and fairer evaluation of Petrosian, emphasizing that he was indeed a great chess player.
 
Becoming the world champion changed Petrosian's entire lifestyle.

As I already mentioned, this change for the worse was largely influenced by his highly practical wife, Rona. She participated in all negotiations on his behalf, throwing him into various quarrels and disputes, which certainly didn't contribute to his authority. According to her, she made him the world champion since he didn't want to deal with chess, but she insisted on inviting certain seconds to help him and so on. It got to the point where he lost patience, exclaiming in frustration, "Please, play on your own! Why don't you become the world champion yourself! What do you want from me?" he would raise his voice in such moments.
 
She constantly tried to awaken ambition in him, which he didn't naturally possess. But over the years, it emerged, along with a passion for luxury. Some resentment towards his colleagues also appeared. It would seem that chess fortune lavished him with favor, making him good-natured. However, I no longer noticed any kindness in him. On the contrary, there was some bitterness and impatience. Once I met him on the street, he greeted me with joy and said, "Want to come to my place? You can see my chess books."
 
When I entered his abode, I was amazed. This apartment on Pyatnitskaya, with an area of about one hundred twenty square meters, used to belong to some academician, and now it was given to Petrosian. The absolutely stunning antique furniture was striking. There were numerous souvenirs from all countries of the world. Many gifts from Armenians in Armenia. They idolized him and were ready to do anything for him.
 
They even awarded him a diploma of higher education, which he didn't have before. It showed bourgeois traits that were not characteristic of him earlier. I must mention that Mikoian often invited him over; he would frequently visit Mikoian's home theater. In short, Petrosian, the world champion, became a completely different person.
 
When we were at Tigran's place together with Kotov, as we were leaving, I said to Kotov, "I wonder how he managed to exchange a 32-square-meter apartment for such a palace?" To which Kotov, a man not devoid of natural albeit coarse humor, replied, "Listen, my dear, Tigran knows how to exchange only bishops for knights on the chessboard, everything else is changed by his wife!"
 
Indeed, she was the main manager of Petrosian, and she, Rona, made all the business decisions, not him. She was, so to speak, always active day and night, acting in order to raise her husband's prestige and wealth. Petrosian even had a personal adjutant and chronicler, Alexander Roshal, who later switched to Karpov and in "Sovetskiy Sport" called him nothing less than majestic Tigran. "And there appeared the majestic Tigran..."
 
He truly had a majestic appearance when he appeared in society in his luxurious velvet jacket... In a sense, he was the complete opposite of Bronstein and many other chess players. Most of them were selfless and altruistic people, no matter who we take, whether it's Botvinnik, Smyslov, or Tal. Tigran was the only one who surrounded himself with wealth and luxury. After losing the title of world champion, Petrosian became increasingly bitter. He is currently seriously ill.
 
However, what I remember most about Petrosian is the brilliant person and great chess player, whose contributions to the history of world chess culture are truly invaluable.
 continued...
]]> Tue, 25 Jul 2023 17:02:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?essay-on-chess-elite-petrosian https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/00000005C <![CDATA[Essay on chess Elite. BRONSTEIN]]> imblog
IBM chess tournament
July 16, 1968.
Photo: Wikimedia Commons
the beginning...
BRONSTEIN
(1924-2006)
I have known David Bronstein, or as his friends call him, Dávik, for a very long time, practically since 1942. We are peers, and maybe that's why it's easy for me to talk about him. I first saw him in Tbilisi, where our family was evacuated during the war, and where eighteen-year-old Dávik Bronstein arrived in a terrible state from Kyiv.
 
He had fled from Kyiv, completely alone. He was not born in Kyiv but in Bila Tserkva. His parents disappeared in 1937 during the Stalinist purges, and Dávik was left an orphan at a very young age. So, in a terrible state, abandoned by everyone, he appeared in Tbilisi during the war. They assigned him as a watchman at some swimming pool, and he spent whole days sitting on the shore with chess books, studying something diligently.
 
We got to know him after the Georgians organized a city championship. Naturally, they invited Dávik, who already had the title of master by then. He was the youngest master in the Soviet Union. Bronstein became a master at the age of sixteen.
 
I noticed him right from the first round — you know, that round face of a small-town boy. However, it wasn't his appearance that attracted attention, no, but rather his eccentricities, without which it was impossible to imagine Bronstein's character. He was a great chess player and a great eccentric. He was full of ancient chess information and never let go of a chess handbook published by the Germans just before the end of the last century.
 
By the way, in that Tbilisi tournament, I managed to win my first game against him. After that, he immediately won six games, and I drew two. So, we ended up equal. But when the Georgians realized that the question of the Tbilisi champion would be decided between us, they announced that the tournament was being terminated due to a lack of... venue.
 
In total, I spent two years in Tbilisi, studying at the institute, and in the Pioneers' Palace — the former residence of Prince Vorontsov — as if nothing had happened, I continued to lead the chess club. And once, during a session that I held for schoolchildren, the leader of the club, Master Blagidze, said to me, "Look over there, at that Armenian boy sitting on the right. He plays magnificently, and he's only twelve years old..." Later, I found out that it was Tigran Petrosian.
 
Many years later, I asked him, "Do you remember that meeting?" He replied, "I not only remember that meeting, but I even remember which game we played." — "And who won?" — "Well, you beat me back then!" he laughed.
 
We will get back to Petrosian later, but for now, let's talk about Bronstein, whom we didn't meet very often after that Tbilisi tournament. Dávik went to Stalingrad, where he was invited. The war ended, and he moved to Moscow. His brilliant rise began. In a short period, he ascended like a meteor, winning tournament after tournament, and very soon, he became a chess player of world-class. And the most important thing was the style of his victories, the originality of his chess thinking.
 
In 1951, he faced Botvinnik in the first post-war match for the title of World Champion. He earned the right to play in this match through a series of brilliant victories. Those were the years when he was practically the world champion. In the Candidates Tournament, he shared first place with Isaak Boleslavsky, whom I liked as a chess player even more than Bronstein. Boleslavsky was an absolute chess classic, while David was more of a surrealist. Nevertheless, they were very close friends, and the match between them, which ended with Bronstein's victory, had no impact on their friendship. They constantly teased each other, but it never diminished their affection for one another.
 
I remember during the Bronstein-Botvinnik match, I visited David at the "Pekin" hotel. Boleslavsky was in his room, and I asked him, "Isaak Efremovich, what are your chances of competing for the world championship?" (Despite losing to Bronstein, I continued to idolize him.) Boleslavsky remained silent, and Bronstein laughed and said that he had no chance of becoming the world champion. I asked, "Why?" - "Well," continued Bronstein, "because he already has a little tummy!" And he patted Boleslavsky's belly. That's the kind of relationship they had: they joked with each other as they pleased, and no one took offense.
 
What was most striking about Bronstein's character was his good-naturedness and that very peculiarity I mentioned earlier.

He completely lacked the "killer instinct." It is believed that a true chess player must possess the qualities of a fighter, a passionate desire to destroy the opponent. This is usually evident in their demeanor, behavior at the chessboard, and even in their appearance. Journalists poetically called this the "killer instinct." This "instinct" was highly developed in Botvinnik, Fischer, and many other chess players. But it was completely absent in David Bronstein. Outwardly, he looked like a provincial Jew, somewhat out of this world, dressing strangely. And looking at him, you couldn't imagine that you were facing a great chess fighter who had conceived of becoming the world champion. However, it was not destined to be, although I find it hard to name anyone else who was so close to the chess throne in the struggle against the invincible Botvinnik.
 
In his game, Bronstein undoubtedly showed that by that time, in 1951, he had become the best chess player in the world. Formally, Botvinnik was the champion, but by then, he had already weakened a bit, although he successfully defended himself against his attacking contenders. The strongest and most dangerous opponent for Botvinnik was David Bronstein. And so, Botvinnik was clearly losing this match against Bronstein, which consisted of 24 games. In the end, Bronstein had one more point, and two draws would have been enough for him. Friends were already coming to congratulate him. It seemed that Botvinnik's days as the champion were numbered.
 
In the penultimate, twenty-third game, Botvinnik agreed to a draw in a slightly better endgame. He knew very well that the young Bronstein lacked the same experience in endings as he did. Gradually, move by move, Botvinnik managed to win that endgame and then drew the final game. The match score became 12:12. According to the regulations, in the event of a tie, the current World Champion retains the title.
 
This unexpected finish had a tremendous impact on Bronstein. It was as if Botvinnik had killed his aspirations for good with that game. After that, he could no longer seriously compete for the World Champion title. To a certain extent, his fighting spirit was broken.
 
Every time I met Bronstein after that, he no longer talked about the world championship but increasingly discussed chess reforms.
 
He was an avid chess reformer. For example, for many years, he toyed with the idea of swapping the queen and king positions, changing the regulations for chess matches, turning them into a kind of half-face-off. He believed that in such a dynamic era as the 20th century, chess needed to be different, more dynamic.
 
However, his reformist ideas never extended beyond the chess realm. In politics, he was very cautious and never expressed any radical views, mindful of his parents' fate. Although, in this field too, he could be unexpectedly sharp-witted at times.
 
Bronstein's friends always teased him about his reformist ideas. But this did not dampen his reformist spirit. As a chess columnist for "Izvestia" and being on his favorite hobbyhorse, he once wrote, "How nice it would be to swap the queen and king positions!" In response to this, the acerbic Mikhail Yudovich replied in some other newspaper, "Well, really, what's the point of this reform? Chess, our classical chess, is complex enough, and no one has achieved perfection in it, including David Bronstein!" For some reason, Bronstein took offense at that, and when we met once, he said with annoyance, "This Yudovich is such a strange person! I didn't write for him; I wrote for the chess enthusiasts, to interest them and draw them to chess..."
 
It should be noted that he had some strange traits in his character.
 
He didn't come across as ambitious, but he became completely impatient when someone praised him.
Once I asked him, "Do you think it's true that Fischer plays brilliantly in endgames?" He smiled strangely and replied, "Do you think I play worse?"
 
In our conversations, he loved to philosophize.
 
"You know, what I think more and more often?" he said once, "that weightlifting as a sport is much more objective than chess. Chess is not an objective sport!" - "And why weightlifting, of all things?" I wondered. "Let me explain. Imagine you and I are competing. I lifted one hundred kilograms, and you - one hundred ten, and there's no dispute! But here in chess, someone can lift two hundred kilograms, and your partner lifted only fifty, but if you make a slight misstep at the end, he will be declared the winner."
 
This was said after he lost one of his most brilliant games. So, there was quite a profound thought in his reasoning: in chess, the sporting and creative sides often come into conflict. Therefore, a talented chess player can demonstrate genuine brilliance during the game, but victory may go to a less talented but composed and concentrated opponent.
 
Bronstein always loved giving assessments that were always unexpected. For instance, once he said, "Do you know how Petrosian plays? He plays very interestingly. He waits. And when your opponent is just waiting, and you're playing, you inevitably make some mistake during the game. He pretends not to notice that mistake. You make another one. And that's when he grabs you, and no force can help you anymore." It must be said that this is a completely accurate assessment of Petrosian's style.
 
Bronstein's observational skills always amazed me. Once, Kotov, Bronstein, and I were sent to Amsterdam to participate in a tournament. And then, Davíd and I noticed that Kotov was nowhere to be found during the day: neither in the lobby nor in the cafeteria, nor anywhere nearby. Where was Kotov?
 
Several days passed, and Davíd told me, "You know, in the morning, Kotov, holding an old worn-out briefcase and wearing a cap on his head, quickly goes somewhere. And you know who he looks like at that moment? Like Jean Gabin! And do you know where he's going? He's going to the Soviet embassy, where you can buy everything cheap!" Bronstein himself was a complete nonconformist - for him, there was no world of things that others worshipped.
 
As for his political creed, as I mentioned before, he never allowed himself any liberties. "We live in their country," he once said, "so why should we complain?" I thought that was his essence - a timid, provincial oddball, incapable of any decisive action. Only much later did I realize how wrong I was. And how little I knew him - he simply didn't like to protest. But inwardly, he was deeply honest and, I would even say, a strong person. When it was necessary to sign an anti-Korchnoi letter, only two people refused to do it - Botvinnik and Bronstein. Botvinnik had nothing serious to fear with his reputation. But Bronstein took this courageous step, risking to lose everything - his scholarship, the right to travel abroad, and so on. He depended on the authorities in many ways. And despite that, his internal honesty didn't allow him to make a deal with his conscience. By the way, after that letter, he did become a non-traveler.
 
And now, years later, as I assess Bronstein's role in the history of world chess, I increasingly wonder - who was he: a brilliant practitioner or a great chess thinker?
 
Once, I remember, we were traveling together on a train and started talking about the past. And, naturally, we remembered his famous match with Botvinnik when he unexpectedly and dramatically lost. And then, to my surprise, he said: "Do you think I wanted to win that match? I never intended to win it! Can't you see what a happiness it is to be a champion?"
 
I still don't know what it was: lingering resentment, bravado, or regret that he didn't develop his brilliant talent in a completely different, philosophical direction.
continued...
]]> Sun, 23 Jul 2023 20:30:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?essay-on-chess-elite-bronstein https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/00000005B <![CDATA[Essay on chess Elite. BONDAREVSKY]]> imblog
the beginning...
BONDAREVSKY
(1913-1979)
Igor Bondarevsky began his career with a brilliant victory in 1940. He became the champion of the Union and a Grandmaster of the USSR simultaneously. Bondarevsky's fans celebrated in the streets of Rostov-on-Don, where he lived. It's hard to believe, but his portraits were displayed alongside portraits of the "Father of the People" (*Stalin). During the tournament, he won a personal encounter against the legendary Botvinnik, who was surrounded by legendary fame in those years. However, this jubilation was short-lived: a telegram arrived from the Physical Culture Committee, proposing that the young champion now play in a special match-tournament for the absolute championship of the country, with the participation of Lilienthal, Keres, Boleslavsky, and Botvinnik.
 
Many of Bondarevsky's friends were puzzled: what does it mean, in general, to be an absolute champion? Chess is not boxing after all. "No matter," confidently replied Bondarevsky, "Botvinnik thirsts for revenge, and he will get it." It was indeed an unprecedented competition, whose purpose was to correct the unexpected outcome of the championship. And it was corrected thanks to Botvinnik's infernal work ethic and will, as he won the tournament with a two-and-a-half-point lead.
 
The victory of 1940 was Bondarevsky's shining hour, and his figure still stands out on the Soviet chess horizon to this day.
 
He was a true Cossack and even resembled Grigory Melekhov in some ways. Although he graduated from the Institute of Engineering and Economics, he stood out in the intellectual circles and became one of the most prominent chess players, never fully shedding his Cossack and Melekhovian traits throughout his life. He could not be called the Bach, Chopin, or Gershwin of Soviet chess.
 
He had a subtle and brilliant chess mind. But in my memory, "Bondar" remained rough, flamboyant, and striking with his zest for life. His unabashed brusqueness shocked many of the chess players who considered themselves refined intellectuals.
 
In the Rostov Pioneer House, he often raised his voice at his students. At the same time, he loved them and was considered an excellent methodologist.
 
Bondarevsky was the only one who tried to create something akin to his own school. Did Botvinnik ever have students? Never. The same goes for Smyslov and Tal.
 
They simply weren't interested.
 
Bondarevsky had his own methodology and chess training program. Despite this, he was a person consumed by ambition, especially after the victory of 1940. As he constantly encountered Jews on his chess path, particularly brilliant talents, he sometimes struggled to hide his aversion towards them. Among chess players, rumors persisted that Bondarevsky was anti-Semitic. The fact that he hailed from the Don Cossacks only fueled these rumors.
 
On the other hand, he didn't hold any particular fondness for the Soviet authorities. When the war began, and the Germans entered Rostov-on-Don, Bondarevsky decided to stay. However, the Germans were in Rostov for only a week, but it was enough for him to realize that he didn't align with Germany. Later, it turned out that during that week, he managed to play a match against Romanian master Troianescu, but he himself was in distress. The Germans paid no attention to him; after all, he was just a Russian Grandmaster.
 
Soon after the war, I met him in Leningrad, where I was studying at the Polytechnic Institute. He was no longer the endlessly confident chess player once hailed as the "hope of Soviet chess." His play became dry; there was almost nothing left of his former brilliance and imagination. Occasionally, the press praised him (“Grandmaster Igor Bondarevsky cut into the king’s flank,” the “poet” said after one of his beautiful victories).
 
But soon enough, he realized that he wouldn't regain his former strength and glory, so he fully devoted himself to coaching. I must say that he excelled in this field. During this time, he connected with Spassky and practically made him the world champion, mainly by making him work.
 
The thing is, by nature, Spassky was lazy and, of course, bohemian. Despite his brilliant talent, he was absolutely incapable of working on chess by himself. Smyslov wasn't a paragon of work ethic either, but he could work if he wanted to, whereas Spassky simply couldn't; he lacked that drive. He was a sybarite by nature, enjoying artistic pursuits. Nevertheless, this didn't prevent him from befriending Bondarevsky. However, Bondarevsky had to put in a lot of effort to convince Spassky of the necessity of working, especially within a certain system. Spassky became unrecognizable. He started playing openings more strictly and became a more classical player. It was a rare case where a trainer sculpted him into a refined artist.
 
By the way, in the history of Spassky and Bondarevsky's relationship, there was an incident when the so-called Soviet society tried to interfere in the chess life, and the chess elite showed high solidarity in defending the principles of fair and professional play. In order to qualify for the interzonal tournament, Spassky had to win the Soviet Union Championship. There were only three participants in this tournament: Spassky, Kholmov, and Leonid Stein. Kholmov was an alcoholic, and no one seriously counted on him, but in the match between Stein and Spassky, the sympathy of the public was fully on Spassky's side, although Leonid Stein, despite his erratic behavior, was no less talented than him and had a broader approach as a chess player. In short, in the Spassky-Stein match, Stein emerged victorious. However, after some time, a letter from a group of writers, including someone named Safonov, appeared in one of the newspapers, probably in "Vechernie Izvestiya". The letter stated that they, as chess enthusiasts, regularly gathered at the Central House of Writers and that they greatly admired the creativity and play of Boris Spassky. They were extremely disappointed when Leonid Stein won the Championship of the Soviet Union and the right to participate in the interzonal tournament.
 
"We believe that this result should be corrected. Spassky should defend our honor!"
 
I remember that after this, Korchnoi called a press conference, an outraged letter was written, and that fool Safonov went around apologizing. But I want to emphasize that in this indignation of the professionals against the interference of the amateurs, the chess players were absolutely unanimous. And Igor Bondarevsky, who perhaps felt more disappointed than others about Spassky's loss, was fully in solidarity with everyone.
 
They say that upon reading the letter from Safonov and his comrades in the newspaper, he exclaimed in anger, "What a fool!" Naturally, when Spassky became the World Champion, Bondarevsky was back on top, but then some sort of black cat crossed their path, and they drifted apart.
 
I once met "Bondar," as they called him, and asked what had happened. He was deeply upset and mumbled something incoherent, "I don't even know what happened myself." For him, Spassky was, as they say, his last support in life.
 
By that time, he was already ill, smoked a lot, and started drinking. Actually, he had been drinking for a long time, even when they were friends with Spassky, and after their falling out, he had bouts of drinking.
 
Once, again shortly before their rift, I met Bondarevsky and Spassky in one of the restaurants. It was just before the Fischer-Petrosian match. Both were in high spirits, and both came to me with the same question: "Well, Aleksándrovich," as they called me, "how many points do you give to Petrosian? Maximum?" I said, "Maximum three points." - "Excellent! I propose a bet of five hundred to fifteen hundred rubles that you will lose," offered Spassky.
 
Some time passed, and it turned out that Petrosian only scored two and a half points. Then, we met Spassky at the Central Chess Club, and he said, "Listen, Aleksandrovich, I lost the bet to you. So, I'm ready to immediately return you the debt. How do you want it: champagne, money, or something else?" I declined the champagne as I simply didn't know how to drink like Spassky and Bondarevsky. So, he promptly repaid the debt with money.
 
As for their quarrel, there were different rumors. Some believed it happened after Fischer defeated Spassky, and the latter blamed his coach for not preparing him well. Others said it was due to Bondarevsky's rudeness. Bondarevsky often yelled at Spassky, who would usually respond, "Calm down, Dad!" But perhaps at some point, Spassky's patience reached its limit?
 
After the dispute with Spassky, Bondarevsky settled permanently in the North Caucasus, and the only person he continued to train was his wife, Valya Kozlovskaya, a sweet and simple woman who adored him. Because he was, after all, an extraordinary person. However, he was also rude to her. I myself witnessed how, once after she lost a game, he yelled at her, "Again, you fool, you made a mistake! I told you to play this way, not like that." She was deeply upset, but it didn't change anything.
 
As her coach, he traveled with her to various tournaments, and they were together abroad several times, despite his tarnished biography. But one time, he was appointed as her coach for a very important interzonal women's tournament, somewhere in Yugoslavia. I repeat, it was a highly prestigious trip. However, the sports committee had a rule: for instance, if a person was included in the delegation and had a flight at 5 o'clock the next day, they would say, "Come tomorrow at 2, get your documents, and we'll take you to the airport ourselves."
 
They told the same to Bondarevsky. I was at the sports committee that day and saw how they waited in the special department. They came out of there completely bewildered, especially Valya, pale as death. It turned out they had only prepared documents for her, not for Bondarevsky. Valya cried. Bondarevsky barely muttered, "Let's go."
 
Later, I was told that they knew in advance that they wouldn't issue documents to Bondarevsky for that tournament, but they were supposed to inform him right before the departure.
 
That's how sadistic the system was.
 
After that incident, Bondarevsky didn't go anywhere anymore. He became what is commonly referred to as "restricted from travel."
 
In his last years, he drank heavily, lived on a meager stipend, and was completely forgotten. He died in complete obscurity.
 continued...
]]> Fri, 21 Jul 2023 17:52:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?essay-on-chess-elite-bondarevsky https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000059 <![CDATA[Essay on chess Elite. TAL]]> imblog
January 10, 1968.
Photo: Wikimedia Commons
TAL
(1936-1992)
Mikhail Tal - the magician of chess combinations, the creator of a creative direction, a person who revolutionized chess - is a completely unique phenomenon. I don't even know who to compare him with to form a more or less accurate representation of him. I'll start by saying that I knew him better than anyone else among Soviet chess players because I was his coach for many years. We often spent time together, traveled a lot, and talked about many things.

Tal was from Riga, and I remember the time when he was a dark-skinned, unremarkable, somewhat shabby Jewish boy, but even then, he had a colorful face. Large burning eyes, an aquiline nose... He was naturally missing two fingers on his right hand. In his childhood, he had polio, and in general, he didn't stand out physically - he was slender, with one shoulder lower than the other, and he always looked sickly.
 
But he immediately captivated me with his game: this Jewish boy, when no one knew him yet, took first place in the semifinals of the USSR Championship.
 
It was in Riga in 1952, and it's characteristic that he won his first game against me, so I gave him a boost in his career. I took for granted that I would win against this young boy, played carelessly, and very soon found myself in a precarious position. He played brilliantly, although he was only a candidate master at that time.
 
Then a funny story happened. He won a match for the title of master against a well-known Belarusian chess player. After that, the game was submitted for the awarding of the title - in these cases, the quality of play was considered. So, they sent the game for review to the then chairman of the qualification commission, Master Ravinsky. He had several candidates, including some from Moscow. And he granted the title of master to everyone except Tal.
 
Ravinsky said about Tal, "He is still too raw."
 
Two years later, he became the champion of the Soviet Union. Among the entire chess elite, he was the most brilliant person, very bright, and, I would say, unlike many others - a very social person. He possessed an absolutely fantastic memory and was capable of reacting to all sorts of things.
 
I noticed that he could write an article and immediately throw out remarks unrelated to the article. He was a brilliant journalist and the life of any gathering he appeared in. Foreign newspapers literally fought for him because he gave interviews that were unusual and, most importantly, witty.
 
However, he was a very sick person. He suffered from kidney disease and later lived with only one kidney. Throughout his life, he experienced excruciating kidney colics. To alleviate the pain, he was constantly administered morphine, often during tournaments. His pain was so intense that most people would have been unable to bear it, yet he managed to play.
 
During the 1961 tournament against Botvinnik for the World Championship title, an ambulance came to him every day.
 
Nevertheless, all of this did not make him any less cheerful, witty, or resourceful. Once, a journalist enthusiast asked him in my presence, "Please tell me, Mikhail Nekhemievich, what is your style? Can we call you a Chigorin player?" At that time, it was a very trendy topic: Chigorin, Chigorin players—everyone was talking about them. But Tal replied, "No, I am not a Chigorin player, I am a morphinist."
 
He said this not because he was injected with morphine almost every day to relieve his pain, but because he was a genuine admirer of the great American chess player Morphy.
 
He was a ladies' man, although he couldn't be called handsome. He was simply remarkably charming.
 
He had the longest and perhaps the most passionate romance with the Moscow film actress Larisa Sobolevskaya. She was a very young and striking woman, and incidentally, a first-category chess player.
 
I even remember once she came to me at the Trud Society chess club and said, "I have a postponed game, and I want to analyze it and win because then I will obtain the first category." I replied, "Well, please show me your position." The position was losing.
 
"How can you possibly win," I said, "when you have a worse position?" To which she replied, "So, you are unable to help me in this position? In that case, I'll go to the Dynamo Society." I paid no attention to that remark at the time. However, it turned out to be the sports society associated with the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MVD) and the KGB, with which Sobolevskaya happened to be connected.
 
She got involved with many people and eventually ensnared Misha as well. She was older than Tal but looked much younger because she took great care of herself. She enjoyed drinking. It was said that when she drank, she would perform the cancan on the table. However, what I read about her in John Barron's book "KGB" astonished me. It turns out she was the same Kronberg-Sobolevskaya who, on the orders of the authorities, entered into an intimate relationship with the French ambassador in Moscow, Zhenean, which almost caused an international scandal. De Gaulle's sarcastic phrase upon learning of this story is well-known: "So, Zhenean, women bring pleasure!" I don't think Tal knew about any dark connections his lover had with the KGB, although their romance lasted quite a long time.    
 
I remember such an episode. Misha and I were included in the delegation going to a tournament in Mallorca, Spain. Sobolevskaya, who came to see him off at the airport, brought a whole list of things she asked him to bring. Among them, I remember there was a dress with sequins. At that time, their romance was in full swing, and Tal tried to fulfill her every wish.
 
And one beautiful day, during the tournament, someone knocked on the door of my room, and a strange creature squeezed into the room—I even got scared and didn't understand at all that it was Tal dressed in a sequined dress.
 
He didn't buy anything for himself, even though he had plenty of money. He was wearing a torn jacket. It was difficult to persuade him to buy a suit and shoes. He didn't go to the store himself but took out a wad of money from his wallet and, without asking about the prices, said: "Here's the address, go and buy this and that, and bring it to me at the hotel."
 
He was a person devoid of any practical vein, and he could be considered a bohemian. He loved company, loved to drink and knew how to. After his kidney was removed, doctors strictly forbade him from drinking, but for some reason, he came up with the idea that he could only drink brandy and not wine. And he continued to drink as before.
 
He traveled a lot and played a lot. His main apartment was in Riga. He lived with Sobolevskaya in Moscow for quite a long time. And once, he almost got stuck in Georgia for life. They found him a bride there, and the Georgians, in general, dreamed of Misha Tal staying with them forever. But the wedding didn't work out, even though the bride had her own house and some livestock—either a cow or a goat.
 
From time to time, the bride would call him and say, "Listen, Misha, when will you come to me?" And each time he would give the same answer, "You see, I'm terribly busy, I don't have a minute of free time!" So he left Tbilisi without ever meeting his bride.
 
The authorities were quite indifferent towards Tal, except for the time when he was the world champion. Then they courted him, and besides, he was irreplaceable in certain aspects. For example, if they wanted to showcase a product to foreign journalists. No other chess player spoke so eloquently. No one sparkled with such charisma and impromptu as Tal did. He couldn't be caught off guard under any circumstances. He never made mistakes.
 
The Spassky-Tal match took place in Tbilisi. I was Tal's coach. The newspaper "Trud" assigned him to write a major article on "The results of the first half of the match."
 
I went to his room in the morning, he was still in his robe, with the beautiful Sobolevskaya. At that time, she never parted with him for a day, and I must say, she took care of him quite tenderly. She would comb his hair in the mornings, feed him with a spoon, while Misha sat there, fixing his demonic gaze on the chessboard.
 
"Misha," I said, "it's time to start studying. It's already eleven o'clock." At that moment, the phone rang. Sobolevskaya picked up the receiver and whispered, "Misha, it's from 'Trud'... Now he takes the phone, and I hear on the other end of the line, 'Mikhail Nekhemievich, hello! Our stenographer is ready. Can we begin?' 'Yes, we can,' he replies, settling comfortably in the chair and starts dictating the article.
 
He constructed his sentences with precision, placing the necessary emphasis on meaning. He drew conclusions where needed. He indicated where paragraphs should go, when to use commas, and when to use periods.
 
In short, he spoke as if he had spent the whole night preparing to dictate the article.
 
Unlike Botvinnik, Tal was never an ascetic. He was married several times and generally led a rather turbulent personal life.
 
His first marriage was with an estrada actress from Riga named Salli. They had a son, also named Misha. She was highly social and a very beautiful woman. Later, they separated while maintaining good relations. She emigrated and lived and performed somewhere in Germany, while their son wanted to return to Russia. He returned, and Tal maintained good relations with him to this day.
 
Later, when Tal settled down, he married again, this time to one of the employees of the Riga Chess Club, who didn't amount to much but became strongly attached to him.
 
The last time I saw him was in Switzerland. He looked terrible. His face became completely demonic. He had only a few hairs left on his head. He had deteriorated greatly. He complained of high blood pressure. And with high blood pressure, it's generally time to give up on chess. Moreover, three years ago, his mother, whom he loved very much, passed away. In short, he was no longer the same Tal I knew in the past.
 
In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that if there is a Paganini in chess—in character, appearance, and talent—it is only Tal. If we continue this parallel between chess and music, we can say that Botvinnik is Bach, and Smyslov is Chopin. By the way, Tal himself drew this parallel. But since he was a very modest person, he by no means considered himself Paganini. Once I asked him, "Well, who are you, Misha?" He pondered for a moment and said, "Me? I am Gershwin."
 continued...
]]> Wed, 19 Jul 2023 20:32:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?essay-on-chess-elite-tal https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000058 <![CDATA[Essay on chess Elite. SMYSLOV]]> imblog
 Interzonal chess tournament in GAK building. Smyslov vs. Larsen
May 26, 1964
Photo: Wikimedia Commons
the beginning...
SMYSLOV
(1921-2010)
If one can imagine a person diametrically opposite to Botvinnik in terms of mentality, character, and demeanor, that person would be Vasili Vasilevich Smyslov.
 
I first met him during our youth. But I got to know him better after moving to Moscow in 1959. I played with him and met him at training camps on multiple occasions.
 
Botvinnik was a technocrat, an ascetic, perpetually absorbed in himself, and often condescending towards others. Smyslov, on the other hand, had the character of a typical intellectual—soft, delicate, and, if you will, even eccentric.
 
During our training camps in the suburbs of Moscow, we would often wander in the forest and collect mushrooms. Smyslov would sing in the forest.
 
He had a pleasant baritone voice, and in my opinion, deep down, he regretted not becoming a professional singer.
 
However, I don't think anyone, except himself, took his talent as a vocalist seriously. But whenever we gathered as a group and wanted to please him, we would ask him to sing something, and he would willingly agree.
 
Once, he even got a little offended by my wife, although he didn't show it. The three of us were walking in the forest, gathering mushrooms, and he was singing as usual. "Vasili Vasilevich, could you sing a bit louder?" she asked. "You will be our landmark so that we don't get lost." He fell silent. But I felt that my wife, unintentionally, had touched a nerve.
 
And recently, when we met in London (I saw him twice after my emigration), he told me that they were planning to release a small record of his in Amsterdam. "Something happened to my voice," he said. "It's just terrible! Don't believe me? Would you like me to sing something for you?" And he sang.
 
"Oh, Vasili Vasilevich, you were magnificent!" I tried to reassure him.
 
"What do you mean, magnificent? It's not there! You know, recently I went to a priest and said, 'Father, what is happening to me? My voice is failing...' 'Oh,' he said, 'my son, you must have sinned.' 'Well, Father, apparently something happened,'" Smyslov chuckled as he recounted the story to me.
 
After some time, it seems he regained his voice and eventually recorded the record. He sang well-known songs like "Iz-za ostrova na strezhen," "Volga, matushka, reka," and many pieces from Shalyapin's repertoire.
 
He was even auditioned at the Bolshoi Theatre once. But, of course, the people there were cultured, and they said, "Oh, how wonderful, Vasili Vasilevich! You have such talent!" He was happy, but then a rather amusing scene unfolded.
 
One musician from the Bolshoi Theatre's orchestra asked, "Tell me, Vasili Vasilevich, what is your main profession?"

By the way, this is the scariest question for chess professionals. They usually get fierce when they hear it.
 
But Smyslov didn't lose his composure and, in turn, asked: "Excuse me, what is your main profession?" The other replied, "I play the flute." "And I play chess," said Smyslov.
 
Everyone laughed. He knew how to easily and elegantly get out of any situation.
 
However, during the game, he showed exceptional willpower and determination to win, and this strength of his chess genius sharply contrasted with his gentleness and eccentricity as a natural-born intellectual outside the game.
 
Smyslov was a worthy opponent of Botvinnik. It wouldn't be wrong to say that he was practically the world champion for many years, although officially he held the title for only two years.
 
Smyslov was the only one of Botvinnik's rivals to whom he had no animosity and, perhaps, even some sympathy. And it was hard to have a negative opinion of him. He was always polite and gentle, always accompanied by his devoted wife Nadyusha, and they strolled dignifiedly hand in hand. By the way, he recently came to London with the same Nadyusha, although she has aged. She revered him so much that she always called him by his first and patronymic name, Vasili Vasilevich, even when he was very young.
 
It should be mentioned that the higher circles that Smyslov associated with were somewhat different from those who sympathized with Botvinnik. Not that they had less respect for him, but he was just more of his own. Behind his back, they affectionately called him Vasya, and it was silently understood that unlike any Jewish prodigies, he was our Russian genius, Vasya Smyslov. Of course, it was never mentioned out loud that he had a Jewish mother, although he looked like one, and it was a stretch to simply call this intellectual and nobleman Vasya.
 
By the way, the higher circles that Smyslov met with were different from those who sympathized with Botvinnik.
 
As we remember, Botvinnik was loved by scientists like Kapitsa, Landau, Ioffe. Smyslov was favored by Suslov, and it was said that they were even close neighbors. However, many explained it not by Smyslov's talent, but by the outstanding culinary skills of his Nadyusha. She organized magnificent dinners. That's why Suslov was invited to those occasions.
 
Thanks to his connections, Smyslov often attended international meetings, bypassing numerous grueling qualifying tournaments. This, of course, couldn't help but provoke antipathy from young chess players towards him.
 
In recent years, Smyslov has become a deeply religious person. Judging by his statements, he sincerely believes in the existence of Satan and Satanism. He refers to one of the most famous chess players as the "chief devil of Soviet chess." He is fascinated by astrology and believes in his own special mission. In my opinion, this faith he has acquired in recent years has helped him a lot over the chessboard.
 
A person who carries religious ideals in his soul, with God in his heart, always gains additional strength. This probably happened to Smyslov when he achieved a series of brilliant victories in recent years. However, on the other hand, even faith couldn't change his character - gentle, eccentric, and somewhat otherworldly as an intellectual. Not to mention his talent, which seems to encompass both Jewish and Russian genius, making him so unique.
 
And finally, one detail, if you will, another stroke that characterizes Smyslov. It so happened that the international grandmaster Lev Alburt, while in Germany, defected to the West from the team captained by Vasily Vasilyevich Smyslov. And when they started to investigate how it happened, they decided to invite him for a conversation. The conversation was conducted in the manner in which such conversations usually take place. "Well, Vasily Vasilyevich, how could this happen, almost before your eyes, and you allowed it!" To which Smyslov replied, "You see, he is a person of a different generation, and besides, this Alburt is a demonic personality..."
continued...
]]> Mon, 17 Jul 2023 20:52:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?essay-on-chess-elite-smyslov https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000057 <![CDATA[Essay on chess Elite. BOTVINNIK]]> imblog
January 14, 1969
photo: Wikimedia Commons

Leonid Shamkovich (1923-2005) was an American chess player, grandmaster since 1965.

My entire life is connected to chess, and to a great extent, chess journalism. I have written a great number of chess essays, reports, short stories, and sketches. But I have always had a desire to write something that, while being organically related to the chess life, goes far beyond journalism. It seems to me that the boundaries of this genre are too narrow to approach the understanding of the psychology of those who are called great chess players and whose talent leads chess to great triumphs today.
 
My life has turned out in such a way that I constantly had the opportunity to meet outstanding masters. I was well acquainted with individuals like Botvinnik and Bondarevsky, and I had a close friendship with others like Smyslov or Mikhail Tal. But in one way or another, their lives unfolded before my eyes. I was often a willing or unwilling witness to their rises and falls, their psychological dramas, and sometimes even tragedies.
 
Of course, I am not capable of fully depicting the rich mosaic of their lives. But if I can outline some additional traits of their characters and, as a result, present them as more vivid, alive, and dynamic, then I will consider my task accomplished.
 
To this day, the so-called "Soviet chess phenomenon" remains a mystery to Western observers. It is truly a paradox that such a brilliant constellation of chess masters emerged not in a free world, where there is ample space for creativity, but under a totalitarian regime. However, if we reflect on it, it is not so difficult to find an explanation for this contradiction.
 
The fact is that chess, due to its very essence, proved to be immune to a regime that sought to control thought and creativity. Even music and painting were subject to partisan criteria, thus excluding the possibility of free creativity.
 
Chess remained the only, or almost the only, realm where talent could freely manifest itself, and nothing could hinder the expression of one's personality.
 
In the gray Soviet life, almost all opportunities for the manifestation of intellect, imagination, the play of the mind, and the struggle of passions were stifled. And that is why chess became a kind of analogy, an algorithm of life, where talents suppressed by the regime could demonstrate their full power.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LITERATURE AND SOCIAL PROBLEMS "TIME AND WE" - 1984 №77

BOTVINNIK
(1911-1995)
I first saw Botvinnik in 1959 when I moved to the capital. Those were already the years of his chess glory. With his chess circle, he was quite cold, if not arrogant. And I, a young chess player at that time, was no exception.
 
Even then, one could talk about Botvinnik as a chess phenomenon. But I think that as a person, he started shaping himself much earlier because he already occupied a special place in the Soviet chess hierarchy since the mid-1930s.
 
Even in those years, when he won several tournaments and became the first Soviet Grandmaster, Botvinnik was not just the first, he was a chess star.
 
No one could be compared to him in terms of authority and playing class.
 
It is not by chance that before the war, each of us looked up to him as some kind of deity. I want to stop on this because not long ago, I met Botvinnik again in New York.

He was 73 years old, and he was already somewhat different. Later on, I will compare these two Botvinniks, but for now, I would like to focus on his youth.

He was the son of a dentist from St. Petersburg, a quite affluent person, and therefore, despite his Jewish background, he had obtained the right to reside in St. Petersburg even before the revolution.
 
Botvinnik was born in 1911. Apparently, his "petty-bourgeois origin" made itself known for some time.
 
There is a well-known anecdotal case that happened to him when he applied to Leningrad Polytechnic Institute. Perhaps it was the first time that his chess talent came to his aid. It was around 1929, a year when proletarian origin was almost mandatory for future students. And of course, Botvinnik, with his dentist father, had zero chances of getting into university. It was then, completely unexpectedly, that the well-known chess figure Rokhlin intervened on his behalf. Rokhlin was an extremely clever and energetic person who was the first to recognize the talent of young Botvinnik. Rokhlin went to the admissions committee and delivered a passionate speech in defense of Botvinnik, stating that he actually came from a proletarian family. Yes, his father was indeed a dentist, but he was a proletarian dentist who treated workers, peasants, and soldiers. In the end, he managed to confuse the committee so much that they still accepted Botvinnik into the institute, and it was with this institute that his entire scientific career became associated.
 
Again, I don't know of any other Soviet chess player who experienced such a dizzying ascent as Botvinnik. At the age of 25, he already became the absolute champion of the USSR. Fortune clearly favored him during those years.
 
Perhaps not everyone is aware that the chess boss in the USSR at that time was Nikolai Krylenko, the People's Commissar for Justice, who loved chess, played quite well, and, it must be said, did a lot for its development. Well, Krylenko personally sympathized greatly with Botvinnik. Moreover, he treated him with a certain respect and even reverence. Their relationship, at least for those times, was quite unique.
 
While everyone around groveled before the mighty Krylenko or feared him to death, Botvinnik treated him as an equal.
 
I believe that during those years, Botvinnik's behavior was shaped, as he always carried himself independently from a young age. This did not prevent him from being flexible and cautious. But he never engaged in deceit or humiliated himself, which sharply distinguished him from many, even within his chess circle. I don't think this was due to any special personal courage of Botvinnik. He simply knew his worth and to some extent felt his own indispensability: they could arrest any minister, writer, or artist, but it was quite difficult to do the same with him - there was no other Botvinnik in the country.
 
His second at the time, Master Goldberg, told me such a case. In 1935, the First Moscow International Tournament took place in Moscow. Lasker, Capablanca, and others were playing...
 
At the finish of this international tournament, Botvinnik was leading and had to play the final game against the famous master of those times, Ilya Rabinovich. Rabinovich was not a strong personality, and if he were ordered to, he would have obediently lost.
 
And so, on the eve of the game, Krylenko invited Botvinnik and said, "Misha, everything is fine, Rabinovich is going to lose. There's no question about it. And you will either become the sole winner or, in the worst case, share first and second place."
 
According to Goldberg, Botvinnik responded as follows: "I don't wish to discuss this matter at all - there will be fair play!" - and, after a curt farewell to Krylenko, he left the room. In those years, few people could afford to speak to Krylenko in such a tone.
 
The next day the game took place - it was very intense, tough, but completely fair - and as a result of the tournament, Botvinnik shared first and second place with Salo Flohr.
 
But let's return to Botvinnik's character. He was a typical ascetic and pedant, with not very pronounced Jewish features. If anything struck you about him, it was his extraordinarily cold, penetrating eyes.
 
He spoke with a slight gruffness, in a deep baritone, but very impressively, in a tone that excluded any argument or opposing point of view. What Botvinnik said was the truth. Often, he didn't even speak; he delivered a verdict.
 
In connection with this, I recall an episode that Boris Spassky told me. Spassky is a very lively and versatile person, who also possesses excellent stage abilities - he does amazing imitations of people's voices, and if you get him started, he brilliantly performs humorous scenes on any topic.
 
So, one day he decided to imitate Botvinnik. The scene went something like this. At that time, Botvinnik had Semyon Furman as his coach. The tournament was taking place somewhere abroad.

And Botvinnik postponed his game - he was playing against Fischer - it was their only match. He postponed the game in a difficult position and very concisely said to Furman, his second: "Here's the position for you. Analyze it. And give me the result tomorrow." And immediately added, "Sign that I gave you this position." (Botvinnik always insisted on signatures in such cases; he demanded them even for analyzing a game. If someone analyzed a game and handed him the analysis, he wouldn't take it until the author of the analysis put their signature on it.)
 
Furman was an outstanding theorist and analyst. He would sit, analyze, and discover many interesting things. The next day, he met with Botvinnik and handed everything over to him. "Did you sign it?" was the first question. "Yes!" - "Good, leave it, I'll tell you in a couple of hours."
 
A couple of hours later, they met, and Furman, burning with impatience, asked, "Well, Mykhailo Moiseyevych, what do you think of my analysis?" - "Your analysis is nonsense!" - "But how can it be, Mykhailo Moiseyevych? I found good chances for salvation there!" - "The conversation is over!"
 
That's how he always was. Dry and ascetic, not allowing himself anything in life, capable of pushing himself to exhaustion if the goal required it, namely victory, which he strived for. He was equally cruel towards others. Cruel, dry, and absolutely sparing with praise.
 
Naturally, he had plenty of enemies. It is known, for example, that Bronstein was deeply offended by him after the 1953 match. Bronstein was winning against Botvinnik. But in the end, he lost a game, and the match ended in a draw. In such cases, it is customary to praise your opponent, acknowledge the quality of their play, but Botvinnik wrote in his "Collection of Best Games": "Yes, I have come to the conclusion that Bronstein is a good tactician." Such statements are usually made about talented amateurs, not world-class masters.
 
My meetings with Botvinnik were quite short. But even in those, some traits of his character, including his suspiciousness, manifested.
 
Once I told him that I met the chess player O'Kelly abroad, who would like to have his book with an autograph. "I have a book here," I said. "O'Kelly," he began to remember feverishly. "O'Kelly... I think he wrote something unfavorable about me!" The thing is, besides everything else, Botvinnik kept a special notebook in which he listed all the existing reviews about him, both good and bad. He intentionally maintained such a record. "I don't remember now, but I think he said something unfavorable about me somewhere," Botvinnik repeated. I was about to leave, but at the last minute, he finally signed the book, muttering something unintelligible.
 
On the other hand, if Botvinnik wanted or demanded something, it was impossible to make him give up that demand. It's not that he presented an irresistible argumentation; no, he simply possessed an iron determination to stand his ground.
 
At one point, he nearly drove the former chairman of the Sports Committee, Pavlov, to hysteria.
 
In the office of Pavlov, a meeting of all moscow grandmasters took place. Addressing them, he began very ceremoniously, saying that a new chairman of the All-Union Chess Federation had been elected, and we should discuss our tasks and outline new plans in a businesslike manner. Unexpectedly, Botvinnik raised his hand and said the following: "Sergiy Volodymyrovych, before we start discussing new tasks, I would like to hear your evaluation of the previous board's activities and its chairman" (Botvinnik had quarreled with them and was outraged by some of their actions). To this, Pavlov, after a slight hesitation, replied, "Well, comrades, let's not dwell on the past. Maybe they made some mistakes, but why dig into the past? We have a new board now, so let's talk about its future work."
 
Someone made a proposal, but very soon Botvinnik stood up again and precisely repeated what he had said a few minutes ago: "Sergiy Volodymyrovych, I would really like to hear your opinion on the previous board's activities and its chairman."
 
The essence was that the former chairman of the chess federation, Serov, was a responsible worker of the Party Central Committee, and naturally, Pavlov did not want to offend him. But Botvinnik was so relentless in pursuing the matter that I was extremely curious to see how it would end. Pavlov blushed and now exclaimed indignantly, "Mykhailo Moiseyevych! Why are you coming after me? What do you want from me?" - "I want, Sergiy Volodymyrovych," not a muscle on Botvinnik's face trembled, "for you to express your opinion on the work of the former chairman of the Chess Federation!" And Pavlov was forced to mutter something. Of course, he didn't say anything substantial, but he couldn't escape Botvinnik's tight grip.
 
In the USSR, there was an opinion that among all chess players, Botvinnik was the only one who was not a professional. He was a scientific researcher, a doctor of technical sciences, and thanks to that, his personality was surrounded by an even greater halo: not only a great chess player but also a scientist. In general, all of this was partly true and partly not.
 
In his time, when he was still a graduate student at the Polytechnic Institute but already at the height of his chess fame, he was the great Botvinnik. Chess successes helped him build a scientific career - he easily defended his candidate and then doctoral dissertations. However, to call him a scientist rather than a professional chess player would be incorrect.
 
When he was preparing for the World Championship in 1948, he devoted four years exclusively to chess - science did not exist for him at that time. But when he won the championship, he forgot about chess for the next four years.

In total, the "non-professional" Botvinnik was (with some breaks) the World Champion from 1948 to 1963, that is, for fifteen years!
 
By the beginning of the 1960s, a whole pleiad of brilliant grandmasters had emerged, who were in no way inferior to him, but he hardly competed with them. However, when it came to tournaments where it was necessary to demonstrate the highest technique, analytical skills, and, most importantly, an indomitable will to win, Botvinnik usually came out on top.
 
In the West, there is often interest in Botvinnik's personal life.
 
I think he didn't have a personal life at all, at least not until he left the chess arena.

He spent most of his time at his country house, following a strict daily routine. He walked eight to ten kilometers every day. He cherished every minute.

He lived next to Kapitsa, who loved him very much.
 
In general, many prominent scientists, such as Landau and academician Ioffe, loved and even revered him. They saw him as a significant figure endowed with iron willpower and a powerful apparatus of logical thinking.
 
He was married to the Leningrad ballerina, Gayane Ananov. Ananov was a professor at the Polytechnic Institute where I studied at one time.
 
Gayane had some mental issues, and from time to time, she ended up in a psychiatric hospital. The malicious tongues said, "With a person like Botvinnik, it's no wonder she went mad!"
 
Certainly, he was very despotic in his family, especially when he played chess. It was impossible to communicate with him on such days. He became withdrawn, didn't open newspapers, and became unbearably difficult to deal with. It was no coincidence that people said you couldn't approach him, even riding a white horse, during tournaments. And not only during tournaments. He was a person who had his own views and concepts about everything. He would speak openly about some and remain silent about others, but he still adhered to them in life. For example, he never considered it possible to have sympathy for his opponent across the chessboard. And he deliberately aroused antipathy towards them in himself.
 
Before sitting down to play with Petrosian, both grandmasters retired to a separate room in the Chess Club to discuss the match procedure. Reporters surrounded them, waiting for the opponents to come out and provide important information. But unexpectedly, the door swung open, and without looking at anyone, Botvinnik walked out. The only thing he managed to say was, "I have never seen such an intriguer in my life!"
 
Some call Botvinnik a Stalinist. I wouldn't dare paint him with just one brushstroke.
 
He was a complex, contradictory, and difficult person. Sometimes it seemed that beneath his outwardly impassive face, there hid a passionate temperament, perhaps passions worthy of Dostoevsky's pen. But if that was the case, he concealed it magnificently. He was not a Stalinist, but he was a product of his time, when moral and ethical norms were established in all spheres of life. Dryness and even despotism could be attributed to Botvinnik, as well as his occasionally maniacal suspicion.
 
During tournaments, he trusted no one, not even his second, Salo Flohr. He monitored his enemies' conduct and wanted to know precisely what and who was being said about him. But at the same time, the strength of his character, talent, and self-assurance helped him always stay within the boundaries of decency. He never flattered those in power or signed any condemnatory letters. He categorically refused to sign letters composed by others, and therefore, those missives didn't even dare to come his way.
 
From the late 1960s, Botvinnik made a drastic change in his personal life. He declared that he would stop playing and roughly from that time, he relinquished his customary asceticism. Not long ago, at banquets, when offered a drink, he would inquire about the type of wine and never drink more than one glass.
 
From the late 1960s, it seemed as though he wanted to take revenge. He developed new interests and didn't deny himself any pleasures in life.
 
Having stopped playing, Botvinnik zealously embarked on creating an electronic "grandmaster," in other words, a chess electronic scoring machine. The institute where he worked provided him with a laboratory and even allocated so-called computer hours. From that time, he began extensive work in the field of programming chess games. He had an utterly crazy idea, in my opinion, to create a machine that would beat everyone if he encoded his playing method into it. It was a kind of Faustian idea. I realized from the very beginning that he had taken on the problem of perpetual motion. Long ago, he announced that everything would be ready in a few years. Then he wrote that due to the chaos prevailing in the institute and the lag in computer technology, this program was disrupted. However, he continues to pursue it to this day, and in connection with that, incidentally, he came to New York. It was here that we met again and had conversations.
 
In New York, an international forum was held, officially known as the International Championship of Electronic Score-Counting Programs. By the way, computers with embedded programs were actually playing against each other. This took place at the Hilton Hotel, where a large hall was filled with computers - at least thirty of them, if not more - from England, France, Belgium, and the United States.

And just the day before, I heard that Botvinnik was also coming with his famous machine called "Pioneer". His first machine was named "Kaissa", after the chess goddess.
 
It was expected that the most advanced program would be incorporated in it. However, its technical foundation was unlikely to be on par with Western standards. I must admit, it was very interesting to see what Botvinnik's machine was capable of.
 
I entered the hall and asked the attendant where Botvinnik was. They pointed him out, but honestly, I didn't immediately approach him. He was the official representative of the Soviet Union, and meeting with me could compromise him.
 
So, through an intermediary, I decided to ask Botvinnik if he would mind having a conversation with me. He turned around right away. He brightened up, called me over, and we started talking. Strangely enough, here in New York, he was more friendly than in other places where he usually appeared dry and arrogant.
 
I mentioned that he looked good. "Yes," he replied, "just got grayer, as you can see." He had indeed turned gray, although he remained just as lively, and his face did not look like that of a seventy-three-year-old man.

The conversation turned to his machine. "What can I say?" he said, "the Americans presented a powerful program."
 
And by the way, the Americans, among other things, showcased four machines. One of them was "Bell," manufactured by a telephone company. Another machine - I can't remember the brand - was even more advanced, with its energy based on a computer serving the military. It possessed such power that it was beyond anything the Soviet Union could dream of. "How can we compete with them!" Botvinnik exclaimed.
 
I asked where his machine was. "I didn't bring it," he replied. "Why, Mykhailo Moiseyevych?" - "Because there are some unfinished aspects there. I intended to bring it, but it wasn't ready..."
 
By the way, all of this was preceded by a scandal of this kind.
 
The Society for Cultural Relations between the USSR and America offered American chess programming specialists to come to a symposium in the USSR. In particular, an invitation was sent to Mr. Thompson, the designer of the "Bell" machine. He was invited to come along with the computer. I don't know if Botvinnik was informed about these plans, but someone clearly counted on stealing Thompson's secrets.
 
And so, Thompson, being a man of leftist convictions, loaded this machine and headed to the airport. Everything would have been very good, and the machine would have ended up in the Soviet Union if the Americans hadn't detained this computer at Kennedy Airport. The thing is, there is a ban on exporting technology of strategic value from the United States.

As a result, a big scandal erupted in the Soviet press. Newspapers accused the United States of seeking to ignite the "Cold War." And it was precisely after this that Botvinnik arrived in New York.
 
I have already mentioned that he was an intelligent and subtle person.
 
Therefore, without mentioning the scandal at all, he organized a press conference, thanked the organizers of the computer championship. He spoke about how it was a significant step towards modeling human thinking, and over time, of course, the machine would surpass a live person in playing chess. (By the way, to this day, it remains unclear to me why Botvinnik is so fanatically striving for this. Tal, for example, once said that it might happen someday, but God forbid if it does!)
 
After the press conference, one of the companies, I think it was "Bell," presented him with a gift—a modern home computer. Lev Alburt, who is quite knowledgeable about these things, exclaimed, "Mykhailo Moiseyevych! This is an excellent thing that will bring you a lot of enjoyment." To which Botvinnik, without a hint of a smile, remarked, "God willing, they let me through the border."
 
Then we met at the Chess Club. Moreover, Botvinnik did not refuse to have a conversation even with the defector Alburt. Furthermore, he took a photograph with him, although someone else in his place probably wouldn't have dared to approach him.
 
Overall, it seems to me that Botvinnik has somehow changed over the years. He became softer, more flexible. There is something more human about him now. But, on the other hand, I believe his character remained the same. He was and still is a product of his time, his era. At one meeting, someone asked him who he considered himself to be. The answer that followed best characterizes Botvinnik: "By origin, I am Jewish; by culture, I am a russian; and by upbringing, I am Soviet."
 
As a person of brilliant mind, he certainly cannot ignore what is happening in the USSR. I think much of what he encounters in life disgusts him because he has never accepted and will never accept its hypocrisy. But, on the other hand, he grew up in this life, he feels himself a part of it, and he will continue to feel that way until the end of his days.
continued...
]]> Sat, 15 Jul 2023 09:48:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?essay-on-chess-elite-botvinnik https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000056 <![CDATA[An Etude of Optimism]]> imblog
Max Euwe and wife Caroline Bergman are celebrating the 40th anniversary of their marriage, surrounded by their grandchildren August 3, 1966.
Photo: Wikimedia Commons

Professor at The Hague University, former world champion, shares his thoughts on chess
(April 11, 1969)

Every sports game, as a means of communication between people, has an influence on our lives. It fulfills certain human needs, develops receptivity, and provides satisfaction. But when it comes to chess, in addition to the exceptionally harmonious and logical structure of the rules of this game, we should also mention its long history that dates back to ancient times and the extensive chess literature consisting of hundreds of thousands of volumes.
 
India is traditionally considered the birthplace of chess. Chess pieces were discovered during archaeological excavations dating back to the beginning of our era. According to experts, this indicates that chess was played in India in the early stages of civilization. However, we should approach this conclusion with caution. There is always someone who jokes that since no chess pieces were found during ancient excavations in China, it means that the Chinese were already capable of playing "blindfolded" three thousand years before our era...
 
It is worth noting that the rules of ancient chess ("chaturanga") significantly differed from the modern ones. Moreover, they underwent certain changes depending on the economy of the country, customs, and habits of the population. For example, in China, the chessboard was divided into two parts by a "river," and captured enemy pieces became "prisoners" that could be used in the next game.
 
No information about chess competitions from those ancient times has been preserved. And it is unlikely that they were held. According to the rules of "chaturanga," the pieces moved too slowly, and each game lasted 100 to 200 moves, consuming a great deal of time. Therefore, the following method of play became widely spread. An experienced chess player would invent a complex and cunning position and offer anyone present to play against him for a stake. The participant who accepted the challenge could choose any color of pieces. The unsuspecting novice would usually choose a position that seemed advantageous but was actually lost and, of course, suffered defeat. Arab literature contains countless positions of this kind that were the subject of dispute.
 
The fact that chess was reduced to the level of gambling games led to its prohibition in some countries. For example, in Spain, playing chess was subjected to prolonged persecution by the Church. However, the attractive force of chess did not diminish, and when King Alfonso the Wise of Spain ordered a book on chess to be written in the 12th century, the prohibition was lifted.
 
The late 15th century proved to be a turning point for chess. The rules of the game underwent significant changes, and there was a desire for chess unification. All obstacles were removed, tournaments and matches were held everywhere, and the overall level of play increased.
 
Years went by, and chess gained increasing popularity. The level of chess play began to somewhat determine the level of national culture. Chess hegemony shifted from one country to another: from Spain to Italy, from France to England, from Germany to America. For the past 25 years, Soviet chess players have unwaveringly held the top spot.
 
Currently, chess has reached the highest point of its development and serves a significant socially useful function. Let me start with some lesser-known facts. I have had conversations with many prominent doctors who claim that chess is an excellent therapeutic tool for patients suffering from prolonged illness. For certain diseases (such as tuberculosis), patience and calmness contribute to recovery. The best medicine for them is correspondence chess.
 
But chess is particularly beneficial as an educational tool. It requires people to think logically and encourages patience. Chess teaches rational actions, which is necessary for people of all professions. It is not surprising, therefore, that attempts are being made in many countries to introduce chess teaching in schools, albeit still as an elective subject. In the Netherlands, experiments are being conducted on mandatory chess education in secondary educational institutions. A committee consisting of professors and specialists from various fields is scientifically studying the benefits of chess as an academic discipline. The role of chess in character formation is also taken into account. Initial experiments show that chess instills a sense of responsibility, increases curiosity, and fosters independent judgment. The experiment will be conducted for two years, and if the results are positive, chess will soon celebrate its new presence in Dutch schools as a new academic subject.
 
Chess brings people from all continents together and serves the cause of peace and friendship, helping to establish friendly contacts between countries with different economic systems. No wonder the International Chess Federation has chosen "Gens una sumus" ("We are one family") as its motto.
 
The artistic and aesthetic aspect of chess plays a beneficial role in the cultural upbringing of society. The creativity behind the chessboard resembles that of an artist, composer, or architect. Former world champion M. Tal compares outstanding chess players of our time to great composers: Botvinnik with Beethoven, Bronstein with Chopin, Spassky with Bach, Keres with Mozart, and himself with Gershwin. Personally, I would add that Petrosian reminds me of Rachmaninoff, and as for Spassky, I see more similarities between his game and Tchaikovsky's music.
 
Psychologists actively study the principles of human thinking and seek concrete examples. In recent years, chess has been increasingly chosen for this purpose. Chess has clear rules, is not overly simple or too complex (can we, chess masters, agree on this?). Understanding how a chess player thinks means understanding to some extent the laws of human thinking.
 
Chess, in its modern form, has existed for 500 years, and naturally, the question arises: what will happen to it in the future? It is believed that chess faces two dangers: "draw death" and "cybernetic death." The increasing number of drawn games in the past has led to calls for changes in the game system.
 
But is there a need for such reforms? In my opinion, no. The pessimism of past world champions has been shattered by the Soviet chess school, whose representatives can be anything but "draw masters." Therefore, it seems that it is not "draw death" that threatens chess, but rather "drawn chess players."
 
Cybernetics claim that in 10, 20, or 50 years, a program for computers will be developed that will enable an electronic robot to play a good game, perhaps even a superior one. Then the title of world champion will be taken by a mechanical chess player, and for us, chess players, it will be the end.
 
As a mathematician, I do not believe in this. I highly doubt that a machine will reach the level of a master, let alone a grandmaster, in 25 or even 50 years. But let's imagine that it does happen. Then a chess player would have some mechanical device that could assist them in the game. So what? Such devices already exist in many sports, but are they always used? For example, in rowing competitions, no one thinks of resorting to the help of an attached motor. Similarly, in chess, one cannot seek advice from a mechanical genius.
 
No, the machine will not be able to harm chess. Chess lives and will continue to live for millennia, bringing joy to people and benefiting human society.
From the archives of newspaper publications
]]> Sun, 02 Jul 2023 17:58:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?an-etude-of-optimism https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000055 <![CDATA[Studying the Opponent (Part 2)]]> imblog
Capablanca, the chess ex-world champion has arrived in Berlin
to give a great simultaneous performance on 30 boards.
Capablanca, the famous ex-world chess champion in Berlin. June 1929
photo: Wikimedia Commons

Based on the recognition of how a chess player's style of play is influenced by their character, A. Alekhine was highly skeptical of the possibility of a sudden change in creative positions for a mature master. Regarding A. Nimzowitsch, he said, "…it is truly difficult to imagine that after a 25-year chess career, he could suddenly manage to radically change the character of his creativity…"
 
Among the specific methods of studying opponents, one of the main ones for A. Alekhine was the analysis of games. For example, before the match with M. Euwe (1937), one of A. Alekhine's tasks in preparation included "thoroughly analyzing all the games played by Euwe in the period between our two matches." Before the match with X. R. Capablanca, A. Alekhine noted that practically all the games played by the opponent were the subject of study, starting from the Capablanca-Marshall match (1909). Special attention was given to analyzing games from the most recent period.
 
So how was this analysis conducted?
 
A. Alekhine describes several stages of his analytical work. Initially, a general characterization of each game of X. R. Capablanca was given. During this stage of the research, A. Alekhine sought to identify pivotal moments and crisis situations in each game, thereby determining the reasons behind a particular result. For example, the description of the third game Capablanca-Spielmann (New York, 1927) is as follows: "As a result of home analysis, Capablanca found an improvement in a line played between the same opponents in the first-round game, and due to the opponent's indifferent play from the opening, he already obtained a winning position. The final combination, although very simple, was accurately calculated by him."
 
It should be noted that when determining the reasons for the game results, A. Alekhine typically did not limit himself to analyzing positions alone but tried to relate it to the individual characteristics of the chess players' characters. Summarizing the encounters between R. Spielmann and X. R. Capablanca in New York, 1927, he wrote, "Spielmann was actually the only one who played against Capablanca not below his own strength. His mistakes were... of a psychological nature: he couldn't imagine that it was possible to defeat the 'invincible,' even when obtaining a better position."
 
During this stage of the analysis, preliminary conclusions were drawn. A. Alekhine noted the highly developed intuition of X. R. Capablanca and his shortcomings, which consisted of a relatively low criticality of thinking, especially evident in favorable positions.
 
The second stage of the analysis involved examining individual phases of the game: the debut, mittelspiel, and endgame. As a result, the previously drawn conclusions were further substantiated or modified. This analysis alone allowed A. Alekhine to specify his assumptions and pay attention to certain new, significant aspects of X. R. Capablanca's playing style. For instance, contrary to the prevailing opinion at that time, he noticed that X. R. Capablanca's opening repertoire was characterized by thorough home preparation.
 
In general, during the second stage of analyzing games, A. Alekhine made significant conclusions about the peculiarities of X. R. Capablanca's chess creativity. These considerations shaped the specific content of A. Alekhine's preparation for the match.
 
Here are the main conclusions of the analysis:
 
1.Debut: X. R. Capablanca's highly developed intuition in choosing reliable and practically feasible continuations has been identified. This leads to his inclination towards simplification methods and resourcefulness when encountering unexpected openings.
 
2.Mittelspiel: It relies mainly on quick intuitive assessment of the situation. This results in speed and ease of play despite a noticeable lack of critical thinking. Due to excessive trust in intuitive evaluation, errors in concrete calculations are noticeable. Therefore, A. Alekhine concludes: "...in the middlegame, one cannot trust him; every tactical idea of his must be meticulously verified, as the possibility of miscalculations on his part is by no means excluded."
 
3.Endgame: X. R. Capablanca demonstrates noticeably high technical skill in this phase of the game, but he plays relatively weaker in dynamically complex positions that require deep concrete consideration of mutual possibilities over many moves.
 
It is important to note that A. Alekhine compares the games played by the opponent during the periods of 1911-1914, 1918-1921, and 1922-1927. This work allowed for the identification of both the developmental trends in X. R. Capablanca's playing style and a more substantiated argument for his psychological characteristics.
 
A. Alekhine noted: "...in Capablanca's creative work, one observes less and less deepening into the details of the position over the years, and the reason for this is his unwavering belief in the infallibility of his intuition. The saddest thing for Capablanca is that his system of operating with 'good' moves almost without exception proved to be sufficient, as it was mostly opposed by more or less helpless weapons in positional terms. As a result of such 'impunity' in using suboptimal moves, on the one hand, he became accustomed to a lack of concentration during the game, which is the only guarantee against possible elementary oversights; on the other hand, his self-assurance grew infinitely and almost turned into self-deification."
 
A. Alekhine writes little about other methods of studying the opponent. However, his individual expressions and remarks provide interesting material. For example, he subjected to special study those positions in which X. R. Capablanca faced significant objective difficulties (novelties in the opening, decisive predominance of the combinative element in the position). These studies, apparently for the first time in the history of chess, were accompanied by timing the time spent contemplating individual moves.
 
The study proved to be very useful. For example, A. Alekhine came to the conclusion that it is not advisable to try to surprise X. R. Capablanca with any unexpected moves in the debut. Unlike E. Lasker, A. Alekhine directly points out his use of observing the opponent's behavior. The results of perceiving the opponent's game allowed A. Alekhine to notice an increase in X. R. Capablanca's uncertainty in the face of persistent resistance. "This was an extraordinarily important discovery for the future!" wrote A. Alekhine.
 
In addition, various literary sources were studied. A. Alekhine paid special attention to books, game commentaries, and interviews by X. R. Capablanca himself. However, A. Alekhine rightly noted that masters are not very willing to speak about the motives behind their moves in their games. Nevertheless, A. Alekhine undoubtedly valued the information obtained from chess literature. Before the rematch with M. Euwe (1937), he considered it necessary to "review his articles and notes on his own and other games." And from studying X. R. Capablanca's publications, he established the opponent's views on opening preparation, attitude towards his own successes (X. R. Capablanca's article in an Argentine newspaper where he said that to become the world champion, a miracle is needed, or his interview about the death of draws in chess, where the thought of his invincibility was essentially expressed, X. R. Capablanca) and other matters.
 
It should also be noted that A. Alekhine was the first in chess to turn to statistical analysis of collected information. Regarding X. R. Capablanca's mistakes in tactical operations, he wrote: "...these sporadic manifestations of a certain weakness should in no case be seen as rare exceptional phenomena, because the total number of tournament games played by Capablanca in recent years is very small compared to the quantitative results of other maestros, and therefore, in proportionate terms, the number of his oversights is quite significant."
 
A. Alekhine continued and developed Em. Lasker's ideas on studying the opponent. Alekhine's research stands out for its wide range of methods and the reasoned combination of logical and psychological aspects in characterizing opponents. It is also important to emphasize A. Alekhine's strive for objectivity in his research and the unbiased verification of results through comparative analysis. While noting certain shortcomings of X. R. Capablanca, for example, he repeatedly pointed out that they were relative in nature. A. Alekhine stated that X. R. Capablanca was a remarkable chess player, and studying his work should have nothing to do with underestimating him as an opponent.
 
As mentioned earlier, A. Alekhine occasionally used the time records of chess games. This method received more comprehensive justification in the works of the master and psychologist B. Blumenfeld. He pointed out that the timing of the thinking process for each individual move is an objective quantitative characteristic of the creative process. Comparing the time spent and the objective complexity of the positions under consideration allows one to judge certain subjective difficulties in decision-making for a particular chess player and to some extent reveals the characteristics of their thinking and willpower.
 
"To the extent possible, such analysis could be supplemented by questioning the players or self-observation data. Unfortunately... it is not currently realized what exceptional interest game records indicating the time spent on individual moves would represent - an interest that would be immediate for readers of games and even greater for research work," wrote B. Blumenfeld back in 1937.
 
In recent years, these recommendations have mainly been put into practice thanks to the efforts of D. Bronstein. However, the results of using time records for research purposes have not yet been widely disseminated.
 
Currently, the successes in studying opponents are primarily associated with the name of M. Botvinnik. In a number of articles, he provides detailed accounts of his preparation for competitions. In his work, M. Botvinnik, drawing extensively from A. Alekhine's experience, noted, "One can learn from Alekhine's psychological approach to a chess game..." "...When I had to prepare for the World Championship of 1948, the first thing I did was carefully study Alekhine's introductory article in the collection of games from the New York match tournament of 1927. In that article, Alekhine provided a deep analysis of Capablanca's creativity and shared his thoughts and plans."
 
Before the match with S. Flohr in 1933, M. Botvinnik set himself the task of "...analyzing the largest possible number of S. Flohr's games. Based on these games, conclusions had to be drawn about the opponent's style, technique, preferred development schemes, and the most frequently used debuts. It was also necessary to determine the opponent's psychological strength, susceptibility to mood swings, defensive abilities, and so on."
 
M. Botvinnik conducted this analysis with a specific focus. A brief characterization was given for each of S. Flohr's games (let's recall the first stage of analysis by A. Alekhine), comparing S. Flohr's games over several years, and finally identifying extreme situations whose analysis revealed S. Flohr's insufficient psychological stability. It should be noted that the conclusions made by M. Botvinnik before the match were confirmed during the competition.
 
In his later performances, M. Botvinnik mainly refers to the same preparation methods, but perhaps with one significant difference. He talks more about the analytical and logical aspects of preparation and hardly touches on the connection between the logical components of the game and the individual psychological traits of his opponents.
 
Characteristic statements for M. Botvinnik also include, for example, "What is the art of a chess master? Mainly, it lies in the ability to analyze chess positions..." or that training games are a universal method for eliminating shortcomings.
 
One might get the impression that psychological analysis is no longer used by M. Botvinnik. This has had a certain influence on several top chess players. They diligently engaged in purely chess analytical work "in the style of Botvinnik" and, at best, only made general statements about the importance of psychological characterization of the opponent. Such views, in my opinion, impoverished their creative possibilities.
 
We are entitled to assert that the creative attitudes of M. Botvinnik were not sufficiently well understood by many chess players. M. Botvinnik was somewhat reserved about the psychological program for studying opponents, but it remains indisputable that he devoted a lot of time and effort to this issue and achieved success.
 
To provide evidence, let us present M. Botvinnik's description of his game against M. Euwe (1948): "I sacrifice a pawn, and Euwe accepts the sacrifice (he likes to do that), although it may have been better to decline it. Gradually, I calm down: apparently, the characterization of Euwe's play in the preparation was correct. Euwe finally makes a move. He immediately offers a queen exchange! All excitement disappears—the characterization turned out to be very accurate: Euwe usually fears an attack on his king, and this time his nerves didn't hold up. With the queen exchange, he couldn't even wait for a single move."
 
M. Botvinnik spoke about detailed characterizations of P. Keres, S. Reshevsky, and other chess players, made through comprehensive studies of their creativity. He also took into account the results of direct observations of opponents' behavior. His memoirs about games with A. Alekhine (1936) and M. Tal (1961) testify to this.
 
The information obtained through various means was systematized and generalized. As M. Botvinnik noted in one of his conversations, he strove to extensively use methods of mathematical statistics in processing the material whenever possible.
 
In recent years, certain successes have been achieved in studying and understanding opponents' playing style and character. However, these interesting materials still await further consolidation.
 
Source: "Chess in the ussr" 1971
 
]]> Tue, 20 Jun 2023 05:41:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?studying-the-opponent-part-2 https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000053 <![CDATA[Studying the Opponent (Part 1)]]> imblog
 Chess tournament Berlin 1918 (between 28 Sept. and 11 Oct.).
From left to right: Emanuel Lasker, Akiba Rubinstein, Bernhard Kagan, Carl Schlechter, Siegbert Tarrasch
photo: Wikimedia Commons

The majority of positions in a chess game are problematic. In such situations, as practice shows, a chess player considers several roughly equivalent options. The choice of one or another option largely depends on individual characteristics such as experience, knowledge, character, and playing style.
 
Understanding the opponent as a person, knowing their intentions, allows for a greater likelihood of predicting their possible moves and selecting a corresponding strategy for one's own behavior. To achieve success, a chess player must possess the ability to understand the intentions of their opponents.
 
As correctly pointed out by Dr. V. Malkin, a doctor of medical sciences, "A chess player-psychologist largely constructs the game based on predicting the opponent's judgments... It is important to note that a master who better predicts the opponent's game and strategy has a significant advantage."
 
However, despite the significance of this issue, studying the playing style and character of the opponent only addresses one side of the problem. In chess battles, it is important not only to reflect and comprehend the inner world of the partner but also to choose a strategy for one's own behavior that is most convenient and familiar for oneself and least acceptable for the opponent. In doing so, studying another person cannot be separated from understanding oneself. In short, it is impossible to deeply penetrate the opponent's intentions and successfully utilize the acquired information without possessing an objective understanding of one's own strengths and weaknesses.
 
E. Lasker was the first among the prominent chess players to understand the importance of studying the personalities of opponents in chess battles. E. Lasker repeatedly emphasized that "people, not wooden pieces, are fighting on the chessboards." He prepared for the game not with abstract white and black pieces but tried to take into account the strengths and weaknesses of each of his opponents.
 
This approach to chess competition brought Em. Lasker great and incomprehensible practical success, which puzzled his contemporaries. In the book dedicated to the Nuremberg tournament of 1896, 3. Tarrasch included an interesting "luck" table, which determined how many points each participant gained or lost due to "luck." Em. Lasker occupied the first place in this table. He won five games from worse or equal positions due to obvious mistakes made by his opponents. All of this seemed like some kind of sorcery to 3. Tarrasch and other experts.
 
It was only three decades later that R. Reti provided the correct explanation for Em. Lasker's consistent "luck." R. Reti wrote, "He (Em. Lasker) tries to make moves that are individually most unpleasant for each of his opponents, rather than objectively best moves; he directs the game into unfamiliar territory for his opponent and often intentionally makes weak moves along this path... As a result, Lasker's opponent fails to maintain a position that suits his style; he constantly has to overcome new, specifically challenging tasks. He loses too much time in the process, is forced to make moves quickly in a difficult position, and starts to get confused in the complications. And it is at this point that Lasker starts to unleash his colossal, genuine strength. Then, the opponent, who is still in a better position, experiences a nervous decline, a mental catastrophe directly leading to a catastrophe on the chessboard."
 
How did Em. Lasker manage to achieve such a deep understanding of his opponent's character? What research methods did he use?
 
Unfortunately, Em. Lasker spoke very sparingly about his preparation. Here is his most candid statement: "We were told that by making the effort to carefully study the games of one of your opponents, you discover both their strengths and weaknesses. Is this true?" one of the correspondents asked Lasker.
 
Em. Lasker replied, "Undoubtedly, it is true, and it is in line with my theoretical views on competition. A chess game is a struggle in which various factors are involved, and therefore, knowledge of the opponent's strengths and weaknesses is extremely important. For example, Reti's games clearly show that he plays better with the white pieces than with the black ones; Maroczy's games show that he defends cautiously and only attacks when forced to; Janowski's games show that he can hold a winning position ten times but, reluctant to part with the game, ultimately loses it confidently... In short, much can be gained from careful study of a few games played by the opponent."

So, Em. Lasker emphasizes the analysis of chess games as a source of understanding his opponents. But which games of the chess player should be subjected to analysis - all of them or only some, how should the study of the games themselves be conducted - based on the stages of the game, the common features of the opening, depending on the specific tournament situation, or based on other criteria? Em. Lasker did not provide explanations to all of these questions.
 
Furthermore, Em. Lasker does not mention the use of observational data about his opponents during the process of interacting with them. However, it can be assumed that his understanding of the opponent was based not only on studying the games but also on the information obtained through perceiving the personalities of his opponents.
 
To test this assumption, a comparative analysis of the results of Em. Lasker's games against grandmaster-class chess players was conducted. The specific goal of the research was to determine the influence of the result of the first game (i.e., the first personal encounter at the chessboard) on the outcomes of subsequent meetings between Em. Lasker and the same opponents. The analysis considered games played by Em. Lasker during the peak period of his career (1896-1925).
 
Let's refer to the table that presents the factual material.


 
Overall result of the first game - 4.5 out of 9; 50%. Comparing the results of the first games (50%) and subsequent matches (66.7%) allows us to assert that for Em. Lasker, studying opponents through personal interaction with them was of great importance.
 
Only analyzing the games published in the press, without observations of the specific psychological atmosphere in which these games were played, affected the understanding of opponents' psychology for Lasker. This is evidenced by the relatively low number of points scored by Em. Lasker in the first encounter with grandmasters. For instance, he suffered defeats in the initial encounters with F. Marshall and A. Rubinstein, although he later played against them very successfully (20 points out of 27 possible).
 
The combination of direct observation and analysis of games during preparation is, in our view, a necessary condition for objectively understanding the opponent in chess competition. The example of Em. Lasker is not an exception but rather a confirmation of the correctness of this position.
 
Let us prove this through a comparative analysis of the sporting results of other prominent chess players. We have chosen M. Chigorin, 3. Tarraš, A. Rubinstein, X. R. Capablanca, and M. Botvinnik. Among these chess players, M. Botvinnik has established himself as a specialist in deep psychological preparation, while the others, on the contrary, are known for paying much less attention to the individual characteristics of the opponent.

Perhaps X. R. Capablanca expressed himself most categorically on this issue:
"When you sit down at the board, you should only think about the position, not the opponent. Whether you consider chess as science, art, or sport, psychology has no relation to it and only stands in the way of true chess."
 
We have analyzed the results shown by these grandmasters during the years of their greatest successes.
 
Let's familiarize ourselves with the factual material, which is arranged in the same way as in table number 1. These summarized data show the results of six outstanding grandmasters. Their opponents were also chess players of the "highest rank."


 
From the table, it can be seen that for M. Chigorin, 3. Tarraš, A. Rubinstein, and X. R. Capablanca, their first encounter at the board with grandmasters turned out to be generally more successful than subsequent games against the same opponents. This circumstance, apparently, has no other explanation than the fact that they, to a lesser extent than their opponents, used the impressions gathered from the initial personal contacts at the board for future meetings.
 
The remaining materials support the validity of such a conclusion. X. R. Capablanca's attitude towards the role of psychology in chess competition has been mentioned above. A. Rubinstein stated that he battles against the white or black pieces, and the personality of the opponent has no significance in this regard. 3. Tarraš saw chess primarily as an intellectual problem, the solution of which does not depend on the chess player's personality but entirely follows the constantly acting rules of theory. Prediction of opponents' behavior was not given due attention by M. Chigorin. The most vivid examples of this are his losses to V. Steinitz (23rd game of the match, 1892) and D. Janowski (Hastings, 1895). At the same time, M. Chigorin had no equal in the field of "pure" analysis, where understanding the individuality of the opponent did not have such important significance. Let us recall his brilliant victories over V. Steinitz (telegraph match, 1890-1891) and Em. Lasker (thematic match, 1903).
 
For example, "psychologists" such as Em. Lasker and M. Botvinnik significantly improved their game results compared to their first encounter with a particular grandmaster. Undoubtedly, in their creative work, one path of studying the opponent—knowledge of their games—was complemented and enriched by generalizing the data obtained through observing the opponent's behavior. In this light, M. Botvinnik's successes in rematch matches against V. Smyslov (1958) and M. Tal (1961) become clear. M. Botvinnik needed a certain period of personal interaction with them during intense match battles to gain a deeper understanding of the opponents' characters.
 
And in chess, an old truth, "It is better to see once than to hear a hundred times," pointing to the role of direct observation, has solid foundations.
 
Therefore, chess activity can be fully attributed to the position put forward by A. A. Bodalev: "The perception of one person by another person, along with the understanding of one person by another person based on it, is an absolutely necessary aspect of the process of any joint human activity, a necessary condition for the appropriateness of the orientation and actions of the perceiving subject in the social environment."
 
It should be noted that the importance of direct observation of the opponent is recognized in modern sports. For this purpose, football, hockey, and other sports coaches make regular visits. Chess players are not an exception in this regard. For example, T. Petrosian was present in 1965 in Tbilisi for the match between M. Tal and B. Spassky, and in turn, B. Spassky used their joint participation in a tournament in Mallorca (1968) as preparation for his match with T. Petrosian.
 
Em. Lasker's considerations about the necessity of studying the opponent had a great influence on A. Alekhine. He referred to Em. Lasker as his teacher. The materials related to A. Alekhine's preparation for the World Championship match against X. R. Capablanca (1927) are of particular interest.
 
A. Alekhine strived to uncover the essential, consistently manifested traits of character and chess style of his opponents. This condition served as the fundamental methodological principle of his research. Therefore, he approached conclusions based on individual facts critically. For instance, regarding comments about the first game between him and X. R. Capablanca from the New York tournament of 1927, A. Alekhine wrote, "Due to my poor play, the value of this game from a chess art perspective is zero, but its psychological significance—not for the defeated player but for the general public—is enormous. There is no doubt that it was because of this game that 95% of so-called competent critics convinced the entire chess world (and partially succeeded in doing so) that there would be no real struggle in Buenos Aires (referring to the upcoming World Championship match—N. K.) and that it would result in a rout. If these gentlemen took the trouble to compare this game with any number of my average games from recent tournaments, they would hold a somewhat different opinion."

continued...
]]> Fri, 16 Jun 2023 05:41:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?studying-the-opponent-part-1 https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000052 <![CDATA[Capablanca and Alekhine]]> imblog
Dr. Emanuel Lasker, Ex-Schachweltmeister, Aufnahme am 19. März 1929
(Dr. Emanuel Lasker, ex-world chess champion, photo taken on March 19, 1929)
German Federal Archives

Article by Dr. Emanuel Lasker
 
The emergence of Capablanca on the chess arena was accompanied by swift success. He defeated Marshall and soon won the first prize in San Sebastian. All this happened when he was just in his twenties, in the years of study, not mastery, when people dream of love. Alekhine, Capablanca's friend since 1914, started his career at no less a rapid pace. Barely out of childhood, in 1909, he won the honorary cup of an amateur tournament, and in 1914, he took the third prize in a major international tournament.
 
Both of them still maintain freshness and youthful energy. Neither Capablanca nor Alekhine play by the template. Their originality is so pronounced that the chessboard with its 64 limited squares seems too narrow for them. The unknown does not scare them, and both are ready to test their strength in it if it appears interesting to them. Both seek new paths, aiming to find something strong and life-affirming.
 
However, in their search for the new, they employ completely different methods.

Capablanca desires victory through strategy. Combinations and sacrifices are never an end in themselves for him. He is not afraid of sacrifices, but they do not fascinate him or hold any special value. Capablanca only uses them when he cannot achieve his goal through other means. His ideal is to defeat the enemy through maneuvering. He prefers simple but strong continuations over intricate and complex ones. He always seeks to find the opponent's vulnerable spot. He directs his attacks there and presses on the weak point without allowing the opponent to retaliate, maneuvering triumphantly with almost complete control over the enemy. Capablanca's brilliance is evident in his ability to pinpoint the weak points in the opponent's position. The slightest weakness cannot hide from his keen eye, and at some point during the game, it will surface.
 
Naturally, the advantages of such a strategy are likely to manifest themselves in the endgame. And indeed, Capablanca effortlessly and swiftly handles even complex and intricate endings, with astonishing clarity and exceptional consistency.
 
Alekhine grew out of combinations. He is in love with them. For him, everything strategic is merely preparation, almost a necessary evil. Devastating strikes, unexpected "pointes" - that's his element. When the opponent's king is safe, Alekhine plays without enthusiasm. His imagination ignites when attacking the king. He prefers having many pieces on the board. With their help, he aims to weaken the enemy king's defensive line, and then, at a convenient moment, overturn it with a brilliant onslaught. Alekhine uses strategy to achieve coordinated piece activity, to create an attacking atmosphere, in short, as a means to a higher goal. But strategy itself is more of an arithmetic problem for him than a creative material from which a work of art is created.
 
Capablanca and Alekhine share their organic origin in practice. They are alien to abstract ideas, philosophical reasoning, and general concepts. Both of them wish to deal with theories that have been successfully tested in practice and can be tested a hundred times if necessary. They are willing to explore them splendidly, to perfection. But abstract ideas leave them cold, indifferent. They want to play chess and win that individual specific game that lies before them. For this, they will exert all their efforts, all their creativity, and let others deal with the rest. Such self-restriction to practical tasks is the source of their strength. Those who create theories tend to generalize them, and the particular slips away from them, or they become doctrinaires, losing the ability to see and hear. A doctrinaire says, "In every position, there is only one best move." Capablanca and Alekhine would mock and reject such a thesis because practice shows otherwise. In many positions, there is a wide range of perfectly viable moves that lead to the same outcome of the game and are therefore equivalent. The theoretician claims that one should avoid cramped positions, but it is unlikely that they can convince Capablanca and Alekhine. They know from experience that they often win in cramped positions, so why always avoid them?
 
We chess players, more than other mortals, succumb to the charm of theories. We read that the beauty of combinations consists of this and that, and we believe it beforehand. We often read about the depth of strategic plans; just recently I read about a remarkable strategic plan that was conceived on the fourth move and ran through the entire game until the end—and we readily believe such statements. But study combinations during a game at the chessboard, like Alekhine, and you will realize that those theories about beauty apply only to artificially contrived positions and become stillborn in actually played games. Learn to meticulously develop strategic plans, like Capablanca, and you will laugh at plans that are told to you as fables. Indeed, it was difficult to contain my laughter when, at the very end of the aforementioned game with its gloriously profound strategy, I discovered a simple saving maneuver by the opponent, refuting the entire unbelievably well-thought-out strategy and clearly overlooked by the author of overly deep plans. Yes, we could move the earth if two times two were not four.
 
Therefore, no theories that have not passed the crucible of testing! Test them not just once, but hundreds and thousands of times, test them skillfully, conscientiously, and attentively. For it is worth reaching the depth of Capablanca and the rich imagination of Alekhine. This principle should apply not only to chess, as all practical matters are interconnected. But in chess, this principle stands out more vividly than in any other field. So, comrades, seek the source of every truth only in living reality.
Chess Calendar for 1926
]]> Fri, 02 Jun 2023 20:02:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?capablanca-and-alekhine https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000051 <![CDATA[Style: perfect game management]]> imblog
Capablanca posing for Drijinsky 1922
press photography Agence Rol

Each generation produces a few masters who capture the attention of chess enthusiasts and critics. This attention is particularly strong when it comes to the holders of the chess world crown. Assessments vary greatly and manifest in diverse forms.
 
The majority of enthusiasts only look at the results; their judgments are based solely or almost solely on the champion's successes. However, a minority (the true connoisseurs of chess, mainly other masters) delve deeper into the matter and form their judgments under the influence of numerous factors unrelated to the fact of winning or losing. Although there are many aspects to consider, the opinion of true connoisseurs is generally based on three factors: Depth, Combinative Gift, and Style.
 
By "Depth," we mean the greater or lesser ability to assess the possibilities of struggle in difficult situations or, in other words, understanding the position.
 
By "Combinative Gift," we mean the ability to accurately and thoroughly calculate a combination, whether utilizing an existing chance or preparing it.
 
And finally, by "Style," we refer to the overall system of play: whether it is simple or intricate, slow and solid or full of brilliance and initiative. If we consider chess as an exact science, then obviously there should exist only one correct norm of conducting the game, whatever it may be, and therefore, the task is to find such a norm. But if we view chess as an art, then different norms of play should exist, and their choice depends entirely on the individual characteristics of the chess player. Naturally, a chess player is inclined towards the type of game that best expresses their nature.

Looking at the history of chess from Laburdon to the masters of our day, up to Lasker, we find that the greatest master of style was Morphy.
 
Laburdon, it seems, achieved success only in complex positions through direct, and at times superficial, attacks on the king. He consistently sought this type of play and hardly knew any other. Therefore, his style lacked clarity and often energy.
 
Anderssen, a born chess player, predominantly played in a combinative style. One or two of his games are considered the most beautiful chess works of all time. However, like his predecessor Laburdon, he fell victim to the prevailing concept of his era, which dictated that chess should be played in a certain way and no other. As a result, Anderssen's game and style lacked coherence and, one could say, breadth.
 
In the early period of Steinitz's career, his style was better than in later years. He began his chess journey as a brilliant master of open positions and ended as a progenitor of a style characterized by a predilection for extremely closed positions. Occasionally, albeit temporarily, he had to transition to a style that was somewhere in between these extremes, which he perfected. It was Steinitz who first established the fundamental principles of general chess strategy. He was also a "pioneer" and one of the deepest explorers of the true essence of the game, hidden from his contemporaries. For a time, he played the openings well, but later his principles turned into idiosyncrasies, diminishing his chances of victory in serious battles against the most dangerous opponents. Steinitz possessed exceptional combinative talent. He was also a subtle master of the endgame, and strong play in the endgame is an essential requirement to become a world champion. Steinitz was characterized by tenacity and persistence, and in his younger years, when he was in his prime form, he was virtually unbeatable.
 
Lasker, a natural-born genius who developed through relentless work in the early stage of his career, never adhered to a type of game that could be classified as a specific style. This led some masters to claim that Lasker had absolutely no style at all. And indeed, if his style were to be classified, the only fitting word would be "indefinite." It was said that Lasker was an individualist, that he fought more against the chess player and their weaknesses rather than against the position. This is partially true regarding many chess players, and perhaps there are many such chess players, but when it comes to Lasker, I don't think such a claim can be seen as absolute. In recent years, when I had the opportunity to observe Lasker's game, it seemed to me that he often changed tactics even against the same opponent. The drawback of Lasker's style is that his game usually appears to go beyond the norm.
 
On the other hand, Lasker possesses outstanding qualities. He is highly determined and persistent. He has an astonishing ability to defend in difficult positions. In this regard, he achieved such success throughout his long championship career that eventually it became a drawback, leading him to believe that he could defend positions that were actually impossible to hold against proper opponent play. Driven by the fervor of attack, Lasker could bring it to a victorious conclusion, something that only a few achieved. As a master of the endgame, Lasker enjoyed a reputation as an unparalleled chess player for a long time. If he entered the endgame with even the slightest advantage, it could be said with almost certainty that he would win the game. He missed very few victories in the endgame. And conversely, if Lasker found himself in a worse position, his opponent couldn't afford to give him even the tiniest chance. Lasker's combinative talent in the middlegame was also very significant.
 
Morphy was a great master of style. In the opening, he aimed to quickly develop his pieces. Developing the pieces and putting them into action quickly was his main idea. From a stylistic point of view, this was absolutely correct.
 
During Morphy's time, except for himself, few truly understood positional questions. This inevitably gave him enormous advantages, and he deserves nothing but praise. It could be said that Morphy was a precursor to the principle of piece development in the opening. Morphy paid special attention to studying openings and achieved such success that in many games his opponents found themselves in a worse position after just six moves. This also deserves praise, as at that time he had only a few guiding principles to rely on.
 
Chess players of that era considered straightforward attacks on the king and similar combinations to be worthy of attention. It can be said that they started combining literally from the first move, without paying sufficient attention to piece development, which was the subject of Morphy's greatest concerns. His games demonstrate that he possessed an excellent style of play. His style was simple and direct. Morphy did not seek complex combinations, but he also did not avoid them, which truly represents a faithful manner of play. Morphy played the endgame well and proved himself to be an experienced master in defending difficult positions. Morphy's combinative gift was quite sufficient for what he undertook on the chessboard, but that was not, as most modern chess players believe, the main asset in his creative repertoire. His style, which appears to have been flawless, was his true asset.
 
It is often heard that Morphy was the strongest chess player of all time. In our view, such claims are absurd because they not only lack foundation but also cannot be supported by evidence. The only thing one can do is to make comparisons based on the results of his matches. If we were to make such comparisons, the result would be catastrophic for the enthusiastic admirers of this great master of the past.

By no means should one think that we want to diminish in the slightest the achievements of the renowned American chess player. In this article, we must only consider well-founded facts and opinions, avoiding fantasies and errors that are usually the result of ignorance or thoughtlessness.
 
Morphy was not only the strongest master of his time in the broadest sense of the word, but he was also a creator in chess and the progenitor of what could be called a perfect style. As for the results of Morphy's chess matches, various aspects need to be taken into account, especially some lesser-known ones. We mean that the great American master never played even "easy" games just for entertainment. Even in such games, Morphy put in everything he knew and could; in other words, any game immediately grew in his eyes to the scale of a serious match. We believe that this cannot be said of any other chess player (of course, Morphy can only be judged by the games of his significant matches, especially against Anderssen and Harrwitz). A simple review of the games from these two matches will convince you that they barely contained the so-called brilliant combinations. Contrary to the widespread opinion generated by ignorance, Morphy's main strength lay not in his ability for combinations but in his positional play and overall style. After all, combinations can only be executed when the position allows it. Most of Morphy's victories in these two matches were achieved by playing straightforwardly and simply, and it is in this simple and logical method that the true beauty of his game lies when viewed from the perspective of the great masters.
 
As for the claim often repeated by many enthusiastic Morphy fans that he would defeat all current chess players, it is devoid, as we have already stated, of any foundation. On the contrary, if Morphy were to resurrect and immediately start playing, armed only with the knowledge of his era, he would certainly be defeated by many masters of our time. However, it is logical to assume that Morphy would quickly reach the level necessary to compete with the best masters, but predicting the extent of his success is entirely impossible.
 
Without a doubt, the scientific understanding of chess has significantly advanced over the past six decades. Every day, chess players offer more persistent resistance, and the demands and conditions necessary to defeat other masters continue to grow and become more complex.
 
In a few words, the ideal conduct of the game consists of the following: rapid development of pieces to strategically advantageous positions for attack or defense, based on the two fundamental principles of "Time" and "Position." Coolness in defense and decisiveness in attack. Not getting carried away with the opportunity to gain any material advantage, as victory often lies in adhering to this commandment. Only in exceptional cases should complications be sought, but they should not be avoided either. And in conclusion, in one word: be prepared to engage in any kind of struggle and in any phase of the game - the opening, the endgame, or the middlegame; complex or simple, always striving for the latter as much as the two fundamental elements allow: "Time" and "Position."
Source: "Chess Capital" #22, 1964
]]> Sat, 27 May 2023 22:46:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?style-perfect-game-direction https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000050 <![CDATA[Richard Réti about etudes art]]> imblog
Richard Réti
(1899–1929), Austro-Hungarian, after 1918 Czechoslovak chess grandmaster
Photo: Wikimedia Commons
chessboard: lichess.org

"An étude is a position from the ends of a game with extraordinary content," reads the definition of the late Richard Reti. To many this formulation may seem superficial and vague. Opinions will be expressed that it says nothing about side decisions and duals, that white should start. You can not really call a position in which two different first moves lead to a solution as an etude.


Winning **
 
However, Reti attributed a different meaning to the concept of correctness in an endgame etude. Among Reti's etudes, the reader will encounter a rook ending (see diagram) that allows for two initial moves. However, to fully grasp and agree with Reti's perspective, one must delve into this work and realize that rejecting an etude requires more than a single criterion. According to Reti, the question is not whether one correct move leads to the goal, but rather that only one method leads to the solution. It is entirely possible for the focus of the etude to revolve around the first move while still permitting multiple initial moves. Thus, if we aim to clarify Reti's concept, we should acknowledge the following formulation as correct: etudes are endgame positions with extraordinary content in which only one method leads to the goal.
 
This, of course, does not prevent the solution from branching out into several variations that allow for different methods of solving. However, each individual method, treated as an independent variation, must contain only one solution. In our expanded definition, we have not emphasized which side, the one aiming to win or achieve a draw, initiates the play. Reti did not consider this rule obligatory; on the contrary, he allowed for the possibility where the objective of the etude (draw or win) is not specified at all.

According to Reti, the mechanical and senseless imposition of problem-like rules greatly hindered the development of etude composition. What may be considered normal for chess problems cannot be transferred to etudes, as etudes are much closer to practical play.
 
If Reti was distinguished by his extreme freedom of thought regarding the formal requirements imposed on an etude, he had even stricter demands concerning the content of the etude. Chess itself is inherently meaningful, and endgames are generally highly challenging. If an etude fails to demonstrate anything that sets it apart from the average level of endgame positions or grants it the right to claim exceptional content, then it ceases to be an etude. In the majority of compositions published in chess sections and magazines, Reti did not find a sufficient degree of uniqueness in the content that would warrant their independent existence. On the other hand, Reti considered it entirely possible to recognize as an etude a position from a practical game that stands out for its exceptional content.



The uniqueness of an etude can take various forms: it may lie in the difficulty, originality of the idea, variety of possibilities, purity of objective, symmetry, and so on. It is understood that not every etude must encompass all these elements; for instance, it is not necessary for every etude to be characterized by difficulty or the beauty of the first move. Merely mentioning the well-known Reti etude (W. Kh8, p. c6. B. Ka6, p. h5 - draw) that caused a sensation upon its publication suffices. Its success is attributed not to its difficulty or the purity of its objective but solely to the originality of the position. The extraordinary aspect of this etude lies in the fact that in a position where defeat initially appears unquestionable, a path to salvation is still present.
 
The main condition that grants the right to consider a specific endgame as an etude (it should be noted that Réti made no distinction between these terms and often used them interchangeably) lies in the exceptional nature of its content. It is clear that the definition provided above does not allow for a precise delineation of the content of an etude. What may seem exceptional to one person may appear ordinary to another, and a position that one considers outstanding may face challenges to its right to exist. However, such differences in perspectives always remain inevitable: even if we incorporate certain characteristics into the content of an etude, the notions of beauty and value of an etude will remain relative. Although the realm of etude composition does not possess as many artistic directions as problem composition, the significance of an etude can be approached from various viewpoints, and what is perceived as a positive aspect by some may be regarded as a drawback by others.
 
As a rule, Reti attached great importance to the simplicity of position and economy of material. He enjoyed interesting, intricate, and misleading traces. He strived, whenever possible, for the purity of the objective and considered the difficulty of the solution as a particular advantage, even when the average reader found it impossible to grasp all the complexities of the etude on their own. Reti knew how to appreciate the purity of checkmate or obstruction but did not overestimate their significance. The same applies even more to echo variations, which he skillfully depicted but often consciously avoided as he believed they distorted the main idea.
 
At the beginning of his career, as is known, Reti was fascinated by problem composition and continued to be interested in it even when he dedicated himself exclusively to composing etudes. Regarding problems, Reti held the view that the purity of checkmates makes the solution more difficult, embellishes the problem, and often leads to the creation of a more economical and simple form. However, he also considered it illogical to sacrifice certain advantages solely for the sake of checkmate purity. If the beauty of the mate positions does not distort the idea of the problem, it should be regarded as a plus, and conversely, as a drawback if the external form of the checkmates leads to depersonalization of the idea.
 
From the editor's note: Printing this article, we find it necessary to note that we do not share some of Reti's views expressed in this article. In particular, we completely disagree with his interpretation of the concept of "correctness of the etude," holding the opinion that the first move of the solution should be strictly unique. We consider the identification of etudes with endgames to be too narrow a definition, as it does not encompass etudes that have the character of a middlegame. Despite several controversial positions expressed by Reti, we are confident that this article, revealing the individuality of the late Grandmaster in the field of etude composition, will be read with interest by all lovers of the art of etudes.
 
Source: "Chess Sheet" 1931 № 3
 
]]> Sat, 20 May 2023 14:52:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?richard-reti-about-etudes-art https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/00000004F <![CDATA[On the Problems of Chess Education for Pre-School Children]]> imblog
photo:Wikimedia Commons

We have a guest:
L. S. Belavenets, international master. Hosts the program "White Rook".
А. N. Kostev, candidate master. Director of the chess department of children's and youth sports school of Olympic reserve.
F. Zmanovsky, MD, professor, deputy director of the Institute of pre-school education of the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences.
Ya. A. Ponomarev, Doctor of Psychological Sciences, Professor, Senior Researcher of the Institute of Psychology of the Academy of Sciences.
N. G. Alekseev, Ph.D. in Psychology, asked the guests about the problems of chess training of preschool children.

- Are young children interested in chess?

L. Belavenets: Month after month, over twenty thousand children send their answers to the challenges of "White Rook" on television. This flow has even captured the youngest ones, for whom parents, grandparents write. The children solve the challenges, sometimes quite well, and occasionally even puzzle the organizers of the show. This raises the question of whether a chess player who is not yet familiar with the alphabet and who acts, so to speak, through representatives can be awarded a sports rank.
 
There is a wide range of questions that interest parents of preschoolers: whether it is worth teaching young children to play chess, how to do it best, whether there is relevant methodological literature, where to seek advice, and so on.
 
As a coach, I have had numerous conversations with parents who bring their preschool children to our sports school. The children are very different, as are the aspirations of their parents, but they are all united by one thing - the desire to play chess well.

- Are organized chess activities possible for preschoolers?

A. Kostev: Not only are they possible, but they actually exist. Six years ago, we organized a group of preschoolers. The group consists of twenty children who have two two-hour sessions per week.
 
We have accumulated a certain experience in conducting these classes, and we have seen some interesting results. For example, we faced the question of how to teach chess notation to children who cannot read yet. Could they master it?

It turned out that it was within the reach of the children. After several months of classes, as they learned the rules of the game, the children became accustomed to using chess notation and started using it to record their homework. Some children who attend the preschool group later enroll in the 22nd school, which has specialized chess classes. Usually, they excel in chess much more than children who received initial training from their parents or relatives. The classes with preschoolers demonstrate their interest and enthusiasm for chess and their desire to learn to play better.
 
Groups similar to ours are emerging in other cities as well. They exist in Odesa, Lviv, and undoubtedly, the number of such groups will continue to grow.
 
There is literature available on preschool chess as well. Several books include V. Zak's "About Little Ones for Grown-ups," E. Ilyin and V. Grishin's "Pawn's Adventures," and their "Chess Alphabet." The first introductory lessons with young children are covered in two articles by V. Grishin and G. Krasilnikova in the magazine "Preschool Education" (1973). These works present the methodological experience of teaching chess to preschoolers, introducing various techniques and methods. Many aspects are still unclear, but a foundation has been laid.
 
I would like to address one organizational question. Currently, significant work with children is being carried out in specialized children's and youth sports schools (DYuSSH), where favorable conditions for training are provided, and coaching staff is concentrated. According to the approved regulations of DYuSSH, enrollment in the initial training groups begins only for students in the second grade. Naturally, organizing groups for preschoolers, who are not included in this framework, relies solely on personal initiative.

- How does an interest in chess influence the development of preschoolers?

Y. Zmanovski: Should young children play chess, and how does it impact their development and health? Are there any contraindications? That's how I would decipher the meaning of this question.

Perhaps it's best to start with a comparison. The level of development among modern preschoolers is much higher than it was twenty or thirty years ago. In preschools, children are being prepared for school on a mass scale, resulting in a significant percentage of those entering first grade already having decent reading and math skills.
 
There are articles in the press about children who learn to read at the age of three. These various facts reflect a noticeable trend towards earlier general education and partially even professional preparation.
 
It's unlikely that chess should—or even could—oppose this overall trend. It's important to approach it sensibly, avoiding extremes and exaggerations, and achieve a natural integration of children into chess. Only then, in my opinion, will it benefit them and contribute to their intellectual and spiritual development.
 
Chess can be a good and effective tool in achieving this overall goal. What makes me think so?
 
I will highlight two points.
 
Firstly, chess, without judging the highest sporting levels, is a game. As we know, for preschoolers, play activity is also crucial. It is through play that arbitrary forms of behavior develop, and higher mental functions such as attention, perception, memory, and thinking are nurtured. The characteristics of the future personality are established in a child's play activity.
 
For thoughtful educators, coaches, or parents, involving children in the game of chess offers broad opportunities for sensitive and careful influence, aiding in the child's development. This assistance is based on the child's interest and engagement in the game.
 
In due time, chess master B.M. Blumenfeld, while analyzing the peculiarities of intellectual activity in chess, came to the conclusion that it is based on visual-active thinking. His main work is aptly titled "Characteristics of Visual-Active Thinking." Just as play is the leading form of activity for preschoolers, visual-active thinking is its fundamental form. However, this certainly does not imply that a chess master and a child think in the same way.
 
There are profound and numerous differences in the nature of thinking activity, in its depth, the techniques employed, and so on. But there is also a commonality—a close, inseparable connection between cognitive processes and practical actions that transform the object of cognition. It is fundamentally impossible to solve the given tasks without the involvement of practical actions. From this perspective, chess serves as an effective means of developing children's thinking. And importantly, it aligns with the age-related patterns of their cognitive development and the prevailing form of thinking at that age.
 
Let me emphasize another point: Could chess activities have a negative impact on children's health? I believe that with proper organization and adherence to basic hygiene norms, by no means. The duration of chess sessions should unquestionably be regulated, and for preschoolers, it should not exceed 20-25 minutes. The main form of engagement should be through game situations. Once again, I emphasize that while operating on non-voluntary attention in a playful situation, a child acquires new material in a way that is inherent to them. They do not tire and maintain a lively interest in it.
 
- What is the specificity of the impact of chess on mental development?
 
Ya. Ponomarev: I would rephrase your question as follows: What are the specific characteristics of the game of chess that make it a convenient and, in a certain sense, universal tool for the mental development of children?

A bit of theory.

For an intellectually developed adult, many aspects of their thinking and behavior appear obvious and self-evident, such as the ability to think, imagine a situation that is not present, transform it, compare two different states, and so on. This ability operates automatically, in most cases, without requiring special effort. It is important to emphasize that this is true for adults.

The situation is different for a child. For them, the development of such abilities constitutes the core and essence of the process of mental development between the ages of approximately seven to twelve years. In psychology, this process is referred to as the formation of an internal plan of action.

Numerous experimental studies have identified and provided detailed descriptions, through examples of solving various problems, of the five stages of the formation of an internal plan of action in children. These stages are extensively described in my books "Knowledge, Thinking, and Mental Development" (1967) and "Psychology of Creativity and Pedagogy" (1976). Here, specifically related to the topic we are discussing, I will provide a brief description of the second and third stages.

Children in the second stage solve problems in the "external plan." Let me explain. Take a chessboard and teach a child how to move the knight. We give them the task of capturing a pawn on a3 with the knight. The child can only solve this task by using their hands, moving the knight first to c2 and then to a3, in the external plan. The internal plan only reproduces the ready-made solution already obtained: by moving the pieces, the child can say what they did without touching them. At this level of development, the internal plan of action always appears to be secondary, derived from the actions actually performed in the external plan. However, if the child is not allowed to carry out those actions, attempting to act mentally leads to the loss of the task, as the child "forgets" what they need to do.
 
On the third stage of the formation of the internal plan of action, the situation changes. The task can now be solved not through manipulations with objects, in our case, chess pieces, but through mental actions with representations of objects. The object of manipulation is altered. It is significant that the child retains the given task in their memory. Interestingly, this leads to the stabilization of the time required to perform the action. Overall, the internal plan of action begins to function independently, allowing for further development.
 
So, what are the specific characteristics of the game of chess that make it a universal tool for children's mental development?
 
By teaching a child to play chess, we achieve not only the specific goal but also a more significant result—the development of their ability to think and act mentally. In chess, there is a natural transition from actions with objects, the movement of chess pieces, to actions with representations of those objects, in the internal plan. This newly forming ability, as numerous studies have shown, extends to other areas of the child's activities. For example, by solving problems related to manipulating representations during a chess game, the child can subsequently solve other tasks in the same manner, as this ability has a general nature. Essentially, the child enters a new stage in their development.
 
Furthermore, in the development of this ability, one can create tasks of varying complexity—from two moves of a single piece to three, four moves, involving other pieces, and so on. The technique and skill of manipulating representations strengthen and improve during the game. Many new skills also emerge, although they are not specifically discussed here: planning one's actions, developing a particular attitude towards one's actions.
 
Y. F. Zmanovsky has already discussed these aspects. It is worth emphasizing again that children, as a rule, do not need to be specially motivated to play chess; it is an inherent form of activity for them. Chess is not an exception to this general rule. By playing chess with a child, any parent can observe how it contributes to the development of the internal plan of action and how it influences not only chess but also other actions of the child. The only thing required is one small circumstance: doing it out of genuine inner interest of the children, not out of obligation.
Round Table of the Editorial Board of the magazine "Chess in the ussr" (1980 № 2, p. 16-17)
]]> Thu, 18 May 2023 13:08:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?on-the-problems-of-chess-education-for-pre-school-children https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/00000004E <![CDATA[Dr. Tarrasch]]> imblog
photo of Dr. Siegbert Tarrasch, German physician and chess grandmaster;
lost to Emanuel Lasker in the world chess championship match 1908.
Date circa 1900
photo:Wikimedia Commons

After Tarrasch's death in 1934, Euwe wrote an article in memory of him for the "Magyar Sakkvilag" magazine, which essentially summarized Tarrasch's achievements as follows: "He played many valuable games, won many first prizes, and wrote a series of excellent books." It should be added that Tarrasch was one of the few geniuses who, despite reaching the level of world champions, did not become a holder of that title due to fate's unkindness.
 
Breslau, where Tarrasch was born, had long been an important chess center. Its main pride was Andersen, but there was also Zukertort and many less prominent masters. Later, Tarrasch was attracted to the idea that he continued the glorious German traditions that reached their peak in Andersen. Alas, Tarrasch and Lasker, both Jews, were the last truly great German chess players.
 
In his autobiography, Tarrasch does not mention his parents, but with regret writes about his own innate foot defect. Many of the peculiarities of his character can be explained by this physical deficiency if desired. In school, he always strived to be the first student. When he was in second or third place, he felt guilty. In adulthood, he considered it necessary to explain each weak move and each lost game.
 
He was undoubtedly a gifted student, and at the age of 23, he completed a course in medicine. Throughout his subsequent life, he divided his time between medical practice, which he only gave up in his old age, and chess - his true love.
 
At the age of 15, he learned how to play chess and, as usual, quickly progressed. For several years, chess dominated his life. It seems that every chess master goes through a period of maturation when the checkered board becomes more important than food. In Tarrasch's case, his complete absorption in chess ended due to falling in love. This was followed by university years with the usual share of wine, women, and song, although chess was by no means abandoned. In 1885, when he received his diploma, Tarrasch was already a full-fledged master and made a remarkable debut, sharing second place with many of the world's strongest players at the German Chess Association Congress.
 
Tarrasch's subsequent chess career can be divided into three stages. The first was from 1885 to 1894 when, after a slight setback, he won all the tournaments he participated in. Having won in Manchester (1890), he justifiably complained that the Germans called him only the champion of Germany, while the English gave him second place behind world champion Steinitz and suggested organizing a match between them. Certainly, in 1890, Tarrasch, if he lost to anyone, lost only to Steinitz. It is regrettable and tragic for Tarrasch  that he declined the invitation from the Havana Chess Club to play a match there with Steinitz in the winter of 1890/91. By accepting it, he could have won the title he later desperately and in vain dreamed of. Only once did a great opportunity knock on his door, and he missed that chance. Soon Lasker appeared, who always had the advantage over Tarrasch.
 
In 1894, Lasker, Steinitz, Chigorin, and Tarrasch formed the big four, who were quite close in strength. A year later, Pillsbury joined them.
 
The second period of Tarrasch's life, from 1894 to 1908, was marked by his rivalry with Lasker. Everyone else had to concede, as Tarrasch demonstrated most convincingly in Vienna (1898) and Ostend (1907 - after this competition, Tarrasch took on the title of "tournament world champion"; even the younger generation knew not to interfere, as Marshall confirmed in 1905. But Lasker was unshakable. And when the match finally took place in 1908, Tarrasch had no chance of success.
 
From 1908 until his death in 1934, Tarrasch continued to play an active role in the chess world. But new stars appeared on the horizon, and new names were on everyone's lips, especially after the First World War. During this period, Tarrasch's influence was mainly spread through literature.
 
Here he occupied a unique place. "The Teacher of Germany" - that's what Tarrasch was called after the appearance of his first books and articles; later he was called "the teacher of the world." And he undoubtedly was. Not one generation (around 1925) considered him the main authority in chess, and his word was law.
 
But here's what's curious: although Tarrasch formulated the principles that prevailed in chess until they were shaken by the hypermodernists, all of his works, except for his very last book, were collections of commented games.
 
"Dreihundert Schachpartieen" - his masterpiece, a collection of 300 of his own games with detailed notes and brief autobiographical comments, first published in 1895. This is one of the monuments of chess, the best book about them up to the 1920s.
 
Morphy, with his demonstration of the importance of development, laid the foundations for combinational play; Steinitz, in his theory of the center, for positional play. But it was left to Tarrasch to combine both into a coherent system (the theories of Morphy and Steinitz are indeed complementary). The foundations of his system are so well known today that it is difficult to imagine just how bad chess was at the master level before those foundations were laid. During the time of Steinitz and Tarrasch, such ordinary concepts as development, center, two bishops, pawn structure, attack strategy, etc., were a complete mystery to all but a select few.
 
By 1914, anyone who turned to literature knew the principles of open play, having absorbed them either directly or indirectly from the incessant writings of Tarrasch. But unfortunately, Tarrasch did not realize, at least judging from his writings, that his theory had limits. "A cramped position carries the seeds of defeat," Tarrasch pointed out, forgetting to note why and under what circumstances. The hypermodernists challenged this, citing countless concrete examples in which cramped positions brought victory instead of defeat, but they also erred by swinging to the other extreme. The dispute lasted for years, and Tarrasch did not contribute to its resolution, stubbornly believing in his infallibility.
 
As Tarrasch had been the spiritual leader of the chess world for 30 years, his virtues and vices were exaggerated beyond measure. Yes, he was often petty, intrusive, and vain; yes, he often exercised his acerbic humor to the detriment of others — his distorted foot did mean something. For the generation that came after him, his main fault was that he did not stimulate the search for the new. He could criticize, but did not help create. As a result, they built without his help — and built in spite of him, ignoring his true contribution.
 
But to explain his exceptional influence, we need to see the other side of the coin. As a practicing grandmaster, he was consistently among the top three or four players for 30 years. But even more importantly, he revered chess. He believed in it with the passionate conviction shared by only a handful of his colleagues. He considered chess a worthy pursuit that could and should be spread, where skill and improvement were a meaningful reward for serious study.
 
The most fitting epitaph for him is the famous quote from his own book "Das Schachspiel": "Chess, like music, like love, has the power to make men happy."
 
"Chess Review" No. 3 (March), 1944
]]> Sat, 06 May 2023 09:30:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?dr-tarrasch-das-schachspiel https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/00000004D <![CDATA[Letter from A. Alekhine to J. R. Capablanca]]> imblog
Left to right: Alexander Alekhine, arbiter Dr. Carlos Augusto Querencio and José Raúl Capablanca
during World Chess Championship in Buenos Aires, 1927
photo:Wikimedia Commons

Paris, February 29, 1928.
Dear Mr. Capablanca.
 
I have received a copy of your letter addressed to Mr. Rueb and dated February 10th of this year, which you deemed necessary to send me, and I feel compelled to make the following statement to you and, in particular, to the chess community.
 
Having lost the title of world champion, you are turning to FIDE with a proposal to change the very conditions of the match for the world championship that you yourself devised, having won this title, and which you offered to your potential opponents in London in 1922. You take this step despite knowing full well that, for principled reasons, I will never agree to these changes, especially since they imply the possibility of a repeat of our match. I made all this very clear to you in our conversation immediately after the end of the match on December 12, 1927.
 
Although you assured me during our conversation that you agreed with my views (specifically, that a rematch between us could only take place under the same conditions as the first match) and that you would bring this to the attention of interested organizations, and although FIDE has existed since 1924, I never felt it necessary to make similar proposals to them, since such an appeal in my eyes would be equivalent to nullifying my signature under the London Conditions of 1922. However, despite all this, I would not have dared to give a public response to your letter to Mr. Rueb if it had not concerned the "experience" of the match in Buenos Aires. It is precisely because of this "experience" and the possible incorrect conclusions drawn from it that I feel obliged to establish the following:
 
1.    Based on our overall "experience," you propose to limit the number of games in the match to 16. You understand, of course, that if I only took into account the example of Buenos Aires and only thought about my own benefits, then this "experience" could have prompted me to agree with your proposal since I became the leader in the match from the 12th game and maintained the lead until the end. Therefore, after the 16th, 20th, and 24th games (the maximum number established in your match with Dr. Lasker), I would have been considered the winner (incidentally, this shows that your argument about the possibility of influencing the outcome of the match by fatiguing opponents cannot be justified by our "experience" in Buenos Aires). But I must confess that such a victory would not have given me satisfaction, nor would it have convinced anyone else, including myself, of such a defeat.
 
The essence of the matter is (and you know this as well as I do) that in the current phase of development of the chess art, knowledge of openings has advanced extremely far, and this makes the game of a great master for a draw easier and easier every year. The only logical conclusion that can and should be drawn from this fact is that in a match (especially for the World Championship), only decisive games should be taken into account. In practice, this practically excludes any limitation on the number of games in a match, since it is clear that otherwise draws will, directly or indirectly, have an impact on the final result.
 
Indeed, what would a match reduced, as per your proposal, to 16 games represent? The first opponent, who luckily manages to win one game (and one game proves nothing), can play all the remaining games for a draw, thereby forcing the second opponent to give him a draw in advance.
 
In accordance with the conditions you have established, I won 6 games against you. Can you really imagine that I would agree to play a rematch with you or defend my title against someone else on conditions that turn chess into a game based solely on chance, like baccarat?
 
2.    As for your proposal to change the time control and the order of play, I find it even more unfounded. The time control after five hours of play was proposed and introduced by you on your initiative at the New York tournament in 1927, where it received full recognition. As you yourself pointed out at the time, such control benefits both the public (allowing them to witness the most important part of the game - the first forty moves - in one session) and the players themselves (five hours of continuous play are less tiring than six to eight hours of play in two sessions). The opposite argument, now put forward by you and based on the "experience" of Buenos Aires, seems to me to be completely unfounded:
 
a) our 34 games, of which 25 (including five decisive games: 3 in my favor and 2 in yours) were practically already finished by the fortieth move or even earlier, show that neither "technical knowledge of openings" nor "general understanding of the game" preclude the possibility of finishing the game before the five-hour mark;

b) your statement about your unwillingness to analyze is likely to cause the greatest surprise in Buenos Aires itself, where the local press paid special attention to your chess work outside the game throughout the match.
 
Here are a few examples:
 
1.    After the break in the 11th game, you stayed in the club and, asking to be left alone in a separate room, analyzed the postponed position for two hours ("Critica", October 9, 1927).

2.    When you arrived at the club to continue the postponed 22nd game, you went into a room next to where the match was taking place, and while your clock was running, you analyzed the postponed position for about an hour - with the permission of the match arbiter Dr. Kverenchio (your friend, whose house you were staying in during the match).
 
I can add that this last case, while permissible, perhaps from a formal point of view, was completely unusual and caused a series of interpretations in the Buenos Aires Chess Club and undoubtedly (of course, without any intention on your part) influenced my further play in this game.
 
Although other examples could be added, the two already given are enough to show those who might take your proposal as an "argumentum ad hominem" that in any case it was not only the analysis that decided the fate of the match.
 
What should I say about your statement that after the 40th move opponents can receive help from... books?
 
If we consider a chess player of your experience and knowledge, this statement can only be regarded as a joke, and the President of FIDE, Mr. Rueb, a strong, first-class amateur, is unlikely to take it seriously.
 
As for the question of the possibility of assistance in analysis from other chess players, the chess world will probably be interested to hear about your Buenos Aires "experience," which showed you that such help is "easily obtained"! My personal experience in this regard is zero - this will be clear from the fact that an atmosphere of racial sympathy towards you prevailed throughout Argentina, which is quite understandable.
 
Summing it all up, I repeat:
 
After the match, I made it clear to you that I am willing to play a new match with you only under the same exact conditions as the first one. You stated that you fully agreed with me. Now, apparently, you have changed your mind and attempted to change the conditions of the match for the World Championship.
 
You apparently do not know me well enough if you think that anyone can make me abandon what I consider to be entirely right and in line with the idea of competition.
 
If you want to play a rematch with me, you must abide by the conditions that you yourself set and under which our first match was played.
 
My game gave me victory over you in six games, and I will only recognize someone's superiority over me (whether it be you or someone else) when they also win six games against me.
 
I am convinced that someone who, as a champion, creates difficult conditions for their competitor and who immediately after losing their title seeks to replace those conditions with others that make it easier for the challenger and introduce an element of chance, will not be met with sympathy in the sporting world.
 
With utmost respect, A. Alekhine.

Source: "Chess" 1928 No. 4
 
]]> Wed, 03 May 2023 10:05:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?letter-from-a-alekhine-to-j-r-capablanca https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/00000004C <![CDATA[The first year]]> imblog
Netherlands: School chess championships Alkmaar, March 1977
Photo agency De Boer

Message about teaching chess in schools has generated considerable interest among readers. In letters to the editor, they request more detailed information about this interesting initiative.

The editorial staff approached M. Noah, a school teacher and one of the initiators of chess lessons in the school, to share his experience of teaching chess.

Many school organizers ask the question, "What do chess give to children?" The answer to this question is the key to understanding the whole problem.

The development of science and technology has affected all aspects of our lives, including schools. The curriculum has expanded, and student overload has become evident. In these conditions, it is important to find means that increase the effectiveness of learning without increasing its volume. Such means, "catalysts," should 1) be interesting in form, 2) require relatively little time, 3) contribute to the development of students' general knowledge. This is how educators reasoned when they proposed introducing chess lessons in school. The first experience, started in the 1964/65 academic year in a school, gave good results. This example found followers.

So, what are chess in school?
  1. Chess lessons are a means of expanding students' general intellectual horizons, which promotes deeper and faster assimilation of school knowledge.
  2. Chess lessons contribute to general educational work.

Selection of particularly gifted children for chess improvement should be considered only as a result of these theses.

On educational work
It is known that educational work requires a creative approach. For example, teachers have decided to use a somewhat unconventional method to stimulate academic success. Let's call it the "Franklin method". While studying Italian with a friend, Benjamin Franklin agreed to play chess only if, after the game, the winner was obliged to perform some task related to the subject they were studying, at the request of the opponent. Playing roughly evenly, both partners improved their skills in both chess and Italian.

This method was used in an experiment, which was successful, and it will be repeated on a larger scale in the upcoming academic year.

On teaching methodology for beginners
Once, while observing the explanation of a well-known Reti study (white: Kh8, c6; black: Ka6, h5 - draw) to a children's group at a chess club, I noticed that the instructor put the position on a demonstration board, explained the conditions, and suggested finding a solution. Answers came down to moves 1. c6-c7 and 1. Kh8-h7. It turned out that many did not know the rule of the square and did not understand the difference between the king's movement along a broken and straight line (h8-g7-f6-g5-h4 and h8-h7-h6-h5-h4). These "details" had to be explained incidentally during the problem-solving process. Is it necessary to repeat that new material cannot be taught as a whole when its components are not yet known to the students? In previous classes, students should have been introduced to the elements of pawn endgames, practiced them, and only after being convinced of the assimilation of the components, move on to the whole. The aforementioned rule of the square could serve as a reason to connect pure chess material with a school subject (What is a square? Its properties? Etc.).

Breaking down a whole into as many components (elements) as possible and sequentially mastering them in order of increasing difficulty is an important principle of the methodology.

Our program for beginners is based on this principle.

Ten years ago, I had to conduct classes in a school chess club. Among those who studied were a group of fourth-grade girls who were learning the rules of the game. After explaining the first topic - "king with pawns against king with pawns" - a kind of "test match" took place. The girls, who only knew the moves of the king and pawns, played against boys - chess players of the V rank. The kings and pawns were placed in their starting positions - the game started from this moment. All games ended in favor of... the girls!

A step-by-step presentation of the material in order of increasing difficulty is not as easy to achieve in practice. Amazingly, but true: there is still no chess textbook that has been consistently built on this principle. The reason is the lack of scientifically grounded and practically tested criteria for determining the degree of difficulty of the position in the chess methodology. Often, difficult positions precede easy ones in exercises. Meanwhile, the famous educator K.D. Ushinsky wrote: "...the systematic nature of exercises is the first and most important basis for their success...".

Program for beginners (first year of learning)
Lesson 1 (Introduction) a) General concept of chess as a battle. The importance of theory. Ethics of a chess player. Rule: "touch-move". Qualities necessary for a chess player: patience, attentiveness, physical endurance. b) Chessboard - a system of intersecting horizontals and verticals. Their numerical and alphabetical designation. The square as the intersection of a horizontal and vertical, its designation. Diagonals.

First topic: "King and pawns vs. King and pawns"
Lesson 2 Kings. Placement on the board. Rules of movement and capture. Number of controlled squares depending on position (corner, edge, center). The importance of the king in the game. Pawns. Placement on the board. Rules of movement and capture (including "en passant"). Pawn promotion. The edge pawn. Pawn defense with pawn and king. Pawn exchanges. Threat to the king - check (general concept). Interaction between the king and pawns.

Lesson 3 Practical game: King and pawns vs. King and pawns (review and reinforcement of previous material).

Lesson 4 Pawn breakthrough. King vs. pawn (the square rule). Practical game: King and pawns vs. King and pawns.

Lesson 5 Promotion of a pawn to the eighth (first) rank. King with edge pawn vs. King. Stalemate (general concept). Practical game: King and pawns vs. King and pawns.

Lesson 6 Promotion of a pawn to the eighth (first) rank. King with non-edge pawn vs. King. Opposition.

Lesson 7 First topic exam.

Lesson 8 Review of the exam.

Topic Two: "Rook, Bishop, Queen"
Lesson 9 Rooks. Placement on the board. Rules for movement and capture. Checkmate of the king with two rooks. Number of controlled squares depending on the occupied position (corner, edge, center). Mutual defense of rooks and pawns. Pawn fork. Defense against check.

Lesson 10 Castling. Comparative strength of rooks and pawns. King with rook versus king and pawn (two, three pawns; connected pawns). Concept of connection horizontally and vertically. General characteristics of rooks.

Lesson 11 King with rook versus king. Achieving checkmate: basic concept of plan: a) driving the king to the edge of the board, b) checkmate on the edge of the board or in the corner.

Lesson 12 Practical game: king, rooks, and pawns versus the same pieces.

Lesson 13 Bishops. Placement on the board. Rules for movement and capture. Number of controlled squares depending on the occupied position (corner, edge, center). Impossibility of checkmate with one bishop. Action of bishops on adjacent diagonals. Checkmate with two bishops according to the plan: a) driving the king to the corner, b) checkmate in the corner.

Lesson 14 Comparative strength of bishops and pawns. King with bishop versus king and pawn (two, three pawns; connected pawns). Concept of connection diagonally. General characteristics of bishops. Connection of the color of the bishop's squares and the squares where pawns are placed.

Lesson 15 Comparative strength of rooks and bishops. King with bishop versus king and rook (in the corner of the bishop's squares and the opposite color).

Lesson 16 Comparative strength of rooks and bishops. Practical game: king, rooks, and pawns versus king, bishops, and pawns.

Lesson 17 Comparative strength of rooks and bishops. Practical game: king, rooks, and pawns versus king, rook, bishop, and pawns.

Lesson 18 Queens. Placement on the board. Rules for movement and capture. Number of controlled squares depending on the occupied position (corner, edge, center). King and queen versus king. Checkmate.

Lesson 19 Comparative strength of queen and pawns. King and queen versus king and pawn (pawns).

Lesson 20 Practical game: king and queen versus king and pawns. Illustration of simultaneous attack by the queen on the pawns.

Lesson 21 Practical game: king, queen, and pawns versus king, queen, bishop, and pawns.

Lesson 22 Practical play with all pieces except the knights.

Topic Three: "Knight"
Lesson 23 Knight. Placement on the board. Rules of movement and capture. Characteristics of the knights movement (through figures). The number of controlled fields depending on the occupied position (angle, edge, center). The impossibility of checkmate with two knights and achieving checkmate with a pawn on the weakest side. General concept of a waiting move (compare with checkmating with rooks and bishops).

Lesson 24 Comparative strength of knights and pawns. King and "Knight versus King and Pawn" (two, three pawns; connected pawns).

Lesson 25 Double attacks of the knight. Comparison with the struggle of the bishop against pawns. Conclusion about the approximate equivalence of bishops and knights.

Lesson 26 Comparative strength of rooks and knights. King and rook versus king and knight: a) the knight loses, b) the knight draws. Practical game: king, rooks, and pawns versus king, rook, knight, and pawns. The concept of "quality" - the difference in the strength of the rook and light piece.

Lesson 27 Comparative strength of bishops and knights depending on the position of pawns (open and closed position). Practical game: king, bishops, and pawns versus king, knights, and pawns.

Lesson 28 (King and bishop versus king and knight with few pawns: a) pawns on one flank, b) pawns on different flanks. Conclusion about the long-range capabilities of bishops.

Lesson29 Exchange. Advantageous and disadvantageous exchanges (repetition of comparative value of pieces and pawns).

Lesson 30 Different types of draws (general exchange of pieces, stalemate, perpetual check; examples where an extra piece does not win).

Lesson 31 Generalization of the concept of check. Uncovered and double check. Defenses against check.

Lesson 32 Practical game with all the pieces.

The program is designed for one lesson per week and is based on the calculation: September, November, January, March - three lessons, October, December, February, April, May - four lessons. A total of 32 lessons. This explains the brevity of the material to some extent. For example, after the 22nd lesson, it would be desirable to conduct a test with further verification and analysis. However, this would lead to a shift in the program until June.

During practical games (lessons 3, 4, 5, 12, etc.), the game starts with the pieces in their starting positions.

When determining the comparative strength of pieces (lessons 10, 14, etc.), there is a struggle between the pieces and their tied pawns. The limited nature of the program does not allow for the demonstration of many cases of the struggle between pieces and pawns, especially since some positions are not typical for determining the usual balance of power (for example, the case when two pawns, which are far apart from each other, win against a bishop or knight). In each individual case, the teacher who has time can increase the amount of material.

"Chess in the ussr" 1968, No. 9
]]> Sat, 29 Apr 2023 13:51:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?the-first-year https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/00000004B <![CDATA[Chess lessons - lessons of creativity and beauty]]> imblog
Fünf Jungen Schach spielend (Five boys playing chess) 1952
photo: Roger Rössing (1929–2006)
chessboard: lichess.org

Children are distrustful of all sorts of rules and prohibitions that limit their freedom. As is well known, children's thinking is predominantly imagistic, and words do not immediately acquire enough independent persuasive power in their minds. A young and inexperienced teacher in winter told the children that they could not lick metal door handles in the cold. The result is easy to guess. A child does not believe on word, even if it is the word "cannot." They can be disobedient not out of stubbornness or a "spirit of contradiction," but because their minds need imagery and practical reinforcement of words. Children are very curious, they love to experiment, and sometimes it can be risky.
 
As they age, this gradually changes, and logic, experience, and knowledge become the mainstays of an adult's life. But creative people retain a bit of childhood within them. Calculated and rational behavior, the need to verify their actions with considerations of usefulness and correctness, do not deprive them of childish curiosity and a penchant for the new and unusual. Such people take commonly accepted rules and truths seriously and respectfully but do not turn them into dogmas. They are attracted to insoluble contradictions and paradoxical, "crazy" ideas... In short, they are distinguished by those strange attachments without which no creativity is possible.
 
Discoveries are not made on well-trodden paths. Creativity is hard work, requiring a person's maximum mental and intellectual effort, and guaranteeing neither success nor fame nor money. "The smart one will not climb the mountain, the smart one will go around it," says a joking proverb. So, what motivates smart and talented people to embark on difficult searches for new and unusual solutions, avoiding explored and tested paths?
 
One of the main stimuli for creativity is beauty. Creative exploration is rewarded with results in which unusualness and wonder combine with correctness, appropriateness, and harmony. The unity of these conflicting properties is what evokes aesthetic experiences. Whether a scientist is working on a problem that determines the fate of humanity or a little schoolboy is trying to find a checkmate in two moves in a difficult chess problem, creative efforts are equally rewarded with the beauty of the solutions found. The laws of creativity and beauty are unified.
 
The great French mathematician and philosopher, Henri Poincaré, who pondered on the connection between truth, creativity, and beauty, came to the following conclusion: "The scientist studies nature not because it is useful; he studies it because he delights in it, and he delights in it because it is beautiful...Intellectual beauty gives us a pure delight in itself and perhaps more for its own sake than for the future good of humanity, the scientist devotes himself to long and difficult labors...The search for beauty leads us to the same choice as the search for utility" [1, p. 293].
 
Developed aesthetic senses are akin to creative intuition. They allow for the prediction of truths that are not yet known. Beauty prompts purposeful actions before the goal is consciously recognized. The pursuit of the beautiful helps in making the right decision and compensates for a lack of data. Academician O.K. Antonov said that in aircraft design, great importance is given to aesthetic criteria: a beautiful plane will fly well, while an ugly one will not [2].
 
"The rational mind appeals to the past, while aesthetic consciousness appeals to the future. All beauty anticipates its time, as if it were representing the future. Beauty is both a model and a program for the future." [3]
 
The organic connection between creativity and beauty is fully and even more vividly manifested in the game of chess than in science. (It is not for nothing that Richard Réti claimed that chess has more life in it than mathematics.) Like other games, chess originated as an imitation of life. It has accompanied humanity for many centuries and retains its attractiveness to this day, while many diverse games that emerged during this time have been thoroughly forgotten or have disappeared altogether. And this means that chess has stood the test of time, preserved its connection with life, and adapted to its new sociocultural realities.
 
The world of chess is incomparably simpler than the real world. But it is complex and meaningful enough for people to enrich their understanding of the objective laws of life by perfecting their chess skills. The basic laws of logic, dialectics, and aesthetics do not depend on the area of their manifestation. The logic of a scientist and a military leader, a teacher and a doctor, an entrepreneur and a farmer is the same logic that governs the thinking of a chess player. And just as there is no "separate" chess logic, there is no "separate" chess aesthetics. "Recalling vivid games... we realize that our admiration for them is based on a deep aesthetic feeling, which is peculiar but no different from the feeling we have when we are confronted with the beauty of a building, the harmonious beauty of nature, or the physical perfection of a human being." [4, p. 33]
 
For children, playing chess can become one of their first aesthetic experiences that creates a desire for beauty. After all, chess is a creative activity that is accessible even to preschoolers, teaching them to act not only according to the laws of logic but also according to the laws of beauty.
 
While looking through I.G. Sukhin's book "Amazing Adventures in Chessland" [5], I noticed one of the puzzles created by the author for children aged 3-5. Two white and two black rooks are placed on a reduced chessboard (3x3).
 


Begin with white. The goal of the game is to capture all of the opponent's rooks ("a game of destruction").

The solution turns out to be quite beautiful. To achieve the goal, the child must overcome the initial urge to immediately capture or attack the opponent's piece and instead find a quiet and paradoxical move that establishes cooperation between the white rooks. On the next move (when the black side only has one rook left), the situation repeats itself, casting doubt on the randomness of the first move and revealing a certain pattern and strategy. The ultimate triumph of harmony.

It is not surprising that learning chess can become a lesson in creativity and beauty even for 3-year-old children!
 
It is commonly believed that in chess, beauty lies not in the rules and principles derived from the experience of the game, but rather in the exceptions to these rules. Chess players, of course, enjoy it when a pawn proves stronger than a queen, or when the cathetus is longer than the hypotenuse, but such a view of beauty is incomplete and highly limited. The connection between chess truths and beauty is much more complex, but the fact that aesthetic experiences depend on knowledge is beyond doubt. For example, to fully appreciate a beautiful combination with the sacrifice of a queen, one must know that losing a queen usually leads to defeat. The more chess truths a child learns, the more fully the world of beauty opens up to them. Childish voluntarism is as counterproductive to creativity as adult dogmatism.
 
Playing chess is primarily an aesthetic (creative!) process. The "logic" of emotions is inseparable from the logic of thought. Therefore, in my opinion, teaching children chess should also be approached as a means of aesthetic education.
 
Literature:
1. Poincaré Henri, On Science - M., 1983. - 560 с.
2. Simonov P., Beauty - the language of superconsciousness
3. Babushkin L., Why is the beautiful beautiful?
4. Bronstein D., Smolyan G. The Beautiful and the Furious World - M., 1978. - 86 с.
5. Sukhin I.G. Amazing adventures in the Chess country - M., 1980. - 320 с.
]]> Sat, 22 Apr 2023 15:29:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?chess-lessons-lessons-of-creativity-and-beauty https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/00000004A <![CDATA[Lasker - Capablanca - Alekhine]]> imblog
The top five finishers of the St. Petersburg Chess Tournament 1914:
Lasker (seated left), Alekhine (standing left), Capablanca,
Marshall and Tarrasch (seated right).
 photo: Wikimedia Commons

Current chess players can no longer imagine the excitement and buzz that the appearance of Lasker on the chess scene more than thirty years ago caused. It wasn't just his strength, but rather the unique features of his game and his extraordinary techniques that were the subject of discussion and frequent condemnation. Even though the creator of the "new" school, Steinitz, and its successor, Tarrasch, had already prepared fans for the new style, Lasker's game was still unexpected and stunning, and no one opposed him more frequently than Morphy.
 
Abandoning all gambits, avoiding complications, and destroying risky combinations for the sake of precise and cold calculation, it seemed that Lasker was bringing boredom and death to the art from which inspiration was being driven out.
 
It was necessary for a lot of time to pass before Lasker's true character became clear, and then with surprise it was suddenly realized that he had no pupils or followers. This was because his game was very individual and more of an exception than a rule, and its peculiarities lie outside the realm of chess.
 
Lasker was a representative of willpower in the art of chess, which, for him, was first and foremost a struggle. He devotes his philosophical works to the latter and dreams of establishing an institute in Russia for studying the laws of the struggle, of which chess is the purest prototype. The winner is not only the most skilled specialist, but also the one with a great will to win, who believes in his own right to the end, or, as Marshal Foch teaches, the secret of victory lies in acknowledging oneself as defeated after one's opponent.
 
He can make mistakes, his debuts are generally not played well, he can create a wrong plan or end up in an unfavorable position: no one has put so many wrong ideas into circulation as he has, but he defends each of his thoughts with such persistence and conviction that even his unquestionably correct opponent is swayed by him.
 
However, in order for his will to triumph completely, it is necessary that the goal is clear. And it is with such clear and defined goals that his entire activity is filled: every tournament, every game. Without clear goals, Lasker can get confused; but as soon as they appear, no one can reach them more confidently than he can. And when it comes to the first prize, he can defeat such a serious opponent as Teichmann (in the 1909 St. Petersburg tournament) in just twenty moves. However, the clarity of the goal does not lead to simplicity or superficiality in his game: on the contrary, Lasker, a thoughtful and well-educated person, delves deep into the game and extracts those secrets that can lead to victory. It is enough to see him playing to understand that he does not see simple villages in front of him, but rather deeply hidden underground forces, uncovers eternal laws, and sets huge machinery into motion.
 
The transition from him to Capablanca is like hearing a bright voice after a burning page. Is it better or worse? What are the comparisons? Love for Beethoven does not necessarily cause hatred for Mozart. But in Capablanca, there is nothing of the "idle reveler": he is much more modern, and leisure has long been replaced by sport. And his game is much newer, embodying one of those characteristics that characterize modernity.
 
With his game, Capablanca revolutionized chess, although its essence was hidden for a long time from many.
 
If before him positional play was celebrated, where a player went from position to position, avoiding weak points and trying to create them in the opponent, Capablanca abolished all of this and introduced dynamics. For him, positions do not exist: only series of moves. A bad position is won by hidden moves within it, and a good one is destroyed by them. There is no position: everything moves, striving for the shortest path to the intended goal, and all pieces rush into battle, leaving only the minimum amount for defense.
 
Replacing static with dynamics: time replaces space - this is the revolution of Capablanca, which transformed the whole game and revealed all the backwardness of military art that used the techniques of positional warfare during the European War, which had reigned in chess for half a century and had already been relegated to the archives. Undoubtedly, the next war will be fought on the principles of Capablanca, when in chess they will have long been replaced by something else.
 
What does Alekhine bring with him, separated from Capablanca by such an insignificant interval of time as five years? Nervous in life, nervous in the game, expending his ingenuity in every game, and not even hesitating to invent and fantasize against the weakest opponent - in Alekhine, we easily recognize a child of nervous years of war and revolution.
 
But this did not prevent, but rather helped him to renew the game so seriously that the newest chess players see their leader and teacher precisely in him, and not in Capablanca. And this is despite the fact that his game is the pinnacle and triumph of individuality, which cannot be taught.
 
The essence of the revolution carried out by Alekhine is that he was the first to start building the game from the point of view of the black pieces. Until now, the principles of the game from the white side had been developed, and they began and therefore had an extra move and initiative, while the black pieces carefully defended themselves against the blows of the white pieces all the time, however, playing in the way recommended by the general principles of the game, i.e. the principles of the white pieces.
 
Alekhine did the opposite. It was as if he asked himself, "How can I best play as Black, taking into account that White has an extra move?" And he answered, "First, we must withdraw from the game. We shouldn't occupy the center as we were taught before, we shouldn't occupy the fourth or fifth line. Instead, we should stay on the three edges and allow White to do everything that is expected according to theory: advance their pawn, occupy the center, bring out the bishops, etc. And when they have done all of that, attack their weakened positions from our closed position."
 
The Alekhine's Defense opening is when Black moves their knight on the first move; White attacks it with a pawn, the knight goes back to the middle of the board, and it is attacked again by a pawn. This happens several times. Black only has one knight out, and it is on a very bad square, while White has several pawns occupying the center of the board. In the past, this opening would have seemed like suicide and a mockery of common sense. But in reality, these advanced pawns are weak precisely because Black has not developed anything yet, and they can direct a concentrated attack of their pawns on them, while our pawns can no longer defend themselves.
 
But it should not be thought that Alekhine gave a passive or defensive character to the game - not at all. He simply delayed the beginning of the game for a few moves, rather than leading from the starting position that favored the whites. And with this he turned the usual game scheme inside out, opposing its cultivated regularity and scientificity with the capricious fantasy of combinational inspiration. The result was an unprecedented, incredible paradox: the game of the blacks, who were sentenced to defense, turned out to be much more lively, risky, and bold than the former game of the whites.
 
These are the three personalities who took part in this significant struggle. And after thinking about them, it is awkward to count points and know that the winner will not be the one who triumphs over the others internally, but the one who scores the most points. Alas! And in chess, as everywhere, external reality does not always coincide with internal essence.
 
Source: "Chess Sheet" 1924,15.
 
]]> Wed, 19 Apr 2023 20:10:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?lasker-capablanca-alekhine https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000049 <![CDATA[Chess in the epoch of the Great French Revolution]]> imblog
British Museum
1790
photo: Wikimedia Commons

During the French Revolution, chess enjoyed considerable popularity. However, due to the fact that it "essentially amounts to protecting the king and therefore contradicts all the worldviews of a French republican," the question arose of its prohibition. In the " Moniteur'e," which was one of the largest and most influential newspapers of that era, an article in defense of chess appeared on November 11, 1793. The author of the article, Giton-Morvo, was a prominent Jacobin, a member of the Convention, who played a major political role in the revolution, and apparently a passionate chess player. He seeks to completely eliminate the monarchical element in chess terminology but cannot entertain the thought of this game being completely prohibited. His project to reform chess terminology is not without historical interest. The proposed article was kindly provided to "Chess" by historian V. V. Oransky. In translation, the style of the original has been preserved as much as possible.
"Chess", 1928 № 3
About the game of chess.

Will the French be allowed to play chess in the future? This question was raised a few days ago in a society of good republicans and, as expected, was answered negatively. But then the idea arose: could we give a republican appearance (republicaniser) to this game - the only one that exercises the mind - and, by destroying names and forms that we have sworn to eternal hatred, preserve the perfection of combinations that give it so much interest that we cannot dream of replacing it with any other game? Below are my thoughts on this second question and the conclusions I have come to.
 
Everyone knows that the game of chess is a prototype of war; there is nothing repulsive about it for a republican, as it is clear that a free people must always be ready to defend their freedom with weapons in hand. If this people do not use weapons for anything other than lawful defense, they cannot be so reckless as to renounce military strength and not engage in maneuvers at least from time to time. Even if these maneuvers were significant and long-lasting, they would not fulfill their purpose unless a semblance of a military camp was created. Undoubtedly, it makes sense to immediately divide this military camp into two halves, each consisting of parts of all types of weapons. Each will be united under its own banner. Naturally, in this struggle, which aims only at competition among brothers, it can be agreed that capturing the banner will be the ultimate goal and a sign of victory. Excellent. There is no need to look far; thanks to these familiar thoughts, we will find names for the pieces, rules, and ideas of the game, which will correspond more to the internal content of the game than in the old names. Only long use of the latter could conceal from us the strange mismatch between names and the functions they perform. In this case, it will be maneuvers or perhaps a small war. The word "chess" has a royal etymology; this is enough to forget at least the external side of them.
 
Our main piece will be the standard-bearer or, better yet, the banner (le drapeau). It will be easy to give this piece the appropriate appearance; it will replace the former king, have his move, and everyone around must protect it. When it is attacked, they say: "on the banner" (au drapeau!). When it is taken (forcee), they say: victory (victoire). When it is only trapped, they say: blockade (blocus), and the game ends in a draw.

All other pieces will also transform according to the type of army in a military position. I'm not talking about the general (general) - there is none on the board, but he is in the head of the one who leads the game. The piece, so stupidly called the queen (reine ou dame), will become the senior officer (l'officier general); in short, the adjutant (l'adjutant).

Rooks will become cannons (les canons), and the relationship between moves and names will become clear. Castling will mean placing the cannon by the banner; they will notify this with the words: "battery to the banner" (batterie ou drapeau!).
 
The bishops (fous = jester) will depict light cavalry, dragoons (les dragons). The former knights (chevaliers - horse) will be demoted to the rank of cavalry.

Pawns (les pions) will represent infantry, foot soldiers, and marksmen. When they penetrate the enemy's camp to its limits, they will not change their gender, and their new move will only be a natural promotion of a brave soldier.

I leave it to others to judge whether I have resolved the problem in favor of those who want to find relaxation in the game without hidden selfish motives. I think I have at least destroyed all the images, all the expressions that could contradict republican morals, destroyed that absurd belief that kings are everything, that people exist only for them; this is necessary for slaves, who are stupid enough to fear only because slavery exists. Someday they will undoubtedly see that, like pawns in chess, they are just tools used by tyrants to take or break them at their whim.

L. В. Guiton-Morveau.
(Moniteur reimpr, vol. XVIII, p. 383)
]]> Tue, 11 Apr 2023 20:55:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?chess-in-the-epoch-of-the-great-french-revolution https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000048 <![CDATA[Why is chess so popular now?]]> imblog
Photograph of the future chess grandmaster José Raúl Capablanca posing with a chess set.
1 January 1919
photo: Wikimedia Commons

Article J. R. Capablanca

Every time a big international chess tournament takes place, the whole world eagerly awaits its results with intense interest. The press of all countries discusses events in the chess world, and conversations about chess can be heard in all public places and in all social classes. But where does this popularity of chess come from? Our era, more than any other, is less favorable for the development of philosophical calm and observance, which seem necessary for serious engagement in chess. No, we live in an unusually turbulent and tense time. So why are chess so popular now? Clearly, the reason for this must still be sought in some of the properties of our modern culture.
 
The point is that we now, more than ever, value all kinds of achievements, whether material or intellectual. Let's take our increased interest, for example, in any sporting event. Most people don't seriously engage in any sport, yet almost everyone attends sporting competitions and eagerly awaits their outcome. In the same way, in chess: there are many people who do not play chess at all, yet they know not only the names of all the best masters, but also who took which prizes in the recent tournaments. Because we all love both physical and mental struggles, and we enthusiastically welcome the winner.
 
Since I've already started talking about chess, I'll also answer two questions that I'm often asked. The first question is about which qualities, in my opinion, are most necessary to become a good chess player. I think it's impossible to answer this question in a precise and comprehensive way. It's like asking what qualities make a person a painter or sculptor. Chess is undoubtedly an art, just like painting or sculpture! You can't become an artist without having a certain natural talent, and the same goes for a chess player. The only thing you can notice is that people who showed an inclination for mathematics in childhood or early youth usually tend to be drawn to chess later on. In general, studying exact sciences is a good basis for chess creativity. Therefore, chess could be compared to an exact science, if it didn't require another ability from a chess player - a rich imagination. The greatest chess players who made first-class discoveries in the field of chess art did not always win with pure logic alone, but often relied on their imagination. A good chess player's logic and imagination must go hand in hand, mutually balancing each other out. Imagination is, of course, associated with that insight and special perceptiveness that allow you to quickly notice your opponent's mistakes and use them to your advantage.
 
But in competitions between strong masters, mistakes in the true sense of the word are very rare, and therefore, just waiting for them won't get you far. Something else is needed here: insight into the opponent's plans, because whoever was able to decipher the opponent's intentions earlier usually wins. And for this, in addition to logic and creative imagination, a certain ability to be a psychologist is required. Understanding the character of the opponent is a very important advantage in chess. The second question concerns the chess talent of individual nations. I cannot answer this positively. We can only state that although chess was invented in the East, where even now many good chess players can be found, especially since Eastern peoples have two abilities that seem to be extremely favorable for chess: observational skills and patience, European chess players soon surpassed their teachers - the Arabs. It was only in Europe that what could be called chess science emerged.
  
As for individual Western nations, it is difficult to say which of them is the most gifted with chess abilities - especially if you take the history of chess into account. Almost every nation has had or still has its outstanding chess players. It should be noted that the so-called "national temperament" is greatly smoothed out over the chessboard. I know Englishmen who are more gifted with chess imagination than Spaniards, and I know Italians or Hungarians who are more reserved and cool-headed than many Scandinavians. As for myself, I can say that the style of my game does not correspond at all to my southern origin. Despite my great love for simplicity, I always play cautiously and avoid risks. I think I am doing the right thing, because excessive "boldness" contradicts the essence of chess, which is not a risky game, but a purely intellectual struggle based on logical data.

"Chess leaflet", 1930 №5
]]> Fri, 07 Apr 2023 20:41:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?why-is-chess-so-popular-now https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000047 <![CDATA[On the characterization of visual-action thinking (part 4)]]> imblog
Chess Players
James Northcote (1746–1831)


2. Calculation and "vision"
Calculation in chess, as in other fields (for example, during mental arithmetic), is characterized by the imaginary execution - one by one - of intermediate operations that are in a known relationship to the idea of ​​a combination, with the consciousness fixing of each intermediate operation stage. Each considered move in the calculation is an intermediate operation. The imaginary execution of an intermediate operation in a chess calculation primarily involves recognizing the necessity and forced nature of this move. The necessity of one's own moves is primarily determined by the goal, the idea of ​​the combination as a whole, or the specific variant of it, and the necessity of the opponent's moves follows from the basic well-known positions established by the rules of the game and practice, such as the rule of check, the value of material advantage, the average relative value of pieces, etc. If the forced nature of moves does not follow from mandatory rules or well-known positions, then there is no calculation as a technical operation.

From a logical point of view, recognizing this move as forced is a deduction, but a rather elementary one. For example, if by my move I threaten both the opponent's king and another piece simultaneously, then the move in response that I consider as my opponent's move will be the one that reflects the threat to the king, not the other piece, even if it is the most valuable one - the queen. It is clear that this is a folded deduction that is performed instantly and without the need to verify its correctness. In the example we cited, the deduction is based on the rules of the game and therefore there can be no exception. Otherwise, when the deduction is a conclusion from positions established by practice and theory that do not have an absolute character and always require a reservation: "If there is nothing unusual in the position." In the calculation, similar conditional deductions inevitably arise.

Next, the intermediate calculation operation - the mental move - includes fixing the visual image of the position resulting from the move. It is quite obvious that such visual fixation of the move made is absolutely necessary for further consideration of moves, so that the mental figure is already in the correct position. But this alone is not enough. It is necessary to imagine the changed position during the calculation in general or at least the most important parts of it; in other words, a holistic image must arise in the mind, which includes both what is directly perceived and remains unchanged, and what is visually imagined in connection with the changes due to the calculated moves. The need for such fixation for the persuasiveness of the calculation, and most importantly, the psychological meaning of this fixation, is revealed in the analysis of errors that arise due to the absence or incompleteness of fixation. These errors are caused either by incomplete execution of the entire calculation, primarily due to insufficient volitional effort, or because some moves are not calculated as separate intermediate operations.

Shortened calculation forms are often used. For example, if 4 pieces attack an enemy piece protected by 3 pieces, it is clear that after mutual captures, the battlefield will remain with the attacking piece that takes the last piece. In this case, 4 moves of the attacking side and 3 moves of the defending side, i.e., 7 moves, are combined in the calculation with one formula. Some of these shortened calculation methods are very elementary, while others are more complex. It is not enough to know these abbreviated methods; one must have the skills to use them when they are objectively appropriate, skills that create a sense of confidence in the ability to use them without error.

Sometimes a chess player can mentally "vision" a whole series of consecutive moves that fly by so quickly that the consciousness cannot fixate on the intermediate situations from move to move. The possibility of such almost instantaneous "vision" of a series of moves united by a common idea is confirmed by numerous observations of play in blindfold chess or in so-called "blitz games"; sometimes during the course of the game, it is undoubtedly the case that the almost instantaneous move made, with which the combination begins, was associated with "vision" what results from the whole series of moves in which the intended combination is realized.

The ability to "vision" a whole series of moves at once is also confirmed by the protocols of special experiments. For example, in the protocol of solving one study, it is said: "instant-first moves"; this "instant vision" covers a variant that includes 5 moves each for white and black, and a subvariant of 2 moves each, for a total of 14 moves.

"Vision" in an even more elementary form is also observed in written arithmetic. For example, if you calculate 164 + 36 in your head using the order of written arithmetic, you need 4 intermediate operations: 1) 4 + 6 equals 0 and 1 "in your head"; 2) 3 + 6 equals 9; 3) 9 + 1 equals 0 and 1 "in your head"; 4) 1 + 1 equals 2. However, it is entirely possible, with some not very significant experience, to "vision" immediately: 0 in ones, 0 in tens, and 2 in hundreds. Here, the merging of four intermediate operations occurs, which gives one automated reaction with its typical characteristics: a) no special focus on each separate action is required; b) the speed of the process is so great that conscious control over the intermediate links is absent.

In the given sense, "vision" is not necessarily related to visual thinking or visual perception; it is possible even for non-visual thinkers. "Vision" significantly expands the role of automated reactions in a chess player's thinking process; each separate automated reaction is mostly a reproduction, whereas the holistic reaction resulting from the merging of several private reactions goes beyond mere reproduction and is associated with the perception of the whole that is characteristic of the situation.

The positive side of "vision" is associated with its negative aspect - the lack of control over intermediate links, which can lead to mistakes. Here is a typical example.

Strong chess player of the first category Z. led the game well up to a certain point, and then made a move that led to the loss of a piece and the game. This was caused by the following. He calculated a variant in 10 moves, during which he first apparently loses the queen, and then plays it back with a good position. However, this calculation contained an error, which can be seen on the attached diagram.

In his calculated variant, the opponent's bishop, moving diagonally from point A through point B, is directed towards point V in accordance with the combination idea. These 2 moves from A to B and from B to V were covered by "vision". However, due to the fact that he did not fix in his imagination the situation after the move AB separately, he did not notice that the bishop from point B, along the dotted line marked, attacks his rook, which is located at point G. The situation that arose after the move AB seemed to pass through his consciousness, directed in accordance with the idea to point V. The mistake could have been avoided if, after the move by which the bishop moved to square B, the position that emerged was fixed with visual imagination. It required a special focus on fixing the position as such, regardless of the idea of the variant. With such a special focus, the bishop's attack from point B could not have gone unnoticed due to the maximum habit of "taking" and the threat of "taking."

Each intermediate operation - a move in a detailed calculation - is characterized by a special focus on fixing the visual imagination of the intermediate position. Simple verbalization of a move without fixation of the visual position, and even more so, covering multiple moves with a general verbal formulation, can lead to errors similar to those that occur when instantly "vision" a whole series of moves. Here is an example of such an error.

In a report on a match in Prague, it was reported that during the endgame of the Zita-Kotov game in the corridors where the game was being demonstrated, an unknown schoolboy showed those around him a variation that leads to a draw. This variation included only three moves (a move, a response move, and another move). Zita did not notice this variation and lost the game. There is no doubt about the essence of the position, and an experienced master may have failed to notice this elementary continuation only because the first two moves of the unused variation were included in the overall verbal formula (which covers four moves) such as "exchanging 2 knights for a rook and an opponent's pawn". Since the analysis showed that the position that arises after the exchange was not advantageous, Zita refused the first move and chose another continuation, which led to a loss. The position that arises after the first response move was not fixed in his visual imagination during the analysis at the board, nor even during home analysis, when he immediately removed all 4 pieces (2 knights, rook, pawn) from the board, passing over intermediate positions, to analyze the position that results from all four moves covered by the verbal formula.

Given the possibility of such collisions, chess players use abbreviated calculation formulas and "vision" with great caution, preferring detailed calculations.

However, "vision" is regularly used because:
  1. it is necessary in this context;
  2. by encompassing the "vision" of the sub-variant, attention is not distracted from calculating the main variant;
  3. "vision" is easier than calculation; it is carried out directly and does not require any voluntary effort;
  4. "vision" is an essential element in finding an idea because detailed calculation of all moves until an idea is grasped, which provides moves in the calculation with a forced character, is impractical and often unrealistic. Therefore, the search for a combinational idea and the actual moment of finding it are inevitably linked to the concretization of the idea by visualizing the main position in subsequent moves.

Fixation in imagination of the obtained position requires significant voluntary effort. Involuntary attention is often insufficient for this purpose: arbitrary attention is needed so that the details of the visually imagined position are not displaced by those directly perceived and do not mix with the details that have passed in the previous stages of calculation.

Example. In the game Averbakh-Ragozin in the semi-finals of the All-Union Championship in 1944, the whites calculated a variant in a critical position, as a result of which an important point remained unprotected since the bishop protecting it is exchanged during the variant. That the bishop is being exchanged, the whites undoubtedly saw because they went for it, but fixation in the final imaginary position of the weakened point with the corresponding consequences did not occur, probably due to the displacing effect of the actually perceived position.

Analysis of the mental operation of calculation is of interest in that it is easier to study the interaction between the automated and conscious processes involved in this relatively elementary technical operation. For such an analysis, it is essential to identify the time costs of the calculation operation. From the total time spent on considering the combination, the time spent on finding the idea of the combination in general or on careful consideration of some intermediate move for various reasons should be subtracted. This is possible only in specific cases through special analysis. Testimony from the player who made the moves is also crucial for convincing conclusions. Obtaining such testimony while preserving the naturalness of the process is challenging. At present, I have only the materials where I myself was tested, and these materials partially confirm the above characteristics of the calculation.

As an example, I will take two games from the parties where I made recordings for experimental purposes. In one of them, a combination requiring calculation of about 30 moves (several variations with sub-variations) was played, and it took 15 minutes to calculate this combination. In the other game, a combination involving only up to 40 moves was played, and it took 20 minutes to calculate it. From the records, it is evident that the idea behind both combinations was immediately understood, and all the time was spent on the technical calculation operation. The average time cost per move in both cases is 30 seconds.

After some time, when I still remembered these combinations, a study was conducted in which my task as a test subject was to calculate these same combinations move by move. The calculation took 3 minutes and 32 seconds for the first combination, and 7 minutes and 35 seconds for the second combination, which is 7 to 11 seconds per move as opposed to 30 seconds in the game. This difference is due to the fact that in the responsible game, unlike the experiment, it is not enough to visually fix the change, but a fixation of the entire position is required. The fixation (in the sense described above) mainly amounts to purposeful representation of the position, which entails automated operations, which follows from the fact that 30 seconds is not enough. If a particular move in the calculation is not forced, i.e. not related to automated reactions, and requires real deliberation, then there is no fundamental difference between the imaginary execution of the move as an intermediate operation in the calculation and deliberation in the game, and 30 seconds is insufficient for any convincing deliberation of the idea of a move in a responsible game. This can be seen from Table 1. Out of 19 moves, starting from the 11th move, i.e. after the debut stage and up to the 29th move when the time trouble began, only two moves (one each by Reshevsky and Alekhine) required less than 30 seconds for deliberation, and for the majority of moves, more than 2 minutes were spent on each move.

In the example we have provided, the time spent - 15 minutes and 20 minutes - is proportional to the number of moves (30 and 40 moves), but this cannot be considered a general rule. Based on the overall impression from all the material available to us, it can be concluded that as the number of calculated moves increases, the amount of time spent increases more than proportionally, i.e. progressively.

3. Adjusting the directionality
Every move made during a calculation is the realization of certain directed mental processes. Direction is associated with a certain goal. The goal is achieved through any means necessary. The general direction is implemented in private directions, which can be in different relationships to each other and to the general direction.

In addition to private directions as steps towards achieving the main goal (in chess - victory), a person can have side directions (in the case of a chess player at the board - aesthetic interest, research interest, and the corresponding directions).

Sometimes such side directions distract from the main goal. In a game of chess, for example, there may be a pursuit of "beauty" or contemplation of the theoretical possibilities of a given position unrelated to the practical goal - the move.

How then are the relationships between these types of direction regulated? First of all - through skills. We illustrate this with the balance of time. A chess player, playing for the first time in a responsible competition with a clock, either forgets about the clock, or the thought of the clock interferes with thinking. With experience, this passes.

However, in more complex cases and experienced chess players, two extremes are noticed: either from excessive concern about the time to make moves that seem obvious, they make them instantly, or, on the contrary, they think "to exhaustion" about every move until they reach a state of mental overload. A strong-willed chess player consciously develops skills: even if a move seems obvious, they pause for at least a few seconds before responding to avoid mistakes; on the other hand, from the very beginning of the game, they should not think more than is absolutely necessary to choose a move.

To achieve the full potential of skillful regulation of focus in order to give the right direction to thoughts according to the situation at hand, in many cases, a conscious act of will is necessary to give thoughts the appropriate direction. The most important function of willpower in the mental process is to subordinate secondary tendencies to the main one and to coordinate these tendencies with each other.

The greatest chess players know how to subjugate their imagination to the requirements of objective rationality, and, conversely, to direct their thinking towards complex combinations if there are chances of winning.

4. Undercounting of replicas
As previously mentioned, recognition of the opponent's intended move in calculation can be inferred from established principles and theory, and in this case, the underlying assumption is "if there is nothing unusual in the position." However, if this assumption is not met even once during the game, which can happen during one of the several dozen moves calculated while considering combinations, the game will be lost.

Therefore, it is necessary to "sense the possibility of something unusual" in the appropriate cases. Anticipation is even more difficult here than when finding a combination idea, as attention is focused on specifying the combination idea and fixing variable situations, and the need to balance time means that calculation cannot take as long as in a game move.

Naturally, due to the difficulties of anticipation during calculation, mistakes are relatively common, especially when an unexpected move by the opponent goes unnoticed. A good move on one's part is when the strongest possible reply by the opponent is taken into account. Everyone realizes this, but undoubtedly, a strong and unconventional continuation for the opponent is more difficult to think of than for oneself. Here is an exceptionally convincing example.

In the Zurich tournament of 1934, Alekhine, who took first prize, lost only one game to Euwe under the following circumstances. Euwe chose a continuation in which, after three moves, his opponent could win a piece. This was a trap, as the winning of the piece was refuted by a combination on Euwe's part. Alekhine fell into the trap. Thus Alekhine, who undoubtedly surpassed Euwe at that time, did not notice what Euwe had foreseen six moves ahead. There are any number of facts which confirm the phenomenon of oversight. Its root cause probably lies in the following: an original idea for oneself can be realized, but an original idea against an opponent only humiliates the plan you have mapped out. Therefore, against an opponent, one involuntarily thinks in a stereotyped way.

The phenomenon of oversight confirms, on the one hand, the role of automated operations in the process of thinking, and on the other hand, that finding the correct idea is related to overcoming automated operations and a preconceived approach to the solution.

5. Internal broadcasting
Binet overemphasizes the role of internal language (self-talk and self-dialogue) in the thinking process of a chess player. "Internal speech must be constantly used in the reasoning and calculations that players make in relation to their moves... Each move is accompanied by a comment that aims to clarify the motive and purpose. Every chess player undoubtedly whispers their thoughts and mutters during the game; only the mute ones are silent. If they are not speaking, they are thinking in words, whole phrases like those that constitute the most elementary form of strategic reasoning: I go here, I take, I go there, I am taken" (1).
-------------------------------
Source: Binet, cited in, p. 326.

This attributed content of internal language to the chess player based on Binet's assumptions about the verbal nature of the process, mainly regarding combinations, as discussed above, is doubtful. In any case, "I take", "I am taken", that is, "capture", is mostly automated operations. Language is not involved here and cannot keep up with thought. Most likely, internal speech during the contemplation of a combination is similar to what happens when showing a combination to someone else. Based on relevant observations as well as self-observation, and on the reasoning presented above, I believe that internal speech occurs according to the following pattern: "I go here"; then a pause for visual fixation of the situation, then verbal: "he goes there", then another pause, and so on.

Internal speech according to this scheme facilitates the process because:

a) Internal speech, requiring a certain amount of time, provides a certain rhythm to thinking, guarding against haste and encouraging movement to the next step;

b) Internal speech promotes maximum awareness of the process, which is essential both for carrying out technical operations of calculation in accordance with the idea of combination or variant, and for overcoming the involuntary tendency to use condensed forms of calculation;

c) With internal speech, greater volitional tension is associated due to the increased awareness;

d) Due to internal speech, each completed stage is as if cut off, which reduces the danger of perseveration.

If this hypothesis is correct, the function of internal speech is limited to facilitating calculation, but finding the idea and performing the calculation itself does not occur in internal speech: using approximately the same words, different semantic content can be conveyed during each step.
]]> Fri, 31 Mar 2023 18:51:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?on-the-characterization-of-visual-action-thinking-ch4 https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000046 <![CDATA[On the characterization of visual-action thinking (part 3)]]> imblog
The Chess Players is a 1929 oil painting by Sir John Lavery. The painting shows the Hon. Margaret and the Hon. Rosemary Scott-Ellis, daughters of the 8th Baron Howard de Walden. Lavery's signature can be seen at the bottom-left corner of the painting ('J. Lavery')
John Lavery (1856–1941)


IV
THINKING WITH A LIMITED CHOICE OF WAYS
DECISION (IN A COMBINATION GAME)

In a chess game, for a player with a certain level of knowledge and understanding, the thought process is objectively determined by the position, i.e. the relationships that exist on the board, under the same conditions.

Given the decisive importance of the objective moment for the thought process, it is natural in psychological analysis to separately consider what distinguishes chess theory as a combinational game and as a positional game. The following are the most characteristic features of a combinational game:

  1. Combination - an unexpected tactical blow. The main thing in a combination is a more or less original idea. In a combination, there is always something opposed to the stereotypical, usual moves. For example, a favorable balance of forces is of exceptional importance for success, while a combination is usually accompanied by a sacrifice, i.e. a (temporary) giving away of one's material; according to Botvinnik, a sacrifice is even an obligatory sign of a combination.
  2. The successive moves of both opponents in a combination are accompanied by strong threats or captures. Therefore, the choice of response to each move is limited for obvious reasons, and some responses are more or less forced, according to chess terminology. This creates the possibility (or imaginary possibility) of exhaustively considering all possible moves, a "calculation". The stronger the threat, the more limited the choice, the more forced the moves. If the moves are absolutely forced, then during the calculation of combinations, only one series of moves that follow one another and one variant of responses need to be calculated. If, as in most cases, some deviations are possible, then several variants are calculated. In each variant, sub-variants are possible, i.e. deviations from the variant that do not require a distant calculation. Thus, thinking in a combinational game takes place under conditions of a limited choice of solutions.

1. Finding the idea for a combination
A combination can arise either suddenly or after more or less prolonged searches. It is most convenient to analyze in the latter cases.

Here is a protocol from one experiment: "20/1 1946, 8 am. An hour and a half ago, I started looking at the diagram from the Harwitz-Morphy game, printed on page 152 of Morphy's collection. One of the moves had the following note: "Instead of this move, Blacks could..." Without reading the note, but only realizing that there was a favorable forced continuation, I decided to conduct an experiment and find this continuation.

I started randomly; I thought about whether it was possible to use some weakness of one of the pawns, even tried an absurd capture with my rook; at the same time, I thought about the possibility of using the weakness of another pawn, in particular, I looked at the clearly unsuitable option with the bishop sacrifice; I rejected it. I interrupted the experiment. At first, the same circle of thoughts; then (and maybe in a flash before the break) I tried another move that was not clear to me - is it good? - and suddenly saw the correct solution with a subsequent concrete development; I did not look at the rest anymore because it was already technique."

The given example is typical. Lasker describes the process of finding a combination as follows:

"A combination is born in the chess player's head.
Many thoughts strive for realization - correct and erroneous,
strong and weak, practical and impractical. They are born and
fight with each other until one of them prevails." (1).

In other words, in a tense and purposeful process, individual thoughts "float", "come to mind", are checked and rejected by consciousness; after a series of unsuccessful attempts, a "combination is born", that is, an idea suddenly appears as an "illumination". In this example, and in most cases, the individual unsuccessful attempts mentioned in the protocol are more or less template ways of solving problems that come to mind automatically under generalized perception of the position, and then, as they are considered, are changed by others. Comparing these unsuccessful attempts to the correct solution we find, it turns out that the details of the position and partially those methods that were present in unsuccessful attempts appear in one way or another in various options of the final solution. As a result of the process that subjectively proceeds like a series of unsuccessful attempts, a deeper perception of the position and the essential details for solving the problem arises, meaningful formations emerge from previous experience that relate to it, and various connections are made between them, which objectively prepares the ground for the emergence of an original combination - for finding the idea of a combination.

The process throughout has a two-sided nature: on the one hand, thoughts automatically come to mind according to previous experience, on the other hand, due to the perception of the position, these thoughts are checked and rejected one by one until a subjectively unexpected and correct idea suddenly "does not float" or "does not flash" and receives the sanction of consciousness.

Bilaterality of the process is not the alternation of work of thoughts and perception of a position, but rather the interpenetration of both. In many cases, the deliberation of a solution that yields no results suddenly breaks off because any detail of the position is noticed and a stream of thoughts begins to flow in a different direction. Alternatively, the position may begin to be perceived in a new way, and new combinational possibilities are opened up as a result of the calculation of a variation or through critical thought work. The decision-making process thus occurs through the interaction of two streams. As a result of this interaction, there is a gradual accumulation of all the elements, the combination of which gives rise to the idea of an original combination, which is only possible in this unique situation.

Is the described process only an isolated case or is it the norm? The latter assumption, at first glance, is refuted by the facts of the rapid, almost instantaneous discovery of the combination. However, this refutation is not convincing. It is possible that in these cases, the path to finding the idea of the combination was already taken during the gradual development of the game, when move by move the position was created in which the possibility of the combination emerged. This "historicity" of the idea of the combination, its dependence on the "history" of the development of the game, can be demonstrated by the analysis of many combinations. In this article, we are constrained to indicate that this is confirmed in a number of games where records were made during the game. Sometimes in the notes to moves that immediately precede the combination, one can see an anticipation (prediction) of the combination, which becomes objectively possible only after the opponent's next moves.

For a final resolution of the issue at hand, further extensive research is necessary. The assumption that the research will confirm the aforementioned is based, however, on substantial factual material. Cases of unnoticed combinations, simple in content and requiring minimal calculation, are often described in literature, and such cases are particularly frequent (even among outstanding masters) when the idea is not related to the "history" of the development of a given position, that is, when the objective possibility of a combination arises unexpectedly in the position due to a sharp change in the situation.

The expressed assumption is also based on such general considerations. Subjectively, "the combination is born in the mind," but objectively the idea of the combination is embedded in the position. Therefore, the course of the mental process is determined by the nature of combinational ideas.

Lasker distinguishes combinations for which "certain geometric conditions exist," that is, ideas of a purely visual nature. But even in combinational ideas that allow for verbal formulation, as noted in the previous section, there are many visual moments. Since the combination essentially consists of a set of concrete moves that follow directly one after another, visually imagined, and the idea of the combination is inseparable from its concretization, visual thinking must inevitably prevail in the process of the idea's unfolding. However, since visual elements play a predominant role in finding the idea of the combination, it is inevitable that the idea seems to "float" in consciousness at the moment of its discovery.

Further, the idea of combination - which arises from its definition - is always original, that is, linked to a unique combination of details. There are an incredible number of interrelationships on the chessboard, and as a result of previous experience, a chess player has a vast number of visual ideas. If we disregard the "history" of the development of the game, it is unclear how the thought process can immediately encounter a set of details, some of which may seem absolutely insignificant at first glance, and immediately bring forth all the ideas that are elements of the solution. How can that original connection, which is the idea of combination, emerge immediately?

It is more natural to assume that the position, with its details hidden from superficial view, gradually "feels its way" forward, and the idea itself arises gradually in a process similar to that described above. The fact that the subjective discovery of the idea is experienced as a sudden "illumination" is entirely natural because: a) previous attempts are perceived as failures; b) the combinative idea is not usually a logical deduction from general principles and appears unexpected in its emergence, since a series of intermediate links are not fixed in consciousness.

To clarify the above, it should be noted that the role of verbal formulations and reasoning in the process of finding a combination idea should not be underestimated. A significant part of the details of the position is covered by generalized verbal formulations. Therefore, their use should contribute to the capture of details that are objectively essential for finding the idea of combination. Furthermore, reasoning is essential for critically verifying what "comes to mind." These general considerations are confirmed by facts, such as the records of experiments on solving studies (problems with combinative ideas).

One must consider the role of verbal ideas that have become common to modern chess players due to the development of theoretical chess thinking over the last half-century, which explains why the average skilled contemporary chess player can execute a combination that was only accessible to a remarkable master in the middle of the last century. However, the predominance of visual thinking is supported by the fact that some wonderful combinations by outstanding masters of the past century (Morphy, Andersen, Zukertort) remain unsurpassed to this day.

If an idea mostly arises from previous unsuccessful attempts, it does not mean that there is always a certain sequence of stages leading up to the discovery of an idea that can be encompassed by any logical formula during the thought process of chess players. The regularity of the emergence of ideas and the observation of details in a position are not always determined by the objective logic of the content of the position. The nature and strength of visual impressions influence the memorability of ideas and therefore the greater or lesser possibility of their emergence.

For instance, in studies involving position recall, test subjects are explained to remember individual pieces either "by content and visually," "visually first, then by content," or "by content first, then visually." The results of these studies indicate that if a certain chess position or detail in a position is better and more vividly remembered due to the regularities of visual perception or visual imagination, it also somewhat affects the thought process. This means that the course of the mental process is sometimes influenced by something that does not directly belong to the logic of the subject.

Thus, the idea comes to a solution through a difficult path, and inevitably, in the actual thought process, the course of the solution significantly differs from what it could be under the conditions of sequential and strictly logical reasoning in a chess player who has a given level of knowledge and understanding. This is primarily reflected in the selective nature of thought.

A part - and sometimes even the predominant part - of the possible moves may remain outside the mental field of vision of the chess player, not because he has rejected them due to some general reasoning, but because he simply does not notice them and does not consider their possibility. This selectivity is manifested even when the number of options is very limited.

For example, in the 10th game of the first match between Alekhine and Bogoljubov, the black queen (Alekhine's) under attack had only 4 retreat squares. During home analysis (before the continuation of the game), Bogoljubov did not consider the option of retreating to the square where the opponent's queen actually went, which became clear during the continuation of the game when he thought about the move for an hour and still made a weak move.

It should also be noted that often there is no solid order of reasoning. In experiments, it was often the case that the idea of the correct continuation was quickly grasped. However, due to errors in specifying this idea, the thought shifted to another, and only when it seemed to have gone completely off track, it unexpectedly returned to the discarded idea with the correct specification.

Often, in the final stages of consideration, unexpectedly and without any apparent connection to previous thoughts, a new idea can "save the day." Alekhine, in his article about the 25th game of the first match for the world championship against Euwe, reports that after a long deliberation, he was about to make a move when "before playing, he unexpectedly noticed..." What he noticed was by no means something difficult to grasp for a high-class player.

Sometimes, there is clearly irrational deliberation. The chess player is not thinking about the next move but rather about what they could have done earlier, or they are contemplating a number of moves that is significantly greater than necessary.

Finally, sometimes the final decision is made without considering what the player thinks is a necessary link to justify the convincingness of the decision. Cases of irrational deliberation and, especially, cases of clearly wrong decisions are primarily associated with a weakening of volitional tension, which is necessary to regulate the direction of thought and maintain conscious control over the product of thought. Strict control is necessary, in particular, because the whole personality is involved in the process, and emotions or interests that do not relate to the main interest may influence the course of thought. Perseveration - the influence of stages of thought that have already passed - can also have a negative impact. In general, in cases where intermediate links are not regulated by consciousness, the influence of various factors on thought is possible, including completely random ones.

The statement about the inadmissibility of simplified schemes applies specifically to the first stage of the process, to the beginning of the search. In the earlier mentioned experiment with the Harwitz-Morf game, the impetus for the search was given externally, through a read note. In practical play, however, the impetus for the search is often provided by a peculiar anticipation of the combination, a "feeling" that a certain combination is probable. This anticipation is linked to the fact that every skilled chess player has a huge stock of ideas that easily "surface". Thanks to the variability of the images associated with visual ideas and the generality of verbal ideas, it is natural that in every new position where there is objectively a possibility of a combination, something in common with the previous experience is grasped without special direction, which causes one to become alert and start the search.

Undoubtedly, however, even the strongest player may not experience such anticipation. It is difficult to say in general terms what this depends on. Of the regularities that apply here, one is unlikely to be disputed: in order for a thought not to go along a stereotypical path and start looking for something new, an appropriate personal attitude is necessary, linked to emotions and, most importantly, with a particular interest in finding a solution.
---------------------------------------------------------
1 Lasker, op. cit. 131.1 Lasker, op. cit. 131
]]> Sun, 26 Mar 2023 18:50:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?on-the-characterization-of-visual-action-thinking-ch3 https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000045 <![CDATA[On the characterization of visual-action thinking (part 2)]]> imblog
Chess Players
Gunnar Berndtson (1854–1895)
chessboard: lichess.org

III
 PAST EXPERIENCE AS THE BASIS OF THE THOUGHT PROCESS
 
Past experience is the basis of the mental process. However, this well-established principle requires psychological interpretation, especially regarding two questions:

  1. What is the nature of the semantic formations that have developed through experience?
  2. What is the mobility of these semantic formations, and the ability to effectively use them in the thinking process?

Let's consider both of these questions separately.

Memorized knowledge of ready-made answers plays a limited role in the chess player's thinking process, finding application mainly in the opening stage and elementary endgames. However, there are countless typical responses in other stages of the game, but relying solely on memory during their application can be dangerous, as even the slightest deviation in position details can have a significant impact. The choice of a move is usually the result of independent manipulation of various semantic formations that have formed through experience. Among them, we should distinguish between visual and verbal ideas.

We provide an example of a visual idea (see diagrams).
       
 


 
These three positions are taken from tournament games. Despite the lack of external similarity in the arrangement of pieces on the board, all three - in the first one, black, and in the next two, white - execute a combination based on the same visual idea: by "sacrificing" a piece, it appears as if the queen is flying over an obstacle from one flank to the other.

This visual idea contains a generalized semantic content, as each time the visual picture is different and the specific forms of implementation are different. However, this generalized semantic content is not expressed in a verbal formulation, which is often difficult or not entirely adequate to the content, but in an image. This image can sometimes be concrete, taken directly from previous experience, but more often it is a product of merging different images. The absence of a comprehensive and adequate verbal formulation, or at least the difficulty in defining it, is determined by the fact that in the process of a chess player's thinking, the visual idea arises not as a result of reasoning, but seemingly "emerges" during the perception of the position or in the stage of further reflection. The lack of a direct connection to widely formulated ideas makes individual visual ideas seemingly independent, and as a result, there is a huge number of visual ideas.
 
Verbal idea is characterized by the fact that:

a) its semantic content is expressed in verbal formulation, and
b) in the process of thinking, its natural form is reasoning.

There are many verbal ideas in chess, but all of them, or at least the majority of them, can be deductively derived from the basic principle, which can be formulated very briefly as follows: the best possible blow must be dealt. Since the strengths of the opponents are equal at the beginning of the game, and moves are made in turn, and the significance of different parts of the battlefield is different, particularly in connection with the rule of "checkmate" of the king, the main principle of chess struggle can be deduced in a more elaborate formulation: one must maneuver in such a way that, with the overall equality of strengths, a decisive or at least more sensitive blow can be dealt with superior forces on an important part of the battlefield before the opponent manages to strike back with his superior forces on another part.

This main principle is contained in chess manuals in more or less explicit formulations, but individual verbal ideas are usually given in them by demonstration, that is, with visual examples, unrelated to this general principle: in any case, they are mostly not deductively derived from the basic principle, although this is not difficult, and although the authors of manuals are sometimes mathematicians by profession (Lasker, Reti), who are accustomed to the deductive method. This fact is explained in the following way:

  1. In the history of chess development, verbal idea is usually the final stage of the development of more private visual ideas.
  2. Manuals pursue a practical purpose - to help a chess player in the game, and in the actual process of the game, a verbal idea is mostly related to visually perceived relations on the board, the reflection of which is various visual ideas.

An example of this is the definition of the so-called "weak point" of the position. A weak point is a square in one's or the opponent's camp devoid of pawn protection. This definition accurately conveys the meaning of this concept. If we start from this general concept, the movement of the final pawn on the king's or queen's flank equally leads to the weakening of two points.

However, for the practice of the game, it is essential that with the resulting weakening on the king's flank, there is a series of possible checkmate combinations, that is, various visual ideas, and with a similar weakening on the queen's flank, there is a series of operations mainly of a strategic nature.

To better understand the issue of visual and verbal ideas, let us give another example of the idea of the "x-ray" (indirect shot), which often occurs and which consists of the following: if there is a series of pieces between two opposing figures, one of which is shooting the other, then in case of removal during the operations of the pieces on the way, the indirect shot will turn into a direct one. Can this idea be considered verbal since its meaning can be exhaustively formulated in words? If we approach the issue not from a formal perspective but from the perspective of the actual course of mental processes, then hardly, and here's why. On the board, there are only 32 pieces on 64 squares. It is therefore inevitable that usually several pieces in the broad sense of the word (including pawns) are located on the same vertical, horizontal, or diagonal. As most pieces are long-range and move horizontally, vertically, and diagonally, the presence of an indirect shot on the board is the norm. However, in most cases, the objective presence of the "X-ray" relationship is irrelevant. Consciously noting the presence of "X-ray" each time to determine possible conclusions from it would lead to a mostly pointless expenditure of time and energy. Naturally, in the real process, the idea of the possibility of applying the "X-ray" concept in a given situation is more associated with certain visual ideas, the general meaning of which is given in the above formulation, rather than with the formulation itself.
 
For a correct consideration of the weight of verbal formulations in the process of a chess player's thinking, it is necessary to take into account that even in cases when they are insufficient or too cumbersome for a final conclusion, they can play a significant role by providing a push to the thought process and contributing to the emergence of a visual idea. "Reasoning" can lead to better "seeing." In the three positions mentioned above, the idea of a queen's leap over obstacles is achieved by using the "sacrifice" technique to distract the piece blocking the way. This distraction technique is an integral part of the entire content of the visual idea. However, at the same time, this technique is an independent semantic formation, as it is applied in a wide variety of cases, and the existence of this technique can be isolated in consciousness and even verbally formulated.

There are relatively few techniques in chess (the most important being surrounding, moving with a demonstrative threat, blocking, and distracting the opponent's piece with a "sacrifice"), but these techniques are sufficient to produce a vast variety of ideas when applied to different specific content. In each technique, although it can be expressed in a single unchanging verbal formulation, the idea is not tied to fixed connections but allows for unlimited richness of content.

Visual ideas in the thinking process usually "emerge" almost automatically. Of course, not just any ideas from the vast amount of familiar ones "emerge," but only "candidates" for decision-making, i.e., those that have or may have relevance to the perceived situation and to the problem that arises from it. In other words, when "emerging," it is not about the reaction of an automaton but about the automated components of the thinking process, which are associated with the maximum awareness of final semantic formations.

Let's consider this issue with examples, starting with elementary ones.

The alphabet of the game consists of its rules: the goal of the game (checkmate), the order of moves, rules for the movement of pieces, and so on. All these techniques are consciously acquired, but over time, the process of their application becomes automated. This is manifested in the fact that subconsciously, without special focus, the board and pieces are perceived as spatial, forceful, and meaningful relationships according to the rules of the game. This transformation of visual impressions into meaningful relationships occurs at an unusual speed, so intermediate links in the process usually become inaccessible to self-observation. Operations such as "capture" or "threat of capture" by the opponent or opponent's pieces are particularly indicative in this regard.

Captures are usually (but not always) of maximum importance because their result changes the balance of power, and the material balance of power is the most important factor in success. A novice chess player pays almost all their attention to this moment, and initially, they cannot set any other goals besides capturing. Tactical operations in each game are related to the capture or threat of capture, and during the game, one piece after another is "captured" and removed from the board. Moreover, captures not only have an objective meaning that corresponds to the logic of the game but are also associated with certain emotional experiences.

In view of all this, capture operations become as "ordinary" as possible, and the emergence of the idea of capture takes on the character of an automatic reaction. And yet, even with such elementary and seemingly highly automated operations, their closest connection to consciousness can be established. Here are two indicative facts regarding this:

  1. Less valuable chess pieces are usually introduced into the game earlier and therefore more frequently taken or threatened. However, the threat of the queen and especially check (the threat to the king) is noticed more quickly.
  2. In cases where there is an opportunity to capture a less valuable opponent's piece, such as a bishop or knight, with a valuable piece such as a rook or queen, but that piece is protected and taking it would require sacrificing a more valuable piece, the idea of taking may not occur and the possibility of capturing the less valuable piece may go unnoticed.

In the mentioned cases, conscious processing is undoubtedly taking place, but it is not readily accessible to self-observation due to the speed of the process and the focus on the main content of the operation. To characterize the automation of the process, let us consider a more complex example. According to the rules, a pawn reaching the opponent's last rank can be transformed into any piece at the player's discretion. Usually, the queen is chosen as the most valuable piece, but sometimes it may be advantageous to choose a knight, which may be the best option in a given situation due to the whimsical nature of its movements. Such cases are very rare and, although they occur in practice, they are unlikely to occur more frequently than once in many thousands of transformation cases.
 
It is clear that the most common transformation is to promote a pawn to a queen, but there is still a significant level of automatization of mental operations even in cases of promoting to a knight. It is not necessary for a player to consciously consider the advantages of promoting to a knight in every situation. There may be cases where a chess player contemplates for a long time about continuing with a pawn promotion, and is ready to abandon such continuation because promoting a pawn to a queen, due to habit, is fused with promoting to a knight, and calculation convinces them that promoting to a queen is not advantageous. Suddenly, the thought of promoting to a knight emerges unintentionally, and not just a general idea, but one that is more or less concretized according to the situation. Undoubtedly, thinking has already done some work, but at such a speed that the intermediate links remain unrecorded in consciousness, and therefore, are not reflected in self-observation.

The presence of known automatization of promoting a pawn to a knight is also confirmed by cases of carrying out this operation in so-called "lightning" games, when moves are made so quickly that consciousness only manages to fix and control the products of thought, but not the intermediate links of the mental process.

The fact of seemingly automatic "surfacing" of ideas that rarely occur, proves that despite the frequency of repetition, the "importance" factor still has a primary value here. Automation of the process only leads to mechanical associations as a result of repetition, but due to the primary importance of the "importance" factor, automated operations are included in the thinking process for finding the objectively correct solution (1).

When talking about the "importance" factor, it is important to consider not only the objective value of the idea for solving the task, but also how subjectively significant it is perceived. In chess, the ideas that arise during practical play are remembered the most strongly, especially in high-stakes competitions, where there is maximum interest and involvement of the entire personality in the mental process.
 
Here are some facts that confirm this position.

In his article included in the book "Bine," Geetz reports from the editors of chess sections that typically the composer of chess problems can only remember his most recent work from memory, but he cannot reproduce a previously composed problem. Geetz compares this fact to the ability of any skilled chess player to recall a series of games and positions played by them over many years. The significance of this comparison is further enhanced by the fact that the problem composer works on it significantly more than the chess player thinks about the position in a practical game.

Let us compare this with the following fact. On December 20, 1934, Professor B.M. Severin conducted a study of Blumenfeld's restoration of a position that he demonstrated the day before the study during a chess lecture and which he took from a game played by him as black in 1927. The restoration protocol indicated how the position was reconstructed and how confident it was. An analysis of the protocol undoubtedly establishes that the position was preserved in the memory of the black player, i.e., as it was played 7 years before the study, and not from the white player's perspective, as demonstrated by the tested individual the day before the study.

Another telling study is the one where Blumenfeld restored a critical position from a game played with master Ryumin several years before the study. He was able to restore the placement of the pieces in those areas that played a role in subsequent complications. Ryumin also restored a significant portion of the pieces in this position. Together, they were able to fully restore the position. Restoration of the position jointly analyzed by them for the collection on the Allokhin-Bogolyubov match proceeded differently. They spent several dozen hours analyzing this position about a year before the study, yet they only retained an unclear understanding of the position, and even with their joint efforts, they could not restore it.

]]> Thu, 23 Mar 2023 13:50:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?on-the-characterization-of-visual-action-thinking-ch2 https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000044 <![CDATA[On the characterization of visual-action thinking (part 1)]]> imblog
The Chess Player
Isidor Kaufmann (1853–1921)
 
Б. M. BLUMENFELD
Candidate of Pedagogical Sciences

І
PRELIMINARY REMARKS
 
 The study of thinking in any realm of human activity is significant not only for drawing conclusions about that particular type of activity, but also for the theory of thinking in general. From this general psychological perspective, we approach the study of the thinking of chess players.

The significance of chess material for studying problems in general psychology was discovered as far back as the end of the last century in the work of Binet (1). However, the main problem in that book is the problem of memory. The problem of thinking does not occupy a central position in Cleveland's work on the psychology of chess (2).

This article is concerned with studying the cognitive process in the specific conditions of chess. Understanding the following discussion does not require a good knowledge of the technical aspects of chess; it is important to have only a general understanding of the game. As for the psychological peculiarities of chess, the most important ones need to be highlighted:
 
1. The thinking of a chess player is practical thinking. Here, thought is directly intertwined with action. Competition as a whole (tournament, match) is a miniature war. Each game is a campaign. In individual stages of the game, various strategic or tactical operations are carried out. Each move is a strike or preparation for a strike, or defense against a strike that is dealt or expected. When a chess player thinks, the task before them is what move they need to make, that is, what action needs to be taken.

2. In any area of human activity, the mental process is closely related to the emotional-volitional sphere. This is particularly pronounced in chess, where the moment of struggle is so vivid. Both psychologists and chess players (Lasker, Reti) note the exceptional importance of this moment in chess. "Opponents compete with each other in reason, composure, caution, and skill."
 
Chess is a "mental battle," and the will to succeed is crucial in competition. The most important factor that allowed some of the greatest chess players (like Lasker, for example) to defend their world champion title for a long time, even against opponents who were unlikely to be inferior to them in terms of pure chess ability, was their strong will. The exceptional emotional intensity of the process is also noted by everyone who writes about chess. Even in amateurs whose life interests are far from chess, the game is associated with strong emotional experiences.

3. In chess, the thinking time is not only limited, as is often the case in practical thinking, but in tournament practice, on which research is mostly based, it is even standardized by the regulations and measured by the clock. This forces the mind to work in economical ways and creates favorable conditions for observation that are close to experimental conditions.

4. Thanks to these circumstances, the entire process of thinking intensifies. Thought is directly related to action - the move. The move must be made. It is necessary to make the right decision in order not to make a mistake, and at the same time a quick decision in order not to upset the time balance. Procrastination or omission leads to defeat, successful thought leads to victory. All of this creates exceptional tension in the mental process.

5. The thinking of a chess player is also characterized by visuality: it is associated with visual perception of the board, the figures on the board, and the spatial relationships between them, as well as with visual images from previous experience and visual images created in the mind during the consideration of moves.
_________________________________________         
1 Binet A., Psychologie des grands calculateurs et joueurs d'echecs. Paris, 1894.
2 Cleveland A., The Psychology of Chess and of Learning to Play it. Am. Journ. Psychol., vol. 18, 1907.

II
THE MAIN PROBLEM AND THE WAY TO SOLVE IT
 
It is well known that an average skilled chess player can think ahead approximately five moves, while a strong player can sometimes calculate ten or more moves ahead. However, the total number of moves that a player can consider when choosing their next move is still small. According to Lasker, a chess player "can clearly consider only 4-5 variations" (i.e. series of moves that follow one another).

The relationship between the number of moves that can be calculated and the number of objectively possible combinations is evident from the following. The total number of all possible moves for each player theoretically can reach 120. In practical play, this number is smaller, but 40-50 is normal for the middle stage of the game. This means that a chess player must choose one move out of 40 possible moves. If only one corresponding move of the opponent is taken into account, it already results in 402, which is 1600 combinations. If two moves are taken into account, it results in 404, which is 256,000 combinations. If five moves are taken into account, it results in 4010, which gives a number with 16 zeroes.

From this enormous number of possible combinations, a chess player can only consider a small amount. Moreover, due to the countless number of combinations, each game proceeds differently, and cases of repeated positions, except for the opening stage, are a rare exception.

The speed and success of thinking under these conditions can be demonstrated by the game played by grandmaster Reshevsky and world champion Alekhine at the Amsterdam Tournament in 1938. The game ended in a draw on the 63rd move. Each player had used up all the time allotted by the regulations until the control moment, which was 2 hours and 30 minutes for the first 41 moves. However, this time was used unevenly according to the moves, as seen from the table.


Thus, both opponents spent a significant portion of their time on a small portion of moves (each on 8 moves out of 41), while Reshevsky spent 35 minutes and 20 seconds on the other 33 moves, which averages out to about 1 minute per move, and Alekhine spent 23 minutes and 20 seconds, which is less than a minute per move. The speed of their thinking is particularly evident in the first group of moves (thought out in less than 20 seconds per move), where the average thinking time per move was 11.2 seconds for Reshevsky and about 8.5 seconds for Alekhine. Despite the speed of their thinking, none of these moves made with such speed were questionable, so further criticism could not definitively establish whether a particular move was weak or not. The speed of their thinking during the first 8 moves is naturally explained by the fact that the opening stage of the game is familiar. However, the table shows that both opponents played even faster than in the opening stage during the 11 moves from the 30th to the 41st move. The quick, sometimes instantaneous play of both opponents during moves 30-41 was dictated by the "time trouble," as there were only minutes, even seconds left until the control moment.

Therefore, the opinion of both opponents during the vast majority of the game found the objectively correct decision every time, although in some cases, it worked with exceptional speed. It can be concluded that their thinking is adapted to solve problems in accordance with the logic of the subject with maximum speed when necessary.
 
Let's take a look at the flip side of the story.
 
Alekhine made a critical mistake on move 18, although he had thought about the move for 22 minutes and 40 seconds, approximately 30 times longer than he thought about most other moves. Reshevsky made a critical mistake on move 46, or the 4th move after he had recorded his thoughts during the break after move 42. Undoubtedly, during the break he carefully analyzed the position, which, however, did not prevent him from making a mistake.

To fully appreciate the significance of these mistakes, it should be noted that in all three cases where mistakes were made, the positions were objectively no more difficult than a series of other positions that were analyzed in significantly less time without errors. Explanation for these mistakes based on poor physical condition is not applicable, as opponents played strongly both before and after their mistakes. Explanation based on fluctuations of attention only deflects the issue and is hardly correct: the given example is typical and there are many other instances when a deep thought is combined with an obvious blunder in the same move.
 
Isn't the source of errors in this case the peculiarities of the thought process?
 
The table shows how much time each player spent thinking about each move. Time less than 20 seconds was not recorded and is marked with a dash in the table. A question mark (?) indicates that the corresponding move is considered weak by commentators; for example, the black player got into a difficult position after their 18th move, while the white player allowed the black player to escape with their 46th move. The asterisk (*) placed after the 41st move of the black player indicates that the game was interrupted after this move and the white player's 42nd move was recorded in a special envelope.

There are questions that arise. How is the selection of a small number of "possibilities" from the astronomical number of objectively possible combinations carried out, and how is the final selection made from the selected "possibilities"? Does this happen through reasoning, i.e., by verbally identifying the essential characteristics of the situation and applying the general principles developed by theory and practice? If the selection does not happen through reasoning, then how can we explain that in the vast majority of cases, the selection of units from billions is done correctly, according to the objective requirements of the situation? On the other hand, if the selection happens through reasoning, then how can we explain the correctness of decisions even in cases of instant response in the majority of cases? Finally, how can we explain that the same person can make correct and appropriate choices in equally difficult situations under otherwise equal conditions in one case and incorrect and inappropriate ones in another case?
 
To clarify these questions, we will use techniques of chess analysis. The material for analysis will consist almost exclusively of games played by skilled chess players, in which their decisions are primarily products of thought that mostly correspond to the demands of the situation, which facilitates the analysis of the thinking process. In unskilled chess players, individual factors and chance play too great a role.

A variation of this basic method involves comparing gameplay with commentary on the same game, examples of which will be given later.

To uncover the nature of the ideas that chess thinking operates with, it is essential to study chess literature, which is also used in this research. To some extent, the author's direct impressions from their close acquaintance with the process of practical chess play and their collaborative literary work with the world's skilled chess players are used in the work.

Among the specially designed experiments, the most important are the studies of restoring games and positions from memory: the analysis of what is preserved in memory can serve to identify the thinking processes that occurred earlier.
 
Here is one of many examples.
 
From the personal archive of the experienced master A., a batch played by him three years ago was selected. The subject was asked to reconstruct a position from this batch where he executed a combination that he remembered in general terms, according to his testimony at the beginning of the study. Initially, he reconstructed three figures through which a "connection" was established, i.e. the relationship that serves as the basis for the combination. Only one of these three figures, whose location is fixed for this type of connection, was accurately restored, while it was difficult for him to indicate the exact location of the other two figures. After these three figures, he accurately reconstructed a pawn on the edge of the board, which supposedly had no relation to the combination. Then, one by one, other figures were restored, both those that were involved in the combination and those that were not. The order in which they were reconstructed indicates that the combination itself was stored in memory in a schematic and incomplete form in a critical position, and that some pawn on the edge of the board was the most strongly and extensively retained.
 
Is it a coincidence?
 
Through chess analysis, it is established that it is not random. For a skilled chess player like the tested player A, the execution of the combination he made should not be difficult either in terms of its content or the technique of its implementation. With a high degree of probability, approaching certainty, it can be assumed that during the consideration of the move, he spent a minimum amount of time and mental energy on the combination itself, and instead, he thought most about the advantageous or disadvantageous position that would result from the combination. The resolution of this last question was related to whether he could cut off the retreat paths of the enemy bishop that was invading his territory. The prospects of capturing the bishop were primarily linked to the movement of the rook, made possible by a certain position occupied by the extreme pawn. In other words, the location of this pawn played a crucial role in the thought process during the choice of move in a critical position, and this was reflected in the recovery after five years.

Sufficient examples can be demonstrated to prove that the course of the mental process, including even its smallest details, is fixed and manifested in the content preserved in memory. The formulation of this seemingly obvious thesis is necessary because it forms the basis of a very productive method of research in chess material.
One of the noteworthy methodical approaches is the player's brief notes made during the game. These notes were made immediately after the player's move in cases where the opponent took a long time to respond. The psychological value of these notes is undeniable: without disturbing the natural thought process, they capture the player's recent experience or even what they are currently experiencing, which is typically not controlled or interpreted by chess analysis.

In some experimental games conducted using this methodology, the author of the work was among the participants, which, however, should not diminish the significance of the results obtained, especially since they are used as additional material and do not diverge from the data of other participants during verification.

These methodical approaches were used to investigate the above-mentioned questions regarding the course of mental processes in chess players.
*** 1 Lasker E., Chess Manual. M., 1937, p. 176.

BULLETIN OF THE ACADEMY OF PEDAGOGICAL SCIENCES
ISSUE 13 - 1948

]]> Thu, 16 Mar 2023 19:17:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?on-the-characterization-of-visual-action-thinking-ch1 https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000043 <![CDATA[Chess poetry (part 2)]]> imblog
photo: Wikimedia Commons
Chess pieces made of walrus tusk, made in the North. The game of chess originated in India and reached the Arabs via Persia, from where it was taken to the Crusaders. The Arab pieces have no figural representations, while the European pieces have a rich gallery of characters as a miniature portrait of society with pawns, rooks, knights, bishops, queen and king.
Lennart Larsen, National Museum of Denmark
On the other hand, the depth of influence of artistic studies on practicing chess players is fully apparent only when, thanks to this influence, they perfect their ability to capture hidden combinations in any position that they have never encountered before in practical play or in studies.

A study is not a cheat sheet, but a school that teaches one to delicately feel and understand the beauty of chess truth. The value of this school lies not so much in enriching a chess player's combinational erudition as in leading to a constantly urgent and sharp state of his "combinational vein." It exerts its influence on the very character of thinking, on the spirit of creativity of the chess fighter.

To achieve this to the greatest extent, a study must have the power of impression. Without being bright and prominent, it will not impress itself upon memory or leave any trace. How does a chess composer achieve the expression of his ideas in an artistic form? In this regard, the testament of V. V. Mayakovsky applies fully to him: "Always remember that the regime of economy in art is constant, the most important rule of every production of aesthetic values."
 
No chess composer among the classics has failed to declare this rule as the foremost one. It can be said that in the light of this criterion, the chess study was created and cultivated. A. Troitsky, V. Platov, L. Kubbel, R. Mattison, R. Reti, R. Rinck, and other luminaries of chess studies, despite the sharp differentiation of their bright and original talents, all emphasized purity and economy as the everyday and most important rule of their art, as the foundation on which chess composition is based.

In developing a chess idea drawn from a game, another study, a problem, or independently discovered on the board, the master of the study seeks to present it in such a way that it unfolds in all its fullness and at the same time in a crystalline and pure form. By freeing the position from circumstances and factors that are not essential for embodying this idea, hiding the solution not in a mass of disorderly accumulations, but in the very depths of the relationships of actively operating pieces, the author of the study achieves maximum effect with minimal expenditure of resources.

It goes without saying that under such a load, the actors of the chess "drama" must maximally reveal their characteristic properties and potential opportunities in the process of developing their relationships.
 
The freer the board, the harder it is for the pieces placed on it to remain in a state of interdependence for a long time, and the easier it is for them to slip away from pursuit, from direct and indirect threats. If, despite this, in etudes with a light construction, a cleverly crafted game captures the entire board, then this is a testament to the high skill of their author.

The scope of the game is always a merit. A real battle, in which both sides are tested, takes place only in operational spaces. Otherwise, it is a brawl. Etudes where pieces clumsily and sluggishly tread on the same spot do not make a strong impression. Congestion deprives the etude of "air," giving it "shortness of breath."

A playing field for both sides! Let the opponent be later, in the process of the struggle, cornered, pushed to the edge of the board, trapped in a corner, or fall into a mating net in the very center of the battlefield, but true victory will only come if at first their position seemed free and nothing seemed to predict their downfall. But if you just unexpectedly caught an opponent who was tied up from the start, and, using this, finish them off, then this spectacle is unappealing. What kind of excitement is there in a fight like that?
 
The question of what studies of positions in chess practice represent - whether they are part of the general norm or exceptions - has been debated many times. Representatives of the mechanistic, artificial direction eagerly declare studies to be an exception. On our part, we will answer this question as follows. If the study is mechanistic, extremely artificial, i.e., from our point of view, poor, then it is indeed only an exception. However, if the study meets the requirements of artistry, as discussed, then no matter how sharply it differs from ordinary endgames, it remains within the framework of chess norms and combines typical with exceptional.

If the natural initial position of the study, with a barely noticeable or even unnoticed weakness, as a result of the best play of both sides, turns into a position that impresses us with its unusualness, then this means that in this case, chess laws not only did not retreat but, on the contrary, manifested themselves with particular depth and acted with all the force of their inexorable logic. The depth and strength of the action of chess laws in such transformations are measured equally by the incredibility of the finale and the ease of the initial position. It is precisely this naturalness of the beginning, which conceals its "Achilles' heel", that shows the regularity of the stunning finale and does not exclude it from the sphere of action of the laws.

And - the inverse theorem. The less a whimsical position is susceptible to revealing the process of its emergence from the standpoint of a simple one, the more ready-made, pre-adjusted for the finishing effect there is in it, the less it is proven from the point of view of the laws of chess dialectics, and the more right it has to consider itself an exception from the realm of healthy chess thinking.
 
Thus, we come to the conclusion that an etude is, firstly, not a typical endgame. The more distinctive its features are from purely theoretical endings, and the more it presents its specific genre, the stronger and deeper it is connected to the game, as the more fruitful the influence of an etude on the development of any chess player's combination talent. The creators of modern etudes and their classical direction deeply understood the connection between "chess poetry" and the game, and perhaps that is why they delicately felt and jealously protected the genre specificity of the etude. The more they defended the independence of the genre, the more they strengthened the genealogical connection of the etude with the game.

Secondly, we have reached the point that an etude composer can create the most diverse positions, incredible, unique combinations and finals, without paying tribute to the trite, mechanistic constructions.

These positions, which arise from the peculiar character of the family relationships of the etude with the game, are closely related to the question of the method of composing etudes.

Renowned chess grandmaster and composer R. Reti said: "There are two types of chess composers: a) those who study interesting simple positions, select among them those that deserve special attention, and give them artistic form, economical and pure in purpose, and b) those composers who start from some final position (e.g. mate, stalemate, zugzwang, etc.) and adjust the introductory game to it. I am not a supporter of the second direction, but I am a little sinful in it..."
 
It should be added that Reti considered "the extraordinary content" as the main characteristic of an etude. Rety's perspective on this issue is of particular interest to us because, being a renowned grandmaster and composer, he embodies the connection between an etude and a game.

However, it seems to us that if etudes adhere to artistic principles, the question of which composition method is preferred becomes irrelevant. Is it really important in what order the composer's thoughts occurred during the creation of the etude if, as a result, we see a simple initial position that reveals its extraordinary content during an interesting game? Can a beautiful work of art be considered illegitimate?

The question of methods of composing etudes is important not for their evaluation but for attracting young creative forces to this art, and it would be appropriate to reveal both methods, which are equally legitimate and fruitful, in textbooks designed for this purpose.

The classical school of chess etude does not impose any limitations or recommendations on the masters of this art, but judges them based on the results, considering that only the results justify the method. The art lies in the fact that its fruits do not bear any traces of the method.
 
Full freedom of choice of motives and methods of their processing greatly expands the field of activity for composers. It opens the possibility for every individual student to create in full accordance with their own individual inclinations and the character of their talent. And for a composer whose chess mind cannot and does not want to limit itself to any one of the possible methods, this freedom decisively opens up all creative paths, and the field of activity for their imagination truly becomes boundless.

This is how the colossal talent of the founder of modern study, A.A. Troitsky, developed, this elder statesman of our classical trio - A. Troitsky, V. Platov, and L. Kubbels.

Of course, the study already existed as a certain genre before A.A. Troitsky. Its formation took place in the works of such authors of the second half of the 19th century as K. Yanish, I. Kling and B. Horwitz, I. Berger, F. Amelung, and especially K. and J. Bettinsh. But if we talk about the place that the study has occupied and occupies in modern chess life, then we must recognize that it owes this conquest primarily to Troitsky.

Troitsky so eagerly took on the exploration of the area he himself had opened up that he nearly tore up the entire chessboard and unearthed a huge number of treasures hidden in its depths. He worked so enthusiastically, carefully, inquisitively, and fruitfully that he determined the subject matter of the art of study for decades to come. The seeds sown generously by him still continue to yield rich crops.
 
Troitsky was like a Columbus, a discoverer of lands in the world of chess studies, where almost everything was new, and therefore every somewhat original combination was an impressive find. Alongside completed studies, sketches and drafts appeared in the press. At the same time, the joy and surprise caused by the first discoveries led some composers to develop their motifs in excess variations, without losing a sense of novelty. This was the game of thought of the pioneers, who with interest turned their discoveries in various directions.

However, no matter how rich the legacy left to us by the classics, it was time for a new leap in the development of chess study art, and A. Troitsky himself in the last years of his life was enthusiastic about the outstanding achievements of new Soviet composers who loudly announced themselves in the mid-twenties.

The young generation of Soviet study composers soon gave several brilliant names and defined a new era in the development of chess study art. This is now recognized by the entire chess world. Collections of selected studies published abroad are filled with works by Soviet authors.
 
The book "Chess study in the USSR" by O. Herbstman (1934) was released abroad with M. Yevs's autograph on the cover, stating "The triumph of Slavic genius in chess studies!". In the preface to this edition, A. Alekhine wrote: "The spirit of Mikhail Ivanovich Chigorin continues to live on in his young disciples, and in the field of chess composition, young masters continued the work of their predecessors with new brilliance." Alekhine confesses that this book was "my bedside book for several months" and expresses confidence that all readers will be fascinated by the creativity of Soviet study composers and will love it.

Soviet study composers realized that the continuation of their predecessors' work was and is still taking place not without persistent struggle against deviations from the aesthetic principles of the classical school of chess study.

Alongside the aesthetic principles advocated by A. Troitsky, V. Platov, and L. Kubbels, Soviet composers also advanced other principles, which, in essence, often denied the aesthetic foundation of the study.
 
It is easy, of course, to make general statements about the two opposing directions in the field of study. It is comparatively easy to establish the basic aesthetic principles with which almost everyone agrees in abstract form. The hardest and most important aspect of criticism is the skillful application of the correct general principles to each individual work. It should be remembered that business criticism will never be specific and therefore productive if the initial general principles are absolutized and accepted as an unshakable dogma. After all, most works are not one hundred percent examples of a particular direction. Often in one and the same study, we see a mixture of organic and mechanistic elements. It also happens that the shortcomings and merits are inseparable and even determine each other, or the beauty of the study, despite some of its flaws, still retains the power of its influence.

In addition, one should not forget that there is no creatively active composer who would not occasionally be interested in passing fashion. But behind all this, we must consider the essence of different directions and realize where there is a wide perspective for the further development of the study and on what path it, having isolated itself from the general development of chess thought, will inevitably come to a dead end.
]]> Fri, 10 Mar 2023 19:52:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?chess-poetry-ch2 https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000041 <![CDATA[Chess poetry (part 1)]]> imblog
photo: Wikimedia Commons
32 red and white ivory pieces without a board.
Kanton 1825 - 1850

Excerpt from an article by A.S. Hurvych

Can we talk about chess composition as art?

If the nature of an artistic image lies in a specific sensory reflection of reality, can it have a place in a visual formal game, the tools of which are figures sharpened on a lathe, moving according to special, imagined "laws" of chess, only on special platforms of 64 squares, outside of which they lose all their conventional gaming properties and are thrown into a drawer as simple wooden pieces?

The combination of the concepts of art and chess may seem even more strange in light of the truth that artistic activity is a special aesthetic form of social self-awareness.

Thus, the nature of an artistic image and its social role remain somewhat separate from chess - perhaps the most amazing of all games that the leisurely game of the mind has given to humanity.

For chess, it is too much of a science, for science - too much of a game - this famous aphorism could be rephrased by replacing the word "science" with the word "art". However, if we were to limit our recognition of chess to the realm of absolutely abstract, formally logical thought and not see in them any living human experience, even expressed in a conditional, artificial form, we would be unfair to this ancient and wise invention.
There must be some serious reason that explains why, out of all the mental games that have replaced each other over time, chess has endured the most and, once emerged, not only does not die, but over many centuries continues to develop and increasingly enter into the cultural life of humanity.

Of course, in its abstraction, chess does not reflect the real laws of nature, as mathematical formulas do; the initial chess variables (pieces, board, their properties) are arbitrarily invented by humans and do not have a direct correspondence in living nature. But in the game of chess, more than in any other, numerous laws of struggle are peculiarly broken and act, with which a person is confronted in various fields of practical activity.

Human ideas about the role of space and time in the struggle, about the coordination of actions of different forces, about their relative value, which constantly changes depending on the circumstances that have arisen - all this has entered into the "nature" of the game of chess and has given it a sharp, dialectical character.
 
But still, no calculation, even the thinnest and most complex, could have such an attractive force. Chess "events" do not take place in the ether of pure reason, but in the tense atmosphere of living human emotions. In this silent battle of black and white, various emotions are hidden, which we feel in our noisy and colorful life. In the process of fighting, a chess player experiences both joys and sorrows of the mind, the excitement of the struggle, and despair.

To list all the shades of emotions experienced in a chess battle is as impossible as to encompass the inexhaustible wealth and diversity of positions that occur on the chessboard, with all their varieties and subtle nuances.

But among the feelings that accompany chess thinking, there is one that is undoubtedly the strongest and deepest - the feeling of beauty.

The beauty of thought, which hides its victorious power in beauty itself, acts on our imagination incredibly strongly and evokes a lively reaction. This feeling triumphs even over sports excitement. Who doesn't know the explosion of enthusiastic applause from a crowd of thousands in a tournament hall when a game on some board ends with a spectacular sacrificial combination! And regardless of who won and who suffered defeat, the excitement engulfs all spectators without exception. How helpless the tournament organizers and strict judges can be at such moments, trying to quell the excitement of the audience. And can anyone not understand the inevitability of this reaction, who himself establishes a special prize for the most beautiful game!
 
At chess competitions, this prize is like a tribute that sports pays to art, where strength meets beauty. But after the tournament days have passed, the games are evaluated as works of thought beyond the sports score, and then the most beautiful game becomes the best decoration of the tournament collection, surpassing the chess press worldwide and outliving all others, including the most intimate ones. Its longevity lies in its beauty!

"Theory, my friend, is gray, but the golden tree of life is forever green," this famous saying may seem to relate to chess thinking only by its gray half, but was not Andersen's brilliant game called "evergreen"? O. O. Alekhine, who rose to the highest peaks of chess creativity, stated: "For me, chess is not a game, but an art. Yes, I consider chess an art and take on all the duties that it imposes on its followers."

However, in chess competition, sporting and aesthetic feelings cannot be separated from each other. As in many other areas of human activity, the specificity of the chess game is such that beauty here is a force and therefore crowned with victory. For Alekhine, chess was art. At the same time, he, who condemned the pursuit of points, set himself the task of becoming the world champion. But we believe that Alekhine achieved this higher victory not only thanks to his genius but also to his profound insight into chess.
 
If we can clearly perceive the artistic element in a chess composition, then we must also acknowledge that it is equally inherent to both the composer and the chess thinker, who battles on the "sporting" board.

When considering the creativity of the composer as liberated from everything beyond the purely chess content of the combination, we simultaneously realize that, strictly speaking, the aesthetic and sporting aspects are inseparable. Of course, this is not about competitions among composers. The creator of a study or problem has his or her opponent within the limits of each given composition. His or her partner is the chess player who will solve the study. The composer struggles against him or her throughout their creative efforts. As deeply as possible concealing the secret of the position being created, the composer presents the solver with the greatest difficulties, demanding the maximum exertion of his or her strength.

But in realizing his or her idea, the composer is free from the intervention of the partner in the logic of the struggle, which, as Alekhine sadly noted, often saddens inspired ideas in a practical game due to weak responses. Therefore, the artistic element in a chess composition, which is not dependent on chance, is much more stable, and its relative weight is higher. If the prize for the most beautiful game is a "special" one at tournaments and does not determine the winner, then chess composers know only one such reward in their competitions - the prize for beauty.
 
The beauty of combination is the sole goal of the composer of studies. In addition to this goal, there are no incentives for creativity among chess composers. Beauty is also the only general criterion for evaluating their works.

Without succumbing to the fact that the field of chess composition has long been called chess poetry and that the founder of modern chess studies, A. A. Troitsky, was awarded the title of Honored Artist, without attributing to chess poetry an inherent meaning, we can still assert that it is a subtle and sharp game of the mind that evokes joy through the beauty of thought and combination.

And where there is beauty, aesthetic criteria inevitably arise. What are they? What principles of art relate to our subject?

"For a chess problem as a work of art, nature constitutes the real life of a chess game.

Just as nature - the world of colors and sounds - provides elements, material for the work of painting, music, so from the game of chess we take elements for the problem, material for its construction."

This principle by O. V. Galitsky correctly points out that for chess composition, "life" is the chess game, the chess struggle, all the richness of ideas that are constantly accumulated in tournament practice. Chess composition, detached from the game of chess, would become baseless and wither away.
 
Etudes (as well as problems) owe their existence to the game of chess. Without the foundation of this game, one cannot even understand what an etude or a problem is. However, composers are connected to chess not only formally, not only by the rules of the "life" of chess pieces.

A tremendous number of people are involved in this mental sport, and if composers of etudes do not strive for the masses of chess players to love their works, understand them, and enjoy them, then who will they create for?

One cannot develop a healthy taste without constantly testing it on a broad public stage. Mass interest in one or another activity of a person always serves as a faithful indicator of their naturalness, their healthy direction, and at the same time protects them from any subjective deviations that can never be widely caught in anything.
That is why composition must always be linked to a chess game and strive for close convergence of its content with the interests of the entire mass of chess players. A chess lover will pay close attention to an etude, be interested in it only if he finds in it a bright embodiment of the ideas that excite him in chess. Only such compositions in which he sees the ideal of a combination maneuver, the power of beauty that enriches him as a fighter, can touch him to the core.
 
Does this mean that there should be nothing unique, exceptional, or "unbelievable" in an etude?

To this question, we will answer immediately and categorically: no!

The essence of compositional art, as well as its very peculiar connection to a game of chess, lies in explaining this answer.

Etudes are not manuals for types of endgames or a form of theoretical development of various endings. Otherwise, they would only be examples that illustrate general principles and would have found their place in works on the theory of the endgame... But the composition is called "chess poetry" as if deliberately to emphasize its distinctiveness from theory.

The main subject of the theory is the study of positional problems, while composition deals with the development of combinational problems. This difference is not a contradiction. The line between an etude and a theoretical ending is not a demarcation line. Any combination exists only on a positional basis, from which it cannot be separated for a moment. However, the etude has historically emerged as a particular type of chess art with its genre specificity. And when chess masters, in their comments on games, note a beautiful combination and call it an etude, they never have purely theoretical nuances in mind.
 
The main importance of studies in the overall development of chess lies in the fact that it extremely sharpens combinational vision. A study is an arbitrarily composed chess position in which only one, far from obvious, original way can achieve the assigned task (win, draw) with the best play from both sides. Hence, it is clear that by its very essence, a study constantly challenges any pattern and routine of chess thinking, ridicules the confidence and self-satisfaction of the usual "common sense," demands a sharp, fresh view of the position, grasping its deeply hidden, unexpected possibilities and thus constantly enriching the chess player's initiative, developing their combinational sense and abilities.

Usually, to demonstrate the close connection between the game and the study, the position that arose in the game from which the composer departed to create their work is cited. Along with such comparisons, reverse examples of direct influence are noted, when a chess player, as they admit themselves, performs an interesting combination in their game only thanks to knowing a study with a similar game.

Cases of mutual use of already implemented ideas, firstly, are not so common and, secondly, it is not in them, not in these "quotations," that signs of an organic connection are given, about which we are talking. They provide, indeed, a very visual but superficial and very insignificant idea of the creative enrichment of the game and composition. Do not most truly artistic studies, which arose without direct borrowing of combinations encountered in the game, contain living chess ideas and are not they indebted to them for their origin? Is not such relatedness deeper than accidental coincidence?
continued...
]]> Wed, 08 Mar 2023 21:52:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?chess-poetry-ch1 https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000040 <![CDATA[To the question of defining the combination]]> imblog
photo: Wikimedia Commons
December 26, 1963.
chessboard: lichess.org

P. Romanovsky in his book "Mittelshpiel" (1st edition) defines a combination as follows: "A combination is a variation (or a group of variations), during which both sides make forced moves and which ends with an objective advantage for the active side."
This definition does encompass the concept of a combination, but in addition to combinations, there are other elements that can be included in this definition.
 
An ancient position
 
White's move. Winning.
 
For example, in the well-known position depicted in the diagram, after 1. b6 cd 2. a6, White forcibly achieves a material advantage. Clearly, this is a combination; this follows from P. Romanovsky's definition. And in the given position, M. Grigoriev saves the game with a beautiful king journey: Kc8-d7-e6-f5-e4-d3-c2.
 
M. Grigoriev's position
 
White's move. A draw.
 
This option, forced on both sides, ended in a certain achievement for White: White achieved a draw. According to P. Romanovsky, this is a combination. But, of course, there is no combination here: White is not playing a combination, but a maneuver.

Let's take an even more striking example - the famous etude by the Czechoslovakian grandmaster R. Reti.
 
Etude by R. Reti
 
 White's move. A draw.
 
The Whites achieve a stalemate with a beautiful and forced maneuver. According to P. Romanovsky, it's a combination.

In reality, there is no combination here: it's an example of a spectacular maneuver. Therefore, P. Romanovsky's definition doesn't define a combination.

What distinguishes a combination from a maneuver? (Of course, for now, we are disregarding non-forced maneuvers that will be discussed later.) - Sacrifice. Sacrifice is characteristic of a combination. From the first moves, chess players are taught that a pawn is equal to a pawn, a bishop is equal to three pawns, and a rook is stronger than a knight. And in a combination, this ratio is violated. The usual strength of the pieces for a chess player is to some extent changed - in general, this is what a sacrifice means (a correct one, of course, as we are talking about a combination). Interestingly, the usual relationships between pieces for a chess player sometimes stop working during a series of moves, and the transition to such a state occurs not gradually, but sharply - with a leap. And in any combination, there must be a sharp, leap-like, reverse transition to the usual state, in which the bishop again equals three pawns, the queen is stronger than the rook, etc. If the combination is made in one move, these two leaps merge into one. In the "old position," with the move 2.a6, the Whites disregard the pawn's defense and, on the contrary, sacrifice another pawn. The usual quantitative ratios are violated - sacrifice. But with the same move 2.a6, the usual picture is restored, as the Whites forcefully put a new queen on the board, and the queen guards more than three pawns. Thus, the two leaps merge.

We got a bit sidetracked. What is a combination? A combination is a forced variation with a sacrifice. I believe this is both an accurate and simple definition of a combination. One should not confuse a combination with a forced maneuver. Maneuvers come in two types: positional, where the opponent's moves are not forced, and forced (see, for example, R. Reti's study). So what is the difference between a combination and a forced maneuver? A forced maneuver is a forced variation without a sacrifice.

The definition of a positional maneuver is obvious: it is the relocation of a piece or a group of pieces to another position. What practical conclusions can we draw from these considerations? Mainly, terminological ones.

Often, in comments, you come across expressions like "a wonderful combination," while nothing has been sacrificed in the game; or they declare some combination to be multi-move, when in fact it lasts no more than 2 moves.
  
Botvinnik-Capablanca
Amsterdam, 1938.
 
 
For example, in my game against Capablanca (Amsterdam, 1938), the combination ended in just two moves (30.Ba3 and 31.Nh5+), everything else was a forced maneuver.

Our problem composers usually refer to the maneuvers they use in problems as combinations. In my opinion, this is incorrect.

Some masters like to claim that they are "combination players." Well, now there is an objective way to test these claims.

An article from M.M. Botvynnyk's 1949 book Selected Parties.
]]> Wed, 01 Mar 2023 15:44:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?do-pytannia-pro-vyznachennia-kombinatsii https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/00000003F <![CDATA[What is a Combination? (Part 2)]]> imblog
chessboard: lichess.org
Secondly, the authors themselves sometimes get confused with the terminology. P. Romanovsky identified motive, idea, and theme as the main elements of the theory of combination (specifically the elements of the theory, not the combination itself, as some have written) and provided fairly clear and unambiguous definitions, which have become well-established and widely used in books and articles. However, sometimes these concepts are given a different meaning. Distraction (the idea of a combination) is also called a theme (M. Novotel'nov - "Meet Chess", 1976) or a motive (B. Baranov - "Storming the Royal Fortress", 1970).

In his "Chess Workshop" (M., FIS, 1980), Ya. Neishtadt does not distinguish between the idea and the theme (by analogy with chess composition), although in other books published almost simultaneously (for example, O. Suetin - "In the Chess Player's Laboratory", M., FIS, 1979) such a distinction exists. And all of this occurs in educational literature aimed at a wide audience of chess enthusiasts.
 
Not fortunate in relation. Formally, everyone defines it more or less the same. But what does it serve in combination? There is already no unanimity: for different authors, links are an idea, a theme, a motive, a technique, and a tactical tool. Interestingly, in recent books on combinations (O. Koblenz. - "Stories about combinations", 1970; X. Muchnik.- "Stories about combinations on the chessboard", 1979; Ya. Neyashtadt, "Chess workshop", 1980) there are sections on links among the sections on tactical techniques. But none of the named authors could explain the essence of this technique. And no wonder. It is risky to assert that such a technique does not exist at all! The link can characterize the features of the initial position and suggest a search for a combination. In this case, according to P. Romanovsky, the link is a motive. Sometimes it characterizes the features of the final position. Then linking is the theme of the combination. Let's look at some examples.

Here is a position that arose in the game Rosenblatt-Volk (1977), included in the recently published book by O. Kostyev "Chess club at school and pioneer camp" (1980). This position is an example of the tactical technique of the link "in its pure form".
 
 

Binding the e5 bishop encourages the search for a combination. After 1. Rb8! R:b8 2. B:e5+ Kg8 3. B:b8, White is left with an extra piece. Undoubtedly, the connection here was only a motif, and the combination was carried out using a tactical device associated with sacrificing the rook and combining two ideas: diversion (rook from the e-file) and attraction (the same rook to the b8 square).

Let's turn to the position from the game Bronstein - Amateur (simultaneous game session, 1970). In a number of books, it also illustrates the connection as a tactical device.
 
 
 
White won a queen with the move 1. Rd8-|- Kxd8 2. Qxe4. Here, the pin characterizes the peculiarities of the final position and is the theme of the combination, which is achieved through the tactical device of attraction (the king to d8).

Almost all authors distinguish blocking as an independent tactical device. In my opinion, this is very controversial. Take, for example, the classic smothered mate pattern, which illustrates blocking literally in all textbooks.
 


After 1. Qg8+! R:g8 2. Nf7X, the black king is blocked, but this is a particularity of the final position, that is, the theme of the combination. The goal is achieved again with the help of a tactical technique - attraction (rooks to g8).

Some authors often make mistakes even in cases when the tactical technique in solving the combination is expressed precisely and unambiguously. For example, the combination from the game Malikh - Bueno (Leipzig, 1977) illustrates in the book "Chess Workbook" by Y. Neishtadt, the tactical technique of clearing the line.
 
 
 
1.b5! cb 2. Qh8+ Kf7 3. Qg7+ Ke6 4. Qf6+ Kd7 5. Q:a6. However, move 1. b5 is a typical diversionary tactic (distracting the c6 pawn from the sixth rank), rather than freeing a line as claimed by the author of the book. Unfortunately, such inaccuracies are quite common. In the book by X. Muchnik, almost every other example suffers from this problem.

Sometimes, mistakes are encountered even where they are least expected. It may seem that the smothered mate should be clear - too much has been written about it. However, in the textbook "Chess for Beginners" by I. Chegarovsky, released in 1980 in Ukrainian, this mate is illustrated with an example from the game Tolush - Smyslov (year not specified).
 
 
After 1. Rg8+ R:g8 2. Nf7, the black king is indeed checkmated, but not smothered, because it is limited not only by its own pieces.

The number of such examples could be multiplied. But as can be seen from what has been said, there is a lot of controversial and even erroneous information in the theory of combinations and in books about it. There are various reasons for this.

Recently, technical standards for terms and definitions have been introduced in various fields of science and technology. This is due to the need: ambiguous interpretations of objects and phenomena sometimes cost a lot. And in the theory of chess tactics, much also needs clarification and more precise formulations. All chess lovers who strive for improvement benefit from this.
 
"64" 1981 №13
]]> Thu, 23 Feb 2023 22:03:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?karlson-what-is-a-combination-part2 https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/00000003E <![CDATA[What is a Combination? (Part 1)]]> imblog
photo: Wikimedia Commons

Although many books, articles, and textbook chapters have been devoted to combinations, there is unfortunately still no consensus on the topic. In the article "What is a combination?" (Chess in the USSR, No. 10, 1980), Grandmaster Y. Averbakh revived the debate surrounding this most important element of chess tactics. The debate had quieted down recently because, after prolonged disagreements between theorists and authors of books, it seemed that they were beginning to come to a common understanding.

As is known, the controversy was sparked by M. Botvinnik's article in Chess in the USSR (1939), where a combination is defined as a forced variation with a sacrifice.

In earlier definitions (Em. Lasker, P. Romanovsky, M. Euwe) and in those books where combinations were only illustrated by examples (for example, E. Schiffers' "Self-taught Chess Game," 1907), the sacrifice was not considered an essential element. P. Romanovsky fully expressed his view of combinations in his book "Mittelshpiel" (1929): "A combination is a variation (or group of variations) during which both sides make forced moves and which ends with an objective advantage for the active side."

It was the sacrifice that became the apple of discord in the subsequent debates: should it be considered an essential element of a combination? Other, less significant, comments related to the clarification of M. Botvinnik's and P. Romanovsky's formulations.
 
Especially heated were the debates in the 1950s. The magazine "Chess in the USSR" even held a discussion on this topic in 1952, which, however, did not result in a consensus. Perhaps that's why its results were not summarized. A few years later, the magazine "Zmina" (editor of the chess department, Master V. Lyublinsky) turned to its readers with a proposal to define a combination. The summary formulation, published in the pages of the magazine, was memorable, concise, but noteworthy: "A combination is a forced variation that contains a good idea or sacrifice." Remarkably, the aesthetic effect of the combination had a decisive importance for readers. However, most theorists did not consider sacrifice as a necessary element of the combination, and the definition of the combination in the "Chess Dictionary", published in 1964, was based on the formulation of P. Romanovsky.

But by the mid-1960s, many authors of books and articles began to lean towards the idea that a combination should still contain a sacrifice, and the formulation of M. Botvinnik should be taken as a basis. This idea gained momentum after the publication of I. Bondarevsky's work "Combinations in the middlegame" (1965). Interestingly, Grandmaster A. Kotov, who dedicated many works to chess tactics, changed his original opinion and also began to adhere to the formulation of M. Botvinnik (for example, in the article "Combination star" - "Chess in the USSR", No. 7, 1975). Even more categorical statements are seen in the textbook by Y. Averbakh and M. Beilin "Journey to the Chess Kingdom" (1976): "Sacrifices necessary for achieving certain advantages are called combinations." However, in his recent works (in particular, in the article "What is a combination?" - "Chess in the USSR", No. 10, 1980), Y. Averbakh revised his attitude towards sacrifice and proposed the following formulation: "A combination is a transformation of the combination of a series of pieces of both sides, which, when forced, leads to a coordinated combination of connections that brings benefit to one of the sides." By connections, Y. Averbakh means the relationships between the pieces, which are transformed in the course of the combination.
So, is sacrificing a piece not necessarily required for a combination? I would disagree with Y. Averbakh's arguments.

First of all, it should be noted that a combination is not an object or mathematical formula that can be precisely described and defined. The concept of it is based on a shared understanding, primarily among leading chess players. Everyone agrees that a combination is the highest expression of beauty in chess. Tartakower once evaluated it as "... the possibility of the impossible. It is a divine spark that... illuminates a chess game like a meteor." "We call chess an art," wrote A. Kotov, "primarily because of the beauty of combinations that bring aesthetic pleasure to every true chess lover." Y. Averbakh seems to agree with this, regretting that defining a combination through sacrifice "discriminates against, denigrates the endgame, presents it as less exciting, less interesting to a wider circle of chess enthusiasts than the middle game."

What makes combinations beautiful? They are sudden, unexpected, and based on the reassessment of values. This is a "kind of explosion on the chessboard, during which ordinary 'everyday' calculations and ideas lose their significance" (I. Bondarevsky, "Combinations in the Endgame," 1965). Such an explosion occurs only when a sacrifice is made. It is the sacrifice that gives the combination its beauty and enchanting uniqueness. Forced variations without sacrifices, associated with the implementation of any interesting ideas, can impress us with their logic, but not always with their beauty. That is why Y. Averbakh, as he admits, does not feel comfortable defining a combination through sacrifice. However, terms like "problem-like move," "study-like win," etc. have become established in chess literature, and no one, it seems to me, disputes the idea that the artistic value of such moves and ideas may be even higher than that of combination explosions.
 
According to Yuri Averbakh's formulation, endings that are difficult to find elements of aesthetics belong to the category of combinations. For example, let's take this scheme: White - Qh4, Re5. Black - Kd6. The forced displacement of the king to the edge of the board and its checkmate (1. Rd5+ Kc6 2. Qc4+ Kb6 3. Rd5+ Ka5 4. QFa4X) is considered a combination by Averbakh because it involves a forced variation and a coordinated combination of relationships (attack, support, limitation). However, even Averbakh himself would not classify such endings as combinations.

Unfortunately, Averbakh does not always provide arguments for his objections when criticizing Mikhail Botvinnik's formulation, and as a result, some of his ideas remain unfinished. For instance, he writes that not only sacrifices but also threats, attacks, zugzwang, and exchanges are used as means of coercion in tactical play. But what does this imply, and what is the author trying to prove by this?

Furthermore, Averbakh presents the final position of a well-known study by R. Reti (White - Ke5, Pc6. Black - Kb6, Ph4). According to Averbakh, the last move by White (Kf6-e5) is a double attack, a variety of the usual "fork." "If you agree with this conclusion," Averbakh writes, "you must also agree that defining a combination through a sacrifice is too narrow: it does not include a range of positions that, by their nature, should be considered combinations." But why? After all, a double attack or a "fork" has never been considered a mandatory characteristic of a combination.

For any rule, exceptions can be found. Perhaps M. Botvinnik's formulation is not perfect, although the critical arguments of Yu. Averbakh are controversial. At the same time, I must agree that there is no single classification of combinations, and almost every author interprets it in their own way. Yu. Averbakh proposes his classification. It is acceptable in M. Botvinnik's formulation and covers all types of combinations. In fact, this is a classification by thematic positions. The theme of the combination is called by P. Romanovsky (and most other authors) the peculiarities of the final position that characterize the result of the combination (double attack, checkmate, stalemate, etc.). Attempts to classify by themes have been made before, but only touched on some types of combinations. However, Averbakh's classification is too general. For example, combinations against the king are divided only into two parts - those that end with checkmate and those that end with a double attack. Detailed explanation is necessary when teaching the material in textbooks.

I would like to add that the shortcomings in the presentation of the theory of combinations are not limited to the area of classification. Recently, the chess vocabulary has been enriched with various terms and definitions. It is not easy to navigate through them not only for beginner chess players, but also for those with experience. This, in my opinion, happens for two reasons.

Firstly, not all elements of chess tactics have clear definitions. For example, what is a tactical trick? Almost none of the authors explain its meaning, and the content is often presented differently. So, Ya. Rokhlin ("Chess Lessons", 1979) also includes attacking the king, checkmate on the back rank, along with distraction, attraction, and blocking, among others, as tactical tricks, while O. Koblenz ("Tales of Combinations on the Chessboard", 1970) - intermediate move, winning a tempo, stalemate, trap. It seems that these are not really tactical tricks.
]]> Wed, 22 Feb 2023 15:54:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?karlson-what-is-a-combination-part1 https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/00000003C <![CDATA[What is a Combination? (Part 2)]]> imblog
photo: Wikimedia Commons
chessboard: lichess.org

If you agree with this conclusion, you should also agree that defining a combination through sacrifice proves to be too narrow: it doesn't include a number of positions that should be counted as combinations. Botvinnik is undoubtedly right that within a game, a combination often involves a sacrifice, but this sacrifice is not a determining factor of the combination, only a preceding or accompanying element. It is incorrect to claim, for example, that where there is a sacrifice, there must be a combination. We know cases of sacrifices made for initiative, for the disruption of development, etc., which cannot be counted as combinations. And, of course, it cannot be said that where there is a combination, there must be a sacrifice.

Therefore, of the two known definitions of a combination, one is too broad and the other is too narrow. Using our developed concepts of relationships, we can give a third definition of a combination, which seems to us to be the most complete and reflective of the essence of the matter.

However, before introducing you to this formulation, it is worth noting that in defining a combination, it seems methodologically incorrect to avoid its primary basis, the combination of pieces and pawns, in favor of the secondary - the chain of moves - options. After all, options only reflect the transformations of combinations.
 
What happens when a combination arises? During a combination, a series of figures and pawns from both sides are combined in a way that transforms the position into a different one, which brings objective advantage to one of the sides.

This is already a definition, although somewhat vague. However, it is more precise than Lasker-Romanovsky's definition, as it does not include permutations of figures. The question now is how to classify the combinations since there can be many combinations of figures and pawns, and here the concept of relationships comes to our aid!

Let's start again with the basics: to win a chess game, you need to either checkmate the opponent's king or obtain sufficient material advantage to win. We have established that a checkmate endgame is characterized by a certain combination of relationships, coordinated relative to the mated king, with one of them being active (attack) and the rest being restrictive.

Winning material (winning a piece or even a pawn), as we know, can be achieved in two ways: the first is a combined attack (similar to the checkmate endgame), when there is one active relationship (attack) and several restrictive ones, and they are all coordinated with respect to the attacked object; the second is a double attack, when there are two active relationships (two pieces are attacking).

Therefore, these three endgames, to which combinations can lead, are characterized by a coordinated combination of relationships.

Strictly speaking, there is one more way to win material - promoting a pawn to a queen. We must prove that a coordinated combination of relationships arises even when a pawn is promoted. We will demonstrate this on two elementary examples.


Here there is also a weak active connection - the threat of promotion.

It is of the fourth order (it takes four moves, or more precisely, half-moves, to carry out this threat). On the other hand, the black king is in the square of the pawn, he can detain it by capturing the c8 square, thus there is also a limiting connection of the blacks, neutralizing the promotion threat.

However, White plays 1.K b7, thus establishing their limiting connection, devaluing the opponent's limiting connection, and once again creating a promotion threat that has no defense.
 


Currently, there is an equilibrium: the threat is countered by a restraining link created by the black bishop. However, after 1.Ba6 Kd7 2.Bb7, the white pieces immediately cover the sphere of action of the opponent's bishop, leaving only one active link - the threat of transformation - and the sum of restraining links for both sides equals zero.

As you can see, when a pawn is transformed into a queen, a coordinated system of links also arises. It consists of one active link (the threat of transformation) and a sum of zero restraining links for both sides. And all these links are coordinated with respect to the transformation square. Therefore, our conclusion is correct: to win in chess, it is necessary to achieve a coordinated combination of links.

And then we can give the following definition of combination: a combination is a transformation combination of a series of pieces from both sides, which forcedly leads to a coordinated combination of links that brings benefit to one of the sides.

In general, besides combinations for winning, there are also combinations for a draw. If, at the same time, there is a play (in other words, a win) of material, the question is clear; but there are special draw finals, such as stalemate, perpetual check, fortress, blockade, or finally, pinning. Later, we will show that even draw combinations are characterized by certain combinations of links, or by the impossibility of obtaining coordinated combinations.

In principle, the number of different coordinated combinations of links is limited. And this is very important. Although, as we know, there are countless combinations. With the help of coordinated combinations of links that arise in their endgames, they are easily classified. This is the whole value of the theory we have proposed.

  1. Em. Lasker. A Manual of Chess. M.-L., State Publishing House, 1926.
  2. Romanovsky P. Mittelshpiel. "Chess Sheet", 1929.
  3. "Chess in the USSR", 1939, p. 115 - 116.

"Chess in the USSR" 1980 No. 10.
]]> Mon, 20 Feb 2023 22:50:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?what-is-a-combination-part2 https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/00000003A <![CDATA[What is a Combination? (Part 1)]]> imblog
Y. Averbakh, 1963
photo: Wikimedia Commons
chessboard: lichess.org
(TACTICAL THEORY)

"Combination". This term is widely used in chess literature. However, when it comes to its precise definition, it usually turns out that not everyone understands the same thing by "combination".

And why is an exact definition of this term necessary? Is it really important that there are different understandings of it?

The question is not as simple as it may seem at first glance. It's not just about terminology, but about classification. If a term has several meanings and is understood differently, then there can be no uniformity in the classification of combinations. By the way, this is exactly how it is now. Look at books on the theory of the middle game, and you will see that each author has their own classification. And this, of course, confuses those who are trying to improve their chess skills.

The term "combination" comes from the Latin "combinatio", which means combination. In chess, the word "combination" should be related to the forces fighting on the board, to the pieces and pawns of both sides, and in the process of the game, various fanciful combinations of them can arise.

Even at the dawn of the development of chess, those who tried to understand the laws that govern the pieces noticed that in some positions, when one partner began a targeted operation, the actions in response of the other partner sometimes became inevitable, and he was no longer able to change the inexorable course of events.
In a situation like this, the pieces and pawns of both sides seemed to be connected to each other by invisible threads. Obeying the will of one of the partners, they began to dance in a circle of a peculiar "dance of death" like puppets.

The combination of pieces and pawns, which under certain permutations allows one of the partners to forcefully transform it to their advantage, is already a combination. However, such a definition, without reflecting subsequent transformations, is static, emphasizing the initial position in which future and often unexpected (at least for one of the opponents) events may be hidden and not visible to the "naked" eye.

It is not surprising that the concept of "combination" began to be associated not with the initial position, not with the initial combination of pieces and pawns, but with the transformation of combinations - with permutations of pieces and pawns. However, as is known, the movement of pieces over time is a chain of moves, a variant, or even a network of variants.

Thus, the following formulation by Em. Lasker arose: "...if the network of variants contains a positive result deserving attention, then the set of variants is called a "combination," and the player who carries out the variant he has found is conducting a combination" (1).
Somewhat later, P. Romanovsky clarified Em. Lasker's definition: "A combination is a variation (or group of variations) during which both sides make forced moves and which ends with an objective advantage for the active side" (2).

Note that both of these definitions completely depart from combinations of pieces and pawns, preserving two essential elements related to the combination - forced moves and achieving a certain advantage for the side conducting the combination.

However, isn't this definition too broad, as it includes situations that can hardly be attributed to combinations?
Let's consider, for example, such a position:
 
 

On their move, White conducts a pawn to queen transition - 1. a5 Ke4 2. a6 Kd5 3. a7 and so on. If it's Black's turn, the king manages to catch up with the pawn - 1... Ke4 2. a5 Kd5 3. a6 Kc6 4. a7 Kb7.

In both cases, there is a forced game (the pawn is promoted to queen, the king chases it), there is a goal (for White - to promote the pawn to queen, for Black - to stop it). However, this elementary tactical operation cannot be considered a combination: there is no combination - the main element of combining. We are dealing with a rearrangement of a piece and a pawn, and in combination, at least three objects should be involved in its content.

The main drawback of the Lasker-Romansky definition is that it covers positions that are by no means combinations.

It is not surprising that in 1939 this definition was criticized by M. Botvinnik, who proposed a new, at first glance very clear and concise formulation (3.). It is well known that a combination situation often involves overestimating the value of pieces and pawns, and in such moments, we sacrifice material without hesitation to achieve the goal. M. Botvinnik based his definition on sacrifice.

"A combination is a forced variation with a sacrifice" - this is his definition.

Later, however, it turned out that Botvinnik's proposal is not ideal. Let's consider, for example, two such position-schemes:
 

 
In both positions, White gives checkmate in three moves. In the first position, after 1.Ra8 Bb8(Nb8) 2.R:b8 N(B):b8 3.Rd8X. In the second position, after 1.Ra8 Rb8 (1...Nb8 2.Rd8X) 2.R:b8 N:b8 3.Rd8X.

According to Botvinnik, in the first case, there is a combination, but not in the second because there is no sacrifice, only an exchange. It is unlikely that it needs to be shown that these two positions do not differ in any way. In both cases, the mating mechanism is the same - the mate is given by a rook supported by a bishop. But the approach to this final is different. In the first case, the distraction of the black pieces from defending the d8 square is achieved by sacrifice, and in the second case, by exchange.

As will be shown later, a sacrifice is indeed a powerful means of coercion, but in tactical combat, other means can also be applied, such as threats, attacks, zugzwang, or exchange.

To be honest, I am not inclined to define a combination solely through sacrifice, as it seems to discriminate against and diminish the endgame, making it less exciting and interesting for chess enthusiasts. After all, it is known that sacrifices are much rarer in the endgame than in the middle game, and this definition creates the impression that the endgame is poor in combinations.

But is this really the case? In his article "On the definition of a combination," M. Botvinnik cites the well-known study by R. Reti, stating that there is no combination in it, only a maneuver, albeit a rather spectacular one. We believe that this statement cannot be agreed upon. Let us remind you of the position that arises in the endgame of Reti's study when White plays the king to e5.
 


Is not the move Kf6-e5 a typical double attack in its essence? The white pieces simultaneously threaten to capture the black pawn and promote their own. Against two threats, the black pieces are powerless. Essentially, this combination is no different from a typical "fork", only in the case of a fork, we have two attacks, while in our case, we have two threats.
]]> Sun, 19 Feb 2023 19:12:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?what-is-a-combination-part1 https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000039 <![CDATA[Chess is a touchstone for modeling thinking (part 2)]]> imblog
The calculation is defined by B.M. Blumenfeld as a certain sequence of thought operations - moves, each of which is realized by a chess player. But in his consciousness, there are not only the movements of this or that figure during a move, but also some holistic positions that reflect changes in the position after an imaginary move of the piece. Often, a voluntary effort is necessary to complete the calculation of a particular game variant. Otherwise, mistakes are possible. Calculation exists not only in expanded form. There are also compressed varieties, in which some links fall out. But these compressed forms do not change the psychological structure of the calculation as a certain sequence of thought operations.

"Vision" has a number of features compared to calculation. It immediately covers the entire army of moves united by a common idea, without prior calculation of this sequence. The fact of "vision" is confirmed by the stories of chess players, analysis of the so-called lightning game, as well as special experiments. "Vision" is associated with some negative moments: it sometimes leads to an incorrect sequence of moves. However, being an important form of involuntary activity, "vision" contains such obvious advantages over calculation that it is systematically used by a chess player. It works where there is not enough time for a detailed full calculation (for example, in time trouble). It does not require tense voluntary attention. But the most important property of "vision" is as follows: "Vision" is a necessary element of finding an idea, since a detailed calculation of all moves until the idea is found, which gives the moves in the calculation a forced character, is impractical and even often unrealistic. Therefore, the search for a combinational idea and the very moment of finding it are inevitably associated with the concretization of the idea by covering it with "vision" in subsequent moves" ("Visti APN rrfssr", 1948, issue 13, page 193).
 
So, "vision" can be considered as the initial stage of calculation, without which this directed, conscious, active form of game planning becomes ineffective and even impossible. "Vision" is also necessary for such an important component of the game as evaluating the position, i.e. noting that the position contains certain advantages or disadvantages for the chess player or their opponent. Without evaluating the position, a game plan cannot be formulated.

Great attention is paid to evaluating the position when developing machine programs that take into account the peculiarities of playing chess. Therefore, it is worth considering how B.M. Blumenfeld analyzes the evaluation of the position. He considers it in two ways: as a process and as a result, i.e. as the initial and final moments of mental activity. Already during the process of perceiving the position, a chess player forms a certain attitude towards it based on past experience, knowledge of similar positions that lead to success or failure. At the same time, the process of perceiving the position, and therefore the process of evaluating it, is often carried out according to the motives of the chess player, whether it is necessary to look for a forced win or, for example, to find ways to achieve a draw.

Meanwhile, while the chess player calculates various options, the slightest nuances of relative advantage of the final position that will result from each option are crucial in choosing among these final options.
 
In experienced chess players, the evaluation of a position can be done very quickly and seems almost instantaneous. The connection between this evaluation and the entire previous course of the game plays a huge role in this. However, there are cases where the situation changes dramatically with just one move (i.e., the entire previous move of the game), and yet the correct evaluation is made almost instantly. Such an evaluation of the position, as well as planning based on "seeing", carries the danger of mistakes and errors that can have a negative impact on game results. Therefore, in responsible competitions, even in cases where the meaning of this position seems clear to the player, the chess player resorts to additional analysis to protect themselves from incorrect evaluation.

This analysis does not involve a simple comparison of the advantageous and disadvantageous sides of the position. The fact is that, as experience shows, the value of certain principles and game moments is relative. Even such a seemingly certain characteristic, such as the ratio of the number of pieces on one side and the other, if taken only as isolated, without other characteristics of the given position, cannot guarantee an accurate evaluation. As for other principles and game moments, they are even more relative and play a role not as such, but in relation to each other. Therefore, the evaluation of the position is necessary as a process that takes into account the relationships and connections between the elements of the position, the constantly changing properties of the pieces. In this case, several short variants are considered from a huge number of possible combinations to determine what position will result from one or another continuation. The evaluation as a process accompanies the consideration of each of these options move by move, and if the evaluation shows after one move that an unfavorable situation arises, then the chess player stops calculating this option.
 
Considering possible options, logical operations (reasoning) - all of these are currently stages of analysis, a gradual reflection of a position, that is, a certain cognitive activity.

These are some of the most general results of the psychological analysis of chess. Despite the well-known descriptiveness, they provide an idea of the peculiarities of this type of heuristic activity. It includes complex forms of planning the search for a solution, using past experience, evaluations ("seeing", visual ideas, etc.). But how have things developed with reproducing these processes using existing mathematical and technical means?

In one of his recent works, M. Wiener emphasized that researchers will still have to work intensively before a machine's game grows to the level of a chess master. Indeed, at the current level of development of cybernetic technology, only a machine that can more or less successfully compete with novices or lower-ranked chess players can be created.

Of course, the machine has such unquestionable advantages over a human:
  1. Enormous speed of performing individual operations.
  2. Freedom from mistakes caused by fatigue. The only mistakes of the machine will be those made when the program was written, while even a strong chess player is not immune to such mistakes.
  3. Absence of fatigue, which hinders the chess player from calculating options to the end.
  4. Absence of "nerves". Chess players tend to overestimate their chances in a winning position or get lost in a losing one.
 
However, the mentioned advantages cannot yet fully compensate for the lack of the flexibility of mental activity, imagination, logical thinking, and learning abilities that are inherent in humans. They would undoubtedly enable the machine to win over humans if the principles of human and machine operation were the same, in other words, if the features and principles of mental activity that make a chess master's game still unreachable for a machine were formalized and built into the machine by mathematicians and engineers.

So, what are the imperfections of chess programs, i.e., programs for machines that play chess, compared to human heuristic activity?

Let's turn to the program proposed by American scientist C. Shannon, whose work initiated chess programming.

When building his program, C. Shannon relied on a certain evaluation function. Emphasizing the role of evaluation in chess, he wrote: "Although a simple and exact evaluation function for chess is unknown and is probably infeasible because of the game's complexity, it is now possible to construct an approximate evaluation function. Indeed, any good chess player must be able to evaluate a position approximately. Evaluations are based on the overall structure of the position, the number and type of white and black pieces, the pawn structure, mobility, etc. These evaluations are not perfect, but the stronger the player, the better their evaluations" (C. Shannon. Works on Information Theory and Cybernetics. IL, 1963, p. 198).
 
In order for the machine to be able to stop at a certain decision, such a evaluation function must be built into it. This is done by assigning a certain weight (i.e. a certain number of points) to each piece and certain characteristics of the position of the pieces, and each specific position is evaluated based on these parameters. The machine then plays the game by making a move with a certain piece, evaluating the resulting position (i.e. calculating the number of points), and remembering this number. The piece is then returned to its previous position and the next move is made. After a certain number of moves or variations have been considered, the move that leads to the highest number of points is chosen as the main move. Thus, before stopping at any move (decision), the machine systematically and step-by-step considers (evaluates) all possible moves in the given position, using the method of exploring variations. Of course, the program can be improved by introducing certain constraints that limit the number of variations considered. But the most important thing is the evaluation system used in the program. It is significantly different from the one used by a human chess player.

Recalling B.M. Blumenfeld's description of the intellectual activity of a chess player, evaluation was seen as a complex cognitive activity that reflects the structure of the position and the constantly changing properties of the pieces. In K. Shannon's program, however, the position is perceived as something indivisible. The overall evaluation is reconciled with the exploration of different solution variations.

When developing the program, K. Shannon relied on certain psychological studies, including experiments by Dutch chess player and psychologist De Groot. De Groot showed chess players various typical positions and asked them to choose the best move, analyzing the proposed position out loud (usually, chess players conduct this analysis internally).
 
"The process of thinking, according to some psychologists, is characterized significantly by the following stages, as Shannon wrote: various possible solutions to a problem are tried mentally or symbolically without actual reproduction; the best solution is chosen by imagining the results of these experiments; then the solution found in this way is implemented. It should be noted that this is almost an accurate description of how a chess-playing machine operates, if the words "mentally" are replaced with "inside the machine" (C. Shannon. Works on the theory of information and cybernetics, pages 190-191).

Shannon himself understood that there are some important moments that differentiate a chess program from a chess player. For example, one can command a machine to calculate variations three moves ahead, but it will still only become a mediocre player. It acts extremely inefficiently, calculates all variations equally for three moves ahead, and then stops even if the opponent is in check. A good chess player, Shannon continues his comparison, checks only a few selected options and calculates them to a reasonable depth. But the whole problem is precisely to understand what "reasonable depth" means and why the chess player chooses only a few options from a multitude of them. Moreover, it is not very significant, how effective the selected options are for this particular game, the main thing is to find out how he chooses them.

Researchers in chess psychology who consider the game of chess from the perspective of the concept of variation search do not provide an answer to this question.
 
In accordance with the principle of brute-force search, programs were initially developed not only for chess machines, but also for machines capable of solving other types of tasks (technical, economic, production, scientific). There were not many objective reasons for this. Indeed, if the task conditions are not too large, and the number of methods and techniques for solving them is also manageable, then the method of systematic search or brute-force search will eventually lead to a solution.

However, as can be easily noticed, even many similar "final" tasks are solved by the method of brute-force search less efficiently than by humans, and a machine can successfully cope with such tasks only due to its huge speed of operations. Therefore, the question arises, how can a human, who works thousands of times slower than a machine, successfully cope with some of these tasks? But in addition, there are tasks whose conditions are related to an environment that has virtually an infinite number of elements and their characteristics, that is, an environment that cannot be explored within an acceptable period of time. It is easy to see that in such an environment, the method of searching all possible variants cannot be efficient. An example of such a practically infinite environment can be chess: the number of possible combinations in chess, as already mentioned, is 10 to the power of 120.
 
Naturally, for tasks that have such a huge set of conditions, some other method of solving had to come to replace the brute force method of enumeration, which would allow cybernetic systems to cope with a huge number of conditions in a limited, acceptable time. And since the only existing cybernetic system that successfully solves such problems is a human being, studying how this unique system solves complex problems, what methods a human uses to reduce the search for a solution, is extremely interesting for cybernetics. It is in this context that heuristic programming arose and is currently undergoing intensive development, the main task of which is to overcome the method of enumeration of variants.

From the chapter in the book "Heuristics - the Science of Creative Thinking", M: 1967.
]]> Fri, 17 Feb 2023 21:15:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?сhess-touchstone-modeling-thinking-part2 https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000038 <![CDATA[Chess is a touchstone for modeling thinking (part 1)]]> imblog
It is known that the fundamental problems of cybernetics were developed using different "toys" as materials. For example, such toys as Walter's turtle, capable of producing a conditioned reflex to light, or the Shannon mouse, described above, which could learn in a maze, were used. Other "toys" and games also had an equally important role in the development of cybernetics. Among them, chess holds a special place. It became a kind of touchstone for various means of modeling human intelligence, testing the principles of programming the work of computing machines.

The peculiarity of the game of chess lies in the fact that the chess player usually faces a situation that constantly changes, and he needs to develop some new strategy in new conditions all the time. Therefore, chess proved to be an excellent model of heuristic activity. On the other hand, the material of chess (figures, board squares) is extremely simple. Each of these elements can be easily determined using precise and unambiguous concepts. For example, a knight, a figure that can move in an L-shape, a bishop moves diagonally, etc. It is precisely these features of chess - the complexity of intellectual activity on the one hand and the simplicity of the initial elements on the other - that have made this game a convenient field for cybernetic analysis.

The complexity of the game of chess poses a great number of conditions and possibilities for a human being. This complexity is evidenced by the very large number of possible combinations of chess pieces on a 64-square board - 10 to the 120th power. In a real game, the number of such combinations is, of course, much smaller, but even in this case, it is significant.
Each chess piece has its own power, which is measured by the number of squares on the board that the piece can reach according to its movement capabilities. For example, the power of a queen located in the center of the board is 27 (7 squares on both the horizontal and vertical axes, and 6 and 7 squares on both diagonals). The power of a rook is 14, and so on. The total power of all the pieces of each opponent, in an abstract theoretical calculation, is about 120. In practical play, the pieces are limited in their movements, and their actual total power during the game is around 40-50. This means that a player, when choosing a move, objectively faces one of forty possibilities. This number doubles when considering that the same number of possibilities must be anticipated for the opponent.

Thus, in a game of chess, the human intellect is faced with an enormous environment, rich in its characteristics and similar in complexity to the real world. This is why cybernetic modeling of chess activities has such a crucial significance. Intensive work on the development of counting and decision-making machines capable of playing chess is being conducted by representatives of mathematics and technology not in order to create an electronic chess champion of the world. The creation of a good chess machine is, first and foremost, the creation of a regulator capable of controlling complex production objects that in modern technology are called large-scale systems.

Before analyzing attempts in this direction and in order to approach an understanding of the possibilities of electronic technology and the advantages of a human over a machine on the chessboard, it is necessary to focus on certain features of the psychology of a chess player. Various researchers from different perspectives have tried to understand and describe the characteristics of the heuristic activity of a person who plays chess successfully.
 
The first study in this field was carried out by the French psychologist Binet, published in 1894. The study aimed to investigate the psychological mechanisms involved in playing chess simultaneously with multiple opponents without looking at the board. Initially, the study was conceived as a memory task because it may seem that a master playing several chess games simultaneously without looking at the board requires a phenomenal memory. However, as Binet conducted his research, he realized that a chess player's memory is closely related to their thinking process.

The primary research method used was a questionnaire in which skilled chess players who could play without looking at the board were asked how they did it. Binet himself emphasizes the limitations of the questionnaire method, which could not provide an objective description of the process being studied. The questionnaire responses sometimes contained outright falsehoods, which the chess players used to emphasize their exceptional abilities. In some cases, Binet turned to experiments to verify the players' claims. For example, some masters claimed in their questionnaire responses that they could mentally visualize the entire chessboard with all the pieces on their corresponding squares. To test this claim, Binet conducted an experiment in which the players were asked randomly about the color of a particular square on the board (i.e., black or white). It turned out that most players could not immediately answer this question without thinking. Since the color of the squares is essential for the game, it was established that playing chess without looking does not necessarily require the player to have a complete mental image of the board with the pieces arranged on it.
 
In the book by Binet, there are many insightful comments about chess and chess masters. Here is one of them: "If we could look inside the mind of a chess player, we would see a whole world of feelings, images, ideas, emotions, and passions, an endless wandering of states of consciousness, compared to which all our most careful descriptions are just rough outlines" (A. Binet. Psychologie des grands calculateurs et joueurs d'cchecs, Paris, 1894, p. 239.). It should be noted that Binet was the first great psychologist to see the importance of chess for the development of general psychology problems. His position on the relationship between memory and logical thinking in creative activity still retains its value. After all, it is impossible, even approximately, to compare the intellectual power of two great writers or scientists, whereas in chess such a comparison is possible directly through the game.

Clearly, the first work on the psychology of chess is naive in many ways, but it allows for some important conclusions to be drawn regarding the mechanisms of intellectual creative activity.

From this point of view, Binet's interesting reasoning on the relationship between memory and intelligence in chess players is worth considering: "In most cases, there is a coincidence between the memory necessary for playing chess and the ability to combine, but this relationship between two abilities is not necessarily... and, in addition, there is no proportionality between the number of games that a chess player can play simultaneously without looking at the board and the strength of his calculation. This last observation, the most important of all, shows how wrong attempts are to establish in the science of psychology the presence of strict mathematical proportionality in the relationship between different abilities" (L. Binet. Psychologie des grands calculateurs et joueurs d'echecs, p. 242-243.2 Ibid. , p. 285.).
 
This means that it is not possible to analyze complex intellectual processes based on ideas about different mental functions and abilities (perception, memory, thinking, imagination, etc.) that exist in psychology. Binet tries to connect various functions into a single process. For example, when evaluating different types of visual memory in chess players, he writes: "The difference we seek to establish in visual memory...rests not on the nature of the visual sensation that is recalled or restored in memory, but on the modifications that direction of attention or thoughts - exerted upon the sensation" (Ibid., p. 285). Further research in the psychology of chess, it seems to us, will show that there are not separate mental functions, but a single intellectual process of information processing, within which there are various types of its acquisition and storage.

In 1925, an international chess tournament was held in Moscow, attended by the world's top chess players, including the world champion Capablanca and former world champion, the famous chess researcher E. Lasker. The participants of the tournament underwent psychological examination, the results of which were published in the work of I.M. Dyakov, M.V. Petrovsky, P.A. Rudik "Psychology of Chess." The study aimed to identify the characteristic features of the mental activity of chess players. It used a number of psychological techniques that allowed to determine the level of perception, certain moments of intellectual activity, imagination, and attention. The results of the examination of chess players for these parameters were then compared with the results of the examination of non-chess players. In this way, the authors tried to find out the mental functions that are associated with chess talent.
 
These studies have shown that chess players do not exhibit any significant general intelligence that sets them apart from other individuals. So, outstanding chess players, despite their ability to play chess without looking at the board and remember a huge amount of not only interesting positions encountered but also numerous games, do not have any exceptional general memory and do not differ in this regard from non-chess players.

The same result was obtained in studies of attention, perception, and even in solving specially selected tasks similar to chess. Chess players performed at about the same level as other individuals. However, this result cannot be considered final. There is every reason to assume that if research methods are more carefully selected, a relationship between chess mastery and task performance may be established.

The book contains a whole range of interesting general psychological reflections as well as statements by chess players about chess. One such statement by the well-known chess player R. Reti is worth quoting in full:
 
"Amateurs think that the advantage of chess masters lies in their ability to calculate not only 3-4 moves ahead, but even 10 and 20 moves ahead. Such chess players ask me how many moves ahead I usually calculate my combinations, and they are very surprised when I honestly answer them that usually it is not even one... Every chess player, weak or strong, consciously or unconsciously possesses certain principles that they use in choosing their moves." (See I.M. Dyakov, M.V. Petrovsky, P.A. Rudik. Psychology of chess. Moscow, 1926, pp. 128, 129.)

Thus, according to Reti, it is not the calculation of several moves ahead as such, and therefore not what in modern cybernetic literature has been called the search for variations, but rather the principles of the game that determine the level of chess mastery. At the same time, one cannot deny the fact that chess masters are indeed able to calculate combinations many moves ahead. Reti gives an interesting explanation of the possibility of such calculation.

From his point of view, it is possible to combine, calculate ahead for many moves only when the number of options is limited, i.e., when one player's moves force the other to a clearly defined response (for example, in the exchange of pieces or when putting the king in check). Only in such cases can one truly plan the game 20 or more moves ahead, since the number of options in this case is insignificant.
 
These statements by Reti will need to be recalled later when analyzing the cybernetic approach to chess and its automation. As will be shown later, it is from the calculation of variations that cybernetics representatives see the main and perhaps the only form of intellectual chess activity. Thus, from empirical observations and generalizations of chess players, cybernetic program developers could obtain valuable information.

From this perspective, it is important to study the work of chess master and candidate of pedagogical sciences in psychology B.M. Blumenfeld, "Towards a characterization of visual thinking". It provides a detailed analysis of the cognitive activity that forms the basis of the strategy of a chess player who plays a complex game.

At the center of the author's attention is the analysis of so-called visual ideas that exist in the mind of a chess player. These are formed during the experience of imagining typical connections between figures. The point is that knowledge of ready-made answers on memory plays a limited role in a chess player's thinking; this knowledge is mainly used in the opening stages and elementary endgames. Usually, a seemingly completely new position arises before the chess player, which requires a certain sequence of moves. Visual ideas come to the aid of the chess player here. They allow to classify this position into a certain class of positions and use a certain technique in relation to it.
 
In other words, a visual idea is a manifestation of past experience that allows for the recognition of typical relationships between figures in various changing concrete situations. It is not tied to a specific verbal formulation and can be difficult to articulate in words. Each chess player has a vast number of such ideas that constitute the basic form of their experience.

Here is a description of how a visual idea "works": "In the process of thinking, a visual idea usually 'floats' as if automatically. Not just any ideas from the huge number of familiar ideas 'float', but only the 'candidates' for decision-making, that is, those that have or may have a relationship to the situation being perceived and to the task dictated by it. In other words, the 'floating' is not about the reaction of the machine, but about the automated components of the thinking process..." (APN Information, 1948, issue 13, p. 183)

This seemingly external description sets the task of great importance - to understand the specific mechanisms of using past experience in the process of thinking. Even at the current level of scientific development, this problem cannot be fully solved. Therefore, it is unfair to criticize B.M. Blumenfeld for not revealing the mechanism of visual ideas in his research. It is already valuable that a chess psychologist has provided a description of these formations.

The author's interesting thoughts on the relationship between calculation and "visions" in chess, that is, the relationship between logic and intuition, are also noteworthy.

Chapter from the book "Heuristics - the Science of Creative Thinking", M: 1967
]]> Tue, 14 Feb 2023 21:15:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?сhess-touchstone-modeling-thinking-part1 https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000037 <![CDATA[A look at sketch art]]> imblog
photo: the channel youtube Art For All
Excerpt from an article by a master sketch artist and doctor of art history
А. S. Hurvich (1897-1962)

Art evolves over centuries. Emerging in primitive times, it gradually developed its specific features and structure, deepening and becoming more complex, establishing its own laws, in short, undergoing an evolution that transforms it, using biological terminology, from a simple cell into a complex organism. For example, drama and theater emerged from the primitive religious fears of early humans, through idol worship, mysteries, and folk festivals.

In the struggle to establish its own inner laws of existence, the game of chess also underwent a process of development. As the game evolved, the properties of the pieces changed, their relative strengths shifted, intricacies emerged (such as stalemate and en passant captures), and the personalities of the "actors" on the chessboard were developed.

The chess pieces are vividly expressed personalities. Each one has its own character, horizon, move, rhythm, and pace of life, as well as its own attitude towards its surrounding reality. Some are straightforward, while others are more complex; some have a limited scope, while others have a far-reaching vision; some are fully formed characters, while others have the potential for growth, development, and transformation (pawns).

The more vividly these individual personalities are expressed in a game or composition, the deeper and more artistic the work becomes, because only then do the events that take place on the board become imbued with true dramatic power.
 
Chess is closely related to drama in general. They are primarily united by the element of struggle. In both, there is a struggle between two opposing forces, like two warring groups of characters. This kinship between drama and chess is especially close with regards to the study of chess. On the chessboard, one can find a diverse range of dramatic genres. Real tragedies are often played out, as are comic situations, sharp and instructive examples of paradoxical dialogue and entire epics, as well as small but interesting episodes.

These analogies are not only external. As in a good drama, there are no extras in a good study, no lifeless figures who passively participate in the course of events.

The course of events is determined not by chance positions, but by the characters who clash, whose organic struggle leads to one position or another.

The struggle of forces should not be crude, wild, resembling a brawl or a blunt attempt to break through a wall. It should be flexible, far-sighted, and inventive. The sides that are fighting should not be represented as a gray, shapeless mass, but as rounded individualities in their development.

Each separate figure must display the maximum of possibilities inherent in it. More activity, determination, agility, resistance, self-sacrifice, and dedication. However, these actions must not be separate, but coordinated, complementing each other.
 
In a moment of crisis, the tension should gradually build up, rather than being the starting point of the solution. The initial setup should not give away anything and should be realistic and relaxed, as far away from the endgame as possible. It should hold a sense of calm and tranquility, containing the electric forces of the approaching storm.

All of this provides the chess composition of life with organic wholeness, filling it not only with intellectual depth and meaningful ideas but also with the power of emotional sensory images.

I fully understand that the principles I have outlined are far from exhaustive and are merely the general prerequisites for our further creative work. On the other hand, it is clear to me that even the requirements I have put forward are unlikely to be fully realized in one work.

However, we must strive to master these difficulties to the best of our abilities and talents. Anyone who follows the path of least resistance, who ignores the laws of chess life, and does not try to understand them, will inevitably lower this art, deaden it, and reduce the trembling drama to a mechanical trick that can amaze but is unable to excite or spiritually organize anyone.

Chess and checkers in the workers' club ("64") 1932
]]> Mon, 06 Feb 2023 18:25:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?look-sketch-art https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000035 <![CDATA[Psychology of a chess mistake (part 2)]]> imblog
chessboard: lichess.org

5. The danger of success.
It happens that a chess player, having achieved a certain success in the position or material advantage, starts playing haphazardly and thus misses out on victory. This is a fairly common occurrence. In my game with Em. Lasker, which I played on November 19, 1925, in a moscow international tournament, after White's 13th move, the following position emerged:
 


Instead of exchanging queens, Lasker unexpectedly played 1.. .. Q:а2 2. Rа1 Q:b2 3. Rfb1 Q:b1 4. R:b1, sacrificing his queen for a rook, bishop, and pawn. I must confess that I do not understand this combination even now, and according to Bogoljubov, who commented on this game, black had a great chance of losing after the sacrifice. At that moment, I simply decided that Lasker blundered. Other participants of the tournament, including Bogoljubov, shared this opinion, which lifted my spirits. Just think, yesterday I won against Capablanca, and today I'll win against Lasker. But now I don't care about that anymore, and I played very recklessly. However, my excitement at the time partly drove me to do so. 4. ... Rfd8 5. с4 Nе8 6. f4 а6 7. Kh1 Nс7 8. QеЗ Rсb8 9. Rbd1 Nb4 10. QсЗ а5 11. Rа1 b6 12. QсЗ, it was played on 12. . . . e5, and Lasker won a quality, and soon the game. My last move, of course, is a blunder, but regardless of that, by the time of the blunder, I had already significantly ruined my position. This is the price of being too carried away with success.
 
6. The pursuit of beauty.
This type of loss is somewhat related to the previous one. Sometimes a chess player, having achieved a positional advantage, instead of actually using it, gets carried away by an occasional good combination and thus misses all his chances. There are many examples of this. In my game with J. D. Danyushevsky, played on October 18, 1920, at the RSFSR All-Russian Chess Olympiad, the following position emerged after Black's 24th move:


  
In the white game, they are significantly better. They have two bishops and the possibility of creating a strong passed pawn in the center. Finally, their king stands safer than the black king. The simple continuation of d5 gave them good chances of winning. Meanwhile, Danyushesky saw a nice mating combination here and played as follows: 1. Qe7+ Rf7 2. Qe5 Kg6 3. d5 (Now the next effective queen sacrifice threatens: 4. Q:f5+ K:f5 5. Bd3+ Ne4 6. B:e4X). However, blacks have a simple refutation of this threat: 3. ... cd 4. cd Re8 5. Qd4 (Whites have to go for an unfavorable exchange of queens) Q:d4 6. R:d4 Rc7, and as a result, blacks won this game.

7. An unexpected checkmate.
How many games have been lost due to an unexpected check! It's a real bull of combinations! Its psychological foundation is the same as in the first two cases I mentioned. The position that has arisen on the board complicates the calculation. Meanwhile, from the first moves, some lines open up, others close, and there is a possibility of some unexpected events for the pieces. Taking all this into account behind the board is sometimes very difficult.

In the fifth game of my second match with M.G. Klyatskin, which was played on July 15, 1922, after Black's 22nd move, the following position arose:


 
"I already have a piece for two pawns in a good position. Of course, I wanted to bring the game to a win faster. And I came up with the following "clever" combination: 1. ef З : f6 2. Nе5 (Attacking not only the queen but also the f5 bishop) Qe6 (Playing 2...B:e5 not only would Black have lost both his bishops, but also would have finally weakened his d5 pawn) 3. Ba3 (Everything is forced and it's going smoothly. Now, I thought, Black cannot avoid losing another piece) Rf7 4. Qb5 (Everything is under attack for Black!) B:e5 5. B:d5 (And suddenly!..) Qg6+ (It would have been easier to give up hopes of winning the queen, accept the loss of the bishop and play 5...Bg2, but in my excitement I played:) 6. Kh1 (And then it started) Be4+ 7. B:e4 Q:e4+ 8. Kg1 Qe3+, and I resigned, since I get checkmated. If you look at the position two moves before the fatal check, it becomes clear why I missed it. The f6 bishop blocked the queen's path to g6, while my g2 bishop covered the queen from the check. The check became possible only because both bishops left their positions one after another."
 
8. Mixing ideas.
It happens that in a position, you can choose two different game plans. In this case, there is nothing worse than trying to implement both plans. You end up with a mixture of ideas, and neither plan can be properly executed. In the fourth game of my first match with N.D.Grigoriev, which was played on July 14, 1919, after Black's 22nd move, the following position emerged:


 
Here I had two game plans. One was to take advantage of the poor position of the black queen and play 1. Bf1 Ra4 2. Qe2 threatening either Qb5 or 2. Bd3 with the threat of either Bc2 or Qe2. In this case, the black queen's flank pieces would be in an unfavorable position. The other plan was to play on the weakness of the d5 pawn by playing 1. f4 g6 2. g4! and then f5. But in my case, both of these plans merged into one, and I played 1.h3 (this move is generally useless, as the bishop cannot go to g4 due to c:d5) b5 2. f4 (losing an important tempo, I chose the second plan, but now it was already too late) b4 3. ab ab 4. Bf1 (And here is the first plan, or rather a pathetic parody of it. The white game is already losing) bс 5. B: с4 Q: с4 6. bс B::h3, and in a few moves, I had to give up.
I will conclude the examples here. They all confirm the following important points in my opinion.

  1. Games change, ideas remain.
  2. Chess ideas can be classified according to their types, kinds, and forms.
  3. Establishing this classification will clarify the art of chess and help its study.

Perhaps many of the names I have given to the types I have established may seem too whimsical and contrived. So be it. My task was not to solve the problem, but only to pose it, not to provide a classification, but only to prove its possibility. The solution to this problem is the work of many years. But I have no doubt that someday it will be accomplished.
"Chess Bulletin" No. 19, 1928.
]]> Thu, 02 Feb 2023 20:16:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?psychology-chess-mistake-part2 https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000034 <![CDATA[Psychology of a chess mistake (part 1)]]> imblog
photo: Wikimedia Commons
"Ein entscheidender Zug. Originalzeichnung von L. Halmi."
German Leipzig 1893
chessboard: lichess.org
(Materials for a future researcher)
 
Studying works of chess art leads us to a number of interesting and instructive problems. Most of these problems are not only unstudied by us, but also unposed for resolution. We review individual games, admire the whimsical entanglement of pieces on the chessboard, get excited about the depth of the combination, regret the mistake made, but we do not have a strictly scientific approach to the study of chess creativity. We can analyze a game in detail, we can point out a number of lost variants that win, but based on thousands of difficult games, we cannot determine what elements make up a chess victory - not that we cannot, we simply do not think about this question. These issues are still waiting for their researchers. The time will come and chess researchers will appear who will make a strict classification of all ways of constructing a game (which will not be a simple selection of opening variations that we have now), conducting attacks and defense, and finally, implementing winning ideas. Here the comparison with sport comes to mind involuntarily. When I hear that Lurich put Aberg in a double nelson, everything is clear to me. Although I was not at the competition, I can imagine the picture of the final moment of the struggle. And try asking a chess player how he won, and he will start telling a long and incomprehensible story. Or he prefers to just take the board and show it. He doesn't even have the terminology for such a story. Terminology will appear when the previous work of summarizing and classifying chess ideas is done. Of course, chess is not a struggle. The small number of combat techniques is difficult to compare with the infinite variety of creative possibilities of chess thought, but this does not mean that such work is impossible. Botanists were able to classify the infinite variety of the plant kingdom and make a clear division of it into different genera and species.
 
In this regard, the problem and study of chess, despite its comparative youth, has significantly surpassed practical play. There are elements of classification here and a much deeper study of the subject.

Among the completely unexplored and even unaddressed issues is the topic that is the title of this article - the psychology of a chess mistake.

We are accustomed to simply stating that a game is lost due to such a mistake and we console ourselves with that. However, we have not yet reached the point of summarizing a whole series of mistakes and, by studying them, deriving certain laws.

I must say that my article is only a modest first step in this direction. It is difficult to immediately claim serious knowledge when venturing into uncharted territory. Columbus discovered not America, but only the shore where he landed.

So let's move on to the essence of the issue at hand.

Studying my extensive experience in chess, I have identified several types of mistakes that are repeated over and over again. All of these mistakes have a psychological basis. Familiarity with them is interesting both from the point of view of deepening the study of chess creativity and from a practical point of view. By realizing the essence of the negative phenomenon, we will find a means to overcome it.

There are many such types of mistakes, and I will only focus on some of them, illustrating them with examples mainly from my own practice. For each type, I will provide only one example, but each reader can undoubtedly supplement it with a whole series of similar examples from their own competitions.
 
1. The missing field.
Very often, mistakes arise from the fact that the chessboard and pieces are right in front of our eyes. Let me explain this. In order to consider a combination, one needs to detach their mind from the current position on the board and imagine a new, imaginary position that will result after a series of moves by both players. In this case, the position on the board not only does not help, but on the contrary, hinders calculations. Sometimes it can be so distracting that the entire calculation turns out to be wrong. Here is an example:

 

In the game with V.I. Nenarokov, which I played on December 14, 1922, in the moscow quadrangular tournament, I had the following position after Black's 33rd move:

The position is clearly winning for White. The Black king is in a mating net. And here I, without much thought, announced mate in six moves: 1. Bf7+! Kf8 (If 1... K:f7, then 2. Rf6+Ke8 3. Qg8+ Kd7 4. Qg7+ Ke8 5. Rf8X) 2. Qh6+ K:f7 3. Rf6+ (Now I expected Black to answer 3... Ке8 and then 4. Qf8+ Kd7 5. Qg7+ Kc8 6. Rf8X and suddenly - horror!..) Kg8, and there is no mate. I managed to draw this game with difficulty. Meanwhile, had I played 2. Q:g4 on the second move, Black would have had to resign, because on 2... К:f7 there would already be a real mate in 3 moves.

Why did I overlook such a simple move as 3... Kg8? Well, it's very simple! Look at the initial position. In it, the g8 square is attacked by two pieces - bishop bЗ and queen g5. And, in calculating my combination, looking at the board, I had a false idea that the king could not move to g8.
 
2. The partition was destroyed.
The following case belongs to this kind of mistake, but of a different type. On May 22, 1923, in the 3rd game of my match with the same V. I. Nenarokov, after Black's 13th move, the following position emerged:

 

The position is roughly equal. In order to gain initiative, I decided to open up the f-file and played: 1. Rf1 g6 2. Qe3 Ne7. Now, it seemed that nothing could prevent me from carrying out my plan and in excitement, I played 3. f4, but then it turned out: 3...ef4 4. Q:f4 Q:b5. This was definitely not part of my plan. I opened up the file, but lost a piece.

Many people would say: a gross oversight. Yes, an oversight, but an interesting psychology behind this oversight. Starting with the plan and looking at the board, I saw that the black queen on g5 and the unprotected white bishop on b5 were separated by a dense pawn wall on e5. This image was firmly engraved in my mind. So firmly that even when the black queen took the bishop, it seemed to me that it had jumped over the pawn.
 
3. A forgotten figure.
This type of error is also related to the previous one, but in a different way. It is best demonstrated by the example of the Alekhine-Blackburn game, played on April 22, 1914, in the St. Petersburg International Tournament. In this game, after Black's 10th move, the following position emerged:

 

Alekhine played 1. Nd2 here, to which 1...Qa5 2. a4 a6 was played, and the white bishop was lost. Only Alekhine's incredible resourcefulness allowed him to salvage this hopeless game into a draw. "How do you explain such a gross oversight?" I asked Alekhine later. "Oh, come on," replied Alekhine. "I just forgot about the bishop. I forgot it existed."

This kind of forgetfulness is quite common. It just doesn't always lead to such catastrophic results.
 
4. "Natural course".
Getting carried away with "natural" moves or counting on the opponent's "natural" response also very often leads to the game's demise. Let me give you an example. On November 24, 1920, I played a game with N. I. Grekov in a moscow quadruple match tournament. After White's 8th move, the situation was as follows:

 

The first thing that catches the eye in this position is that it is very easy for black to start a pawn attack on the white king's castled position, while white needs to prepare such an attack. But without thinking, I played b5 here. This move is in the spirit of the chosen Philidor defense, and here it is also justified that the opponent castled long. The opponent's response seemed clear to me - Bd3. If a piece is attacked, it must move. But it was not so simple. On 1... b5, there was 2. de! de (Forced! If 2... bc, then 3. ef N:f6 4. Q: c4 with a winning position) 3. N: e5! bc 4. N:c6 Qe8 5. e5 (This is the essence of the combination! The knight on f6 has nowhere to go. White plays a move that wins a piece). Only by some miracle did I manage to salvage this hopeless game to a draw. Meanwhile, if I had played simply Qc7 in the position shown in the diagram, I would have kept all my advantages.
]]> Wed, 01 Feb 2023 20:16:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?psychology-chess-mistake-part1 https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000033 <![CDATA[The highest appointment (part 2)]]> imblog
photo: chessprogramming.org
"Examination of intellectual maturity"

The creative process, regardless of the specific activity being carried out, whether it be poetry or chess, has common essential characteristics. The founders of heuristic programming, Newell, Shaw, and Simon, decided to embody this idea in cybernetics. As a result, one of the first heuristic programs appeared, known to us as the "universal problem solver." The authors hoped that the program would solve a large class of problems, regardless of their subject matter. And so it was, but only until the time came for chess - here the solver proved to be powerless. And if so, then the "test of intellectual maturity" (recall Ghezzi's words) was not passed by the program, which means that it is not universal, and some very important mechanism of mental activity was not replicated or modeled.

This conclusion forced Newell, Shaw, and Simon to seriously turn to chess programming. And after many months of hard work, such a program was created in 1958. Since it embodied Shannon's ideas, it could be expected that the program would play at least with the strength of a master. If the program really reflects human thinking, then in chess it will surpass the most skilled player: the machine calculates variants faster and more accurately, it is not subject to fatigue, it is not disturbed by noise in the hall, etc.
But unfortunately, even here, Newell and his colleagues were met with disappointment. They began with the fact that the program turned out to be very complex and couldn't be written in machine code. And when they tested the program "manually," it turned out that its chess strength was small and corresponded to approximately 2-3 sports categories.

And yet, the chess fiasco of the "Universal Problem Solver" and Newell, Shaw, and Simon's specialized program was more valuable to cybernetics and psychology than many victories. Attempts to build artificial intelligence and, above all, work on creating a chess machine, not only demonstrated the imperfection of the knowledge accumulated by humanity about complex mental processes, but also suggested a new path for studying and modeling creative thinking.

This path led to a new science that arose at the intersection of cybernetics and psychology - heuristics.
 
Chess is a tool of cognition

Heuristics are often referred to as the science of creative processes, but this is far from a complete definition. After all, even classical psychology of thinking does not limit itself to studying only mental clichés and automatisms - for over seventy years it has been studying creative problem-solving methods. A journalist who observed the work of heuristic scientists at the Institute of Psychology of the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences wrote that "they play chess during working hours, and during these games, operational thinking and the psychology of creativity are studied" (5).

Chess, however, have been attracting the attention of psychologists for decades. At the end of the last century, the French scientist Binet published a book that examined the psychological mechanisms of a chess player's thinking. Over the time since then, psychologists have learned a lot of interesting things by observing human behavior behind the chessboard.

So what sets heuristic psychology apart from traditional psychology of thinking? The novelty lies in the fact that by making the thinking of a chess player the main object of their research, heuristic psychology not only discovers the regularities of productive thinking but also develops methods of machine and mathematical modeling of human ways of solving complex problems. Two scientific directions are intertwined in heuristics: programmers draw information from experimental psychology, and psychologists test their hypotheses on program models. Such testing is the essence of a new method - the method of heuristic modeling.
 
The works of Newell, Shaw, and Simon served as a push towards the spread of the heuristic modeling method. Their research on the possibilities of automating chess playing became an experimental verification of the psychological theory of "trial and error", which found its expression in the method of searching for variants in cybernetics. Supporters of the "trial and error" theory argued that the problem-solving process consists of random attempts, one of which leads to success. The works of Newell, Shaw, and Simon practically proved that the process of decision-making is not exhausted by the search for possible variants, even if such a search is limited, as in Shannon's second strategy. Otherwise, it is impossible to explain why a machine that surpasses a human in calculation speed by hundreds of times and applies the data of chess theory very poorly plays chess.

But what properties of the human mind allow us to easily defeat all chess programs? And what qualities must a machine possess to be able to successfully compete with experienced masters and thus solve complex practical and scientific problems?

It should be said that the results of experimental studies of the chess player's thinking processes obtained in recent years have brought heuristic closer to answering these questions, and have accelerated the work on creating an "electronic grandmaster" - a work whose success, as former world champion M. Botvinnik wrote, "will mean the beginning of the end of the hegemony of the human brain in the field of solving complex tasks." (6).
 
Chess Magazine (Riga), Issue No. 7 for 1971.
LITERATURE:
  1. L. Zorin. "Forty days in the tournament hall." "Chess in the USSR", 1969, No. 12.
  2. J. Gizycki, "Through the ages and countries with chess," Warsaw, 1958, p. 113.
  3. Ege. Lasker. "Textbook of Chess," M "FIT", 1937, p. 325.
  4. C. Shannon. "Selected Works on Information Theory and Cybernetics," M. and L., 1963, pp. 190-191, 192.
  5. S. Ivanov. "Man among machines." M., "Znanie," 1969, p. 276.
     6. M. Botvinnik. Preface to the book by Panov and Estrin "The Course of Debuts". M, FIO, 1968, pp. 6.
]]> Mon, 30 Jan 2023 14:55:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?highest-purpose-chess-players-mindset-part2 https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000032 <![CDATA[The highest appointment (part 1)]]> imblog
photo: Wikimedia Commons

"I have always been tormented by the question: what is the guiding idea behind this game? And is it even a game? There must be some higher purpose in this great invention! No wonder people, and what people, devote their entire lives to chess. ."
Leonid Zorin (1)

The 'Intellectual energy' absorbed by the chessboard over centuries does not disappear without a trace and must find its way into science, so concluded Emanuel Lasker in the early 20th century. The great chess player was not mistaken: today, chess has become a true tool of knowledge. With their help, the greatest mystery of nature - the mystery of 'creative thinking' - is revealed, and work is being done to create artificial intelligence. Could this not be the highest purpose of this ancient game?
 
Justification for one hoax
 
The turn of the XVIII and XIX centuries.

The palace and city public of the brilliant European capitals Vienna and London, Paris, were conquered by a mechanical chess player, the work of the court advisor, inventor, and mechanic Wolfgang Kempelen. A Turk puppet in a huge white turban sitting at a chess table beats all of his famous opponents one by one. Even Napoleon I is among the defeated. Witnesses are lost in guesses, trying to unravel the mystery of the "chess automaton".

But the secret is carefully guarded. Besides the inventor, only one person knows it - the strong Viennese chess player Johann Allgaier. After all, it is Allgaier who has to sit for hours in a tight secret box- "automaton", consider moves and, using a complex system of levers, move the hands of the "Turk", which moves the figures on the board.
So, the secret is simple. But what prompted all this performance? The desire for sensation, thirst for money, fame?

Perhaps. However, behind it was an old dream of a thinking machine, a dream that goes back to the medieval legend of the Golem (Homunculus).

And the fact that Kempelen constructed a chess-playing automaton was not a mere coincidence: chess... can be the ideal criterion for testing the "intelligent" abilities of a machine. An automaton capable of playing a game of chess with a live opponent thus passes the test of "intellectual maturity" (2).

We will return to these words of Jędrzej Giżycki, the author of a wonderful book on chess.
Now let's continue our story.
 
Emanuel Lasker's dream
 
One of the first to try to use the "intellectual energy" of chess for science was the philosopher, mathematician, and outstanding chess player Emanuel Lasker (1868-1941).

From his youth, Lasker was influenced by the chess-philosophical concept of the first world champion and founder of a new scientific method of playing, Wilhelm Steinitz. The basis of Steinitz's theory was a far from obvious materialistic idea for its time: success on the chessboard, and in any other competition, is not led by luck, chance, or the flight of genius fantasy capable of making a winning combination in any position, but a plan based on specific characteristics of the situation. Steinitz's doctrine, Lasker believed, was an open scientific theory revealed by chess that reflects the general laws of struggle.

However, all of Lasker's attempts to dress this theory in philosophical or mathematical form failed - science was not yet ready to solve such problems. The great chess player understood this, but the dream of "putting the experience of all games based on the principles of struggle at the service of practical life" (3) did not leave him until the end of his life.
 
Cybernetics, chess and computers
 
At the end of the 1940s, cybernetics - the science of the general principles of control in complex systems - began to solve the problem posed by Lasker. In chess, which has a richness of manifestations approaching that of the real world, cybernetics saw an excellent model for studying complex systems.

One of the most important tasks of cybernetics is automation of control. However, after receiving a powerful tool for solving this task - electronic computing machines, scientists faced a new complex problem: how to teach a machine to drive trains, analyze statistical data, translate from one language to another, etc.? In other words, how to program control processes? In search of an answer, cybernetics turned to chess. And it was not in vain: modeling this game became a necessary and very effective means of developing and testing methods for programming computers. After all, the process of control in chess, being very similar in its basic characteristics to the control processes carried out in practice, differs from them and has a whole range of important advantages for cybernetics: in chess, the rules for performing operations (moves) and the ultimate goal (checkmate) are clearly formulated; the game is not too simple but not too complex; the discrete nature of the game corresponds to the digital nature of computing machines.
 
Shannon's project
 
In 1949, the renowned American mathematician Claude Shannon wrote in his article "Programming a Computer for Playing Chess" that the task of creating chess programs is of great interest, as a satisfactory solution could become a "springboard for attacking other problems of a similar nature that have more practical significance" (4). Although Shannon did not create any fully developed chess programs himself, the programming methods he proposed formed the basis of all subsequent research in this direction.

Shannon's musings boiled down to the following: a machine will be unbeatable if it can calculate the final result of every possible move according to the rules of the game. However, to do so, it would have to consider all possible chess variations, which far exceeds the capabilities of even the fastest computing device. Nonetheless, it is possible to teach a machine how to play chess. One only needs to find an efficient way to reduce the number of variations to be examined. In doing so, "one must resign oneself to the fact that the move made by the machine need not always be the best one. Similarly, of course, any chess player must, since no one plays chess perfectly" (4).
 
In his article, Shannon proposed two methods or, using the author's terminology, two strategies for limiting the search process. According to the first strategy, all possible moves are considered to a certain fixed depth (for example, three moves ahead). Then, positions at which the calculation is terminated are assigned numerically computed ratings according to a special rule. Comparing these ratings allows giving preference to one move in the analyzed position.

The drawbacks of this method are obvious: the machine implementing Shannon's first strategy will stop calculation in positions where it is necessary (for example, when the king is in check). A large part of the machine's energy and time will be spent on considering moves that do not deserve attention.

Shannon's second strategy differs advantageously from the first. Here, not all possibilities are investigated - a part of the moves is excluded from the outset. The criterion for the preliminary assessment is some known positions of chess theory (king safety, control over the center, etc.). The rest remains unchanged.
 
Experts highly appreciated the project of an American scientist. They believed that the ideas of Shannon's second strategy provide the keys to programming a large class of practical tasks that are inaccessible to computers until now. The reason is that machines only worked successfully with programs where all links in the problem-solving process are described in formulas (formalized). Most problems that arise in a person's scientific and practical activities are not solved by standard rules or formulas, such as a quadratic equation. An engineer developing a complex structure, a detective trying to solve a convoluted crime, a doctor diagnosing difficult cases - these and many other situations require not only knowledge but also imagination and creative ingenuity from a person. Cybernetics concluded that in order for machines to solve complex tasks, it is important to model comprehensively on computers the processes of information processing by humans, including the thinking processes of a chess player.

It was believed that the thinking of a chess player is accurately reflected in Shannon's second strategy. Shannon himself wrote: "According to some psychologists, the mental process is characterized by such stages: various possible solutions to the problem are mentally or symbolically tried without actual reproduction; the best solution is chosen by an imaginary assessment of the results of these experiments; then the solution found in this way is implemented. It should be noted that this is an almost accurate description of how a machine playing chess works if we replace the word 'mentally' with the words 'inside the machine'."

No wonder that works that have received the name "heuristic programming," that is, works on transferring elements of human mental activity to a machine, began with attempts to embody Shannon's ideas in a specific chess program.
]]> Mon, 30 Jan 2023 14:50:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?highest-purpose-chess-players-mindset-part1 https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000031 <![CDATA[Chess in the experiment (part 2)]]> imblog
When the participant reproduced this position, it was found that they remembered figures not only at the points where their eye stopped, but also beyond these points. This is related to the so-called multichannel representation of figures, where the eye simultaneously represents multiple elements of the situation.

On average, the fixation time on one point for an experienced chess player is 0.24 seconds. During this time, the chess player can display several fields on the board, evaluate the figures on these fields, and develop a strategy for further examination of the board. This gives grounds to assume that gradually, in the process of practice, a chess player acquires the ability to simultaneously operate with several elements of the situation.

The role of multichannel representation of elements of the situation further increases when the situation is analyzed to solve a problem. In this case, the area of the operational field of vision, that is, the area where the eye can simultaneously cover several objects, increases significantly. This expansion of the operational field of vision in the process of problem-solving can be explained, perhaps, by the fact that the participant in this case seeks to limit the area of information collection from the beginning and to extract the elements of the situation that may be related to the problem in the most rational way.
 
The chess position consists of a set of disconnected elements (a so-called discrete set). Therefore, in the process of analyzing it, there is an increase in activity in establishing connections between these elements. This determines the role of multi-channel representation, as information about individual elements can be obtained sequentially, i.e., one channel at a time, but the connection between them will only be established when they are reflected and fixed in one field.

Moreover, if a chess player only needs to perceive and remember the position, their ability to multi-channel representation is sufficient to establish connections between elements. To solve the task, the player must carry out productive, creative activities.

Thus, the information activity strategy of a chess player when analyzing a complex position consists of limiting the number of elements under consideration, selecting from all the elements of this discrete set those that are relevant to the task, and establishing a connection between them. It can be argued that such activity ensures the formation of only a few real solution options from a vast number of possible ones.
 
To identify specific features of mental activity during the process of solving chess problems, a series of experiments with highly qualified chess players (masters of sports, grandmasters) is of interest. The experiments consisted of the following: the participants were given a situation depicted in Fig. 2 and were asked to find a winning combination for white in 10 seconds. After the experiment, they were asked to reproduce the position from memory. The protocol recorded both the solution proposed by the participants and the position they reproduced.

It is easy to see that the brief presentation of the chess position put our participants in conditions that excluded any extended reflections and forced them to solve the task using the same process of "seeing" that B.M. Blumenfeld mentioned. The conditions of the experiment excluded the possibility of exploring various options for solving the problem and required completely different mechanisms.

Even the initial analysis of the obtained materials revealed such an important fact as incomplete reproduction of the position. The participants usually forgot a significant part of the pieces and reproduced only those that were included in the solution they formed.
 

fig. 5

Let's consider the position reproduced by one of the subjects (a chess master) after the task was solved (figure 5) and compare it with the position presented in figure 2. In the reproduced position, two pawns are missing - black and white, which are located on the c-file, and the black knight is on the h-file. The position of the black rook and pawn has changed, as they have been moved from the b-file to the a-file, and a black pawn now stands on c5 instead of the white pawn. Interestingly, the white queen, which is involved in the winning combination, is also slightly shifted - from b3 to c4, although it maintains its attacking position towards the black king. It is easy to see, however, that the main structure of the task has been correctly reproduced.

Thus, when reproducing the set of chess pieces, the position as a whole can vary significantly, but only the type of connection between the figures remains stable (assuming the task is solved correctly). This conclusion sheds light on the nature of the chess player's activity, which is associated with his evaluation of the position. Let us recall how K. Shannon represented the evaluation: as a certain method of weighting the entire set of present figures, their properties and features. In reality, however, the position does not appear before the chess player in an undivided form, he isolates those figures that are connected by a certain system of links.
 
During the experiments, a fact was discovered that may represent a certain psychological interest. Some of our subjects, immediately after being presented with the experimental position, claimed that they did not remember anything. Then, after a few seconds, the pieces started to emerge one by one in the subject's consciousness until the proposed position was restored quite fully. Thus, after the moment of failure, one of the subjects stated that it was a white attack on the king. By identifying the main point of the position in this way, the chess player reproduces it element by element, demonstrating the interaction of the elements of the position.

This fact allows us to conclude that when the subject "doesn't remember anything" (during the moment of failure), a certain process is taking place, the essence of which is the organization of the elements.

Interestingly, the process of unfolding (reproducing) the position in the chess player's consciousness and the process of solving the problem merge into one. In this case, the material of perception of the pieces and their interrelationships are transformed into a plan of a kind of internal "vision" of these pieces, which leads to the solution of the task. However, this specific process is manifested only when the task conditions are presented to a person for a limited period of time. Further research work is necessary to uncover its forms and regularities. It is very important in this regard to study the mechanism of short-term memory, which is currently receiving a lot of attention from representatives of psychology, physiology, and cybernetics.
 
It should be noted that not all of our participants were able to solve the problem based on reproducing the position presented. This raises the question of whether this phenomenon is a specific form of intelligence characteristic of certain individuals, or if it is a certain stage or phase of the development of chess thinking, the higher stage of which is the immediate solution of the task within the given experimental time without translating the process into the representation plan. Special experimental research is also necessary to answer this question.

The fact that emerged during the study is significant: the chess player grasps the experimental position more easily and completely, the higher their mastery. For example, a master who has lost form was able to reproduce only a few and very few elements of the position within 10 seconds.

The difference in grasping the position was particularly clear in cases where the position was presented during free time. Depending on the level of chess thinking development, the duration of the decision varied between approximately 25-114 seconds.
 
The significance of perception, direct "vision" of a position, indicates that the mechanism of chess thinking is fundamentally different from what cyberneticists have presented. Therefore, to "teach" a machine the human way of playing chess, it is necessary to model this "vision" first and foremost. This material also speaks to the fact that the training of young chess players is currently somewhat one-sided. Training is reduced to explaining different variations of the game, openings, and typical, most rational continuations, and to analyzing combinations and games. Currently, there are no specifically designed training methods for the ability to quickly see the meaning of any position, to grasp significant connections between its elements, which characterizes great chess masters.

Of course, in a gifted chess player, this psychological function is formed during the game and analysis of games, but it is formed slowly and to a large extent spontaneously. Meanwhile, in many professions that have high demands for human mental abilities, learning is not limited to explanation and demonstration. Special trainers, which help to develop necessary qualities, are used as the most important link in training in these cases. There are all reasons to believe that such a trainer is possible in chess. Its development, however, will require solving some fundamental issues of thinking formation.

The data obtained during the experiments allow us to judge the ways of obtaining information that significantly differentiate the task-solving approaches of humans and cybernetic machines.

The main conclusion from this material is that the exhaustive search is not only not the only form of mental activity in chess but also the emergence of a particular set of options is conditioned by some previous activity of gathering information about the elements of the chess position. This activity is not conscious to the subject, and the first thing that comes to their mind is the already formed option, a certain sequence of moves. At the same time, the very activity of gathering information determines the fact, mentioned by C. Shannon, that only a few options are selected for further testing from a huge number of possibilities.
But what is the structure of this information activity? What ensures its flow? The answer to these questions can to some extent advance the understanding of the mechanisms of heuristic activity.

Chapter from Pushkin's book "Heuristics - the Science of Creative Thinking", M: 1967
chessboard: lichess.org
]]> Sat, 28 Jan 2023 23:55:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?heuristics-science-creative-thinking-chess-experiment-part2 https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/00000002D <![CDATA[Chess in the experiment (part 1)]]> imblog
When we talked about the features of machine solving complex tasks and the level of modeling complex forms of intellectual activity through machines, we turned to chess for help. But chess is also an excellent object for psychological experiments. The matter is not only in the already mentioned higher complexity of chess activity, which puts a person in conditions of an uncertain environment and requires solving creative tasks. The matter is also that for a highly qualified chess player, playing chess is an activity that deeply and sometimes completely captures their personality. Therefore, solving a chess problem for a chess player becomes of great interest and requires the full tension of all their intellectual powers. Other problematic situations in studies on the psychology of thinking can far from always cause a person to have even approximately such intellectual tension.

From the very beginning of the experiments, it was decided not to use ordinary chess problems that require checkmate in two, three or more moves. These tasks have a rather abstract nature and are unlike real chess games. Positions from little-known real games containing a large number of pieces (20-30 figures) were taken instead. This puts the subject in the need to determine which figures on the board are essential for solving the problem and which are not. During the experiment, the subject's thoughts and attempts to solve the task were recorded aloud. The moves were recorded using a well-known chess notation (main designations: R - rook, Q - queen, K - king, B - bishop, + - check to the king; : - capturing a piece; Ba6-c4 - bishop standing on the a6 square, moves to the c4 square, X - mate).

One of the experimental positions of the "Find the best move" type is shown in Fig. 2. In this position, the subject, playing as white, must find the following combination that wins:

 
fig. 2

1.  Q b3: е6+     Kf7:e6
2.  Bа6 —с4+    Kе6 — f6
3.  Rd1- d6+      Be7 :d6
4.  Rd7 — f7X

The task was solved by subjects of three levels of chess qualification: 1) candidate masters, first-class players with candidate scores; 2) chess players with second and third ranks; 3) individuals with no sports qualification. The representatives of the first group had no difficulty in solving the task, it was not a problem for them and was solved by some chess players within a few seconds. In the second group, the task was solved with difficulty, after a series of attempts, the solution time sometimes stretched to half an hour. And finally, for beginners, the task was sometimes seen as unsolvable.

The purpose of the experiment was to identify the nature and mechanisms of strategy options formation in a person who solves a problem task. From this point of view, the second group of subjects, namely chess players who solved the task in the form of developing a whole range of options, was the most interesting. This is the most typical type of activity for solving tasks.

Analysis of the protocols shows that the subjects do not start with blind enumeration of options. Moreover, each option is formed under the influence of obtaining information about the properties of the elements. Therefore, the characteristic feature of the decision-making process becomes the assessment of the situation. At this stage, there is no question of which option to try. Different properties of the elements (for example, "queen b3, attacking the black king flank," "knight f8 with the threat of a rook," etc.), their possibilities, and their interaction with each other are noted.
 
Only after obtaining some information about the properties of the figures, the subjects outline a plan of action (for example, Rd1-d6 to take the e6 pawn), but it turns out that this option is not suitable. Other options are tried and discarded. And although these attempts are unsuccessful, they are not in vain. They are a source of information about the properties of the elements that are necessary for solving the task and which were initially hidden from the subject. If the combination found is compared with the course of the solution, it can be seen that practically all the necessary information about the quality of the figures was found in previous attempts.

However, the method of experiment described does not allow for a complete disclosure of the structure of human cognitive activity in the process of solving a complex task. Based on self-report and registration of solution attempts, we can only judge some of the results of the mental process - namely, the actual solution. But significant moments of obtaining information about task elements occur without being consciously realized by the individual. How to detect and record this unconscious microprocess of obtaining information by the subject?

To aid experimenters, eye-tracking and other methods of recording human eye movements can be used when analyzing a chess position. This allows for the investigation of only certain types of mental tasks.
 
They primarily refer to tasks whose conditions are given in terms of visual perception; the most important aspect of their solution is the visual analysis of the properties of the elements and their mutual arrangement. This kind of visual situation is represented by a chess position. Therefore, eye movement recording is applicable here. The film technique is simple: a window for the camera lens is made in one of the central cells of the board, and the subject's eye is illuminated by a special lamp.

What does this methodology achieve? It makes the process of analyzing a problematic situation visual. Here, the person solving the task scans the entire position with their gaze, stops at one element, then another. They look back at the first one and so on.

By comparing the eye movement pattern with the protocol of task solving (the verbal report of the subject), we can judge the cognitive processes taking place in their mind.

The eye here actually serves not as an organ of sight, but as an organ of thinking. Even when a person is solving a complex abstract task, they switch their inner gaze from one condition to another. In our case, the eye performs this function without which the task cannot be solved.
 
This methodology was applied in experiments with the "15" game. It was found that if the task can be easily solved, the eye stops only once on each of its elements. In cases where the task was more complex, the eye repeatedly returned to previously viewed elements, as if trying to obtain additional information.

However, eyes also play a role in simple visual perception of task conditions. How can we distinguish eye movements related to perception from those that express cognitive activity? To answer this question and gain a deeper understanding of the nature of informational and cognitive activity that precedes the development of solution options, the following experiment was conducted.

Participants were presented with a complex game position as shown in Fig. 2.

The experiment was conducted in two versions. In one case, participants had to quickly solve the task - find a winning combination for white. In the other case, they were simply asked to remember and reproduce the position. Then, the results of both versions were compared.
 

fig. 3

On diagram 3, a registered eye movement route is observed when instructed to solve the problem on diagram 4, while instructed to remember the position. It is easy to detect the characteristic differences between these two protocols.

The fixation points of the eyes and their corresponding routes on diagram 3 are located in a fairly limited area of the board. Several points are clustered near some squares, and repeated movements are visible between these squares. On the other hand, there are quite significant areas of the board that the center of the eye never enters. Clusters of points and intersecting eye movement routes mostly correspond to functionally significant positions. For example, there are countless fixation points in the area of the black king at f7, the white queen at b3, and the white bishop at a6. It is characteristic that the verbal report of the subject mostly agrees with the functionally significant positions captured in the image. The subject says, "it is unclear whether the sacrifice Rd7: e7+ or Qb3: e6+..." After a brief thought, "Probably 1. Qb3: e6+ and 2. Ba6-c4+ solves. Perhaps, mate."


fig. 4

On Figure 4, eye fixation points are evenly distributed across the entire board. The participant's verbal report is general, giving only the most basic assessment of the position: "White has a winning position."

Chapter from Pushkin's book "Heuristics - the Science of Creative Thinking", M: 1967
chessboard: lichess.org
]]> Sat, 28 Jan 2023 23:51:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?heuristics-science-creative-thinking-chess-experiment-part1 https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/00000002F <![CDATA[E. Lasker on chess reform]]> imblog
Emanuel Lasker, 1894
photo: Wikimedia Commons

During his recent visit to Manchester, where he gave a simultaneous display of chess, H.R. Capablanca was interviewed by a reporter from the Manchester Guardian. When asked about a future rematch with A.A. Alekhine, the former world champion gave a very evasive answer. Instead, he shared the idea in his interview about the so-called danger of "draw death" in chess, and suggested that he believed a reform of the game was necessary to eliminate this danger. He proposed to expand the chessboard to 100 squares and increase the number of pieces by adding two pawns and two new pieces, one of which would have the combined power of a knight and a rook, and the other the combined power of a bishop and a knight.

The English newspaper accompanied this interview with a note of skepticism, expressing doubts about the danger of "draw death" in chess. "This danger," the English newspaper notes, "is completely dispelled by the very match in Buenos Aires between Mr. Capablanca and Dr. Alekhine, in which there were many draws but the loss of the world championship did not occur through drawn endings."

Capablanca's proposal to reform chess provoked reactions among English chess players, who, however, negatively received the suggestion. Yates was completely negative in a letter published in the same newspaper, followed by a number of other well-known English chess players who sent letters to the editor on the subject.
 
In the December 31st issue of the "Manchester Guardian," a letter from Dr. Emanuel Lasker appeared regarding the same issue, which is not devoid of interest.

"In Mr. Capablanca's proposal for changes to the chessboard, three questions can be outlined, which the Cuban master himself does not quite distinguish: 1) the question of drawn endings, 2) conclusions from it, and 3) means to prevent them.

Although Mr. Capablanca does not mention it, about ten years ago, an article of mine was published in the Hungarian chess magazine "Sakvillag," which sparked a discussion about drawn endings in chess. In this article, I noted that chess is threatened by what I called the "draw death." This does not mean that such a danger already exists. Only when it becomes fully palpable will various proposals for its elimination be appropriate, but there can be no doubt that such a threat exists. Chess exists thanks to the mystery associated with its problems. The full disclosure of this mystery would kill the energy of the chess player who seeks truth and loves the risks and adventures associated with the search for unknown truth. On the other hand, chess, unlike science or art, is limited. Therefore, sooner or later, the creative searches of chess masters, in an era of their particularly progressive movement forward, will end with the revelation of the last mysteries of the game, and the masters of that time will provide the whole chess world with a full understanding of the game, and its evolution will be completed.
 
But this is only a theoretical argument. It applies to any game. History provides enough examples of once-popular games that turned out to be completely abandoned. However, this argument should not be confused with arguments that arise from the consideration of the game by modern masters such as Alekhine, Capablanca, Bogoljubov, and others. Regarding the style and abilities of currently healthy masters, only assumptions can be made. In a question that can only be approached deductively, their game is an inappropriate argument. It is likely that I could say that modern young masters, primarily Alekhine and Bogoljubov, have the energy of search and creativity that ensures a healthy and thriving existence for the next generation of chess players.

However, if the danger of a "draw death" turned out to be inevitable, then Senor Capablanca's proposal would still be unacceptable. If it were necessary to change the rules of chess to preserve its vitality, such a change would have to be extremely economical. Senor Capablanca's proposal is arbitrary and rough. The ancient chessboard does not require enlargement, nor is there any need for new pieces to create new problems in the game. Perhaps the destruction of castling would be the right step in this direction, and I am inclined to think that it will be. Castling was unknown in the ancient game of chess, which had a deep wisdom that was not sufficiently appreciated by Italian masters who introduced castling relatively recently. The decision will belong to the world of chess. Without a doubt, however, Senor Capablanca's proposal is not distinguished by either value or artistry."
 
source: "Chess sheet" 1929 № 2
]]> Thu, 26 Jan 2023 14:55:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?lasker-capablanca-reforms-chess https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/00000002C <![CDATA[Is it possible to train attention?]]> imblog
photo: The New York Times
chessboard: lichess.org

Studying the peculiarities of attention in chess players is of great importance for the pedagogy and practice of chess. It should be noted that the attention of a chess player is manifested in an inseparable unity with their thinking, and therefore it is quite justified to speak of the intellectual nature of attention in chess activity. This reasoning is based on the conclusions of I.I. Pavlov, who pointed out: "All power is in concentration. This should be considered the main rule of thinking - concentration of attention." Intellectual attention is regulated by emotions and willpower. Each stage of the game, choosing any move, contains certain goals and evokes certain experiences in the chess player. The strength, width, and mobility of attention directly depend on the perseverance, purposefulness, alertness, confidence or indecision, confusion, and fear of the chess player.

It should also be noted that the objects of attention orientation are spatial and temporal states on the chessboard - these are individual figures and fields, the correlation of the past assessment of the position with the current or anticipated one, and so on.

After these preliminary remarks, let us focus on some features of the dynamics of a chess player's attention, which we will denote as residual, inert, and anticipatory images.

The residual image is characterized by the fact that the properties or assessment of the past position are mentally transferred to the position that has already changed on the board. At the same time, the past to some extent "displaces" reality.

In the diagram, we can see the position from the Tal-Krogius game (XXXII USSR Championship).

 

Whites have a slight advantage. However, moving the king to e7 allowed blacks to defend successfully. Instead, 26. ... NЬ6? 27. B:b6 сb 28. Rd6 with a decisive advantage for whites.

The obvious move 28. Nd6 came as a complete surprise to me because I thought that the d6 square was securely covered by the c7 pawn. The fact that as a result of the exchange, the pawn was left on c7 and therefore did not defend the d6 square was not taken into account during the thought process. The resulting persistent "residual" image (pawn on c7, not b6) of the previous position significantly influenced the evaluation of the new, changed situation on the board.

Residual images can be associated not only with a particular piece or square but also with a whole group of pieces. Let's consider the position from the game Chekhover-Model (leningrad, 1933).

 

V. Chekhov wrote: "In this position, 29. Bh7+ Кf8 30. Qа3+ gives nothing, even after 30. ... Qd6 31. c5 Qе7. Based on this, I mainly considered the continuation 29. Rh7 Qd4 30. Qh4 g6 31. Qh6 with the subsequent Rf4 and Rh4, and to avoid a future checkmate on the first horizontal, I played 29. h3. Model responded very weakly with 29. ... Qе2?, and here the continuation 30. Bh7+ Kf8 31. QаЗ+ Rе7 32. BdЗ immediately won the game. However, having rejected the move Bh7+ on the previous move, I did not consider it in this position and played differently. The game eventually ended in a draw."

The conclusion about the inadequacy of the idea of moves Bh7+ and QаЗ+ proved to be so persistent that the characteristics of the interaction of three attacking white pieces (queen, rooks, and bishop) as a static residual image of attention were mechanically transferred to the positively changed position.

In some cases, although relatively rarely, the existence of a residual image of the previous position in the mind is associated with the appearance of peculiar mirages, images of previously important and dangerous pieces that have disappeared from the board. Then an interesting struggle with the shadow of the chess army that has already "demobilized" takes place. In the game Sabo - Bronstein (Zurich, 1953), the white bishop on c3 ruined so many nerves of the black player that even after it was exchanged, D. Bronstein still made a transitional move 38... Rg7, continuing the battle with the "shadow" of this bishop.

These examples show that due to attention switching errors, mental images of past positions continue to remain in the chess player's consciousness for a long time in a relatively unchanged form. These negative manifestations of residual images lead to the search for an objective evaluation of the situation, mistakes, and miscalculations.

So how do you increase attention span?
 
First and foremost, conscious and systematic control is necessary in the fight against this drawback. For example, a useful technique is asking oneself an imaginary question: "What has changed in the position compared to the previous move?" Training in reading chess literature without looking at the board, as well as solving combinations and studies in this way, is particularly important in eliminating negative residual images, from our point of view.

However, it should be noted that residual images also have a positive significance. When attention is consciously switched and past and present positions are logically compared, residual images contribute to a better understanding of the stages of the game's development, its sequence, because they link each given, present moment with the previous struggle.

Therefore, both tendencies of the chess player's thinking - understanding the interdependence of individual moves in the game's development (positive significance of residual images) and the desire to divide the game into isolated static stages (negative role of residual images) - are manifested in the contradictory characteristics of residual images.

Inert images are characterized by the fact that attention is almost not switched to predicting future operations on the board, as if satisfied with contemplation of the current position. This often happens when a chess player believes that a certain goal has been achieved, and the evaluation of the situation cannot significantly change in the future.

Thus, seemingly completely won positions are not won, and in difficult positions, hidden counter-chances are not found, because the master considers the outcome of the struggle to be clear and the game continues to develop "by inertia."

In the game Petrosian - Kortchnoi (moscow, 1963), the following position arose.



T. Petrosyan describes his further struggle as follows: "For a long time, I considered my position to be winning. Moreover, the entire previous phase of the struggle, where Korchney couldn't get out of the traps, psychologically prepared me for a successful outcome of the game... And then an unfathomable oversight followed - 35. R:h6??. I didn't see the threats of f4-f3 at all, probably because it sharply contrasted in its activity with the defenseless position of the black pieces."

After 35. R:h6, it was 35. ... f3 36. Kg5 Ke8, and the black pieces won. In this example, the inert image arose in connection with the final, as it seemed to T. Petrosyan, assessment of the position. In substantive and frank comments, he points out the uncritical nature of his predictions, as attention was fixed on the current position, which, in his opinion, was determined before move 35. R:h6.

The appearance of a persistent inert image is accompanied by a decrease in volitional tension (now everything seems clear, the goal is achieved!) and vivid emotions regarding the imminent outcome of the game.

Unlike residual images, the role of inert images is unambiguous - they always have a negative effect on predicting possible changes in the position.
 
In the fight against this shortcoming, it is important to develop a critical attitude towards the general principles of theory, obvious evaluations. During training, it is useful to engage in a special search for exceptions to the rules, paradoxical decisions. In short, a healthy skepticism is needed, which distinguishes many parties of Em. Lasker and V. Korchno. Interestingly, their work almost never showed a relaxation of attention even in the most determined positions.

A preemptive image arises when a chess player's attention is focused on evaluating and calculating possible positions in the future, sometimes considering these changes not as probable but as real at the moment.

"As far as I can judge from my own experience, there are moments when the image created by visual imagination displaces reality," wrote the psychologist and chess master B. Blumenfeld.

The negative role of preemptive images manifests itself in two ways: in some cases, threats from the opponent, most often imaginary ones, are perceived as real - they are exaggerated and transformed into a kind of fairy tale giants. In this regard, let us recall the words of A. Nimzowitsch that "the threat is stronger than its execution."

In other cases, one's own threats are exaggerated. "Air castles" created by the imagination are mechanically transferred to evaluate the situation.

The diagram shows the position from the game Liberzon - Taimanov (Tbilisi, 1967).

 

In the game, an anticipatory image emerged in M. Taimanov's calculation of the mandatory move 35…. R:е4 36. fе Rd1+ with a win (this game ended that way). However, Black did not notice the move 36. Qf6, which changed their evaluation. M. Taimanov, carried away by a good variation, exaggerated the advantages of his position before move 35.

In the game Krogious - Zhukhovitsky (Sochi, 1967), the opposite situation was observed. After moves 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nс3 Nf6 4. сd еd 5. Bg5 Bе7 6. е3 c6 7. Nf3 Nbd7 8. Bd3 0-0 9. Qc2 Rе8 10. 0-0 Nf8 11. Rab1 a5 12. а3 Ng6 13. b4 аb 14. аb Nе4 15. B:е7 Q:е7 16. b5 Bg4 17. B:е4! dе 18. Nd2 f5 19. bс bс, the threats of Black's Qg5 and Nh4 caught my attention and seemed so dangerous at the moment that I completely switched to their reflection. After 20. h3 Bh5 21. Rbе1 and 22. Nе2, the threat of Qg5 was not realized (!?). Therefore, it would have been worth not succumbing to the influence of the anticipatory image and thinking about an active option in connection with 20. Rb6 Nh4 21. Rfb1 Qg5 22. g3, and Black's threats are probably safe.
 
B. Blumenfeld provides interesting practical advice on shifting attention during a game of chess: "No matter how vivid our mental images may be, it is quite obvious that mental representation is paler than visual perception. Therefore, when the opponent makes a move, even if it is expected, one should never (except in cases of extreme time trouble) make the prepared move for the expected response without any thought, since this move was prepared when the position was only in the imagination."

It is also worth noting the positive role of anticipatory images, where shifting attention to future situations is associated with critical analysis and self-control. When consciously and purposefully shifting attention, the combination of perception and imagination in anticipatory images contributes to the development of chess players' creative imagination. This attentional property is evident in many games played by M. Tal, D. Bronstein, A. Lilienthal, and R. Nezhmetdinov.

source: "Chess" (Riga) 1968 No. 7.
]]> Mon, 23 Jan 2023 12:16:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?is-it-possible-to-train-attention https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/00000002B <![CDATA[The educational value of chess]]> imblog
photo: Wikimedia Commons

The educational value of chess is often mentioned, but this issue has never been the subject of serious research. Studying it seems important and timely, as chess can play a significant role as a factor in character development due to its favorable influence on a person's psyche, mind, character, and willpower.

The reason for this is that a game of chess is a sport, an individual struggle, where the known data on the psyche of the players come into play. Success in chess depends on the degree of development of these data and the ability to master them.

Chess is an exciting sport. Many motivations drive a chess player to victory, including self-esteem, the desire for sporting achievement, and the feeling of a creator-artist who seeks to realize their ideas and plans. Not only does a chess player strive for victory in an individual game or in a specific competition, but almost every chess player also strives to improve their art.

To achieve this goal, they strain and develop the necessary abilities. These opportunities can be divided into two main groups: specifically chess-related abilities and general abilities.

Narrowly chess-related abilities include, firstly, the concept of talent - in this case, chess talent, which is difficult to decipher, as in any other field. Secondly, it includes the ability for chess calculation, special chess memory, understanding the essence of chess struggle, special experience, knowledge of theory, and so on. If we talk about the educational value of chess, there is no need to discuss these purely chess-related abilities.
 
However, it is not enough to possess chess talent and knowledge - one must also have non-chess-related qualities without which success at the corresponding level of chess ability and knowledge is absolutely impossible. A chess player who persistently strives for victory and improvement by developing the necessary data for chess success inevitably sets himself on the path of developing a number of positive qualities of his psyche. At the same time, he also experiences many negative traits of his psyche that hinder his chess success.

Discipline of character and thinking processes should also be attributed to the psychological data of a general nature that have a particularly great significance in the process of chess game. Chess also requires the ability to concentrate attention for a long time and without weakening. After all, it is quite obvious that a perfect game can lead the game to a winning position, but then due to fatigue, excitement or simply due to frivolous confidence that victory, so to speak, is already secured and will come by itself, in short, due to relaxation of will tension or a failure of attention for even a few seconds, the game that was in a winning position turns out to be lost. How many such cases occur not only in easy games, but also in responsible matches, not with ordinary amateurs, but with the most outstanding masters!

The mandatory and inevitable condition for improvement in chess is the fight against this flaw; otherwise, success in chess is impossible. A chess player who possesses persistent, firm willpower to win and strives for improvement gradually overcomes this flaw and trains himself to maintain unwavering attention. Failures become less and less frequent in his chess performances - at the same time, he also gets rid of some traits that can only bring negative results. For a person prone to distractibility or lapses of attention, the ability to concentrate attention for a long time and without weakening, developed through chess, is a precious acquisition in life.
 
Based on many years of observation, I dare to assert that many cases of sudden decrease in scatterability in children and adolescents coincide with the beginning of their serious interest in chess and undoubtedly are a consequence of the mentioned characteristic influence of chess on the psyche.

This particular characteristic of chess also has another beneficial educational property - it destroys or weakens negative psychological traits in a person, such as apathy, sluggish thinking, and scattered attention. After all, every relaxation of thought tension for a chess player must be paid for with a defeat! The chess player involuntarily has to learn discipline of character and thinking processes!

It is also quite obvious that chess requires logical thinking. Furthermore, chess demands from the player active thinking, initiative, inventiveness, and decisiveness. During the game, the chess player must think actively, create plans, contemplate strikes, try to give the game the desired direction, constantly fight with the opponent's intentions and will. Moreover, a chess player often must not only show activity and resourcefulness, but also decisiveness because during the game, they often find themselves at a crossroads, and doubts arise - which plan to choose from several possible ones, attack or defend, accept a sacrifice or reject it, exchange pieces or not, and so on. Qualities that are opposite to those mentioned - passivity, indecision, cowardice - will never lead to success in chess, and these character traits, in general, can never bring anything good.
 
Frivolousness and random actions are completely contrary to the spirit of the game of chess - in chess, every move must be weighed and carefully thought out in advance; for every careless maneuver, the chess player bears responsibility; often, one thoughtless move is enough to ruin the game immediately. Excessive fantasy, contrivance, and prejudice are unacceptable in chess; the chess player should only act based on the real situation. This aspect of chess has easily understandable educational significance, emphasizing the responsibility for every poorly thought-out move. This becomes clear even to a novice chess player, who first learns that they must move the piece they touched, even if it was accidental. The educational value of this rule in chess is especially useful for children. Qualities such as self-confidence, underestimation of the opponent, contemptuous attitude towards them, also receive punishment on the chessboard. It is well known that even a great master, who could not completely get rid of these shortcomings, can be punished in a tournament by losing to a relatively weak opponent.

In contrast, qualities such as perseverance, self-control, and endurance always receive rewards for the chess player; these qualities are necessary for the chess player to carry out their plans and to withstand the pressure when they are in a bad position.

The necessity of displaying purposeful, strong will on the chessboard is a beautiful educational characteristic of chess.
 
It is needless to prove that willpower plays an obvious role in any chess game, both in "light" games and, of course, to a much greater extent, in responsible tournaments. However, even more important and significant are the results of purposeful and prolonged willpower directed at improving one's chess art. It can be confidently said that the strength of a group of chess players who theoretically have equal chess talent will be directly dependent on the degree of purposefulness of their willpower, and even with the same chess talent, the difference in strength can be significant. It is not a coincidence that all world champions - Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine - had an extremely strong and purposeful will.

The unquestionable advantage over all contemporaries and the long-standing title of world champion gave Lasker the most of his firm will, his qualities as an unsurpassed chess fighter.

How often do we hear the memories of a chess player about those sad games that he "should have won," but having achieved a better or even winning position, he stopped halfway and lost, becoming a "helper" of his opponent? Such a chess player likes to comfort himself that he lost "undeservedly," that his defeat is "random." However, by attributing the blame for his "undeserved" defeat to "randomness," he does not take into account that the phenomenon that seems "random" on the chessboard follows consistently and logically from the essence of his psyche. There are much fewer "random" results in chess than it seems at first glance, if in evaluating the course of the chess struggle one takes into account not only the position of the pieces on the board but also the psyche of the opponents - a factor of enormous importance - not subject to the logic of the chess game but to another logic - the logic of psychology. The oversight that seems "random" from the perspective of the logic of the chess game is inevitable from the perspective of the logic of psychology.
 
Emmanuel Lasker was absolutely right in stating that chess is primarily a battle. Lasker even wrote a book entitled "The Battle," which is devoted to studying the essence of the struggle, its analysis, and psychology. In life, as Lasker says, one systematically has to "fight," i.e., overcome obstacles of various kinds in pursuit of goals; all life is a continuous struggle of one kind or another. Although there is no mention of chess in this book, everything that Lasker says about the struggle and the psychology of the struggle can be fully attributed to chess. In miniature, chess is a struggle that unfolds at every step in life on a large scale: in chess, one has to fight with the same weapon that is needed in life. And behind the chessboard, this weapon is sharpened and perfected.

In the pursuit of victory, and even more so in a chess player who strives for improvement, many positive qualities develop, which are very important in life, while at the same time negative qualities that play only a negative role in life are overcome. This is the educational significance of chess.
 
Unfortunately, there have been few attempts so far to systematically study the psychology of chess, including its educational value. In the conclusions we have drawn about certain aspects of chess psychology and their educational significance, we rely on direct observations, sometimes fragmentary and random. However, the material is so rich and the conclusions often so obvious that even such observations provide a great deal of valuable information. Nevertheless, systematically conducted observations could provide incomparably more interesting and valuable material. It would be extremely useful, for example, to try to link a chess player's strength and practical success with the presence of certain psychological traits. Here, self-observation by a thoughtful amateur chess player could be very helpful. Studying the game of chess in this regard - both individually and collectively, especially by involving relevant scientific organizations - could be of great importance in two directions: it would help improve the chess player's skills and develop a person's character.

*) Psychotechnical tests of participants in the international chess tournament in moscow in 1925, conducted by professors I.M. Dyakov, P.A. Rudik, and M.V. Petrovsky, convincingly proved that, in general, a chess player's memory, even a prominent one, on average does not exceed the normal memory of a non-chess player.

source: "Chess in the USSR" No. 10, 1947
]]> Sat, 21 Jan 2023 10:22:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?the-educational-value-of-chess https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000029 <![CDATA[Shakespeare and chess]]> imblog
photo: Wikimedia Commons

Shakespeare's versatility has always amazed people: how could he have known so much about everything he wrote about, the English snobs pondered. After all, it cannot be assumed that he, a commoner, the son of a butcher or glove-maker, received any substantial education. Did he study history, law, natural science, languages, geography, and many other things? Where did he acquire knowledge of secular and courtly customs?

As a result, a legend was born that someone else (or several others) was the author of Shakespeare's works, and Shakespeare himself may not have even existed. Life has disproved the skeptics' assumptions.

It is not without irony that they also denied Shakespeare's familiarity with chess, among many other things. Indeed, the great playwright uses words such as "check," "mate," "stalemate," but skeptics argued that this does not prove anything: these words were taken from colloquial language and had other meanings besides chess in that era.

There are four places in Shakespeare's works that have a direct reference to chess.
 
In "The Tempest," when the curtain rises, the audience sees Miranda and Ferdinand playing chess. Miranda accuses Ferdinand of making a move that is not allowed by the rules, but he denies it.

In "King Lear," the Earl of Kent says, "I have been a pawn to you in my life, always ready to fight your enemies."
In "The Taming of the Shrew," Katharina delivers an interesting and angry line: "So you would have me become a laughingstock among these ignorant peasants?" It's a play on words that also means "to become a joke for these crazy people." The pun is sharp, especially when you consider that a stalemate (pat) was considered not a draw but a victory for the player who caused it. The player who allowed stalemate became a target for ridicule. Stalemate was a joke! This pun alone is convincing evidence of the popularity of the game at that time and Shakespeare's familiarity with chess.

Finally, in "King John," there are interesting words: "Thou mayst be a queen and check the world" (meaning to threaten the whole world). Of course, the word "check" in the sense of "threat" also existed in colloquial language. But it should be noted that the far-reaching queen (bishop's wife) had recently appeared in England at the time. In medieval chess, the queen could only move one square diagonally. In reformed chess, the "queen" began to demonstrate enormous power - she could "check" the whole world! For someone unfamiliar with chess, such a vivid and imaginative comparison would hardly come to mind.
 
An interesting fact worth noting is that at the beginning of our century, an ancient painting depicting two Elizabethan playwrights - Ben Jonson and William Shakespeare - playing chess, was discovered in New York. It should be noted that at that time, no contemporary portrait of Shakespeare (or even Ben Jonson) was known; artists painted him posthumously from memory or description. Understandably, the discovery caused enormous interest, particularly in 1916 - the 300th anniversary of Shakespeare's death. The painting, which was found in 1903, measured 77x95 cm and was in poor condition, covered in soot and dust, and partially cracked. It was cleaned and some of the colors were restored. Restoration was quite painstaking. For example, a long inscription at the top of the painting, which could possibly confirm the label on the back of the painting - "Ben Jonson and William Shakespeare, 1603" - was found to be significantly washed off.



Probably, the painting was brought to America by one of the early English settlers and then changed hands multiple times. Since 1904, it has been owned by the Gayman family, one of whose members was a member of the famous society of problemists, the Good Companions. This explains why, in addition to articles in the "mainstream" press, interesting details are also found in the bulletin of the aforementioned problemist club. Something in the painting has received a chess decryption. Interest in the painting was fueled by press reports that billionaire Morgan said a few years before his death that he would pay a million dollars for the painting if its authenticity was proven.

The search for evidence lasted from 1912 to 1914. The painting was studied by experts in painting and antiques. It was established with certainty that the painting is authentic and most likely dates back to 1603.

The author of this wonderful work, distinguished by its composition and colors, was recognized as K. van Mander, one of the founders of the Dutch School of Painting and a teacher of the famous artist Frans Hals. German art historians made a great contribution to the research, especially the author of a posthumous mask of Shakespeare. He established its striking resemblance to Shakespeare in Mander's painting. Later in England, there was also a remarkable resemblance to the portrait of Shakespeare painted by Chandos shortly after the poet's death (the portrait is now in the National Gallery in London). Therefore, there was no longer any doubt that van Mander depicted Shakespeare himself.
 
However, skeptics were not convinced. They argued that even this did not prove that Shakespeare knew how to play chess. After all, the painting is symbolic! Shakespeare is holding a bishop, which he is using to capture the opponent's queen and deliver checkmate to the white side. The meaning of the painting is "Shakespeare checkmates Ben Jonson." This is exactly what happened in 1602-1603. Johnson's play "Roman Tragedy" failed at the time, while Shakespeare was at the height of his fame. As can be seen in the painting, the pen of the "unequaled" Ben Jonson lies foolishly idle, while Shakespeare's pen, although more exhausted, stands proud and unwavering. Shakespeare's direction in drama prevailed!

Of course, the idea of the painting could also be reflected on non-chess material. But was it chosen randomly?

It is not surprising that van Mander, a playwright and chess player himself, depicted Shakespeare playing chess. After all, it is possible that he actually saw both playwrights at the chessboard. The opportunity was there. It is known that in 1603, London theaters were closed for a long time - first as a sign of mourning after the death of Queen Elizabeth, and then due to a plague epidemic in the city. Many Londoners traveled to the surrounding areas at that time. Shakespeare and Johnson may have also temporarily traveled to Holland. In turn, van Mander could have visited his uncle in London in 1603, whom he had visited before. The question of where the painting was painted remains open.

As noted, the arrangement of the figures on the board was deciphered. Without this, the meaning of the painting would not have been entirely clear. At that time, black pieces often started the game. Shakespeare is holding a black bishop in his right hand (which was probably on g5) and is preparing to take the white queen on f6, declaring checkmate.



A few more details. At first glance, the board in Mander's painting appears to have 8x10 squares, but in reality, both end rows are not divided into cells and are intended for captured pieces during the game. The impossible placement of white pawns on the queen's flank is noteworthy - no fanciful captures can result in four white pawns (a7, b7, c7, d7) becoming five. Perhaps the artist made a mistake. Maybe the pawn on a5 is black? However, after examining the captured pieces, the problem solvers from the "Good Companion" concluded: "Ben Johnson took three pawns and one rook from Shakespeare, one bishop and one knight, and Shakespeare only took a knight."

It's unclear! Shakespeare is missing not three, but two pawns, and not one, but both knights. Of course, the indistinct form of the figures, typical for that time, could easily lead to a mistake: one black knight was considered a pawn. On the other hand, in addition to the knight, Shakespeare took a pawn on g7. It is possible that he could have left it behind, and it ended up on square a5. Other assumptions were put forward. One of them is that the pawn on a5 and the bishop on c3 should be swapped: in this case, the white pawn on g7 should have captured on c3. Personally, I think that the black king and queen should be swapped.

It should be added that the van Mander painting, which is still in a private collection, is rarely exhibited for public viewing. The last time it was seen was in 1955 at a Shakespeare festival in the United States. Reproductions of it adorn the halls of two of New York's largest chess clubs.
 
source: "Chess in the USSR" #7, 1964
]]> Wed, 18 Jan 2023 22:14:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?shakespeare-and-chess https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000028 <![CDATA[Petrosian on changes in chess]]> imblog
photo: Wikimedia Commons

Chess has gone through a complex development path, and even now it continues to evolve so rapidly that yesterday's assessments seem hopelessly outdated today. But it is people who play chess and they determine the directions and schools.

The most noticeable trend in modern chess is the predominance of the sports element over the creative. The fact that results are now valued more highly than content is our misfortune, which is applauded by an undemanding public. I don't think that a chess player who sincerely loves chess would only derive pleasure from the number of points scored, no matter how significant it may be. I don't want to speak for myself, but for the masters of the older generation, from whom we learned about creativity, the aesthetic side of chess was everything. And they wanted to win, but they thought not only about winning the game, but also about winning it honorably.

When I started my life's journey, there were significantly fewer chess players than there are today. No one went into chess for the sake of material benefits. Nowadays, chess has become a very popular activity, which has led not only to the devaluation of titles, but also to professionalism of not the highest quality. Chess is going through a difficult period. On the one hand, they have reached the highest level, on the other hand, they have given rise to a cold pragmatism. It is necessary to cultivate the preferences of a wide range of enthusiasts. We need to teach them to distinguish true art from surrogates, creativity from craftsmanship.
 
Em. Lasker wrote in his textbook that after about 150 hours of chess practice, anyone can become a first-class player. Veterans know that our pre-war first-class players would be at least masters today. So what does it mean? Well, a person with average abilities can become a master in one or two years. Of course, Lasker expressed his opinion in a slightly exaggerated form, but the fact remains that knowledge and memory are becoming increasingly important nowadays. Many chess players don't create as much as they remember, reproducing already known tactics.

Our chess ancestors played blindly, like the blind. When I review games of old masters, even those like Morphy, I get the impression that they saw the chessboard as if in a fog. The further the pieces were from the decisive part of the battle, the more they were wrapped in darkness. But where the conflict began, the fog dispersed, and the great masters of the past acted no less masterfully than we do today.

The modern master perceives chess differently. He sees and takes into account everything, his whole board plays. And if, for example, he is attacking on the king's flank, he must also keep an eye on the other side of the board. For instance, I'm attacking the enemy king, but suddenly I start to doubt: will the attack succeed? Maybe it's better to calmly advance this pawn from a3 to a4 and capture the b5 square? You look, after about 30 moves, the king will end up there, and the endgame will be won... Such doubts were unknown to our ancestors, they simply did not see or notice this pawn. They did not know that one could also play like this.
 
Now everyone knows. Everything is written in thousands of books and magazines. So, does this mean that there is nothing left to discover in chess? Not at all!

It is believed that a chess player's strength depends primarily on their evaluative ability. There is a template for evaluating the position. It is easily learned, and many chess players possess this simple skill. Here I am analyzing a game with my partner that has just ended. He tells me that White is better because they have a strong knight on e5. I also understand that there is a strong knight on e5, but at the same time, I pay attention to other features of the position, such as the weakness of the b2 pawn, which could come under pressure in a few moves. Gradually, I come to the conclusion that the centralized white knight is just a "paper tiger" and the position of the black pieces is not worse at all.

A chess player must evaluate the position taking into account seemingly insignificant nuances. The position on the board seems completely ordinary. However, something is slightly off, and this "off" sometimes allows a decision to be made that does not even occur to a chess player of average ability. A deep understanding of the secrets of the position is a sign of true strength.

And who is stronger than a strong chess player? A talented chess player.
 
In chess, as in any other endeavor, much depends on a person's abilities. Sometimes it is said that talent is a deviation from the norm. On the other hand, there is an idea that all people are talented in their own way, but not everyone finds their calling in life. It seems that a time will come when so-called "untalented" people will be considered deviations from the norm, and talented people will begin to be distributed among professions based on the early recognition of their abilities. Then chess will be enriched with new geniuses.

What chess talent is and how it manifests is the subject of a big and still not entirely clear conversation. I can only speculate on what distinguishes a talented chess player from a simply strong one. A strong chess player knows all the rules and laws of the game. A talented chess player knows everything that the strong one knows, but also sees exceptions to the rules. And great chess talents (let's call them geniuses) gradually turn these exceptions into new laws. And so on, ad infinitum. Because chess is inexhaustible.

source: "64" 1979, №24
]]> Tue, 17 Jan 2023 15:44:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?petrosian-on-changes-in-chess https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000027 <![CDATA[What is the power of the game?]]> imblog
photo: Wikimedia Commons
A chapter from R. Spielman's book
"About chess and chess players" 1930
What is the power of the game?

Answering this question is not as simple as it may seem.

The power of the game is relative and can only be measured by the strength of opponents. The scale is represented by the current world champion, who stands at the highest level of human chess achievement.

Anyone who wants to strive with some hope of success must have a whole range of important qualities and knowledge: here, there is opening theory, knowledge of the endgame, principles of the middlegame, combinational abilities, imagination, and most importantly, confidence, confidence, confidence! The eye must be keen, and gross mistakes and errors should only be encountered as exceptions. This is achieved through appropriate training, or rather, the habit of sitting at the chessboard.

Together with the sum of the factors listed here, the possibilities for success increase. Based on this foundation, anyone can become a good chess player and, without straining themselves, peer into the realm of recognized masters. However, further progress occurs much slower. The voice of the teacher falls silent in the distance, books have given all they can, all the beaten paths have disappeared, and the seeker and fighter see only the terrifyingly beautiful thicket ahead. They are in a position similar to that of a teenager who has left school and their parents' home and is forced to apply practically all the advice, rules, and instructions that were once imparted to them.
 
A diligent chess enthusiast gradually enters into a society of opponents, each armed with theoretical knowledge. And he gradually comes to the realization that knowledge alone cannot achieve extraordinary success, that knowledge is nothing but a weapon, and that true greatness depends on the art with which this weapon is used. Riding horses, fencing, playing music, etc. can be learned by anyone, but only some become masters in these pursuits. There are millions of people who can read and write in their native language, yet there was only one Shakespeare, one Goethe, one Shevchenko. And many, many have learned to play chess...

Therefore, a beginner chess player, having mastered the elementary rules, must then show that he not only knows something but also can do something, that is, he can apply his knowledge in practice. And here only individual strength of play can manifest itself.

Likely, in all fields of human culture, and certainly in chess, the practical application of theory is a difficult task that places the highest demands on a person's personal abilities. What does theory tell us? It says that this is a gambit, this is a solid opening, this is a convenient, and this is a difficult defense! It talks about open and closed openings and positions and gives endless advice. And again and again, complaints arise: "So-and-so strictly adhered to the theory and still lost." Is theory unreliable? Oh, no! There are relatively few mistakes in it because it is drawn from the practice of great and greatest masters. The complainer is usually in a sorry illusion. It is often the case that he adhered to a pattern for a long time, but then lost the thread when he reached the end of the variation. Or the opponent made an unexpected move (whether good or bad!), and our complainant, left to himself, immediately got confused.
 
The necessary prerequisite for the proper application of theoretical wisdom is the ability to always grasp and evaluate the situation correctly. However, such ability must be innate; it can only be learned to a limited extent, and therefore, it is the most important characteristic that distinguishes a dogmatist from a genius.

Among the uninitiated, it is a common misconception that masters differ from ordinary chess players simply because they can calculate all moves several kilometers ahead, and thus, the game of chess is nothing but a mathematical art. This is a big mistake. Of course, an experienced chess player can combine better and farther than an inexperienced one, but this is by no means the main condition for achieving mastery. In every serious game, it is impossible to accurately calculate the consequences of most moves, even due to the time constraint. Here, feelings, the strength of evaluative ability, or, using chess terminology, positional sense must decide. And the finer this positional sense, the stronger the chess player, the more undisputed their talent, and the closer they are to a genius.

Positional sense is more important than all precise knowledge; it serves as the backbone of game strength, and the nuances of the latter are ultimately just shades of positional sense.
 
Positional sense is the foundation of all plans and calculations. It tells the chess player whether to strive for a win or a draw; it prompts him to go on the offensive, then to limit himself to defense; it determines the likelihood of success of this or that combination, and so on. Mathematical problems that a chess player has to solve in this way are significantly facilitated because he will only try his luck where there are appropriate chances and will not fruitlessly expend his strength. Positional sense is the talisman of a chess player.

In the subsequent exposition, I will return to the significance of positional sense with examples. Therefore, I will not dwell on it for long here and will end with the following answer to the question posed in the title:

The strength of the game is the strength of evaluative ability!
]]> Mon, 16 Jan 2023 19:23:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?what-is-the-power-of-the-game https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000026 <![CDATA[Will chess help the school?]]> imblog
photo: Wikimedia Commons

"In my youth, I had two favorite activities: mathematics and chess. The reason why I considered chess better than mathematics may seem strange or even paradoxical to the uninitiated: there is more life in chess than in mathematics." - Richard Reti, grandmaster, and a math teacher in his youth.

Chess teaches thinking - this is the main (and often the only) argument of supporters of chess education who are fighting for the introduction of chess into school curricula.

But don't traditional school subjects like mathematics, biology, and others also teach thinking? School curricula are already overloaded, children get tired, they don't have enough time for physical games and sports. Why add chess?

Few people doubt that chess is beneficial for the mind. However, this is not enough to justify teaching chess as another compulsory school subject. To make chess a school subject and teach it universally alongside mathematics, languages, and natural sciences, it is necessary to ensure that chess instills in children the essential qualities that traditional education cannot develop. Chess will only establish itself in schools for a long time if it proves its ability to solve unsolved problems of education.

So, what are these problems?

  Perhaps the main drawback of school (and not just school) education has always been and remains the fact that it does not provide the ability to apply acquired knowledge in practice. Typically, knowledge is presented to students in a ready-made, well-packaged form. And if a person does not know how and for what practical needs the rules, scientific concepts, and laws they are being taught have arisen, then they will be able to use them only to pass exams. And nothing more!

Let us imagine for a moment a cooking school where future chefs are carefully taught to taste and eat ready-made dishes, but they are not allowed to even peek into the kitchen where these dishes are prepared...

Meanwhile, we too often do the same, teaching children (and not just children) the basics of modern science, modern knowledge. We do not allow them to peek into the "kitchen of science," we do not help them examine the process in which raw, unprocessed material of life gradually transforms into a system of "clean" theoretical abstractions, definitions, rules, laws, and algorithms.

Then we are surprised (or, on the contrary, not surprised, which is even worse) when, after meticulously cramming all these wisdoms, the honor student finds themselves in a dead end, barely facing the same "unwashed and unadorned" reality, full of difficulties and contradictions, from the tangle of which those same "pure truths" that they have memorized were extracted through thinking, without seeing any real, tangible sense in them.
(E. Ilyenkov, Philosophy and Culture, Politvydav, M., 1991, pp. 45-46)

How to teach a child to search for and establish connections between words and actions? The best way to do this is to involve them in practical activities that require knowledge for success. Then they can discover that knowledge arises from action and is necessary for action, not just to please their parents with good grades. However, it is difficult to engage a child in "socially useful" work that requires math or chemistry knowledge learned (or poorly learned) in class. This is where chess comes in handy. Because playing chess is a practical and interesting activity for children that has a well-developed and inseparable theory from practice.

"Proximity, completeness of collision with reality, and can be highlighted as a separate essential feature of the psychology of the chess player ... He deals with the material world, with relationships based on real conditions of movement in real space. The opponent is the best teacher one can imagine in creating skills for realistic thinking, the necessity to consider all objectively given conditions of reality."

(I. Dyakov, M. Petrovsky, P. Rudik Psychology of Chess Game, M. 1926, p.136)

The beginner chess player rejoices in the complete freedom they have in the game: they can move as they please. But very soon, they become concerned with respect for the theory that limits this freedom, because through their own experience of defeats, they are convinced that the knowledge obtained from textbooks or chess lessons at school is useful and necessary to win. And it can be hoped that this respect for knowledge will gradually spread to everything else taught in school. Chess teaches how to learn.

Knowledge whose truth is constantly tested in practice does not become dogma. Various rules limit our freedom, and in order to intelligently obey the rules, we need practical evidence that these limitations are truly necessary. But if we never cross boundaries, how will we know what lies on the other side? It can be said that rules themselves require occasional violation. However, it's better to gain the experience of "crossing borders" through play – in real life, it can sometimes be too costly.

Engaging in chess, a child learns what traditional school subjects teach poorly: to relate mental processes to practical actions, to seek theoretical answers to practical questions, to creatively apply acquired knowledge during class, without expecting ready-made solutions from theory. Chess stimulates independent thinking, rewarding the search for non-trivial solutions with aesthetic senses of beauty. Chess teaches creativity.

"School should teach how to think" – that was the title of Evald Ilyenkov's article published in the "Science and Life" magazine in 1984. And it was written even earlier - forty years ago. But even today, the thoughts of the prominent philosopher and educator (expressed vividly and emotionally) have not lost their relevance. The article doesn't mention chess, but chess players will find it useful to read. Those who care about the topic of chess education will find convincing arguments in favor of introducing chess into school programs: chess not only teaches how to think – it teaches how to think dialectically!
 
"Teaching how to think means, first of all, teaching dialectics... What distinguishes a dialectically thinking person from a non-dialectical thinker? It is the ability to weigh all the pros and cons face to face with oneself, without an 'opponent,' without waiting for those 'cons' to be presented maliciously by an adversary. Therefore, a culturally thinking person is always superbly armed in debates. They anticipate all the 'cons,' take into account their weight, and prepare counter-arguments."
(E. Ilyenkov)

Isn't this what chess teaches us primarily?! It is impossible to succeed in chess without being able to mentally stand on the opponent's side, considering all their possibilities - without this, not only can't you beat a strong opponent, but you also can't solve a good task or study correctly. Chess is a great school of dialectical thinking! This is confirmed by the conclusions of scientists who have studied the psychology of chess:
 
"What word could convey all the essential features revealed in the chessboard without obscuring its complexity or destroying the unity of this phenomenon? The only word that can satisfy these requirements is 'dialectics'. The general scheme of the dialectical process is already evident in the external order of the game: the alternation of moves by opponents is an expression of two mutually opposing plans, interests, and aspirations. Thus, the basis of the dialectical process - movement based on contradiction, transition from affirmation to negation - is preserved in full force in the game of chess. Thus, chess captures the fundamental principle of any development, any living meaningful process."

(I. Dyakov, M. Petrovsky, P. Rudik "Psychology of Chess", M. 1926, p. 142)

Therefore, the answer to the question posed in the title should be a resounding "yes": chess can be beneficial in school. However, this is subject to the indispensable condition that teachers who are capable of conveying their enthusiasm for chess to children come to school. These should not be trainers focused on preparing champions, but educators who will teach students to understand and appreciate the wisdom and beauty of chess.

All children should be taught chess. The best way to do this, according to experts, is in the early grades or even earlier. And those students who have a passion for chess should be given the opportunity to continue their studies in higher grades. Here is the opinion of the experienced chess teacher and methodologist, author of many excellent textbooks, I.G. Sukhin, on this issue: "Studies of domestic and foreign psychologists: M.G. Alekseev, L.Ya. Wenger, L.S. Vygotsky, P.Ya. Galperin, A.N. Leontiev, Ya.A. Ponomarev, J. Piaget, S.L. Rubinstein and others testify that one of the most valuable skills that needs to be developed in children as early as possible is the ability to act mentally, or, as Ya.A. Ponomarev points out, the 'inner plan of action'. Chess is an ideal tool for its formation.
When should you start? Obviously, during the sensitive period, when a child can easily master what would take much more time at a later age. Therefore, group chess lessons should start at 4-7 years old, no later. Every lost six months is significant. If chess was taught as a mandatory subject in elementary school, it is entirely possible to continue teaching it as an elective.

Finally, I would like to touch on another aspect of teaching chess.

When people think about how chess teaches thinking, develops personality, and fosters certain useful psychological qualities, they usually mean that chess knowledge, acquired through game improvement, is not necessary for real life. Or at best, they treat this knowledge as some secondary, incidental product of learning.

It must be acknowledged that such an attitude is erroneous unless, of course, chess knowledge is reduced only to the theory of openings. (We are not talking about memorized variations, which, of course, are necessary only for the game itself, but about "strategic" ideas that are equally relevant to both chess and life.) Chess has great cognitive potential because the objective laws of development and struggle, which are learned through chess, are universal, and their impact is not limited to the boundaries of the chessboard.
 
"In chess, everything that to some extent connects the diversity of events on the chessboard with the laws of nature is wonderful."
(A. Nimzowitsch)

"In the game of chess, more than in any other, numerous laws of combat have been broken and act in their own way, with which a person encounters in various fields of practical activity."
(A. Gurvich)

"Chess thinking emphasizes the characteristic, eliminates the accidental and the incidental, and gives us the ability to absorb a huge amount of images, feelings, and ideas in a short period of time. It is wrong to think that these ideas are abstract. They are certainly borrowed from the surrounding world and constantly modified in accordance with life conditions. Chess, through a special prism, resembles life, although chess ideas, in certain cases, are brought to such a degree of perfection that they involuntarily anticipate and complement the ideas that exist in our nature."
(Y. Rokhlin)

 The objective nature of chess is manifested in the rules of the game, which are not a set of abstract conventions that can be "invented" in as many ways as possible, but a unique system of ideas about reality, a kind of language that has formed as a result of the centuries-old evolution of games. And, by the way, it is not at all accidental that in different historical periods and in different countries, people preferred different games. In the first half of the 19th century, card games prevailed because the life of an individual was too dependent on chance, on the whims of fate, just as success in these games depends on luck, on "how the cards fall." But when social relations became more ordered and organized, and an individual's fate became more dependent on their own will, talents, and knowledge, chess became the dominant game.

Teaching chess in school will become more useful and effective if teachers teach children (and themselves first, which is very difficult) to see the deep connection between the game and real life, which is not obvious on the surface.

The cognitive possibilities of the game of chess are too great and complex a topic to be discussed within the framework of this article. However, as I think, and many would agree, chess is capable of expanding our understanding of the laws of the world in which we live.

"He who knows the secret of chess - knows the secret of life."
L. Babushkin 2005.
]]> Sat, 14 Jan 2023 21:07:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?will-chess-help-the-school https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000025 <![CDATA["Blind" chess (About playing blindly)]]> imblog
Blind game on 28 boards
photo: sportskeeda.com
About playing blind
 
The ability to play without looking at the board, and even more so, the simultaneous "blindfold" play of many games, has always impressed and presented a series of puzzles to the audience. How can one remember so many moves and positions? Is there a secret that one needs to know, or does one simply need to see each board clearly in their mind? Such mysteries could be solved by the "experts" of such a game, but these "experts" usually kept quiet and, at best, shared their thoughts within a small circle of friends. The confessions of the world champion Alekhine in the article below are even more interesting. Alekhine lifts the veil on the secrets of the psychology of the "blind" session. He talks about some techniques he uses when giving a blindfolded session and boldly exposes the prevalent idea that the player, "I'aveugle" (Fr. - blind), clearly "sees" all the boards. But Alekhine does not only talk about the technique of playing blindfolded. Obviously realizing that more is expected of him, he talks about the game itself. He fully agrees that the strength of the player who plays blindfolded inevitably and sharply decreases. Moreover, he even claims that the style of play is distorted beyond recognition. It is a pity that the world champion does not reveal the whole bitter truth. He could also have told us about the nervous tension required for simultaneous blind play. But what Alekhine says is certainly enough to draw clear conclusions and judgments about blind chess, and at the same time, it seems inevitable condemnation. Finally, Alekhine says that he is not a particularly enthusiastic supporter of this game, but he appreciates it mainly as a means of propaganda. However, can Alekhine seriously believe in the miraculous power of a means of propaganda that reduces the artist's strength and distorts his style? And if one sees blind chess mainly as a "means of propaganda," what else can be seen in it? Is it not a means of enrichment? After all, the "blind" session, as a spectacular show for many gaping Westerners, will be highly valued.

In contrast to America, which favors blind chess, in our country, Alekhine said, it is "prohibited by law." There is no need to regret this.

A. Alekhine
"Blind" chess
As a ten-year-old boy, I first heard about blindfold chess, despite not looking at the board. At that time, my hometown of moscow was visited by Pillsbury, who gave a blindfold exhibition on 22 boards. I was not allowed to enter chess clubs at that time, but my older brother participated in this exhibition and even achieved a draw. Pillsbury's performance amazed me like a miracle. However, the whole chess world reacted in the same way.

At the age of twelve, I started trying to play blindfold chess. I was still not allowed to participate in chess circles, but I participated with great enthusiasm in correspondence tournaments. Here, I had to analyze a lot, which I often did in high school. Since the presence of a chessboard was excluded, I simply drew the given position and continued to develop it further in my mind. This way, I realized, among other things, that I could do without a chessboard altogether.

As a sixteen-year-old young man, I received the title of master by taking first place in the All-russian tournament in St. Petersburg. At that time, playing four or five simultaneous blindfold games did not pose any difficulties for me. But I did not continue to develop this ability and turned to improving my artistic chess education.

The desire to seriously delve into blindfold chess arose in me during the international tournament in Mannheim in 1914. As is known, this tournament was abruptly interrupted by the declaration of war, and all Russians who participated in it, including me, were interned in Rastatt. Besides me, there were Bogoljubov, Romanovsky, Selezniev, Bogatyrchuk, Ilya Rabinovich, Weinstein, and others. Naturally, we filled our forced inactivity with chess. But since we did not have chessboards, we played with each other by memory, "by heart." Among other things, I played many games this way with Bogoljubov, many of which were later published.
 
At the end of 1914, I managed to return to russia, where I subsequently gave a series of blindfolded chess exhibitions.

In 1916, while serving with the Red Cross, I was sent to the Galician front and was seriously injured there. I was bedridden in a hospital in Tarnopol for many months. Blindfolded chess became a blessing for me during this time. Upon my request, local chess players often visited me, allowing me to give a series of small game exhibitions without looking at the board. One of my most famous blindfold games, against Feldt, was played during one of these sessions.

During the revolution, I did not have to play blindfolded. But as soon as I left Soviet russia in 1921, I was immediately drawn to test my skills in this field again. Although I had never played more than 8 games simultaneously without looking at the board, I took a step forward and played 12 games in Paris. The exhibition went surprisingly smoothly, which encouraged me to attempt a record-breaking exhibition during my first trip to America in 1923. I visited Canada and played against 21 opponents in Montreal. This was an American record, as Pillsbury had only played 20 games simultaneously in his homeland.
 
My performance was successful. I won around 80% of the 21 games, which led me to consider attempting the world record at the time, held by the late Hungarian master, Brayer, of 25 games. After finishing the 1924 Grand New York tournament, I took three full days off and then played against 26 participants in New York's Alamac Hotel, where the tournament was held. As per American custom, the session was flawless, but it was a surprise to me that I was facing incredibly strong chess players. I was not prepared for that. Suffice it to say, the first eleven boards were occupied by first-class enthusiasts, including the Manhattan and Marshall club champions. For example, the now world-famous names of Kajdan, Herman Steiner, and Kevin, who came third in the last New York tournament directly after Capablanca and Kajdan. Under such conditions, my result - 16 wins, 5 draws, and 5 losses - was very satisfying.

However, just a year later, I broke my own record. On February 1, 1925, I played 28 blindfold games simultaneously in Paris and achieved a significantly higher percentage than in New York - I won 23 out of 28 games, drew 3, and lost 2. I must admit that the opponents I faced were weaker than those in New York. However, there were also well-known chess players among them, such as the now late poet Potyomkin and French masters Gets and Betbeder.
 
Now, after my Paris session, Reti tried to break my record by playing 29 games in San Paolo, Brazil. However, he chivalrously acknowledged right after the session that his attempt should be considered a failure because he didn't even reach my percentage. This contradicted the record conditions established between us a year earlier in New York. As Reti himself confirmed, for an equal or greater number of games, the benchmark can only be the percentage result.

As for the artistic value of blindfold chess, it is actually lower than its sporting value. From observing myself and other masters playing, I was able to establish that those who play blindfolded not only play weaker than those who play while looking at the board, but their way of thinking and style undergoes remarkable transformations. For example, I can say that in many of my blindfolded games, I wouldn't recognize my own style, and I can't imagine playing the same way if I had a board in front of me. Perhaps the fact that the blindfold player is not accustomed to thinking about giving their maximum in terms of artistry plays a significant role. Mnemonic abilities and propaganda elements take precedence.
 
Even the most talented master, after playing a large number of blindfold games, will make many mistakes (memory). This is not only based on my own experience, but also on studying the games of other masters. Morphy, who once played 8 games simultaneously in London without looking at the board, caused general excitement. However, after replaying these games, one realizes that they are full of mistakes. Pillsbury was one of the greatest blindfold players of all time. For many years, he held the world record of 22 games played simultaneously, and once, in Hanover in 1902, he planned to play against 21 first-class amateurs at the same time. Although he finished the session, it was obvious that it exceeded his abilities, as he could only win three games, drawing 11 and losing 7. I have the highest regard for Pillsbury as a chess artist, which is why I make a distinction between his blindfold play and his "sighted" play.

Among modern masters, there are several good blindfold players, but how few published "blind" games there are! Obviously, the masters themselves recognized that their games were not too high in artistic quality. Among all the latest masters whom I had the opportunity to observe while playing blindfold, I was most impressed by Zemish: I liked his technique, speed, and confidence.

In my new book, I will also present some of my blindfold games, but they are not free from typical blind chess mistakes. After achieving a winning position, there is a remarkable decline in creative power: it is rare to find the shortest path to victory, and the aesthetic impression is usually disturbed, as the use of an already achieved advantage is rarely flawless.
 
I am often asked how I can play such a large number of blindfolded games at once. I believe it's due to my natural sharpness of memory, which is directed towards chess and my thorough familiarity with the chessboard and deep understanding of the essence of the game. Additionally, the so-called endgame technique plays a significant role. As for mnemonic techniques, I have never used them. When the general public thinks that the main difficulty lies in memorizing move data in specific positions, they do not consider the more important task that a blind player faces, namely, to fight blindly and find the best move possible in each particular position! All of this is crucial to quickly finish individual games and thus reduce their number.

Just before the start of each significant performance, I create a simple plan for myself, dividing the total number of boards into separate opening groups. I do this entirely arbitrarily. For example, in my New York record session, I divided all 26 boards as follows: I started 6 games with the queen's pawn and 6 with the king's pawn, then again 6 with the queen's pawn and 6 with the king's pawn, and finally, the last 2 with the bishop's pawn. When each individual board is called, I need only recall the corresponding first move. Then, incidentally, I recall various plans, threats, and defenses, recall the position and the last move, and can then combine moves. The most challenging test for memory is the opening phase since, until individual games have acquired a certain character, there are still too few stopping points for memory. The most significant part of such a test is overcome by the so-called logical memory; in other words, the player does not reproduce the entire board with its white and black pieces before his spiritual eyes - as the uninitiated imagine - but simply recalls individual moments, as one would recall a friend, a book, or any object.
 
This is how I played, and as far as I know, this is how all other famous masters play blindfolded. Visual memory, i.e., the reproduction of images, is only called upon to help when you want to check a position in a difficult moment, clarify a possible mistake, etc. In particularly difficult cases, the blindfold player must also be able to restore the moves one by one either to himself or aloud, depending on whether he has to resolve his own doubts or the doubts of the opponent who misheard. Naturally, this is only done in exceptional cases since such verification is too costly in terms of time.

Opinions on the value of blindfold chess vary greatly. In America, for example, they are highly valued, while in Soviet russia, they are even banned by law as unnecessary in artistic terms and harmful to health. Personally, although I currently hold the record, I am not a very enthusiastic supporter of this game and value blindfold chess primarily as a means of promotion. Let them serve to spread chess and earn proper recognition of their social value.

From a purely scientific point of view, blindfold chess requires even deeper study and is still awaiting its researcher.

source: "64" 1931 No. 16.
]]> Fri, 13 Jan 2023 20:30:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?blind-chess-game-blindness https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000024 <![CDATA[Chess as an exercise of the mind, and how to improve at it]]> imblog
photo: Wilhelm Steinitz
Wikimedia Commons

A chapter from the book by Wilhelm Steinitz "The Modern Chess Instructor"
("Modern Chess Tutor") 1889
The author's style is preserved

In our noble game, chance plays no role (excluding the temporary influence of personal factors), unlike in all other games where strength is the main element, and therefore the outcome of chess battles rests entirely on scientific and logical foundations. Both sides start the game in absolutely equal conditions regarding the number of combat forces and their value, and the same rules determine the movements and actions of the chess armies. Therefore, the rivalry of skills is what determines the result of the struggle in a chess game, and the endless variety of combinations possible in chess opens the widest space for exercising and developing logical and imaginative abilities of the mind.

Since our noble game appeared in civilized countries, many outstanding thinkers, commanders, and statesmen of different nations have succumbed to its charm, and some of them have devoted as much attention to studying chess and practical play as to the arts and literature.
 
In our time, chess is becoming increasingly popular among thinking people, and it is recognized almost everywhere as a useful mental exercise that, in its impact on mental abilities, is similar to the impact of physical exercise on the preservation and development of bodily strength. Moreover, we believe that playing chess directly affects the physical condition of chess players and the prolongation of their lives. It is no coincidence that most renowned chess masters and writers achieved a very advanced age and fully preserved their mental abilities, in some cases until the end of their lives. It has been calculated that the average lifespan among game enthusiasts is the highest compared to any other category of people whose lifespan has been systematically observed statistically. This cannot be a simple coincidence, and, although it may seem impossible to link longevity with the study of chess and practical play, we consider such a conclusion legitimate and based on experiential evidence.

It is natural that intellectually gifted people are attracted to mental pursuits that develop higher mental qualities, just as people endowed with great physical strength are drawn to exercises and pastimes that develop and maintain their bodily strength. As soon as a chess player gains a preliminary understanding of the fundamentals of the game, it becomes a source of the greatest entertainment and pleasure for him, and the healthy spirit of competition arouses in him a desire to achieve skill in this noble game. Then experience will undoubtedly teach him that any habits harmful to general health will also seriously damage his ability to perform at his best and improve in chess, and to avoid a decline in the strength of his play, it is necessary to firmly restrain habits that are detrimental to the healthy state of the body. From the ancient saying "Mens sana in corpore sano" (a healthy mind in a healthy body - Latin), a general rule can be rightfully deduced that has very few exceptions, that ardent chess enthusiasts are people who combine strong intellect and a healthy body. Since playing chess cultivates habits that are conducive to maintaining a healthy state of the body and mind, it is not surprising that it leads to longevity and vitality.
 
Some of the most prominent thinkers have expressed great admiration for chess as an intellectual pursuit, seeing it as a measure of great minds, and some of the greatest celebrities from different countries have dedicated their time and attention to studying and practicing its complexities. Goethe, in his translation of Diderot's "Nephew of Rameau," supports the view of the celebrated French philosopher who calls chess "the touchstone of the intellect" [As is obvious to readers, Steinitz made a mistake. The words "Yes, perhaps this game is a touchstone for the intellect" belong to Goethe himself. They are spoken by one of the heroines in his early play "Gotz von Berlichingen" - I. Romanov]. Bolz, the author of "The History of Civilization in Europe," was one of the strongest chess masters of his time. Leibniz, Voltaire, Lessing, Mendelssohn, Frederick the Great, Napoleon - all of them were fascinated by chess. According to contemporaries' accounts, most of them acquired great skill in the game.

Books on chess in many countries belong to the earliest printed works. The rapid multiplication of chess literature in our time has greatly contributed to the growth of the general popularity of our game, promoting the study of the theory of openings and practical game samples between masters. However, the widest dissemination of chess throughout the civilized world is due to the appearance of international tournaments and matches between first-class masters. Such competitions are sometimes held in the capitals of Europe and the American continent. These public demonstrations of chess art attract the liveliest attention of chess lovers literally all over the globe, as not only the results of the games but also their full text are reported to the most remote points of our planet through newspapers and telegraphs. Such public trials of strength constantly bring out new talents. These competitions have become a school for some of the greatest masters of our time. Their declared innovative theoretical and practical ideas greatly assist those who study chess in overcoming the main difficulties in mastering the complex content of our game.

In the past, these difficulties were insurmountable, and the skill in the "art of human reason," as chess was aptly named by Gustav Selen (Duke of Brunswick Augustus the Younger) [Augustus the Younger (1579-1666), a patron of knowledge and science, in 1616 under the pseudonym Gustav Selen published the first German chess guide "The Chess or Royal Game," which for two centuries was considered the best in the German language. In 1978, a facsimile reprint of this literary monument was made, leaving a significant mark in the history of chess - I. Romanov], was considered an exceptional privilege reserved only for a handful of chosen ones. However, undeniable experience has shown that mastery and even superiority in chess can be acquired in a way similar to how skills are acquired in other mentally demanding activities. With proper practice and study, the vast majority of students can raise their chess strength at least to a fairly high level, and sometimes to true mastery.
Chess Club of New Orleans, 1883

At first glance, the vast diversity of combinations possible on the chessboard may seem like a daunting obstacle to achieving success in the game. In this regard, it is interesting to note that whoever starts the game with the white pieces has at their disposal twenty different opening moves, namely the moves of eight pawns by one or two squares and the moves of two knights to two different squares. In turn, the opponent has a choice of twenty different responses to each of white's opening moves. Therefore, there are 400 different ways to make the first move for both sides, without delving any further. Thus, 400 serves as the first term in an arithmetic progression to calculate the number of combinations possible in a game of chess. However, it should be noted that a similar infinity exists in the art of music, which has not hindered its widespread popularity. Life experience shows that musical abilities, possessed by almost everyone in civilized countries, can be nurtured and developed through learning and practice. We believe that this is also true for chess. The acquisition of knowledge of the game by the vast majority of people can be achieved much more easily than now, if rational methods of improvement are applied to it.
 
The first piece of advice is for students to try to play as much as possible against stronger chess players. In particular, we emphasize to those who are studying chess that regularity of study and practice greatly facilitate the achievement of rapid success. Someone who does this sporadically is unlikely to ever make progress. It is much better to dedicate one hour a day to chess for six days in a row than six hours a week. A good way to develop one's strength in chess understanding and memory is to make a habit of replaying one's own games from memory, and even better, games of masters printed with good comments in books and magazines. The great advantage of printed games is that when memory fails, they can be refreshed by referring to the source of the publication. Another important point is to strictly adhere to the "touch-move" rule. The temptation to take a move back is very strong for beginners.
 
Warning about a special manual on chess composition that we intend to publish in another volume of this work [Stenitz was unable to fulfill his intention. The work "The Modern Chess Instructor" remained unfinished - I. Romanov], we can add that studying this wonderful branch of our science is extremely useful for the development and improvement of practical play. However, in the tasks, the condition is to find the only way to the goal, while in a game, a win can be achieved in many different ways. But just as often in practical play, choosing the correct plan from several possible ones requires the greatest precision of calculation, and therefore solving chess problems, in which it is necessary to extract the maximum energy from the pieces with a minimal number of moves, is an excellent exercise for this. Some of the greatest chess players such as Morphy, Andersen, Blackburne, Philidor, and a number of others, paid quite a lot of attention to chess composition, which has grown into an almost independent art. It is extremely noteworthy that the most brilliant style is achieved by masters who combine practical play at the board with chess composition. This is entirely natural, as brilliant combinations mostly occur in a direct attack on the king's flank, and knowledge of various beautiful mate positions, which constitute the content of chess problems, helps to grasp similar ideas in practical play.

source: "Chess: Science, Experience, Mastery"
I.Z. Romanov M.: Vysshee shk., 1990
]]> Tue, 10 Jan 2023 23:00:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?chess-exercise-mind-improve https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000023 <![CDATA[Without looking at the board (part 2)]]> imblog
author: M. Krogius
photo: Three after midnight Facebook
* * *
Thinking and attention. Authors such as Alexander Alekhine, Mikhail Botvinnik, and others have pointed out that when playing at the chessboard, one cannot simultaneously grasp all the pieces. The chess player mentally isolates a certain part of the board, a group of pieces, a particular variation or plan as the main object of consideration.

In blindfold chess, the direction of thinking is sharply focused. The struggle usually takes place on a very limited area of the board, with the rest of the pieces ignored. Therefore, multi-planed play across the entire board is rarely seen in blindfold games. Local tasks are typically solved instead.

Due to the narrowness of attention and mental focus in blindfold chess, there is usually no flexible response to surprises from the opponent.

In cases where the game develops almost by force or the struggle takes place for a long period on a limited area of the board, the quality of blindfold play is maintained at a fairly high level.

Switching attention to a new object of consideration is the most challenging aspect of blindfold chess. Therefore, masters who give blindfold sessions conventionally divide games into primary and secondary ones. In the latter, they consciously choose non-committal, neutral moves in order to wait without worsening their position.
 
Blindfold chess makes it extremely difficult to shift attention to the areas of the board that are far from the main battlefield. Partners often conspire to fight in the "designated" area and are reluctant to consider figures that are further away.

As a result, attention and thinking during blindfold chess are characterized by high persistence and intensity, but mental agility is expressed much weaker. Therefore, blindfold chess can be recommended for chess players who lack the ability to concentrate for long periods.

F. Duz-Khotimirsky noted that blindfold chess promotes the development of combinational vision. Is this statement true? It has already been mentioned that the blindfold player strives to maximize the specificity of the planned operations without delving too deeply into strategic assessments of the position.

This tendency becomes understandable if we take into account that during blindfold chess, the chess player "sees" primarily the external properties of one or another figure and where it can immediately move in order to attack or defend. G. Koltanowski said: "I don't have visual memory, but I have a memory of movement."
 
The similar nature of the mental activity of a blindfold chess player evokes specificity in the choice of moves and requires precise tactical calculation. Therefore, one can agree with F. Dus-Khotimirsky that blindfold chess is beneficial for the development of a chess player's combinational vision, and in particular, the ability to calculate accurately. A. Rubinstein spoke about the similarity of calculation on the board and blindfold chess when he indicated that when considering combinations, he actually plays blindfolded because the present pieces "interfere" with his ability to imagine them in new positions in his mind.

However, in our view, the concept of "combinational vision" includes other aspects that have a more complex creative content than calculation. This primarily includes the ability to find original combinational ideas and prepare advantageous combinational situations. In the development of these qualities, which are closely related to the level of a chess player's strategic mastery, blindfold chess, in our opinion, may not be very helpful.
 
* * *
Organization and methodology of training. The most important question when playing blindfolded is the dosing of the workload. F. Dus-Khotimirsky wrote: "Playing blindfolded was not exhausting for me. A serious game in a tournament often required more nervous energy than twelve to fifteen games in a simultaneous blindfolded session."

Although this statement is very subjective, it still shows the possibility of comparing the workload when playing on the board and blindfolded. Moreover, it is important for us not to understand the peculiarities of fatigue in record sessions, but to determine the permissible number of boards for regular training.

When studying this issue, we assumed that a typical tournament game lasts 5 hours. The period of the most active and intense work (thinking about one's moves) lasts two and a half hours. It can be assumed that playing blindfolded, which lasts from two to three hours, will not be an excessive workload for a master-class chess player. This also took into account the circumstance that a tournament game is usually more significant for a chess player and causes greater tension than training sessions.
 
These assumptions have been verified. Based on surveys of several masters and grandmasters who played blindfolded games occasionally, as well as our own practice in this field, it appears that a three-hour playing session, regardless of the board, is acceptable for an experienced chess player. During this period, it was possible to complete a simultaneous game session against six players of the first and second categories.

Blindfold chess, especially conducting simultaneous game sessions, requires preparation. Several stages of developing the ability to play without looking at the board can be outlined:

1. Analyzing chess positions in one's mind. Reading chess literature without a board, solving tasks and studies in this way can be useful. It is also recommended to analyze games without moving pieces, try to find your own solution to the position, and then compare it with what happened in the game.

2. Playing blindfolded with a board without pieces. An empty board significantly facilitates the creation of spatial images of the struggle in the game, expands the area of mental orientation, and helps to better memorize the placement of pieces. We conducted the following experiment: six games were played against the same opponents with an empty board and with a board with pieces. In the first case, the session lasted two hours and thirty minutes. Result: +5-0 = 1. No mistakes were made in recalling the placement of pieces. In the second case, the session lasted three hours and ten minutes, and the result was +3—1=2. Three mistakes were noticed in determining the position of the pieces.

3. Gradual increase in the number of parties and mandatory use of full chess notation during move transmission have been noted to contribute to better memorization and development of the game. It is evident that the full chess notation (for example, announcing the move as Nc2-e4 instead of just Ne4) aids in memorization by fixing the endpoint and starting point of the piece in the mind, thereby creating a holistic spatial image of the move made on the board.

These techniques that aid in developing the skill of blindfold chess have independent significance and are applied as useful tools in chess training.

Returning to the question posed at the beginning of this article, "Is blindfold chess beneficial?" we can now give a more substantiated answer.

With proper training organization, blindfold chess is a useful means of improving a chess player by developing logical memory, concrete thinking, and intensity of attention.

Undoubtedly, psychological research on the game, despite the board, should be continued.
 
source: "Chess in the USSR" 1970 №5
]]> Fri, 06 Jan 2023 15:13:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?despite-the-board-part-2 https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000022 <![CDATA[Without looking at the board (part 1)]]> imblog
author: M. Krogius
photo: Three after midnight Facebook

It is difficult to find a form of chess activity that has been as controversially evaluated and as little researched as blindfold chess. Therefore, it is important to consider the psychological aspects of the game without looking at the board in order to come to a more informed conclusion about its value.

But first, a brief historical background. The first records of blindfold play date back thousands of years. In 970 AD, the Greek traveler Chelebi played in this way in Tripoli. Blindfold games were also played in practice and by medieval masters. And when Philidor played blindfold on three boards at the end of the 18th century, it caused such excitement among contemporaries that Diderot and D'Alembert mentioned the event in their famous "Encyclopedia".

Later, performances on a greater number of boards were known by P. Morphy, L. Paulsen, I. Tchigorin, G. Pillsbury, A. Alekhine, R. Reti, D. Bryer, M. Najdorf, G. Koltanowski and other chess players. Recently, J. Flis (Hungary) even crossed the threshold of fifty boards. However, perhaps the most impressive achievement in terms of quality was Alekhine's performance in New York in 1924. Playing against 26 first category players, he won 16 games, drew 5, and lost 5.

About blindfold chess, less information has been preserved face-to-face. Only the games of P. Morphy with L. Paulsen and H. Lichtenhein (1857), as well as the russian participants in the tournament in Mannheim in 1914 who were interned due to the start of the First World War and played blindfold chess to pass the time, are known.

It should be noted that experts' attitudes towards blindfold chess are predominantly negative. The negative opinion is based on two considerations: 1) the quality of blindfold chess is significantly lower than normal chess and 2) it causes mental strain on the chess player and is therefore harmful to health.

A. Alekhine wrote: "Pillsbury was one of the greatest masters of blindfold chess, and his achievement of 22 games was a world record for many years. However, when he attempted to play blindfolded against 21 opponents of the first category in Hanover in 1902, he failed. He completed the session, but the result (+ 3-7 = 11) shows that he was not capable of such an event. There are also virtuosos of the game among contemporary masters who do not look at the board, but only a very small number of their games have been published. Obviously, the masters themselves admit that these games are not of particularly high artistic value. My own blindfold games are not immune to typical mistakes."
 
Furthermore, the claim that frequent blindfolded gameplay has a harmful effect on health is not in doubt.

Therefore, the arguments "against" seem quite convincing, but it is interesting to note that such an experienced coach as I. Bondarevsky strongly recommended that B. Spassky play a blindfolded game before his match with M. Tal (1965). Obviously, Bondarevsky sees the game without looking at the board as a useful way of preparation.

F. Dus-Khotimirsky was a staunch supporter of blindfolded play, stating: "...playing without looking at the board is a valuable training factor and helps to develop combinational vision."

Finally, we should compare blindfolded gameplay with other types of intellectual activities where thinking also functions without direct perception.

If we turn to chess, it is easy to notice that each external action (move) is a product of previous modeling of that action. The internal plan of a chess player's actions during gameplay is based on direct perception of the current position. In blindfolded play, there is no perception, and the consideration of a move is based on memory-based imagination.
 
However, chess is not limited to the confines of perception. Predicting any operation requires a chess player to have the ability to distract themselves from visual perception of the position, to imagine and evaluate new imaginary positions rather than perceiving the actual configurations of chess forces at the moment. F. Dus-Khotimirsky rightly noted: "Chess is primarily a blindfold game. The chess player operates with figures in his imagination, carries out combinations and maneuvers that have not yet occurred."

The game played blindfolded is very similar to analysis "in the mind", which chess players often use. The typical picture comes to mind: a tournament participant who is alienated from everything around him, who has postponed a complex position and is analyzing it without a board, etc. Thus, in different types of chess activity - playing on the board, analysis, and playing blindfolded - a common need can be observed - the need to plan future operations "in the mind".

Therefore, a fair question arises: do chess players impoverish their training methods by decisively excluding blindfold play from it?
 
To investigate this problem, we examined the peculiarities of the manifestation of individual mental functions during blindfold chess. This allowed us to identify the intellectual qualities of a chess player that are most effectively developed in this form of the game. There was also an attempt to determine the place and significance of blindfold chess in the process of improving a chess player's skills.

The material for comparative analysis included blindfold games published in the press, statements of outstanding chess players, as well as the results of our experiments and sessions.
 
* * *
Memory. Many people believe that a master achieves success because they have the ability to vividly imagine the exact positions of all the pieces on the board at any given moment.

However, this idea of a photographic representation of positions in the player's memory is not supported by existing research. As far back as 1894, the French psychologist A. Binet noted that a blindfolded player often cannot remember the color of a particular square, or even a piece placed on it, but can relatively well "see" their own and their opponent's threats.

A. Alekhine wrote: "Most of the mental work is done using so-called logical memory; this means that the player does not try to reproduce before their eyes the entire board with its white and black squares, white and black pieces, as most laypeople believe, but only recalls some characteristic move, configuration of a portion of the board... This is how I play, and as far as I know, this is how all blindfold chess masters play. Visual memory... is only called upon when it is especially critical to verify the position, clarify a possible deception, etc."
 
So both A. Bine and A. Alekhine point out that the choice of each subsequent move is not based on a "photographic" snapshot, but on the selective nature of the chess player's memory, on their ability to reproduce the most important features of the position.

Experiments on the reproduction of the arrangement of pieces on the board during simultaneous games also testify to the semantic nature of memory. The position of a piece was usually determined by a logical thread of memories. For example, difficulties arose in determining the position of a pawn - on b2 or b3? Since the king was previously positioned on d2 and threatened Nc4+, it was easy to remember the defense of this threat with the move b2-b3.

It turned out to be more difficult to memorize opening positions that have not yet acquired a specific meaning in the game process. The following experiment was conducted: in my first session on six boards, all games played the Chigorin variation of the Spanish game, and in four other sessions, the openings were different. In the first session, I made three impossible moves at the beginning of the middlegame, and there were no similar mistakes in the other sessions.

We can conclude that logical memory is brightly and widely manifested in the game, regardless of the board.
 
The importance of logical and meaningful memorization skills for improving a chess player cannot be overstated. In the game and in studying literature, a chess player encounters a vast amount of chess information. Successfully using this information in practice can only be achieved through the synthetic power of memory, the ability to establish connections and relationships between various elements of chess. Only such a type of memorization allows a chess player to navigate the astronomical number of possible moves.

And since the logical components of memory are important conditions for successful blind play, it is reasonable to assume that such a game contributes to the development of these qualities.

It is necessary to also mention the role of memory in blind play in general. Many researchers attribute the ability to play without a board solely to memory development. I. Dyakov directly stated that blind play is a "pure function of memory."

But it is impossible to fully agree with this statement. Blindfold chess is not just a competition to see who can remember and reproduce the moves that have already been made in the game, but a struggle in which what is stored in memory is transformed into creating future plans and combinations. Blindfold chess is based on memory images, but it is not limited to them. A. Alekhine wrote about this: "If the general public thinks that the most significant difficulties lie in constantly memorizing the relevant positions, then it forgets that playing blindfold requires overcoming an even greater problem, namely: playing blindfold, finding at least approximately the best move in every position!"

Therefore, let us turn to the description of the process of imagination. It should be noted that the analytical activity of a chess player contains a contradiction between the desire to give a more distant and clear forecast of expected events on the board and the objective impossibility of fully solving the vast majority of these positions. The further the chess player's thinking moves away from the existing situation in the game, the more difficult it is to calculate and evaluate what becomes their mental horizon.

B. Blumenfeld wrote: "However strong the visual imagination may be, it is quite obvious that imagination in the mind pales in comparison with visual perception. Therefore, when the opponent makes a move, even if it is expected, one should never... make a prepared move without any consideration for the expected response: because the move was prepared when the position was in imagination."
 
Blindfold chess makes it impossible to follow B. Blumenfeld's advice, as there is no direct perception of the position. Its image is stored in memory, so the range of prediction is significantly reduced, and the chess player operates in the zone of closer perspective, usually not venturing into complex long-term calculations.

The main compass of blindfold chess is the plan, which is usually as specific as possible. Here it is probably carried out more sequentially and straightforwardly than in games on the board. The explanation is clear - in the game without looking at the board, it is more difficult to rebuild, take into account new obligations, and change the main direction of thought without extreme circumstances. The plan in blindfold chess is more schematic and saturated with specific calculations for 1-2 moves than in regular games. The fear of making a mistake accompanies almost every planned operation. Therefore, the need for specific accuracy, at least for one or two moves ahead, and hence constant verification of the intended move, evokes a well-known pedantry in the chess player. Thus, the creative element in the game is limited.

Comparing the games of P. Morphy, A. Alekhine, and many other chess players played in regular and blindfold sessions shows that the quality level of the latter was clearly lower, especially in situations that required original ways of solving problems.

Thus, blindfold chess can hardly be recommended for the development of a chess player's creative imagination. But this game is undoubtedly useful for developing accuracy in specific calculations and constant self-control.
]]> Thu, 05 Jan 2023 19:13:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?despite-the-board-part-1 https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000021 <![CDATA[Chess in the third millennium (part 2)]]> imblog
Bronstein D.I. and Smolyan G.L.
A beautiful and fierce world (Subjective notes on modern chess)
1978

In the future, new forms of chess may emerge. Here we are only considering the phenomenon of chess, based on classical chess as it is "formalized" today, and we will not discuss the dozens of variations of this game invented by enthusiasts, although we understand the legitimacy of many changes. However, we will make one exception. Out of respect for Albert Einstein, who proposed introducing a third dimension into chess about forty years ago, it is unfortunate that this innovation did not undergo practical experimentation. It would be interesting to organize a tournament of grandmasters at the Albert Einstein Institute in Paris. If some pieces could move in one move, and others gradually - along the lateral edges of the board - into space, then the game could become fascinating, the audience could be seated from any side, and when demonstrating played games, equipment like that used in planetariums would be needed.

On the other hand, chess itself today requires at least a general standardization - in different countries, they differ in color, size, shape, weight, and the size of the board cells, etc. A single international unification is necessary. A small publisher, "Informator," created an international language of chess players in a year. This case is rare, and the language has no logical basis, but parties are not only published but also read in it. People pick up easy reading, not thinking too much about squares and circles that have nothing to do with those high symbols we pondered at the beginning of this section.
 
The changes will primarily concern modern means of transferring moves to demonstration boards. About 20 years ago, an unknown inventor who lived in a remote German village, invented a simple magnetic method of automatically reproducing moves on a large demonstration screen. But neither this invention nor later ones on "synchronous transmission of moves and time calculation" have come to fruition. Enthusiasts from Perm University have developed an electronic demonstration board, which is excellent, but the only prototype of which is on display at the Central Chess Club. Perhaps its cost is not affordable for chess federations.

In the future, everything will change drastically. Large color demonstration boards will appear in theaters. Smaller boards next to them where grandmasters can show their plans, helping the audience understand and experience the game. The figures and pawns will smoothly transition from square to square. They will gradually fade away from the departure square, their shadow following the path, then the image will gradually appear in a new location. And the knight will make a visible move to the edge of the board. The pieces of the side that made the move will take a relaxed pose, while the pieces of the opponent will all show concentration and emotional tension. Perhaps the pieces will take on the appearance of living creatures, with something unusual in each piece. For example, a pocket from which captured pawns can be seen, or with an indication of the number of moves made and the time spent specifically for that piece. The board squares will be illuminated so as not to strain the eyes. The possibilities for imagination are endless...
 
New forms and styles of "active" demonstration will lead to the fact that during a major tournament, the spectator hall will transform into a fantastic volume. The spectators will be completely immersed in chess, they will lose all sense of time and space, their predictions will run ahead for ages, and each move on the stage will evoke associations with champion chess players and chess creators of past eras. And it is precisely this that sets chess apart significantly from any other activity in which we feel a sense of empathy. This is because it is also a process of collective creativity, which often reaches intellectual ecstasy: the entire audience hall is agitated, ablaze, and works like one big human computer. It is a pity that this collective computer has already swallowed one and a half to two dozen initial moves, pushing aside the border beyond which real creativity begins.
 
In the future, it is unlikely that the foreign institution of the press bureau will continue to exist. This self-organized entity has quietly given itself the right to arrogantly criticize any idea, plan, move, attack, or defense of the playing grandmasters. When an important match is played, dozens of grandmasters and hundreds of annoyingly critical journalists descend upon it. They not only follow the game, but they themselves play eagerly, endlessly moving pieces and pawns on dozens of auxiliary boards, trying to reach the final stage of this or that combination. And then they present their sentences to the readers: "We all saw in the press center that we should go this way, not that way." And, of course, it happens that this compressed international brain center in one room begins to defeat those who are fighting on stage. And how good it is that the public is not allowed there - it would lose respect for the living champions, forget that they think tirelessly about positions that are not on the table or on demonstration boards, because the art of playing chess is the art of prediction, not touch. After all, even if three spectators think together on only one pocket board, they have a chance to be on a par with the grandmasters who play on stage. It is worth considering this phenomenon. We often read about how a boy in the hall is happy by himself and made his parents happy - he guessed Tal's move. The press bureau also guesses. It would be interesting if FIDE established a totalizer in the press bureau...
 
However, these problems exist, especially when considering the competitive stress of matches, intense intellectual battles, and the fact that grandmasters must not only withstand brainstorms critical to their physical and mental health three or six times a week but also find ways to live a normal life outside of chess. Not everyone copes equally well, some fall into depression, others become too cheerful, and still others begin to throw stones at the glass house in which they recently thrived and blissfully existed. However, the percentage of such deviations is no more than 10%, which is normal for any well-paid and extremely dangerous human activity. But in the future, things will change for the better here because envy and ill-will will disappear, so there will be no need for pity or charitable responses that we all so eagerly seek today. There is another aspect here.

Unflappable chess players like Karpov, who practically do not react to the audience - "the public does not interest me" - maintain a high level of performance longer than their less balanced partners. Or Fischer: the public occupies him, but he found a defense - limited the circle of problems in the opening, and such a game allows him to solve complex problems with simple means. Karpov also simply plays the opening and builds the further game on the technical use of positional advantages. So, in general, it turns out that the highest sports results are achieved by talented chess players with excellent health, iron nerves, and willpower.

Another problem concerns the methods of play. Theorists must predict tomorrow's strategy based on the fact that 99 percent of games today are a cardiogram of struggle, a cardiogram of personal efforts in the struggle not only with the difficulties of the position but also with oneself, with the clock, with the noise in the hall, etc. There is no visible progress - and this troubles all lovers of chess art. It's good to be like Morphy, but it's even better to guess the strategy of the 20th century and win, like Morphy did, anticipating the progress of the game for centuries to come.

Courage, enthusiasm, desire, and skill to pursue an as yet unclear goal are necessary, and only this produces brilliant positions and deep, dynamic situations. Here, for everyone - based on their own spiritual experience - chess emotions arise and are revealed, creating new chess ideas that are expressed in plans and moves. With such enthusiasm, dry, academically correct, and short variants that are executed in a short time - the speed of perception for viewers - remain off the course, but this is the beauty of true creativity: to take on barely noticeable distant series of subtle moves on one's shoulders, which will show the art of human vision in a short time.
 
About thirty years ago, a big fan of blindfold chess, especially the speed version - 10 seconds per move, and 10 games in a row, one after another - R. Fine said that although it was difficult, it was interesting; that the ability to play without looking at the board is a measure of intelligence for chess players. Philidor, who played blindfolded in three games, made it into the British Encyclopedia, and today the world record is held by J. Flash - 52. But what about the future? After all, there are computers designed to relieve people of routine work and free up their brains for creative operations. In these conditions, there is no need to train the brain to memorize kaleidoscopically flickering positions in blindfold chess. Therefore, blindfold chess is unlikely to receive new impulses unless, of course, the circus becomes interested in this art. R. Fine's reasoning proved true in another way. A sense of more subtle evaluation of positions that do not seem to represent either a basis for winning the game or content has emerged. The best chess players in the world, Karpov, Fischer, Larsen, Spassky, and Tal, although they do not give blindfold sessions, can look far beyond the visible position. The difficulty is only in not losing courage and strength like a racer on this long road, withstanding the character against the huge resistance of the opponent.

However, today in tournaments, those who do not build distant plans but simply fight move by move often win. These chess players have no disappointment because they do not seek the maximum, they only process the maximum of chess information. This is rationalism. Players are ready to repeat old positions if they bring success.
 
If you want to have knowledge of the mechanisms that lead to victory, you must understand what the struggle is about, what the defense is directed at, and where the object of attack is. But that's not enough. It takes passion, imagination, willpower, search, and a thirst to find the real solution in competition with another person. When all of this is present, the chess genius appears. Morphy played easily, beautifully, and quickly. He understood the position - felt the relationships of its details perfectly. But he valued the fire of imagination, initiative, very much. On this path, Morphy was unbeatable, but he was also unhappy because he could not share the joy of discovery with anyone, no one understood the deep roots of his game, his creative passion. Today there is an audience capable of understanding and appreciating chess openings. But chess players do not play for the audience. Today the endless competition continues. Winning today, you still face a test tomorrow... of the strength of your health and the viability of your talent.

That's right!

...The authors believe that chess in the third millennium will firmly enter the arsenal of human life needs, alongside reading classical poetry and enjoying music.

Perhaps, chess will be given one minute in a person's life, but we will be proud of such an achievement, and the compressed minute of the future, thought of by us for its conciseness and depth of feelings, will be equal to the present century or even more.
 
In the future, the world will likely be divided not only between men and women but also between humans and machines. Anyone who wants to objectively evaluate the progress of chess over the past century should look at journals and old newspapers. The current "revolution" in chess has taken us from primitive to the pinnacle of intellect. At the same time, there is a growing belief in the impossibility of the dream of an invincible chess player. Only machines will be able to handle this task because the number of smart chess positions constructed by intelligent people, even in many ways, is still finite and subject to exploration and systematization. But we would like to see how, at the building of the former moscow Conservatory where the USSR championship was played in 1940, now turned into a theater for chess performances, computers come in on their own wheels or air cushions, enter the building with dignity, check in their means of fast movement, sit down according to rank. Such a chess evening will undoubtedly attract computers who will want to watch the game of live competitors, learn from them, criticize, communicate with each other, finally, get acquainted, establish creative sympathy, personal friendship, establish useful working contacts. They will blink their lights, move switches and buttons, receive mutual pleasure, and leaving the theater, argue like people do now, and exchange punch cards to call up. You see what a poor human imagination can do, we all see it in our own way. And maybe we will even beg the most famous computers for autographs and fragments of parts as souvenirs... However, machines will not be able to imitate the game of live human beings anytime soon, and the creative life of living champions will continue to shine, serving the discovery of the secrets of chess.
 
Completing the book, the authors ask readers not to criticize hyperbole and sharpness in assessing the present day. This topic is difficult. There are people who outright deny chess as an art. Are there not many who also deny art in general? Let us not judge them, let us pity those who are deaf and blind to the beautiful world of chess.
]]> Wed, 04 Jan 2023 11:49:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?chess-in-the-third-millennium-part-2 https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000020 <![CDATA[About visual imagination and variant calculation]]> imblog
Attention of chess theorists is primarily focused on studying the opening. Undoubtedly, knowledge of the opening plays a significant role in practical play, but not a decisive one. Even in the last Alekhine-Euwe match, despite Euwe's huge opening preparation and Alekhine's questionable opening experiments, only a very few games can be pointed out where the loss would have been a result of a solely unsuccessful opening. In any case, in the vast majority of games, the result was influenced or could have been influenced by mistakes or insufficiently deep play in the later stages of the game by one or both opponents.

The conclusion drawn is that correcting errors in the thought process is no less important than perfect knowledge of the opening.

Expressing hope that the chess press and chess organizations will raise the issue of research in this direction, we believe that the reasoning of practicing chess players on methods of assimilating mistakes and improving the quality of chess thinking can be valuable as material for future research.
For our first study, we chose this topic.


                                                                                          black move                                               chessboard: lichess.org

In this situation, which occurred in the Blumenfeld-Zhivtsov party, a trap was set in the semi-finals of the moscow Championship, where Black sacrificed a bishop, playing 1...Be4. This move surprised me even more, since my young opponent's play in this game, as well as in the tournament in general, made a good impression on me. He was not in a rush and carefully considered his flawed move. As I found out from our conversation after the game, he rejected the continuation 1...Bh3 (1...Bb7 2.Ng4) 2.Q:h3 Q:e5 3.Q:h6 Qe1+ 4.R:e1 gh, realizing that White would have an advantage with a bishop versus a knight in a pawn endgame on the queen's flank. When making his move in the game, he thought that the bishop could not be taken into account in the variation 1...Be4 2.B:e4 Q:e5 3.Bh7+ K:h7 4.Q:e5 Nd3+ with a queen recapture, but he did not notice that after 2.B:e4, the rook on a8 is attacked. At first glance, it seems incomprehensible how a black player in these two scenarios could see relatively far ahead, yet fail to notice an absolutely clear blow after the first move of the white player.

The reason for this mistake, as far as I can judge from my own experience in similar cases, is as follows: when the player playing black calculated the variation 1...Be4 2.B:e4 and so on, he did not mentally drop the c2 bishop onto the e4 square, but held it as if it were hanging over the h7 square, ready to take the queen with a discovered check.
 
The movement of the elephant c2 can be expressed as follows: the elephant from c2 is directed towards h7 where it lands, while realizing that there is a stop at e4 on the way to h7, but this stop at e4 is not visually imagined. Similar errors are not uncommon in practical play.

It often happens that when considering a move, you forget to visually imagine moving a piece or removing a captured piece, according to the made move, and the piece mistakenly remains in the mind in its initial position.

It should be noted that in most cases, such mistakes are the result of not weak visual imagination, or nervous haste, or insufficient willpower: laziness, having made a thoughtful move, to immediately fix the change with visual imagination, and often giving yourself the privilege and making a move as a result of talking to yourself or reproducing the notation of the move in your mind, or even spatially moving in your mind, but without a firm fixation with visual imagination of the position after the move.

another example

                                                                                       black move                                               chessboard: lichess.org

The position on the diagram occurred in the game of Sergei Sergeyev-Blumenfeld played in the last round of the same tournament. For me, a draw was sufficient for my tournament standing. As it is known, playing for a draw is not so simple: the desire for simplification and fear of complications have a negative impact.

In this position, I played 1...Nd4. I spent over half an hour considering the move because I hesitated about how to proceed: white threatens to exchange the fianchettoed bishop with Bh6; it's not interesting to spend time retreating the rook from f8 to avoid the exchange, especially since the rook may be needed on the f-file to support the movement f7-f5; generally, I found that white had a clear plan of attacking black's king position by advancing the f-pawn, and if possible, the g-pawn, and I didn't see a convincing way to counter it. Unsure of what to do, I played 1...Nd4 to postpone the decision.

Making my move, I was convinced that my opponent, through the threat of N:f3+ followed by Ne5 and so on, would respond with 2. Kh2, and I was thinking to myself with regret: how will I continue then, since 2...Qa5 is bad 3. Bh6 B:h6? 4. Q:h6 N:c2? 5. Ng5 Nf6 6. Nd5. At the same time, I returned to the thought several times: "it's a pity that after 1...Nd4 2. Kh2 N:f3+ 3. B:f3 Ne5 4. Bg2 B:h3, he captures with the king (not the bishop) on h3 and nothing can be extracted from the exposed position of his king."
In the game, the white party responded (after 1...Nd4) with 2. Nd1, and it took me a full five minutes to realize that with the move 2...N:f3+, I would win a pawn. Those five minutes of consideration were spent in wavering over which plan to choose, and since nothing was working out, I returned to my previous thought: "It's too bad that after 2...N:f3+ 3. B:f3 Ne5 4. Bg2 B:h3, he captures with the king." Suddenly, I realized that he couldn't capture with the king, because the king was on g1, not h2.

So for those five minutes of consideration, I had his king in my mind not on g1, where I could see it through direct visual perception, but on h2, in the square where I had mentally moved it earlier, waiting for my opponent's response. It's entirely possible that if after the white move 2. Nd1, I had been able to easily weigh my options without returning to thoughts like "it's too bad," then I wouldn't have made the move 2...N:f3+ and won the pawn.

This case is particularly interesting because I made my move 1...Nd4 with the threat of winning a pawn in mind, but by shifting the location of his king in my mind during my deliberation, I forgot to put it back in the right place and my mental image, created by my visual imagination, interfered with my objective perception of the king's location.

Our explanation of the given case is not the only one, and there is another possible explanation: when I was considering 1. ... Nd4, I decided that since White would respond with 2. Nh2, 2. ... N:f3+ - would not work, and this final thought remained in my mind, even though the prerequisite (2. Nh2) did not materialize.

It is difficult, of course, to determine which explanation is correct in this case. In any case, as far as I can judge from my own experience, there are moments when the image created by the visual imagination displaces reality.

But if such cases are not common, one can consider it a regular phenomenon that moving in the mind when considering one option interferes with the correct perception of the position that arises in another option. It is clear that the more options and the longer the options, the greater the likelihood of mistakes.
 
It should also be remembered that with each move made in the mind during a long variation, the created position becomes further detached from reality, and therefore the imagination becomes increasingly faint. Even in a chess player with particularly strong visual imagination, it cannot be guaranteed that the known faintness of the imagination will not affect the correct evaluation of the position resulting from the long variation. Every chess player sometimes finds that even after calculating a variation correctly, they cannot decide whether it is advantageous for them or not, which, as far as I can judge from my own experience, is primarily due to insufficient clarity of the mental image that has arisen. A chess player's thought process is linked to visual images. Therefore, the more vivid and bright the visual image, the easier and more accurately the thought works, and the richer it is.

There is another danger associated with long variations: the mental strain of considering a long variation is so great because of the need to visually imagine changes move by move that the resulting fatigue from the strain can affect the subsequent game.

Every practicing chess player should be aware of the role of visual imagination and the dangers inevitably associated with calculating variations, and draw appropriate conclusions from it, taking into account the degree of their visual imagination.
 
We, for our part, draw the following conclusions.
After the opponent's move, one should not begin to contemplate from ready-made conclusions made prior to it, but rather start anew and with the intention of photographically capturing the position with one's gaze, as strong as one's visual imagination may be, it is quite obvious that mental images are paler in comparison to visual perception. Therefore, when the opponent makes a move, even an expected one, one should never (except in cases of extreme urgency) immediately make a prepared move in anticipation of their response: after all, the move was prepared when the position was still in imagination; it is entirely possible that now, after the opponent's move, the position is directly perceived with all its particularities, including the opponent's move, and as a result of a clearer picture, new ideas will arise.

It is important to adhere strictly to internal discipline when contemplating options, including not running one's thoughts from one option to another, returning several times to the same one, but rather establishing the order of contemplating options in relation to the specific situation first, and then gradually moving from one option to another in one's mind. When contemplating each option, after each move, one should make a corresponding mental move, fixing it with one's visual imagination, and at the end of the option, make a summary, and only then move on to the next option.
 
When establishing a plan of action, one should strive to reduce the number and length of options. First and foremost, it is necessary to consider the most dangerous response to the proposed move, and only if a defense against this dangerous response is found, should one consider whether there is another, more hidden response. Similarly, if a move several steps ahead will clearly give a decisive advantage, it is pointless to prolong consideration of the details of implementing this advantage in one's mind.

If your next move is absolutely necessary and branching options start after your move and your opponent's move, it is too early to delve into the options: after your necessary move and your opponent's move, the visual picture will be clearer, and it will be easier to consider the options. The same applies if a move of, for example, 8 steps involves the possibility of a forced return to the initial position (repeating moves) after the first few moves of the sequence. In this case, it is recommended to make the first few moves without lengthy consideration, and then consider the options to the end, and if they prove disadvantageous, return to the initial position by repeating moves.
 
In positions that are not sharp and where there can be no forced variations, the calculation should be limited to a few short variations for a better understanding of the position's peculiarities.

If there is a choice between two continuations that give roughly the same effect (equality, advantage, decisive advantage), preference should be given to the continuation that involves fewer variations and hence less risk of error. This principle should be rigorously tested, rejecting any "romantic" ideas. For example, if there is a choice between simplifying the game into a pawn endgame with an extra pawn and a clearly winning position or a multi-move mating combination with branches, it is wiser to choose the first continuation. From tournament practice, there are cases known where a mate that was announced in a few moves was lost, and the mate turned out to be fake.
 
Our theses, especially the last one, will undoubtedly meet opposition from supporters of chess "beauty". In our opinion, a variant calculation is just a necessary technique, and if the technique can be simplified or made easier, all the better. The beauty of chess lies in its internal logic and richness of ideas, which in most cases require a deep understanding of the position to be revealed, while calculation is necessary only to verify the correctness of ideas. Chess is a purposeful game: one needs to achieve the desired result with maximum confidence. That is why we believe our thesis is correct. The importance of visual concepts for chess thinking is so great that the presence of circumstances conducive to visual perception, such as suitable lighting during the game, the correct proportion between the board and the pieces, and pleasant colors of the pieces for the eyes, cannot fail to play a significant role. From personal experience, I know that if the lighting is poor and the pieces are colored in an irritating color or disproportionate to the board during a simultaneous game, the result of the session can be less favorable than in a session against a weaker opponent under more favorable conditions of visual perception. I believe that chess organizations should invite physiologists and psychotechnicians and, according to their instructions, develop a standard type of chess equipment.
 
"Chess in the USSR" 1936 #1
]]> Sun, 01 Jan 2023 20:34:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?about-visual-imagination-and-variant-calculation https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/00000001E <![CDATA[The mindset of a chess player (part 2)]]> imblog
А. Bykhovsky
(From the works of B. M. Blumenfeld)

So, a chess player, when considering their moves, operates with visual and verbal ideas. What mental processes do they perform? Blumenfeld distinguishes thinking with a limited choice of solution methods (in combinational play) and thinking without a limited choice of solution methods (in positional play). The two most important mental operations in combinational play, according to Blumenfeld, are calculation and "seeing."

"Calculation in chess, as in other areas (such as mental arithmetic), is characterized by imaginary execution - one after another - of intermediate operations that are related to the idea of the combination, with consciousness fixing each stage passed." In this definition by Blumenfeld, it is especially important to emphasize the fixation with visual imagination of all positions after each thought-out move (one's own and the opponent's). Many mistakes in a chess game are made because the chess player poorly performs the calculation and does not fix intermediate positions. Often, they use shortened forms of calculation (counting, for example, the total number of attacks and defenses). To use such shortened forms, it is necessary to know how to apply them correctly and, most importantly, when they are permissible. Calculation requires volitional efforts from the chess player throughout the entire process to fix positions in the mind after each imaginary move and to maintain the order of calculation of individual variants. A chess player must be able to force themselves to calculate, overcome uncertainty in their abilities, which results in multiple and unproductive calculations of the same variant.
 
Variant calculation is possible only in positions where forcing moves follow from its essence. "If such a variant calculation were possible in all positions," wrote Blumenfeld, "the thinking process could be considered as a process that entirely passes through the center of consciousness. However, this is not actually the case."

The distinctive feature of another mental operation - "seeing" - is that only the final result passes through the center of consciousness. During the "seeing" operation, the chess player instantly sees a series of moves united by a common idea, with intermediate moves occurring so quickly that they cannot be conducted through the center of consciousness. The role of "seeing" in the chess player's thinking is extremely significant. "Seeing" is necessary for finding an idea, outlining it, when calculation is impossible or impractical. Thus, it replaces calculation, and in turn, conscious calculation checks "seeing"; they, according to Blumenfeld, "interfere with each other."

The advantage of "seeing" is also that it saves time, preserves nervous energy, and does not require voluntary tension. The importance of "seeing" during blindfold chess games does not need to be proven. However, as it is known, the negative aspects of a phenomenon are a continuation of its advantages. This position also applies to the "seeing" operation. The main disadvantage of "seeing" is the lack of control over intermediate links. Consciousness does not fix new positions after each move, which can lead to serious mistakes.

I would like to demonstrate the significance of this position put forward by Blumenfeld on a practical example.


chessboard: lichess.org
Reflecting on this rather unpleasant position for himself (Shcherbakov played White), I suddenly "saw" a series of moves: 1...N:f4 2. N:b6 Nh3+ 3. Kh1 Qf3+ 4. Qg2 Nf2+ 5. Kg1 Nh3+ 6. Q: h3 Ra2 7. B : a2 R : a2. The entire variation flashed instantly and consciousness only registered the final position. Analyzing it, I was delighted to find that there was no escape for White from perpetual check. However, beginning to carefully calculate the variation from the very beginning, I immediately discovered that White has a strong response with 3. Kg2, and after 3...Qf3+ 4. K:h3, Black has no compensation for significant material losses. Nevertheless, there was no special choice, and as a lesser evil, I dared to play 1...N:f4. To my great relief, Shcherbakov continued 2. N:b6 Nh3+ 3. Kh1? Now, thinking about the move, I saw two variations: one started with a queen check on f3, and the other - with a move Ra2. I tried to force myself to calculate these variations, but couldn't concentrate, thinking about how great it was that I made a draw, and a pretty good one at that. As a result of such "reflection," I came to the conclusion that both paths lead to the same goal, and played 3...Qf3+? Then it went: 4. Qg2 Nf2+ 5. Kg1 Nh3+ 6. Q:h3 Ra2 7. Bd5!, and Black resigned. If Black did not replace calculation with "vision" and fixed the positions in their mind after each imaginary move, then they would have been able to achieve a draw without any special effort by playing 3...Ra2!
 
The chapters dedicated to position evaluation in Blumenfeld's works are particularly interesting. Position evaluation is the most important criterion used by chess players when choosing a move, especially when there are no forced variations. The ability to develop an "evaluation function" has attracted the attention of cybernetic scientists who argue that without understanding the mechanisms of the mental operation of "position evaluation," it is impossible to create a satisfactory chess-playing program for a machine. Blumenfeld believes that "position evaluation is a judgment about the position as a whole, which answers the questions: which side has better chances and by how much."

Position evaluation is subjective: a chess player evaluates it from their own point of view, which inevitably leads to emotional coloring (mine is better, mine is worse, etc.). The operation of "position evaluation" occurs involuntarily and does not require a special focus on evaluation. As Blumenfeld notes, it is associated with the perception of the position and "is, for the most part, a subconscious act in the sense that intermediate links in a significant part, if not entirely, do not pass through the center of consciousness."

Position evaluation is always accompanied by calculation. For example, it is the starting point for calculation, always accompanies it at intermediate stages, and finally serves as a signal for the end of calculation when the evaluation of the imaginary position yields a certain result.
 
The strength of a chess player lies in their ability to accurately evaluate the position. "The strength of the game is the strength of the evaluative ability," wrote Spielmann. During each game, a chess player evaluates the position a huge number of times. Therefore, it is important for a chess player to be able to evaluate it quickly, sometimes even instantaneously. The task of quick evaluation is made easier by the fact that it is based on a previous evaluation, taking into account the changes that have occurred during the move. As Blumenfeld rightly notes, the ability to make an instant evaluation of the position is associated with the possibility of errors, just like with "sight-seeing." Therefore, a chess player tries to resort to additional mental work for a more thorough evaluation. Additional mental work could involve comparing the advantageous and disadvantageous aspects of the position with their relative importance in calculating the outcome. However, this path is irrational. It is difficult to identify separate factors for a conclusion and, even more so, to compare different characteristics (for example, what is more important - the presence of a strong pawn center or the loss of castling?). As a rule, such a task is insoluble. The problem of creating an evaluative function is the basis for creating a machine that plays as a highly qualified chess player.

Blumenfeld believes that a thorough evaluation should be dynamic, taking into account future moves on the board, although in general terms.
 
Let us illustrate this position with an example. In his commentary on the game with I. Kan from the 11th USSR Championship, M. Botvinnik writes: "At first glance, White's pawn structure is worse... This would be correct if all the pieces could be removed from the board. But there are still many pieces on the board, and therefore the weakness of the d5 square in Black's camp is more significant than the doubled c-pawns. Moreover, the doubled c-pawns are even advantageous for White: the point is that for a strong occupation of the d5 square, White needs to move the e3-pawn to e4, and in this case, the c3-pawn will reliably protect the d4 square from the invasion of Black's pieces."

In this example, dynamic evaluation, which takes into account future actions, is opposed to static evaluation, which is based on the fact that doubled pawns are usually a disadvantage. Dynamic evaluation can be achieved through general strategic considerations or by calculating specific variations. It is important to distinguish between the role of calculation in a forced game (in which it must be exhaustive and lead to a conclusion about the correctness of the idea) and in the evaluation of a position, in which only a few short variations are considered with the sole purpose of imagining what will happen in natural play.

"Variations can be given," Alekhine wrote, "to illustrate the essence of the position." Sometimes complex calculations are used even when a simpler evaluation of the position would suffice. Tal wrote self-critically in the notes to the ninth game of the match with Botvinnik: "When I began to fire off variations calculated during the game, which demonstrated the convenience of Black's position, at machine-gun speed, Botvinnik said, 'At first, this position seemed more pleasant for White to me, but then I found the correct plan: we need to exchange the knights and keep the queens.' At first, such an evaluation of the position seemed too abstract to me, but when I began to consider the same numerous variations, I had to come to the conclusion that M. Botvinnik was absolutely right."
 
Another method of deepening the evaluation of a position, as Blumenfeld suggests, is to combine logical reasoning and consideration of possible moves and variations with a more profound understanding of the position.

One can easily see the validity of this idea by observing the joint analysis of masters. If their opinions on the position differ, they sometimes interrupt their calculation of variations and reasoning to carefully re-examine the initial position.

The evaluation of a position forms the basis of the plan that a chess player chooses. Guided by the plan, the chess player considers only a few of the enormous number of continuations. The plan directs the mental process or limits the scope and boundaries of contemplation. In some cases, the plan is expansive in nature, with a detailed development of all intermediate operations. However, the details often depend on the opponent's game, and therefore, detailed planning can be difficult. Attempting to develop such a plan would do more harm than good, as it would take up a lot of time for contemplation and ultimately constrain thinking in a constantly changing situation.

Chess requires persistence in carrying out the adopted plan, on the one hand, and timely changes to it depending on the circumstances, on the other.

Naturally, not everything in Blumenfeld's work is equally interesting from today's perspective.

However, Blumenfeld himself wrote that "expressed considerations are inevitably debatable and in a significant part have the nature of problem setting." Currently, there are new interesting methods for studying the thinking of a chess player. For example, registration by filming the player's gaze on a particular area of the board or analyzing tactile sensations, based on which blind chess players make their judgments. However, the deep research of B.M. Blumenfeld is of great interest. They are an important contribution to the development of theoretical issues of thinking and can be applied in the training of chess players.

source: "Chess Bulletin" 1967 No. 2.
]]> Mon, 26 Dec 2022 07:26:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?the-mindset-of-a-chess-player-part-2 https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/00000001D <![CDATA[The mindset of a chess player (part 1)]]> imblog
А. Bykhovsky
(From the works of B. M. Blumenfeld)

"If we could look into a chess player's mind, we would see a whole world of sensations, images, ideas, emotions, and passions, an endless wandering of states of consciousness, compared to which all our most careful descriptions are only rough sketches." These words belong to the French scientist Binet, the author of the first deep study of the psychology of the chess player.

The complex intellectual processes that take place in a chess player's brain, the peculiarities of their psyche, have been a fertile material for psychological research. In addition to Binet's work (1894), it is necessary to mention among the most interesting works of Cleveland (1907), Dyakova, Petrovsky and Rudik (1926), and Nechaev (1928). B. M. Blumenfeld made a significant contribution to the psychology of chess with his research devoted to the analysis of thinking.
 
B.M. Blumenfeld did not have a formal education in psychology. As a lawyer by profession, a talented chess writer, a renowned master, a man of great culture and wide interests, he always showed a non-amateur interest in the psychology of chess. For decades, Blumenfeld conducted interesting and diverse psychological experiments, accumulating material. His observations were mainly made with highly qualified chess players, in whom, he wrote, "decisions are a product of thought, mostly meeting the demands of the situation, which facilitates the analysis of the thinking process; in unskilled chess players, individual moments and randomness play too great a role." The fact that Blumenfeld himself was a master was of great importance for critically assessing the results obtained. In any case, he was not in danger of being deceived by his subjects, as happened to some other researchers. For example, Binet reports in his work on the unusual ability of one master to calculate variants for 500 moves (Binet was deceived, although he himself noted pride as a typical feature in most chess players).

Blumenfeld used various research methods, many of which he introduced for the first time. The main method was the analysis of games. This included studying the comments on the same games, accounting for the time spent on each move, which allows one to penetrate the laboratory of thought.
 
Blumenfeld also noted that consultation parties, simultaneous game sessions, and analysis of "blitz" games are of great interest to psychologists. Observing chess learning is an important objective method.

For the in-depth study of the psychology of a chess player, Blumenfeld conducted special experiments. Of note are the short recordings of a player's thoughts during a game, immediately after making a move. These recordings capture to some extent what has just been experienced, that is usually controlled by chess analysis. Experiments on memory recall of games and positions are of great importance. Analyzing what is retained in memory can serve to detect mental processes that occurred earlier.

Some of the results of Blumenfeld's experiments, together with Professor B.N. Severny, were summarized in their work "On the Tasks and Methods of Research in the Psychology of Chess", which unfortunately only exists as a manuscript.

The culmination of Blumenfeld's many years of research was his dissertation "Problems of Visual and Active Thinking Based on Chess Material", which he submitted for his degree in pedagogical sciences (in psychology) and successfully defended in 1946. In 1948, a large article by Blumenfeld "On the Characteristics of Visual and Active Thinking" was published in the journal "Information on Pedagogical Sciences of the RSFSR" No. 13. However, the author did not see his work published. His name was framed in a mourning frame.
 
Special works on psychology by Blumenfeld are limited to this short enumeration. However, his chess-literary works offer few interesting thoughts on various mental functions of a chess player and valuable practical advice.

Blumenfeld regards a chess player's thinking as visual and effective. A chess player's thinking is visual, "it is related to the visual perception of the board, figures on the board, and spatial relations between them, as well as visual representations from past experience and visual images created in the mind when considering the movement of figures."

In addition, a chess player's thinking is effective; the chess player considers the situation to make a decision and a move. Interestingly, in the introduction of his dissertation, Blumenfeld emphasizes that his work is mainly methodical in its goals, and new objective methods are applied. "If this work establishes that the use of these methods can provide valuable conclusions for the problems posed (not necessarily those conclusions made in this work), then this work will be justified." This is how Blumenfeld himself believed.
 
The most important problem that Blumenfeld tackled was the thinking process of a chess player when choosing a move. In fact, in a typical position, each partner has the possibility to make around 40-50 moves. Does the chess player consider all of these continuations during their deliberations, or just a few? Do they take into account all possible responses from the opponent or only some of them? Assuming that the chess player considers everything, when calculating for one move, they should consider over 2000 variations, and when calculating for three moves, it's already around 1010 combinations of all possible moves. Of course, the mental processes of a chess player have nothing to do with a mechanical brute force search of variations.

"How does one select a meaningful thought from an astronomical number of objectively possible combinations, and how does one make the final selection from the selected options?" This is the problem that Blumenfeld posed. How does a chess player choose a move? This is a question that attracts the attention of many great scientists today.

The last two decades have been marked by the birth and incredibly rapid development of a new branch of science - cybernetics. Cybernetics solves a number of fascinating problems, the main one of which is probably the task of building a computing machine capable of performing a process that resembles thinking. Scientists working on the creation of "thinking" machines had good reason to choose chess as an experimental model. Indeed, the discrete structure of the game fits well with the digital nature of computing machines; the game of chess is clearly defined both by permissible operations (moves) and by the ultimate goal (checkmate); it is not too simple, but not so difficult that a satisfactory solution cannot be found. Chess, as Shannon put it figuratively, can serve as "the point of the wedge" that breaks new paths of research.
 
The first attempts to create a chess-playing program based on brute-force methods did not lead to success. Scientists faced the problem of intelligently limiting the possibilities that the machine had to consider. Cyberneticists recognize that this task cannot be solved without a deep study of the thought processes of the chess player. From this perspective, Blumenfeld's work provides interesting material for scientists working on the development of cybernetic programs.

It is known that past experience is the basis of the mental process. But in what form does it manifest? Ready-made recipes play a limited role in the thinking of a chess player: mainly in the opening and uncomplicated endgames. "The choice of a move," according to Blumenfeld, "is the product of independent manipulation of various meaningful formations formed through experience." Knowledge of typical ways of action is necessary for decision-making. Such typical ways of action constitute the stock of chess knowledge and ideas. Blumenfeld distinguishes between visual and verbal ideas. Let us explain the concept of "visual idea" by way of example.

            
                                                                            Draw                                            chessboard: lichess.org

One can try to give a verbal formulation of the general idea behind these studies, but it would be quite lengthy and not very accurate description of what is stored as images in the chess player's memory. There are countless visual ideas in chess. When a chess player thinks about a move, visual ideas "come to mind" almost automatically. However, it is not random visual ideas that come to mind, but relevant ones that may be useful for making a decision to some extent in the current situation.

A verbal idea is an idea that can be verbally formulated. Its natural form is reasoning. Ideas such as development advantage, passed pawn, material advantage, etc., are ideas that have adequate verbal formulations. There is a close connection between visual and verbal ideas. For example, even if the verbal formulation is cumbersome or insufficient, it can give impetus to thought and contribute to the "influence" of visual ideas. On the other hand, with the development of chess knowledge, there is a continuous process of verbal definition of ideas that were previously purely visual. For example, Philidor understood, as can be seen from his games, the importance of weak squares, but the term and concept of "weak square" were formulated only many years later. Therefore, verbal ideas are usually the final stage in the development of private visual ideas.
]]> Sun, 25 Dec 2022 22:26:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?the-mindset-of-a-chess-player-part-1 https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/00000001C <![CDATA[Chess in the third millennium (part 1)]]> imblog
Bronstein D.I. and Smolyan G.L.
A beautiful and fierce world (Subjective notes on modern chess)
1978

So, we have tried to consider chess from various angles, exploring different aspects of this unique phenomenon, searching for the keys to chess creativity. But our journey to understanding chess is only just beginning today. What awaits us tomorrow?

The answer to this question is not indifferent to us, chess players. People always want to know what the future civilization will accept and what part of their personal creativity, their work, and their talent will not be discarded from the board of progress like an unnecessary chess pawn. And today, we want to see the main ways of chess development, think about what new forms they can take, what interest they will arouse, what role - and this is the main thing - they will play in a harmonious and happy world.

Naturally, the authors have an immense love for chess and believe that by the year 2000, or maybe even sooner, chess will become more humane and gradually acquire the best qualities, gradually losing everything else, temporary, superficial, past, conjunctural, foreign to the ideals of humanism.
 
When we talk about the future, we inevitably assume some elements of fantasy. And perhaps it is precisely this intervention of imagination that gives constructed images of the future a special attractiveness. Let's start with the fact that the needs of our non-mechanical intellectual development should lead to a significant increase in interest in chess. If today a child is taught elementary logical concepts and relationships using empirical observations of living nature, then in the world of the third millennium, logical concepts will be shown to a child through visual chess drawings in the first months after birth. Everyone will understand that a good chess idea is played out in the three-dimensional space of children's cubes and pyramids. Using colorful figures, one will be able to embrace the whole range of thoughts and feelings of a chess player, presenting even the most complex of them with several basic symbols, visible or tactile. With pride in chess, we will say that if simple mathematical theorems are not always suitable for earthly or cosmic communications, then the set of chess technical techniques and simple combinations in the third millennium will be understood by anyone on Earth and undoubtedly by extraterrestrials too. If we were in the shoes of those who send light signals into deep space, we would consider anchoring the Pythagorean theorem and elementary "children's math" on vast ocean expanses. We believe that the concepts of forward, backward, up, down, left, right, together, separately, corner to corner, attack, defense, late, early, reality, illusion, courage, cowardice, fast, slow, risk, calculation, generosity, stinginess, elementary, vulgar, beautiful, ugly, stupid, smart, and some others can be conveyed entirely through chess symbols since the combinations of six two-color pieces and pawns are countless. Of course, in the author's zeal, we realize that this is not even a matter of the next century, but, frankly, if we want to understand dolphins in our unquenchable desire for knowledge, why can't we learn to talk to each other using a square board with 64 cells and 32 pieces? Man can do anything!
 
Today, masterpieces of architecture and painting, music and poetry, achievements in sports and life help the younger generation to cultivate the best traits of the human being of the future. And chess? Don't they carry emotional coloration of personal involvement in every chess action, don't they expand the boundaries of the mind in one second, a hundred years ago, and a hundred years ahead? In search of a solution, our mind constantly oscillates in time and space, trying to combine knowledge, the experience of chess players who have long gone or are on the other side of the world, trying to guess and predict future thoughts. Each chess game not only contains a particle of general knowledge but also is an unbearable personal micro-memory for those who played it. Mixing with other colorful phenomena of human life, these memories throughout life create a kind of kaleidoscope, rearranging and enhancing some memories, muffling and pushing away others, rewarding or punishing memory. There is a certain narcotic element, and someday chess will be used to regulate a sick consciousness, but now they often create the illusion of adulthood for boys and the illusion of growth for the elderly.

Chess is understandable at first glance, but its depth is unfathomable. Today, we still don't know of any chess player, including the world champion, who, after making their first move, could dictate all possible variations as they see them onto a tape recorder. But if the world's best chess players were to compete with a microphone in hand, everyone would hear how beautifully they think. Yet, FIDE does not even realize that by organizing tournaments for speaking grandmasters, federations would gather a grateful audience of millions. (Then you can't hide your own helplessness behind someone else's moves.) In such tournaments, masters could use television technology to speak to the public in the language of chess symbols. Such a game, among other things, would remove the stigma of those who struggle with a sense of incompleteness, as the audience perceives unexpected moves as unexpected and as a result, the grandmaster too. With closer contact, the audience would fantasize less and delve deeper into the work of highly skilled and creative thinking. As you can see, the future is closely connected to the present.

Moreover, no one will spend five hours sitting in a hall for the audience - during that time, one can fly from Moscow to Yerevan and back or swim in the Black Sea. The most important thing in chess art will be born in a quick, dynamic, visually vibrant game - improvisation, finding the best path from one situation to another in a matter of minutes or even seconds. And the artist will lead the audience and listener down this path.
 
It is quite likely that at some point a publisher will release a game called "Chess Tests." Different positions will pop up on the screen for a period of time, and a timer will display a score based on the speed of the player's decision-making. The authors know that B.S. Hershunsky, a professor at the Kiev Radio Technical College, has constructed and successfully tested this method of programmed chess enjoyment.

However, the future of chess as an art form is seen a bit differently by the authors.

Let's imagine that theaters for chess performances will begin to open one after another in our country and then abroad. They already exist in Yugoslavia, where tourist firms have made chess the main subject of advertising and willingly allocate funds for chess competitions in order to get into the big press, stand out in the eyes of potential tourists, and get into the database of world tourism firms. In these chess theaters, it will be possible to give performances on any topic and show creative portraits of chess players. Over the course of 200 years, so much chess material has accumulated that an experienced director, in cooperation with a composer, can compose thematic concerts for even a thousand years. And if new authors appear or old authors bring their revised feuilletons, honestly, you have never seen or heard a specific chess feuilleton from the stage, then you understand that there will be no shortage of artists who want to perform in the roles of Paul Morphy, Mikhail Botvinnik, Howard Staunton, and Mecking.
 
In such a theater, it is possible to simultaneously show outstanding matches of the day, making moves through wires or television channels. Matches in other cities can be shown on 20, 40, or 100 boards. Quizzes and contests for solving chess problems can also be held. Few chess players can imagine having not just a spacious mansion for administration on Hoholivsky Boulevard, but their own Chess House.

In this House, there will be a publishing house and special schools for all ages, a cinema for showcasing examples of chess creativity, and a chronicle hall where you can see Capablanca's smile. There can also be a room for sessions with a live grandmaster or computer program. (The authors understand that practical projects are matured simultaneously in the minds of many people. And it is pleasant for us to find among like-minded people N. Nosov, the author of "The Adventures of Dunno and His Friends".)

Color television cassettes with the best creative moves of world champions will be released there. They will be dubbed, and it will be possible to listen simultaneously to comments from either players or experts.

Portable chess computers will be available for rent, with all possible data on chess stored in their memory. Chess players will use this data during tournament games, without overloading their memory and preserving their energy for truly creative efforts, etc.
 
Children will listen to explanatory texts about chess games, just as they listen to the story of Ivan the Fool today. The current examples of chess art, which we rarely admire, will cause them mistrust, and our mistakes will seem to them terrible foolishness, because they will know these outdated, naive, old moves. But they will also know that the best chess players did not play to the maximum of their abilities if their tactics, their game, their strategies brought them success. Therefore, it is foolish to talk about matches like Morphy-Karpov, Capablanca-Andersen, Philidor-Tal. After all, in the past and present, everyone improves their skills only to the point of winning. There is another element - it is dangerous to go too far if the critic does not understand the chess player. This is usually the boundary for world champions. They do not explain how they win, not wanting to reveal secrets. And there is a certain gap between new methods of solving complex problems and their interpretation by journalists and commentators. Chess has hardly become more difficult. If the number of masters is growing impressively fast, is it not too easy to play chess today? Are we not deceiving ourselves and the public? Any business is interesting if so much time and effort is spent on it. If today dozens of grandmasters and hundreds of masters can play a game perfectly in just five minutes, then they must have certain ready-made schemes for all basic cases, just like any person can orient themselves on the fly in many even new situations. They say there is no time to calculate options. But is chess really about calculating options? R. Fine believes that the power of great champions is that they created very complex, rich situations with possibilities that were impossible to calculate, and yet they found a way out of them, while their opponents shouted "Hey!" and waited for outside help.
 
What will be in the chess of the future? Chess theaters will invite super-class grandmasters for performances. Their super class will be expressed in the speed of solving problems, they will be a kind of intellectual magicians. They will show wonders in intuition and logical brain work, causing excitement, but not experiencing negative emotions - their work will be respected in and of itself, not dependent on the result of the game. They will also greet the audience like soloists and orchestras today, not as winner and loser.

Tournaments and matches of the current direction will become a thing of the past. Only occasionally, as a curiosity, competitions will be organized - picnics where spectators will be allowed to behave "in the good old days," participants will come to the tour not knowing what debut is planned by their partner and what they will have to discuss, judges will be forced to keep a record and score of moves, the chess pieces will be hidden from the audience behind the massive walls of chess clocks, and they will be demonstrated using long poles, attaching and hanging figures on nails, and all this carnival for young viewers will be just a lesson in the history of the emergence of chess art.
 
"The person of the future will be economical in spending their 'self' and their personal time," said Emanuel Lasker in his chess book. Therefore, in chess theaters, there will be chess concerts in the evening or in the morning, at night, or perhaps during the day. Programs will be announced in advance, and everyone will come to watch and listen to the theme they find interesting. Those eager to test their skills against a grandmaster will no longer play with live partners - they will be completely replaced by computers. However, people will still play just for the sake of entertainment in an atmosphere of hints and jokes. Puzzle sessions will be created so that viewers can guess which grandmaster is playing. Something like this recently happened in Nice at the chess Olympiad, where a master disguised as a machine, Philibert, eagerly walked back and forth. But in the future, a real machine will simply have a cassette inserted into it, which, based on the characteristic features of the particular grandmaster, will "think" quickly or slowly in critical moments of the game, sacrifice or take pawns and pieces, strive for the endgame or avoid it. The cassette will bring alive the creative touches of the grandmaster's work. Who will systematize the creativity of Tal, Botvinnik, or Karpov? This will be done by other special computers, as it will still be beyond the capabilities of people for a long time.
 
In the future, the Central Automated Service of the Chess House will appear, and you will be able to join by phone and play with the computer, if you wish, with your entire family. After the game, the computer will send you the energy bill and a copy of the game. From several games, you can make a collection and compare it with your grandfather's collection and be happy that although the strength of the grandson is less than that of the grandfather, the computer progresses from one tournament to another. Because computer championships will become as natural as running is now, and machine experience will become a common achievement.

In our attempt to glimpse into the future, the features of the present are clearly visible. This is inevitable, we understand this, perhaps only the emotional mood of our writing mixes these features a little more than a meticulous reader would like. Please be more forgiving, dear reader.
]]> Sun, 25 Dec 2022 13:14:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?chess-in-the-third-millennium-part-1 https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/00000001B <![CDATA[Confessions of a Grandmaster (part 2)]]> imblog
photo: Nona Gaprindashvili
Wikimedia Commons
How do you understand the beauty of chess?
SERGEY MAKARYCHEV.
In my opinion, the beauty of chess, like the beauty of mathematics, consists in a kind of mystery that sometimes turns out to be a small part of itself. The solution exists, but eludes us. Chess is based on intuitive decisions, and a good risk is always good. Creative risk also includes "sporting" risk. But purely "sporting" risk, which uses factors such as time pressure or some shortcomings of the opponent, does not make an aesthetic impression. An attempt to penetrate the mystery of an unyielding position analytically can lead to striking results. It's hard to believe what wealth is sometimes hidden behind the seemingly simple arrangement of chess pieces.


LEV POLUGAYEVSKY
I see the beauty of chess in the unusual moves, in non-standard solutions, and in the unconventional nature of the game. I'm not a fan of external effects, but of original extensions. It can also be beautiful to find a witty way out of a seemingly hopeless situation.


ARTURO POMAR
Spain.
The idea of beauty in chess is associated with a huge amount of risk. It's mostly about combination play and attack. But, of course, the endings of games can be beautiful as well. In any case, beauty is a very important and delicate part of chess.


LAYOS PORTIS
Hungary.
The beauty of chess is, of course, beautiful combinations, but above all when the outcome of a game logically follows from all the previous play.


YURI RAZUVAEV
Twenty years ago, in the first years of my acquaintance with chess, it was a fairy tale for me, and I played the role of the author. A great victory was a holiday for a long time, and a defeat was a bitter failure for my chess heroes. Time has changed my perception of chess, and now it completely coincides with the famous aphorism of Em. Lasker's famous aphorism: "Chess is a battle of the minds". The beauty of a chess game, in my opinion, includes: paradoxicality and richness of ideas, logic, chess drawing (visual perception of the pieces on the board). In addition, we are excited by the emotional side - only intense, full of struggle games attract our attention.


EVGENY SVESHNIKOV
I've been playing chess since I was five years old, but I've never really thought about how I understand its beauty. Today, this is a big, philosophical question for me, as chess occupies a very big place in my life. I consider chess to be first and foremost a struggle, a sport, and I fully agree with Karpov, and this is where I see its main beauty. Chess, especially in competitions at the highest level, is a struggle of characters, a competition of minds, just a clash of people with their different advantages and disadvantages.

It's a pity that only their games and chess ideas have survived from the old masters, but no idea of their emotions and experiences have been preserved. That's why the grandmasters' comments on their games and their memoirs are very valuable. Chess would benefit greatly if, along with the game recording, there was a video of the most crucial moments of the match. It was a great idea of D. I. Bronstein to keep a timekeeper of the games. By the way, many masters already keep such notes in their forms. This makes it possible to identify the most tense moments in the game more specifically later, and to conclude in which position important decisions were made.

In my opinion, a chess game is truly beautiful when it has pure chess beauty born in a fierce, hard-fought struggle between two opponents.


MARK TAYMANOV
In my opinion, the beauty of chess, like the charm of any art, lies in the harmonious combination of spirituality and the logic of creative design.


EUGENE TORRE
Philippines
Chess is like life. This is its special beauty. Because in a chess game, a person finds his or her self-affirmation. I can realize ideas, create brilliant combinations and effectively plan a strategy. And doesn't the ability of chess to cultivate such qualities as imagination, strong character, and the ability to concentrate on something important in people make it beautiful! And one more virtue, which, in my opinion, is very important for a person's entire life and emotional experience, is the art of not repeating one's mistakes, which chess certainly teaches.


WOLFGANG ULLMANN
Germany.
The beauty comes in a creatively and artistically executed middlespiel, following a successful opening, in which the scientific element is known to be important. The partners must demonstrate high skill in attack and defense. This should include an assessment of the position on which the strategic plan is based.

Another feature is the uniqueness of the game, which distinguishes it from many others played in competitions. Such a game pleases people of all ages and everywhere in the world where chess is played.


SALOMON FLOR.
I like games that may not look brilliant, but they have a logical course of struggle and can be interesting for their maneuvering strategy - regrouping of forces, their expedient, harmonious arrangement. From this point of view, the game I played with Feigin in Kemer (1937) suits my taste.


RATMYR KHOLMIV
I perceive the beauty of chess intuitively.


ROBERT HUBNER
Germany.
First, a few criteria for my understanding of beauty. Beauty is a formal concept. It affects the senses and evokes a sense of pleasure. Regularities can be perceived as beautiful phenomena if they are generated by the will of the creator. That is why art is a source of beauty. The natural laws of life are neither beautiful nor ugly; they have no criteria because no one created them.

During the game, the player is not looking for beautiful moves, but for expedient ones, with the help of which he can best achieve his goals (partial or final, mate or draw). Chess is played according to power laws,
which can be compared to physical laws. They naturally and inevitably follow from given conditions; chess is not an art.

No matter how beautiful the arrangement of the pieces on the board is, it will not have an aesthetic impact on the player. When analyzing a game, I cannot add other criteria and evaluations to it than those that guided me during the
at the time of the part.

Beauty as I understand it, as I said above, does not exist in this way in a chess game. (The game itself can be called a beautiful invention.) The feelings of pleasure associated with playing chess are of a different
mental and intellectual nature.

Thus, it is possible not to answer other questions:
I would only like to note that we should distinguish between the concepts of "beautiful" and "pleasing."


WLODZIMIERZ SCHMIDT
Poland.
I understand the beauty of chess as the triumph of idea over matter.

I.Linder "Aesthetics of chess"
]]> Fri, 16 Dec 2022 23:00:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?how-do-you-understand-the-beauty-of-chess-2 https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000014 <![CDATA[Confessions of a Grandmaster (part 1)]]> imblog
photo: Mikhail Tal
photo archive of the agency
How do you understand the beauty of chess?

ANATOLY KARPOV
Views on the beauty of chess change in different periods of life and creativity, just as a person's tastes and, for example, perception of certain books change over the years. At one time, one likes the logic of endings, at another - combination attacks on the king, and then - logically coherent, positional integrity of the game.

In general, chess is good because it is built on the finest nuances, which hide deep patterns and inexhaustible possibilities of chess. Therefore, with each game, something new is always discovered. This eternal novelty of chess is where its true beauty lies.
 
 
MIKHAIL BOTVINNIK
Only masters can have "good" games, because they (masters) exchange not only the average (unchanged) values of the pieces, but also their real values, which correspond to the real strength of the pieces at the moment of the fight. Average values are visible, real values are hidden. Only a deep analysis can tell us what these real values are. This depth of analysis makes an artistic impression on the chess audience.
 
 
TIGRAN PETROSYAN.
I think that there is no comprehensive definition of beauty in chess, in particular because the ability to feel beauty in chess depends to a great extent on the strength of the chess player, his chess outlook, and chess culture.

After all, while a double punch or a primitive knight's fork may look beautiful to a novice chess player, a strong chess player will not be surprised by these moves.

In order to contain the beginning of beauty, capable of delivering aesthetic joy, the feeling that permeates a person when he or she encounters beauty in all its forms, a chess game, a sketch, a task must contain something unexpected as an essential element. Given that everything trivial, familiar to perception cannot surprise us, we should conclude that the perception of beauty in chess is unthinkable without a touch of surprise. And yet, true beauty in chess never loses the charm of novelty.

In chess, both purely tactical findings and positional achievements can equally amaze the imagination. In this regard, the question arises: aren't works of chess composition the embodiment of beauty in chess? After all, any sketch - in the first place - or problem is a kind of demonstration of paradoxical moves, ideas, and positions. A composition is unthinkable without a figurative one, colored with witty, sometimes incredible from the point of view of the "prose" of practical play, tactical ideas, culminating in such final positions that sometimes take your breath away. But let us refrain from such a categorical assessment of the composition. After all, the author of a problem or sketch deals only with purely chess material, not being, in fact, constrained by time or the will and skill of the opponent sitting on the other side of the board.

 
VASILY SMYSLOV
Everything in nature is subject to the highest principle of harmony. It finds a vivid manifestation in many areas of creativity: in mathematics, music, chess... The amazing world of chess ideas and beauty is revealed in the logic of thought, in the richness of content. The latter, in turn, finds expression both in combination play with spectacular sacrifices and in seemingly simple positions. The true talent of an artist chess player lies in the constant search for harmony, in the ability to intuitively feel the coordination of the pieces. I get a special aesthetic pleasure when I manage to realize an idea in a vivid, relief way.
 
 
BORIS SPASSKY
For me, a professional chess player, the beauty of chess is primarily associated with the harmony of the content of the idea and the form of its realization. As I get older, I appreciate the economy, clarity, brevity and completeness of the form more and more. Perhaps the beauty of chess is most clearly manifested in chess compositions, in particular, in etudes.
 
 
MIKHAIL TAL
The question itself implies that this concept is subjective. Just as there is no criterion for a favorite composer, writer, etc., so the beauty of chess is sometimes perceived differently. For the most part, the beauty of logic, in my opinion, gives way to the effect of paradox.

 
MAX AVE.
I believe that this game has high aesthetic merits. They consist of both deep combinations based on intuition and deep calculation (their value increases even more if they are accompanied by "quiet" moves) and positional-sequential play full of "small" combinations - from the beginning to its successful completion.

 
It should be added that the combination game or positional maneuvering must lead to a positive result in this case, otherwise the game will have very limited aesthetic value.


GEDEON BARCA
Hungary.
In my opinion, the beauty of a chess game lies primarily in the fact that an inaccuracy made by the opponent is consistently and beautifully used. Thus, the spring of beauty is a mistake, but certainly not a rough view. Good decisions are possible only with small, so to speak, "minimal" mistakes. In addition, it is necessary that the opponent's defense or counterplay is of a sufficiently high level. Another condition for beauty is the consistent, internally unified, sometimes completely unexpected, but in no case stereotypical use of a mistake! And, of course, the beauty is enhanced if the game ends with a spectacular original sacrifice combination. But a sacrifice combination is not necessary for a game to make a great aesthetic impression. A game played consistently in the positional style can also be called aesthetic.

 
DAVID BRONSTEIN
The logic of thought.

 
EDUARD GOUFELD
Playing the best games played by masters on a chessboard, a person (who naturally understands chess) experiences emotions equivalent to those that he or she experiences, for example, when admiring masterpieces of fine art. By the way, I am sure that scientists can, by studying chess, judge to some extent the development of the culture of any era in general.

Considering the various components of chess, I consider this form of human activity to be an art. I am sure that 99.99 percent of chess players do not remember how many points Master A or B scored in a long-ago competition, say, in the first ever chess tournament in London in 1851, but I and many others clearly remember and can reproduce fragments of a match they liked. That's why you can regret the current fashionable pursuit of "points", but for those who truly love chess, it's not about points. I wouldn't trade my best games for a top ten finish in tournaments!

 
IGOR ZAITSEV
In my opinion, the true beauty of chess should be manifested in wit, grace, and exhaustive depth. In this case, it becomes the only meaning of the position. And this easily distinguishes it from the bright tinsel of superficial showiness. It is fascinating and beautiful in its own way to search for the deep mechanisms operating in a position. You can get closer to beauty only by penetrating the sphere of harmony of figures.

In individual terms, the perception of beauty is quite differentiated, and here the style, class of play, and age of the chess player make their own adjustments. The concept of beauty evolves in the minds of both an individual master and an entire generation of chess players. But the absolute standards of beauty of all time must remain unshakable.


ALEXANDER KOTOV
Chess values multifaceted beauty. As a mathematical engineer, for example, I like the clear logic of strategic plans. As a playwright, I like the surprise of explosive casualties, combinational breakthroughs, and the effective use of the enemy pieces' unfortunate position.
 
 
NIKOLAI KROGIUS
In the dialectical logic of chess, which is expressed in the non-trivial, creative nature of decisions, combined with the objective validity of ideas, economic form of implementation and maximum efficiency of the results achieved.

 
ANDOR LILIENTHAL
Hungary
In the endless, inexhaustible possibilities in all three stages of a chess game.

I.Linder "Aesthetics of chess"
]]> Thu, 15 Dec 2022 22:49:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?how-do-you-understand-the-beauty-of-chess-1 https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000013 <![CDATA[Valeriy Kurinsky, "When there is no governess..."]]> imblog
Author: Valery Kurinsky
CREATIVE REPETITION

Everyone knows that repetition is the mother of learning. One cannot learn without repetition. This is known by first-graders, students, and scholars alike. Everyone tries to repeat something constantly because living means knowing. But if a person does not know how to repeat correctly, they will always feel bad. We do not want to feel bad. Only one thing remains: to learn how to repeat in such a way that we feel pleasure.

Psychologists have long made the discovery that one can become interested in or love something only once -- just once. The next interest or love for something is already love for another object, which from the outside seems like the same thing. How is it that we can love our mother for so long or feel prolonged interest in a subject in school? Probably because every time we perceive this subject, our loved ones, or friends, we constantly notice a different facet of them, seeing them as if they were different. But they, too, whether they are living people or just a school subject, change, revealing new facets of their existence and arousing our interest. For example, mathematics in school does not stand still; it continues to develop, and when we continue to study it, we get to know it as if it were a different subject, because what we learn later has completely changed the previous understanding.

The beginning of a textbook, for example, in the eyes of a second-grader who has finished this textbook, seems different than on the first day of classes. Because the end influenced the beginning and thus changed it. It is essential to constantly keep in mind that everything changes. And you will learn much better if you yourself try not to lag behind life, but to change your perspective.

This is a beautiful expression - "perspective". Let's try to change this perspective in the literal sense of the word. We place a vase on a table, look at it approaching the table from the right side. Then we approach from the left, look - and it's already a different vase! Without touching it, we seem to have changed it because we looked at it differently - different reflections appeared, different contours, and even its color seems different. There were no scratches or cracks from the right side, but there are from the left. And if we take a photo of the vase from the left side, it will naturally be the same vase in the photo, but different.

Of course, we can also change our perception without moving by looking at different parts of an object (in this case, we chose a vase). We can look at the base of the vase, the middle, or the top, as if changing our viewing angle. We can also vary our repetition or refrain by breaking down the text into smaller parts. Examining it will help diversify our repetition.

To repeat a lesson effectively, we must first give ourselves the task of repeating the text completely differently each time. For example, with different accents, sometimes loudly, sometimes quietly, emphasizing the intonational rises and falls. At the same time, we should focus most of our attention on the performance of the text, and then on the meaning. A different performance will allow us to see the object from a different perspective, like the hypothetical vase mentioned earlier. A new repetition of the same text will practically change the text for your body. In other words, the body will not get tired, so you will gain energy again. And if you have gained energy, you will come to school fresh and healthy.

NB:
This is a guidebook, a roadmap to creating oneself, one's own personality, and a reliable assistant for communicating with children about acquiring knowledge. Who wouldn't want to become a Master in their craft?! This book provides tools for achieving mastery on your own. How? Without force, with interest! Unconventionally: by simultaneously studying several foreign languages! With diligent work, but with the daily experience of elation and joy: I can do this! Eureka!

Valeriy Kurinskiy (1939-2015) was the author of a self-education and self-development system for individuals (Post-Psychological Autodidacticism) and he mastered several dozen foreign languages using his system. He was a well-known philosopher, writer, and poet, as well as a musician and composer.

"When There Is No Governess..." is about the search for one's own talent, the philosophy of a new way of life, and the organization of creative self-education. Valeriy Kurinskiy shares his discoveries about mastering the art of managing one's own interests and life. The author emphasizes that it is unacceptable to be outside the elite of Masters today.

]]> Fri, 25 Nov 2022 00:48:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?valerii-kurinskyi-koly-nemaie-huvernantky https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000003 <![CDATA[Alfred Binet. Biography and work of the father of testable intelligence]]> imblog
Alfred Binet was a French psychologist, educator, and graphologist known for his contributions to experimental psychology, differential psychometrics, and especially for his contributions to education. He is considered the father of the intelligence test.

Among his most prominent works, and for which he is most recognized, is that he was the creator, together with Theodore Simon, of the School Performance Prediction Test. This test, designed to measure intelligence, was the basis of what we know today as intelligence tests, as well as the creation of the intelligence quotient (IQ).

Binet, a native of Nice, France, was born on July 8, 1857, but after his parents' separation when he was still very young, he moved to Paris permanently under the care of his mother, an artist of the time. He lived, studied and died in this city on October 18, 1911.

Education and Influences

The academic world for Alfred Binet did not begin in psychology. At the end of high school, he studied law, a career he finished in 1878.

Six years later he married, and at the same time he returned to studying, this time in the field of medicine at the University of Paris, with the support of his wife's father, French embryologist Edouard-Gérard Balbiani.

However, self-education was what interested him the most, so he spent a lot of time in the library. It was there that he became interested in psychology, reading articles and works on the discipline.

Binet was interested in the postulates of the famous scientist Charles Darwin and Scottish philosopher Alexander Bain. But it was John Stuart Mill who determined the course of his career, especially for the theories he developed in the field of intelligence, a subject that became a key element in his career as a psychologist.

The Beginning of his Career

The beginning of his professional career was in 1883, as a researcher in the neurological clinic Pitié-Salpêtrière. He received accusations before specializing in psychology, but his individual preparation bore fruit, for which he became known.



Binet came to this institution thanks to the French doctor Charles Fere, and worked under the direction of Jean-Martin Charcot, the clinic's president, who became his mentor in the field of hypnosis, in which he became a specialist.

Charcot's work with hypnosis had a great influence on Binet. And his interest in hypnosis was the result of his work in collaboration with Charles Fere. Both researchers discovered a phenomenon they called transference and perceptual and emotional polarization.

Unfortunately, these studies did not receive approval from experts in the field. It was known that the subjects being studied had knowledge of what was expected of them in the experiment, so they simply pretended.

This meant failure for Binet and Fere, and under Charcot's pressure, he had to publicly admit the mistake, leaving the head of the investigation free from disgrace.

Binet based his entire career on this research, and by abandoning it, he decided to leave the La Salpêtrière laboratory in 1890. This public failure made him lose interest in hypnosis.

After the birth of his two daughters, Madeline (1885) and Alice (1887), the researcher became interested in a new research topic: cognitive development.

In 1891, Binet met with Henri Beaunis, a physiologist and psychologist who created the laboratory of psychophysics in 1889, an experimental laboratory of psychology at the Sorbonne.

It was in this institution that Binet began studying the relationships between physical development and intellectual development. Soon after starting his work in this area, he began introducing students to the field of mental processes.

In 1894, Binet became the director of the laboratory, which he held until his death. That same year, Binet and Beaunis founded the French annual psychology journal, L'Annee Psychologique.

Binet held the positions of director and chief editor of the journal. In addition, during the first years when he was in charge of the laboratory, psychiatrist Theodore Simon contacted Binet and became his doctoral thesis advisor.

Binet agreed to supervise the work of Simon, who received his doctorate in 1900. This would be the beginning of a long and fruitful relationship between the two professionals.

Cognitive Development Research: Chess and Intelligence

In 1984, as the director of the experimental psychology laboratory at Sorbonne, Binet had complete independence to conduct his research. One of Binet's first psychological studies was focused on chess. The researcher's goal was to learn about the cognitive abilities that chess players possessed.

According to his hypothesis, the ability to play chess was determined by a certain phenomenological quality: visual memory. However, after analyzing the results of his tests, he concluded that although memory does have an impact, it is not everything. In other words, visual memory in this case is only part of the entire cognitive process that influences the development of the game of chess.



To conduct the study, players were deprived of their vision throughout the entire game. The idea was to make them play from memory. The researcher found that amateur players and even those who had played for some time were unable to perform the game. However, these players had no problem with blindfolded play.

With these observations, Binet came to the conclusion that being a good chess player not only required visual memory but also experience and creativity. He found that even if a player has good visual memory, he can still have awkward play if he lacks other skills.

On the other hand, Binet also conducted research on cognitive development focused on intelligence. The birth of his daughters forced him to work in this field.

For this reason, in 1903, he published a book entitled L'analyse expérimentale de l'intelligence (Experimental Studies in Intelligence), where he analyzed about 20 subjects. However, the central themes of this work were his daughters, Madeline, who in the book became Marguerite, and Alice, who became Armande.

After analyzing each of the girls, Binet concluded that Marguerite (Madeleine) was an objectivist, while Armande (Alice) was a subjectivist. Marguerite thought in a precise manner, had a great ability for attention, practical intelligence, but little imagination, and had a great interest in the external world.

In contrast, Armande's thinking was not so well-defined. He was easily distracted, but had a great imagination. His powers of observation were poor, and he was detached from the external world.

Thus, Binet was able to develop the concept of self-analysis and introspection long before Carl Jung spoke about psychological types. Therefore, Binet's research, together with his daughters, helped him to improve his concept of intellectual development, especially in relation to the importance of attention potential and suggestion in intellectual development.

After adopting this approach, Binet's career led him to publish over 200 books, articles, and reviews in various areas of psychology, such as what is now known as experimental psychology, developmental psychology, educational psychology, social psychology, and differential psychology.

On the other hand, experts in this field suggest that Binet's works may have influenced Jean Piaget, who in 1920 was working with Theodore Simon, Binet's co-author.

Binet-Simon Scale

In 1899, Binet began forming part of the Société Libre pour l'Etude Psychologique de l'Enfant (Société Libre pour l'Etude Psychologique de l'Enfant), a socialist school for the psychological study of children. In 1904, the French Ministry of Public Education established compulsory education for all children.

When this law came into effect, it was observed that children came to school with very different levels of education. Therefore, classifying them by age proved to be an ineffective method.



To solve this problem, the government of France created a commission for the education of backward children. The goal was to create a tool that would allow the identification of students who might need special education. Binet and other members of society were tasked with this mission, giving birth to the Binet-Simon scale.

Binet determined that it was impossible to assess a person's intellectual ability by measuring physical attributes. For this reason, he rejected the biometric method advocated by psychologist Francis Galton.

Binet proposed a method in which intelligence would be calculated based on a series of tasks that required understanding, vocabulary mastery, arithmetic ability, among others.

Based on this idea, Binet developed the first test that allowed differentiation of two types of students: those who possess skills that would allow them to adapt to the normal educational system, and those who would need additional reinforcement to adapt.

In addition, this test also pointed out the shortcomings of these students. These problems were identified in his book "L'Etude experimentale de l'intelligence" (Experimental Studies of Intelligence).

But this work did not end there. Binet conducted a new investigation, but this time he collaborated with his former student, psychiatrist Theodore Simon. The two experts worked on developing a new test that would measure mental age (the average ability of a person - a child - at a certain age). Thus, in 1905, the first Binet-Simon scale was born.

In 1908, this scale was revised, during which new tests were discarded, modified, and added. The goal was to be able to adapt the requirements of these tests in order to apply them to children aged 3 to 13.

The scale created by Binet and Simon consisted of thirty tasks that became progressively more challenging. The simplest tasks involved actions such as following light with the eyes or moving the hands according to a series of instructions given by the examiner. Such tasks could be easily solved by all children, including those with serious delays.

In the case of somewhat more difficult tasks, children were asked to quickly point to certain parts of the body or to count backwards from three to three. And in more complex tasks, children were asked to identify differences between two objects, draw from memory, or construct sentences using groups of three words.

Finally, the ultimate level of difficulty related to asking children to repeat random sequences of up to seven digits, find rhymes for a given word, and answer certain questions.

The results of these tests would lead to a child's mental age, allowing their place within the education system to be determined. Binet noted in his research that different types of existing intelligence could only be studied qualitatively.

Furthermore, he observed that the surrounding environment had an impact on a person's progressive intellectual development. Thus, he concluded that retardation was not solely a genetic problem, and delays in children could be remedied through reinforcement.

In 1911, Binet published the third revision of the Binet-Simon scale, but it was not complete. The investigator was never able to finish it due to his sudden death from a stroke. Later, the Binet-Simon scale was translated into English and adapted to the American education system. It was renamed the Stanford-Binet scale.

Thpanorama
]]> Tue, 18 Oct 2022 08:31:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?alfred-binet-biography-robot-father-test-intelligence-chess https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000006 <![CDATA[Just for the sake of honor: a crazy chess champion from the United States - God's spark at the age of 9, phenomenal memory, won by giving a head start]]> imblog
photo: Paul Morpgy
Wikimedia Commons

Author:
Volodymyr Voytyuk

Chess should never be anything other than simple entertainment. It should remain just a game that can be used to refresh your mind after serious professional work.
Paul Morphy
In the early 1880s, a small man in a fashionable suit with an expensive pince-nez on his nose often walked the streets of New Orleans. From a distance, he could appear to passersby as the epitome of elegance. However, the first impression was deceptive. As people came closer, they realized that this man was not at home. He would mutter to himself or laugh for no reason. When someone got too close to him, he would start to drive away the intruder by waving his cane. The man also loved "hunting". When a woman caught his eye, he could follow his "victim" in the shadows for several hours.



And the man was also afraid that someone wanted to poison him. Therefore, he only ate food that his mother or sister cooked for him. At the time, he resembled a hippie because he refused to go to hairdressers. The man claimed that local barbers had long conspired and if he ended up in their hands, they would instantly cut his throat. The family wanted to send the man to a mental hospital.

However, when his mother and sister were already happily rubbing their hands, hoping that he would finally be cured, he once again proved that he wasn't as insane as he often seemed. Upon arriving at the hospital, the man began to cite laws that prohibited his detention in the institution against his will. Therefore, the management of the mental hospital refused to admit the patient. "We don't need problems," the disappointed mother and sister were told by the administration. After that, the oddball returned to his usual walks around New Orleans.

City residents considered him a typical madman. But those who were interested in chess told a story that no one wanted to believe. They thought they were just being lied to. "Why are you fooling around? How could this lunatic be the best chess player in the world? Don't think I'm stupid enough to believe your fairy tales," said these colleagues of Thomas the Apostle. However, they were wrong. It was a sincere truth. This man was Paul Morphy, the best chess player in history according to Robert Fischer. Interestingly, towards the end of his life, Fischer hated the game that made him world-famous so much that he burned everything that reminded him of chess. The American did not want to talk about them, let alone sit down at the board. He usually punched people who called him Paul Morphy, the best chess player in the world. It is difficult to say what caused the sudden downfall of the brilliant American. But here's a story that has been passed down about the beginning of Morphy's career.

In 1846, young Paul sat on the porch of his family's luxurious home in New Orleans, watching a chess battle between his uncle Ernest and his father, a Louisiana Supreme Court judge. After a few hours, the opponents shook hands, agreeing to a draw, and mixed up the pieces. It was then that nine-year-old Paul appeared on the chess scene for the first time: "Uncle, you were supposed to win." To prove his point, the boy set up the position that had just been on the board and showed the way to victory. "You make a rook move, Dad has to take it, and then it's all simple." The shocked father and uncle couldn't help but agree with the young boy. Perhaps it is from this legend that the roots of the legend of how Capablanca learned to play chess by watching his father's games grow.



A few days later, Lieutenant General Winfield Scott arrived in New Orleans on his way to the American-Mexican War and stopped in the Louisiana capital. He was reputed to be a strong chess player, so he asked his friend to find him a worthy opponent. In reality, Winfield's reputation as a strong player was due to his long tongue, as he only played with very weak opponents who often succumbed to the all-powerful general. His friend quickly found a quality opponent, and Scott happily headed to the chess club on Royal Street. It was there that Paul began his journey to the royal throne. When the general saw his opponent, he thought his friend had decided to play a trick on him. Sitting in front of Scott was a sniffler whose legs dangled from the chair without reaching the floor. Winfield got up from the table and wanted to leave the game room. However, his friend assured the general that the boy was a serious opponent. Scott soon discovered this for himself. The boy knocked out the portly general in two games, with the defeat in the last one being particularly humiliating. In that game, Scott was checkmated on the sixth move (some sources write about ten moves).

Paul had a phenomenal memory, which meant he rarely recorded his games. He didn't need to. He simply remembered them. Uncle Ernest wrote about the genius's first steps: "Despite the fact that the boy had not read any chess books, he intuitively makes the correct moves in the opening and confidently leads the game in the middlegame and endgame. When Paul sits at the chessboard, you cannot read any emotion on his face. Even in the most critical situations, he quietly whistles a song and stubbornly searches for a combination that will help him get out of trouble."

In 1850, 12-year-old Paul met Johann Löwenthal, a Hungarian political refugee (who participated in the Hungarian revolution of 1848-49 and then fled to the New World), who was considered one of the best players in Europe. At first, the maestro showed no interest in playing against the boy. Johann had already had similar confrontations with chess prodigies and typically defeated them with ease. However, he agreed to play a few games with Paul out of respect for his father. Early on in the game, Löwenthal realized that he was up against a formidable opponent. "After Paul made a strong move, Johann's eyebrows comically rose up," recalled the boy's uncle. The two opponents played three games in total, with two ending in the young genius's victory, and one resulting in a draw (some sources claim that Morphy won all the games).

In 1850, Paul began his studies at Spring Hill College (Mobile, Alabama). There, he was elected president of the Dramatic Society and proved to be a very skillful actor. Morphy was even given the challenging task of playing a woman. In college, he was considered one of the best performers of the role of Portia in Shakespeare's "The Merchant of Venice." Paul hated sports, and this is not surprising given that the small Morphy (his height was around 163 cm) had no chance in competitions against athletic classmates. He took a few fencing lessons, but soon gave up the sword. And as for chess, you may ask? Morphy hardly played the game, as he never took it seriously. Paul played a few games with his friends in the summer of 1853. However, he quickly lost interest in these battles. Beating babies did not give him any satisfaction. Even when he gave his opponents a queen's head start, it did not help them in the least.



Paul brilliantly finished college, receiving the highest grades in the history of Spring Hill. Upon returning home, the young man enrolled in Louisiana University, where he obtained his law degree in 1857. One of the boy's favorite pastimes was quoting from any part of a 1000-page legal Talmud, and Paul's perfect memory worked wonders. However, despite his degree, the 20-year-old Morphie could not begin his legal practice as he was still a minor. So the young man remembered his passion for chess (he didn't have to worry about earning a living, his family was considered one of the wealthiest in New Orleans). He no longer wanted to defeat just some generals or European touring players. He set himself an ambitious goal - to become the best chess player in the world. "Paul understood his strength perfectly and never doubted for a moment that he would soon become a chess king," recalled his friend Charles Maurian.

Morphie was incredibly lucky. In 1857, the New York Chess Club organized the First American Chess Congress. The tournament was held according to the Olympic scheme, and to advance to the next round, one had to win three victories. Paul immediately began sweeping away his opponents. Thus, in his first game, the young man won in 21 moves. Morphie acted with lightning speed. While his opponents thought about each move for tens of minutes (there were no chess clocks yet), the genius found the exact move that brought him closer to the enemy king in a few turns of the second hand. The day before the tournament, German immigrant Louis Paulsen was considered his main favorite. Confirming his strength, he confidently made it to the final, where Morphie awaited him. On the way to the title match, the opponents did not lose a single game. Now someone's streak had to be interrupted.

The first blow in his debut game was dealt by Paul. The second ended in a draw. And in the third, Paulsen achieved the impossible - to irritate always smiling and friendly Paul. Louis defeated his opponent with long deliberations on each move. Paulsen's "record" in that match was an impressive 75 minutes. Sometimes that was enough time for Paul to win the game. Morphy lost his patience - he made a mistake and surrendered. Paulsen rubbed his hands in joy, thinking he had finally found the keys to Morphy's perfect game. But it didn't turn out as he had expected.

Soon after his defeat in the third game, Morphy had lunch with another tournament participant, William Fuller. "He was furious. Paul couldn't accept that Louis outplayed him. I had never seen Morphy like that. Paulsen won't win another game against me," William recalled. Paul kept his word. After a draw in the next game, he won the next four and earned his first title. For the next month, Morphy enjoyed life in New York, where he was given royal honors. Chess Monthly was captivated by the champion's human qualities: "His good luck, modesty, and gentlemanly qualities impressed everyone who knew Morphy."

After winning the tournament, Paul threw down the gauntlet to all chess players who wanted to play him with a pawn and move handicap. The challenge was accepted by Charles Stanley, the first U.S. champion. However, he had won this title back in 1845, and Morphy simply swept the veteran aside. Stanley understood that he and Paul were in different weight categories, so he surrendered after only five games. Charles won only one of them, receiving four losses (the match was supposed to be played until one of the opponents won seven times). Morphy tried to entice American Chess Congress participant James Thompson with the same handicap, but he refused, claiming that such conditions were beneath him. "I'm not so desperate as to play against Morphy with a handicap," James insisted.



After Paul's triumphant return from Europe, Thompson forgot his pride and agreed to test his skills against Morphy, who played without a horse. Paul easily dealt with his compatriot. This victory, considering the strength of the opponent, is considered one of the greatest achievements of the unofficial world champion. In total, Paul will play 100 games without a handicap in the city of the Big Apple, of which he will win 87, and 8 will end in a draw. Impressive result.

Americans wanted to prove that their champion was the strongest. They set their sights on the Englishman Howard Staunton. It was difficult to call him the best player in the world. But he was the most hyped (by the way, Howard came up with the design of a chess set, which is now considered standard), so a victory over him could bring great fame to an American. The New Orleans Chess Club tried to tempt the Englishman with a whopping prize of $5,000 (by the way, the prize fund of the first official world championship match, which took place almost 30 years later, was only $4,000). In case of defeat, Howard received $1,000. However, Staunton refused the prospect of winning the jackpot, citing that he did not want to go to the ends of the earth. Morphy decided: if the mountain will not come to Mohammed, then Mohammed will go to the mountain. Paul came to the tournament in Birmingham, hoping to challenge Staunton after it, who could no longer avoid a showdown on his home turf. However, Paul was wrong. The tournament was postponed, and Staunton again refused to sit at the board with Morphy.

Then Frederick Edge, a bright journalist who was both the secretary and PR manager of the American, attacked the Englishman. He called Howard a coward without mincing words. Staunton did not remain in debt: "The American wants us to play in England just for prestige. How can he challenge me without providing the proper financial conditions for the match? Morphy is not a gentleman, but a professional and an adventurer." Morphy parried Howard's attack: "I'm not a professional at all, and I emphasize once again that I don't want to profit from my game. Making money through chess is dishonest."

Translate the text into English: "Staunton can be understood. Many players were almost begging, as chess was their only source of income. And rich Morphy could only play "for the sake of honor". By the way, Paul's words were consistent with his actions. Money never mattered to Morphy during his chess career. He even refused the main prize of $300 for his victory at the First American Chess Congress. When the American won a match against his old friend Leventhal in London, he learned that the Hungarian was near bankruptcy. Johann hoped to fill the gap in his budget with the fee from the match with Morphy. But Paul left him no chance. Morphy could not leave his friend in trouble and made him a royal gift - furniture for Leventhal's apartment, which the American purchased with the money he won from the match with the Hungarian.

Having defeated all the best players in England (except Staunton), Morphy swam across the English Channel and visited the Parisian cafe "La Regence", the cathedral of European chess at the time. Shortly after arriving in France, he played a game with Alphonse Delannua, a collaborator of the first chess magazine in history, "Palamede". A funny episode happened during the game. When Delannua took Morphy's bishop, he exclaimed, "Why did you have to come all the way from America to Europe to make such terrible mistakes?" Alphonse hurried a little. Six moves later, he was checkmated. Next, Morphy faced a challenge from the unofficial champion of "La Regence," Daniel Harwitz.

At first, it seemed that this confrontation would be the toughest in Morphy's career. The match was played up to seven wins. To warm up, the participants played an easy game, which was won by Harwitz. After two serious battles, the score was 2-0 in favor of Daniel. However, Morphy quickly adapted to the "Regency" champion's style and won four games in a row. Harwitz wanted to take a time-out, citing illness, and the American agreed. After a draw in the 7th game and Morphy's triumph in the 8th, Daniel began complaining about his health again. This time, the American did not believe Harwitz, calling his "illness" a trickster's inflammation. The match referee, sculptor Leken, agreed with Paul and awarded Morphy the victory.

Now, in order to earn the right to be considered the best player in the world, Paul needed to defeat the then-unofficial world champion, Adolf Anderssen. However, there were significant difficulties in organizing the match. The German worked as a math teacher in a gymnasium in Breslau and could only come to Paris during the Christmas holidays. At first, Paul refused to wait for his opponent. However, Edge convinced him to stay and prove his own strength in a match against the monumental German. Interestingly, Paul partially took on Andersen's travel expenses. Unfortunately, shortly before the match, the American caught gastroenteritis. The doctors of the time treated him with leeches, so Morphy lost a lot of blood. The doctors barely allowed the American to participate in the match. However, the first games had to be played in Paul's hotel room, as the weakened Morphy could not stand on his feet.

In his debut match, Andersen defeated an ill American, and in the next one, he proved that gastroenteritis was not a hindrance for him and restored the status quo against Morphy. From then on, only Paul was on stage. In the 9th game, the American smashed the German in about 17 moves, and the duel lasted only half an hour. In the next game, Andersen took revenge in 77 moves. After that, Adolf sadly joked: "Morphy beats me in 17 moves, and I beat him in 77." The 11th game was the final in this battle of titans. The match ended with a score of +7=2-2 in favor of Morphy.

Andersen complained that he was not in shape, but acknowledged that Paul was much stronger than him, and in his best shape, he would not have been able to oppose the American. "Morphy defends wonderfully and can not only save a draw but also win in a seemingly hopeless position. At the same time, Paul strikes a deadly blow when he gets a promising position. It's impossible to fight against him. He plays precisely and flawlessly like a mechanism, while I am just a simple mortal. In my opinion, Morphy is the best player in history."

sport24.ua
]]> Thu, 29 Sep 2022 16:33:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?honors-crazy-us-chess-champion-gods-spark-years-phenomenal-memory-won-giving-head-start https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000015 <![CDATA[The most interesting and surprising facts about the human brain]]> imblog
New data on how the human brain works is emerging almost every day. However, what humanity currently knows about the brain is a very small part of the overall picture. To summarize the known data on brain function, we have selected some of the most interesting and strange facts about this mysterious human organ.
On average, the brain generates 25,000 to 50,000 thoughts a day. It is estimated that for most people, 70% of these thoughts are negative. In addition, more than 100,000 chemical reactions take place in the brain every second.

The capabilities of the brain of men and women are similar. Although male and female hormones affect brain development differently, studies have found differences in the areas of the brain responsible for pain tolerance, stress response, and decision-making. In another study that analyzed about half a million girls and boys from 69 countries, no major brain differences in math ability were found.

    When you are in love, your brain lights up. When a person focuses their attention on the object of their love, a whole set of parts of the brain begins to glow. It turned out that the caudate nucleus (responsible for controlling conscious movements) is very active in people in love. Also, the areas of the brain responsible for the production of dopamine and norepinephrine (chemicals associated with excitement and pleasure) light up. That is why lovers can talk all night, walk until dawn, and easily change their lifestyle.

      When you are tired, your brain is able to do better creative work. This may sound like a no-brainer, but let's take a look at the reason behind it. When you try to do creative work when you're tired, your brain won't have the energy to be distracted and will focus more on the task at hand.

        For the brain, multitasking is impossible. Most people think they can do two or more things at the same time, but it turns out that multitasking is almost impossible for the human mind. What we do is called context switching - quickly shifting our attention between different activities rather than tackling them simultaneously.

        Stress can change the size of the brain. Some studies have shown signs of a decrease in brain size as a result of stress. For example, in rats exposed to chronic stress, the volume of the hippocampus (responsible for the transition of short-term memory to long-term memory) was severely reduced. In another study, monkeys that had been weaned from their mothers, even after returning to normal social conditions for several months, showed an increase in brain areas associated with stress.

        The brain has a pleasure center. It lets us know when something feels good, and then it strengthens the desire to do the same pleasurable things again. This center is responsible for the reward circuitry that trains people to repeat all sorts of pleasurable actions, from sex to laughter, and is perhaps the main cause of drug addiction and other addictions.

          Crazy brain surgery. Our ancestors performed skull surgeries as far back as 7000 BC. Such an operation is called trepanation, a long-standing surgical intervention in which a hole was drilled in the skull to treat severe headaches, brain diseases, or to free the head from an "evil spirit." A tool called a trephine was used for the operation (it was used to cut out round areas of the skull), and the process was extremely painful.

          You can teach your brain to manage time. You can trick your brain into thinking that time is moving more slowly by doing new things. When we receive a lot of new information, our brains need time to process it. The longer this processing takes, the longer the period feels. For example, a life-threatening event or a lot of stress causes the brain to pay more attention to it, so a person remembers this time as longer because the brain records more experiences. On the other hand, if the brain doesn't have to process a lot of information, time seems to move faster. Do you remember the moments when you were happy and time seemed to fly by very quickly?

            Short-term sleep improves brain performance. We all know how important sleep is for our brains, but what about naps? It turns out that your brain can benefit from a nap. It helps improve memory and makes learning better. According to a recent study, the right side of the brain is much more active than the left during a short nap. Despite the fact that 95% of the population is right-handed and the left side of the brain is the most dominant, the right side is consistently more active during sleep. So, while the left side of the brain is resting, the right side clears temporary memories, moves certain information to long-term memory, which stores the main moments of the day.

            The smell of chocolate stimulates the brain. The smell of chocolate affects the theta waves of the brain, which cause a feeling of relaxation. Flavanoids, which are rich in cocoa beans, improve memory and enhance thinking abilities when solving logical problems.

              The brain is quite heavy. The average adult brain weighs from 1.2 kilograms to 1.4 kilograms, or about 2% of body weight. And the volume is 1130 cc in women and 1260 cc in men. About 80% of the contents of the skull is brain, and the rest is fluid that protects nerve tissue and cerebrospinal fluid. If you combine all this cerebrospinal fluid and blood, it will be about 1.7 liters.

              The brain never stops changing. Research has shown that the adult brain has the ability to create new neural pathways, just like the brain of a child. In addition, studies on meditation have shown that vigorous psychological training can change both the structure and function of the brain. Another interesting fact is that one hour and a half of sweating can temporarily shrink the brain by almost as much as one year of aging. In addition, just 5 minutes without oxygen can cause serious brain damage.

                People who make mistakes are more likable to us. According to the mistake effect, the perceived attractiveness of an individual increases or decreases (depending on his or her competence and behavior) after he or she makes a mistake. In essence, those who never make mistakes are perceived by the brain as less attractive and likable than those who make occasional mistakes.

                Introverts and extroverts have different brains. Introversion and extraversion are the result of different connections in the brain. The difference lies in the way they process stimuli. Stimulation entering our brains is processed differently based on personality. For introverts, stimuli flow through a long, complex pathway in areas of the brain associated with planning, remembering, and problem solving. For extroverts, on the other hand, the pathway is much shorter. It passes through the area where the sense of taste, touch, visual and auditory sensory processing takes place. Moreover, the difference in the dopamine system in the extrovert's brain stimulates them to seek novelty, take risks, and enjoy unfamiliar or surprising situations more than introverts.

                  Large volume of capacity. The brain contains about 1 billion neurons, and each neuron forms about 1000 connections with other neurons. These combine so that each connects to many memories at once, exponentially increasing the brain's memory capacity to 2.5 petabytes. This means that your brain can store 3 million hours of show programs. To utilize this amount of information, you would have to watch TV for more than 300 years.

                  Memory is more of an activity than a place. Temporary memory is divided and distributed to different parts of our brain. When you turn on the memory process, the brain reconstructs these individual fragments.

                  Brain cells eat themselves. When a person is hungry, the hunger neurons in the brain start eating themselves. This act of self-cannibalism is a hunger signal that a person needs to eat something quickly. This explains why it is so difficult for people to stick to a diet.

                    Brain power. The human brain needs 20% of the metabolic rate (metabolism), i.e. the total amount of energy that the body spends at rest in one day. If the average resting metabolic rate is 1300 calories, then the brain takes in 260 of those calories to function properly. If we convert calories into joules and watts, this volume is enough for the brain to generate about 12 watts of electricity. If the brain is working on a certain intense/difficult task, this figure can be as high as 25W. This amount of electricity is enough to power a low-power LED lamp.

                    Alcohol affects memory. First of all, alcohol destroys the ability to form new long-term memories. If you increase the amount of alcohol you consume, it will lead to a decrease in memory capacity. If you've been drinking alcohol and don't remember what happened last night, it's not because you've forgotten something. It's because alcohol has made your brain unable to form new memories.

                      We use 100% of our brains. Until recently, there was a false haze, shared by Albert Einstein, that we only use 10% of our brain. In fact, we use almost every part of the brain and most parts remain active all the time (even during sleep). Most of the cells are used to control unconscious actions such as heart rate, dreams, etc.

                      The brain develops at an incredible rate. During the development of an infant, 250,000 neurons are created every minute. By the age of 2, the brain is about 80% of the size of an adult brain.

                      The speed of the brain. Information in the brain travels at different speeds in different types of nerve cells. These signals can be slow (about 1.61 km/h) or very fast (about 430 km/h). In addition, nerve cells can transmit 1000 nerve impulses per second.

                        The backup brain. The brain in your head is not the only brain. There is a "secondary brain" in your belly that affects your mood, your reaction to what you eat, the types of diseases you get, and the decisions you make. It contains 100,000 neurons, and gut bacteria that are responsible for more than 30 neurotransmitters, including serotonin (the "happy hormone").

                        The brain does not feel pain. Although any pain is processed in the brain, the brain itself has no pain receptors and does not feel pain. It is a tool that the body uses to detect pain. This explains the possibility of brain surgery without anesthesia, and the patient will not feel any pain or discomfort during this time.

                          The brain is a powerful computer. The 4th most powerful supercomputer in the world took 40 minutes to simulate just one second of human brain activity. This computer had 705024 processor cores and 1.4 million. GB of RAM. Currently, there is no computer that can simulate brain activity in real time.

                          The brain is a radio transmitter. The human brain is also a radio transmitter that sends out a measurable electric wave. In fact, it continues to send these signals even for 37 hours after death.

                          SebWeo.com
                          ]]>                           Wed, 14 Sep 2022 14:30:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?most-interesting-strange-facts-about-human-brain https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000007                           <![CDATA[Quote of the day: what Albert Einstein said about imagination and fantasy]]> imblog
                          Albert Einstein, the genius of the 20th century, winner of the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics, was very fond of fantasizing and imagining. After all, no scientific discovery is possible without it.
                          He once said:
                          "Logic can take you from point A to point B, but imagination can take you anywhere."

                          "Imagination is the most important thing, it is a reflection of what we attract into our lives," Einstein also said.

                          "Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited, whereas imagination covers the whole world, stimulating progress and generating evolution."

                          "Our beliefs and perceptions are often a trap that limits our possibilities. The only knowledge that can move us forward is the knowledge that imagination is capable of anything. And whatever is possible in our imagination is possible in reality."
                          5.ua
                          ]]>                           Wed, 17 Aug 2022 20:15:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?quote-day-said-albert-einstein-imagination-fantasy https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/00000000E                           <![CDATA[Ways to improve the process of training chess players]]> imblog
                          Shankovskyi A. Z.
                          PhD in Physical Education and Sports, Associate Professor
                          Associate Professor of the Department of Physical Education and Sports, International Chess Master
                          Ivano-Frankivsk National Technical University of Oil and Gas
                          Ulizko V. M.
                          PhD in Physical Education and Sports, Associate Professor,
                          Associate Professor of the Department of Physical Education and Sports,
                          Ivano-Frankivsk National Technical University of Oil and Gas
                          Boichuk R. I,
                          PhD in Physical Education and Sports,
                          Associate Professor, Associate Professor of the Department of Physical Education and Sports,
                          Ivano-Frankivsk National Technical University of Oil and Gas

                          With the development of modern technologies, chess is becoming more and more popular every day. Chess helps to develop concentration, the ability to overcome difficulties, plan your own actions, think logically, etc. Since chess reveals the qualities of a human personality, it is used as a model for scientific research in psychology and pedagogy. The system of chess classes
                          chess training system, by identifying and developing individual abilities, forming a progressive personality orientation, contributes to the overall development and education of the younger generation. They are also used to model artificial intelligence systems. The issues of chess players' training and continuous improvement require the attention of athletes and coaches. Only with the right approach to the training process is an effective result possible. The article describes the classification of chess players by rating, categories, and titles. The training of chess players in modern realities is also considered.

                          Shankovskyi A., Ulizko V., Boichuk R. Ways to improve chess training. With the development of modern technologies, chess sports are becoming more and more popular every day. Chess contributes to the development of concentration of attention, the ability to overcome difficulties, to plan their own actions, to think logically. They are also used to model artificial intelligence systems. As the game of chess manifests the qualities of the human person, they are used as a model for scientific research in psychology and pedagogy. The system of chess classes, identifying and developing personal abilities, forming a progressive orientation of the personality, contributes to the general development and education of the younger generation. Study of possibility of improvement of training process in chess sport on the basis of targeted study of professionally significant intellectual functions of chess players - one of worthy tasks of specialists in the field of medicine, regardless of specialization. They are also used to model artificial intelligence systems. The training of chess players and continuous improvement require the attention of athletes and coaches. Only with the right approach to the training process can an effective result be possible. The use of modern computer technology greatly expands the trainer’s ability to train athletes. With the use of chess computer programs, it becomes possible to carry out more detailed information-retrieval, training and play functions, develop skills and skills of chess skill athlete at all stages of the chess game. Also, their use will help to carry out the optimal search for sparring partners on game portals, to conduct distance training and get operational information. The article describes the classification of chess players by rating, ranks and ranks. Also considered the training of chess players in modern realities. Modern trainers and chess players in the constant search for new effective chess books and computer programs to improve the technique of training.

                          Problem statement. Chess is one of the most popular intellectual games today, played by millions of people around the world. Its popularity stems from the fact that chess incorporates elements of art, science, and sport. The game does not contain hidden information [1]. Chess has come a long way. The history of chess spans at least one and a half thousand years. As the game evolved and spread to different countries, its rules changed, and chess was ascribed magical and even healing properties. Many literary works have been written about chess. It has been said that this game, like music or any other art form, has the power to make people happy [2]. It is clear that for any member of society, chess is an ideal laboratory for decision-making processes and an excellent means of developing willpower and character.

                          Due to its limited scope, chess is a very convenient model for practicing decision-making skills. It teaches patience, perseverance, and determination to achieve a goal. Chess helps to develop productivity, the ability to solve logical tasks under conditions of time constraints, trains memory, and teaches self-discipline [9]. As a result, chess lessons have been introduced not only in general education schools but also in higher education institutions in Ukraine and Europe.

                          Analysis of recent publications shows that the chess training system, by identifying and developing individual abilities, shaping progressive direction of personality, contributes to the overall development and education of the younger generation. It is obvious that the future of this game is determined by the development of children's and youth chess [7].

                          However, as noted by Khayetsky R. [10], many issues related to preparing chess players in their childhood and youth have not been adequately studied to this day. According to experts, there is almost no research or scientifically based technologies for training young athletes using chess programs and the "Internet", despite the necessary material and technical base for the introduction of new information technologies into the system of sports training of chess players. According to their observations, the overwhelming majority of young chess players complete active chess training at the age of 15-16, having reached the level of 1st category or the title of candidate for master of sports. This hinders the further improvement of the sporting skills of chess players [9, 10].

                          In this regard, Vysotina N.L. [8] emphasizes the need to search for ways that allow young athletes of middle and high school age to meet the norms of master and international master of sports in chess, typical for the zone of the first great successes at the stage of sports improvement. This would preserve many talented highly qualified athletes for chess and contribute to the further development of the game.

                          The views of well-known experts in this field [1, 3, 10] are persuasive, as they assert that the use of modern computer technologies significantly expands the coach's opportunities in training athletes. By using chess computer programs, it becomes possible to perform more detailed information retrieval, educational, and gaming functions, develop skills and abilities in chess mastery for the athlete at all stages of the game. Their use will also help to achieve optimal search for sparring partners on gaming portals, conduct distance training, and receive timely information. The additional use of electronic databases could help solve the most important task of the sports improvement stage - to ensure a high level of mastery in the technique of chess and promptly eliminate errors from previous stages of training, as well as develop the thinking of young chess players.

                          It follows from the above that the problem of improving the process of preparing chess players at various stages of long-term sports improvement is relevant and timely. This has led to the setting of the research goal.

                          The aim is to determine the pedagogical conditions for improving the process of preparing chess players. Methods: analysis and generalization of data from scientific and methodological literature, program and regulatory documents.

                          Presenting the main material of the study. The main social functions of sports are fully inherent in classical chess. However, their standard function is determined not by a person's physical abilities (speed, height, or length of jump, etc.), but by their cognitive abilities (speed and accuracy of information processing) [4]. Physiology and medicine have historically and essentially had obvious opportunities to optimize human motor functions to ensure athletic success. Exploring the possibility of improving the training process in chess based on targeted study of professionally significant intellectual functions of chess players is a worthy task for specialists in the field, regardless of their specialization [2].

                          To determine the strategy for preparing chess players, we believe that it is necessary to consider the classification system. It includes categories, titles, and player ratings:

                          1. Novice – a beginner who has learned the moves. Without a rating. This is the period from becoming acquainted with chess and learning the rules to achieving the 4th category. The novice knows the rules and can make moves, but strategic and tactical knowledge in chess is still being formed.

                          2. The fourth category is awarded a rating of 1300. To achieve this category, one must play in a special tournament with a "norm" (the 4th category norm is 55% of points earned against fourth-category players and 75% of points earned against novices). To achieve this category, one must possess certain tactical and strategic knowledge. In the endgame, one must be able to checkmate with a queen, rook, or two bishops. Understand basic concepts, such as how to act in the middlegame (strengthening pieces, activity, defense, etc.). Possess basic opening principles (developing pieces, controlling the center, king safety, etc.). Achieving the 4th category takes about 3-6 months of preparation, depending on many factors (intensity of training, individual characteristics, participation in competitions, etc.).

                          3. Third category - rating 1500. Is characterized by generally greater strategic and tactical knowledge, wider opening repertoire, more extensive knowledge in the middle game, as well as better endgame technique.

                          4. Second category - rating 1700. A second category player usually possesses a fairly wide chess terminology and knowledge (knows the names and can play many openings, can name and explain many tactical and strategic ideas, etc.).

                          5. First category - rating 1900. A fairly skilled chess player who has played in multiple chess tournaments. Is characterized by good knowledge in all stages of a chess game. Sometimes players can achieve the first category in 1-3 years of preparation, while others may never achieve it in their entire life. The sixth world chess champion, Mikhail Botvinnik, said that with proper preparation, anyone can reach the first category.

                          6. Candidate Master of Sports (CMS) - rating 2100. The highest category in chess because all higher achievements are called titles. CMS not only knows how to play chess, but plays it well. It happens that candidate masters of sports win various chess competitions, sometimes even regional championships.

                          7. FIDE Master - rating 2300 (elo). This title is the easiest to achieve among all. It is necessary to reach an international rating of 2300 (elo) and send the necessary documents to FIDE (International Chess Federation) through the Chess Federation of Ukraine for assignment of the title.

                          8. National Master - rating 2325 (Ukrainian rating). To achieve this title, it is necessary to play in one tournament with at least 6 national masters (score at least 55% of points with them) and play the rest of the games with CMS (score 75% of points or more).

                          9. International Master (IM). Rating of 2400 (International "elo" rating). Can participate in International tournaments and Opens. One needs to play against representatives from at least 3 countries, as well as against at least three international masters or grandmasters, and score a certain number of points to achieve a "norm" (the norm depends on the rating and title of the opponents, it can be approximately 6 out of 9 possible points, or it can be 7). To achieve the title of International Master, one needs to achieve the norm 3 times, reach a rating of 2400 (elo), and submit the necessary documents through the national chess federation to the international chess federation for awarding the title.

                          10. Grandmaster (GM) - the highest chess title. Rating of 2500 (International "elo" rating). Can participate in International tournaments and Opens. One needs to play against representatives from at least 3 countries, as well as against at least three international grandmasters, and score a certain number of points to achieve a "norm" (the norm depends on the rating and title of the opponents, it can be approximately 6 out of 9 possible points, or it can be 7). To achieve the title of Grandmaster, one needs to achieve the norm 3 times, reach a rating of 2500 (elo), and submit the necessary documents through the national chess federation to the international chess federation for awarding the title [1].

                          To achieve high ranks and titles in chess, it is necessary to organize the training process properly. Modern coaches and chess players are constantly searching for new effective chess books and computer programs to improve their training methods. There is no one book, one opening, one training camp that will make a chess player a champion. To develop in chess, one needs to work systematically and always with an individual approach and system, both with a coach and alone. What works for one person may not work for another. Books written by coaches are becoming increasingly popular, as they usually contain quality practical tasks, position descriptions, and well-chosen examples.

                          A chess game is divided into three stages: the opening, the middlegame, and the endgame. Students need to combine training and practice in all stages of the chess game. Only in certain cases, under the guidance of qualified coaches, can one focus on a more detailed study of a particular stage of the game. In the modern world, all chess players are "universal," meaning they can navigate well in all stages of the chess game, regardless of the nature of the position (strategic or tactical). This means that one needs to work on the opening, the middlegame, and the endgame. How to distribute the training time and activities in percentages depends on the goals one sets for themselves. If one wants to become a regional champion, their training system does not have to be as intensive as that of a European champion.

                          Chess training sessions should be regular. Depending on the age and goals of the chess player, the duration should be adjusted individually: 5-8 years old - 20-45 minutes, 2-7 times per week; 8-12 years old - 45-300 minutes, 2-7 times per week; 12-16 years old - 60-480 minutes, 2-7 times per week; 16-20 years old - 60-600 minutes, 2-7 times per week [11].

                          The method of teaching chess follows the principle of "from simple to complex". This means that initially, greater emphasis should be placed on the endgame, because there are fewer pieces on the board and it will be easier for the student to grasp the material, gradually increasing the number of pieces on the board with each session. However, one should not forget about the initial stage of the game – the opening. From the first lessons, the basic principles and patterns of action in the opening (occupying or fighting for the center, developing pieces, ensuring the safety of the king, monitoring and reacting to the opponent's actions, etc.) should be explained to the student.[6]

                          Regular chess training should take place in three areas: theoretical, practical, and physical.

                          According to Shtatnov V., in the theoretical direction, the main emphasis should be placed on opening preparation. It is desirable to choose several openings that we like and study them well (learn the theory of the variation, see how elite chess players play in this or that variation, what plans and ideas they use, etc.). It is also worth regularly working on studying the middlegame (solving combinations, considering game plans, and learning typical ideas). And also, not forgetting about the endgame (here it is necessary to at least familiarize oneself with the most common endings and typical positions).

                          b) Practical direction. It is important to play regularly not only in competitions but also during training in order to maintain your physical form. Theoretical preparation is certainly important, but it is necessary to apply it in practice (by participating in competitions or at least training tournaments, or playing online on gaming platforms). In modern conditions, online chess through gaming platforms such as lichess, chess.com, and others, have become quite popular. For many chess enthusiasts, this is a great opportunity to stay in shape despite various everyday or work difficulties. However, nothing can replace a "live" chess game where we can make a move on a real wooden board and see all the emotions of our opponent.

                          c) Physical direction. Physical preparation is also important for a chess player. In order to think quickly and efficiently, we must be alert and in good shape. The number of mistakes sharply increases against the background of fatigue. To stay in good shape and maintain good physical fitness, it is necessary to regularly engage in physical exercises, and cyclic and gaming sports are conducive to this. Concentration is crucial in chess, and we must act quickly and accurately. Therefore, if you feel unwell, the results will be lower [12].

                          Modern chess players constantly work on their improvement and eliminating mistakes. For this, they often use the analysis of games by elite chess players, as well as their own games. It is said that it is better to see once than hear a hundred times. In this case, it is indeed true. By watching how Magnus Carlsen, Vasily Ivanchuk, Ruslan Ponomariov, or any other highly skilled chess player plays, we can learn a lot of interesting, new, and, most importantly, useful things [5].

                          By analyzing our games, we can significantly improve our level of preparation. Only by working on our mistakes can we become stronger and better. It is also important to understand why these mistakes were made and how to act correctly. Analyzing games should be done first by oneself, then with a coach, and later with computer programs. Each game should be analyzed [7].

                          Conclusion. Chess training requires constant and quality work from chess players, coaches, organizers, scientists, chess clubs, and all those involved in improving chess players. Thanks to the constant development of computer technology, training methods are improving, so it is important to regularly work on improving the qualifications and training of chess players. To achieve high rankings and titles in chess, it is necessary to organize the training process correctly. Modern coaches and chess players are constantly searching for new effective chess books and computer programs to improve their training methods.

                          The prospects for further research lie in the further search for ways to improve the skill of chess players through the use of modern computer technologies.

                          Literature
                          1. Biletskyi O. I. Chess: a textbook for students of higher educational institutions / National Technical University of Ukraine "Kyiv Polytechnic Institute". - K. : Knowledge of Ukraine, 2005. 104 c.
                          2. Biletskyi O. Chess creativity as a process and activity. Theory and methods of physical education and sports, 2004. № 2. С. 3-7.
                          3. Vysocina N. L. Influence of the level of motivation on the success of competitive activity of highly qualified chess players. Theory and methods of physical education and sport. 2009. № 3. С. 84-86.
                          4. Vysocina N. L. Psychological features of sports activity of chess players. Theory and methods of physical education and sports, 2007. № 4. С. 104-107.
                          5. Vysocina N. L. Self-esteem of chess athletes and its psychocorrection // Proceedings of the XIV International Scientific Congress ["Olympic Sport and Sport for All"]. - K., 2010. - P. 430.
                          6. Fundamentals of the game of chess: a textbook / O. Malimon, N. Zakhozha, A. Volchynskyi; Lesya Ukrainka Eastern European National University. - Lutsk: Vezha-Druk, 2016. - 167 p. - Bibliography: p. 140-142.
                          7. Romashov A. Guide to chess endgames. Lviv: Ukrainian Academy of Printing, 2017. 80 с.
                          8. Self-esteem of skilled chess players and its influence on the results of sports activity: PhD thesis in Physical Education and Sports: 24.00.01 / N.L. Vysocina; National University of Physical Education and Sports of Ukraine. - К., 2011. - 20 c.
                          9. Semizorova V., Dukhnovska O., Pashchenko L. Wise chess: program and methodological recommendations for teaching children of senior preschool age to play chess. Ternopil: Traveler, 2015. 73 с.
                          10. Hayetskyi R. The latest technologies in the methodology of debut training of young highly qualified chess players. Theory and methods of physical education and sports, 2007. № 4. С. 33-36.
                          11. Shankovsky A.Z. Teaching operational thinking of chess players-athletes: methodical recommendations. Ivano-Frankivsk: IFNTUOG, 2013. 25 с.
                          12. Ways to improve the mental performance of chess players. Theory and methods of physical education and sports. - 2003. - № 1. - С. 55-57.

                          Scientific Journal of the Drahomanov National Pedagogical University Issue 5 (150) 2022
                          ]]>                           Sun, 14 Aug 2022 23:02:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?ways-to-improve-the-process-of-training-chess-players https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000019                           <![CDATA[Why should children be taught to love chess?]]> imblog
                          Author: Vladyslav Rashkovan
                          Deputy Executive Director of the IMF

                          By playing chess, we learn to keep our spirits up and persevere in the search for new opportunities. The game develops the ability to find a way out of seemingly insurmountable difficulties
                          "A good player is always lucky"
                          Jose Raul Capablanca,
                          3rd World Chess Champion
                          Today, on International Chess Day, over 600 million people play this ancient strategic game. That means almost one in every thirteen people in the world can call themselves a chess player. In the US, 35 million people play chess regularly, with more than half of them aged 18-35. The leading online chess platform, chess.com, has registered 50 million members, with almost 5 million chess games played every day. My 9-year-old son plays there, and I am delighted about it. I also play occasionally.

                          I started playing chess at the age of 6 in the Odessa Chess School of Olympic Reserve under the guidance of an excellent coach, Igor Gorbunov. I played reasonably well, but I was not a chess genius, as they bluntly told me, which was quite upsetting.

                          My professional chess career ended shortly after that, when my parents moved from the city center to the suburbs of Odessa, and they couldn't take me to chess practice in the city by bus. However, I continued to learn on my own, playing on the first or second board for my school or university team, and with breaks, I have been playing for almost three and a half decades now.

                          World Chess Champion Alexander Alekhine was convinced that chess helped him get rid of many flaws. He said, "With the help of chess, I trained my character…". I did not become a chess champion, but playing chess taught me a lot, and chess certainly helped me in my life and career. In the text below, I summarized the main qualities and skills that this fascinating game taught me.

                          Analytical skills
                          Alyokhin believed that chess primarily teaches objectivity, that is, to objectively assess the state of affairs on the board. As far as I remember, this is what beginners are taught: to look at the position, evaluate the strengths and weaknesses, evaluate the "quality" (i.e. count their own and the opponent's pieces) and honestly, objectively answer the question: whose position is better. It is recommended to repeat this exercise after each move.

                          Chess from childhood teaches decision-making under conditions of limited time.

                          But this is only the beginning: you need to think about your first move, and then the second. And here before you is a huge expanse, because in chess there are more paths than roads on the entire planet: already after the first move of both opponents, one of 400 unique positions can be revealed on the board. After the second moves - about 200,000. After the third - 121 million - there is where scenario analysis and answering the question "what if..." can unfold.

                          No one knows how many unique games can be played in a game that was born at least 14-15 centuries ago. Jonathan Schaeffer, a scientist from the University of Alberta, cited only one hypothesis as an example: there are a total of 10^15 hairs on people's heads in the world, 10^23 grains of sand on Earth, and 10^81 atoms in the universe. If you multiply these three numbers together, you will most likely find out the total number of possible played games on the chessboard. But this is just a hypothesis - the same scientist added that "no one will even invest their time in precise calculations, because the final number is simply incomprehensible."

                          Strategic thinking
                          Prince Condé, a French commander and generalissimo, was convinced that "before becoming a good general, one must learn to play chess well." There is even a hypothesis about the origin of the game, that it was invented as a training manual to improve the military preparation of troops. Or at least, as a means to dispel boredom among troops or to relieve the tension of soldiers exhausted by prolonged participation in heavy combat operations.

                          Indeed, chess provides unique preparation for people who will face issues of developing strategies in the future, not only in the military field. By playing chess, people learn to solve complex and multi-move tasks on the board, which is very helpful for developing problem-solving skills.

                          One of the first lessons that children are taught in chess is: "touch-move." I remember how difficult it was at 6 years old to admit that you have to think first and then make a move, moving the figure. It was hard to believe that one bad move could ruin forty good ones. From the perspective of my years, I can say that it was one of the most useful lessons that will come in handy in life.

                          My schoolmate recently reminded me unexpectedly that my father, who was also a good chess player, taught him in games with me that "the main thing is to control the center," because an opponent who has greater control over the central squares usually has an advantage. This is good advice not only in chess.

                          But while seizing the center, one should not forget about the flanks, where the opponent can prepare a trap and come up with a combination, remembering that in many cases, counterattack is the best defense, often allowing you to win even lost games. In general, combination is the soul of chess, as the game trains logic - every move should be connected to the previous one. It also helps to master the art of systematic thinking - to see the whole picture (the entire board), hide your own game plans, plan and think several moves ahead.

                          Chess also trains long-term and short-term memory: the player must learn openings, memorize their moves, and memorize typical positions. All of this requires extremely intensive intellectual activity. In addition, it is very easy to train visual memory on the chessboard. Try placing 5 different figures of different colors on different squares and ask your child to remember their positions in 5-6 seconds, and then, after removing the figures from the board, ask them to restore the position from memory. Increase the number of figures over time. And now think about the memory that chess player Timur Gareev had to have in 2016 to play blindfolded for almost 19 hours in a simultaneous game on 48 boards.

                          Character and Emotional Intelligence
                          Research from the University of Michigan suggests that there is a positive correlation between chess playing and IQ (intelligence quotient) in children. And it's not just about geniuses. The idea behind the research is that if children practice and develop more skills and knowledge about the game of chess, they can overcome existing limitations in their cognitive abilities. This is less obvious in adulthood, as most adults who play well are simply highly intelligent.

                          But in my opinion, more than IQ, chess allows you to sharpen your character and develop EQ (emotional intelligence). Chess champion and great chess theorist Mikhail Botvinnik said, "Chess is not only a game of figures, but also of people - psychology matters." Yes, by playing chess, empathy develops - the ability and skill to put oneself in the opponent's shoes and think for them, "putting on their shoes."

                          In the game, we often see examples of how even modest success can boost self-confidence, while carelessness can lead to loss. But at the same time, playing chess also instills the habit of not giving up and persistently continuing to search for new opportunities, hoping for favorable changes. The game develops the ability to find a way out, seemingly from insurmountable difficulties. We learn to sacrifice quality when it makes sense and not to sacrifice when we understand that it does not make sense.

                          Chess also develops flexible skills, such as helping to find consensus when agreeing to a draw, but also teaches not only how to win, but also how to lose. The world champion, the brilliant Jose Raul Capablanca, said that "you can learn much more from a lost game than from a won game. You must lose hundreds of games before becoming a good player." I think this is important in life, particularly for the development of one's character.

                          Chess is also a struggle, primarily with one's own mistakes. Alekhine said that "in chess, only by realizing one's own mistakes and weaknesses can one become a great master. Just like in life." And indeed, very often victory goes to the one who made the second to last mistake. And, of course, a good player always has luck on their side.

                          The art of creative intellectual struggle
                          The same Alekhine said: "I do not play chess - I struggle in chess." And indeed, in chess, you learn to achieve your goals by overcoming your opponent's resistance. According to Pascal, "chess is a gymnasium for the mind," which means that the special feature of this struggle is that it is very creative and intellectual. I'll even go further: chess strategy is a combination of art, science, and competitiveness in its own way.

                          Chess was not encouraged in totalitarian societies. In medieval Iran, a royal decree mandated that "people inclined towards the 64-cell board with tightly compressed lips and a gloomy forehead" be reported to the higher-ups. Throughout history, chess players were called "sowers of discord" and "underminers of foundations," probably simply because the word "checkmate" means "the king is dead." Or maybe because not everyone likes games where simple pawns can threaten kings.

                          Prussian King Frederick the Great said that "chess cultivates a propensity for independent thinking, and so it is not to be encouraged." It was believed that expressing an opinion is like moving a pawn in a chess game. Your pawn may perish, but the game begins and can be won. So instill a love of chess if you want your child to learn to think "outside the box."

                          Chess also teaches decision-making in conditions of limited time from childhood. There is a belief that it is not the one who thinks a lot and for a long time who gets into a state of frenzy (lack of time), but the one who thinks not about that. On the one hand, chess teaches finding the shortest ways to achieve the goal, without wasting time on distracting nuances, teaches speed of thinking. On the other hand, it teaches attentiveness, concentration, and patience - every careless move can lead to the loss of a figure or even defeat, so through chess, players learn to maintain concentration, attention, and train psychological resilience.

                          In the long-term perspective, chess teaches us that no one was ever born a master. The path to mastery lies through years of learning, struggle, joy, and sorrow. And this applies to many things in life. Moreover, intelligence has no gender. Even in the manuscripts of the Great Caliphate, it was said that women played chess as well as men. In the last century, and especially in the last decade, women have repeatedly proven that they can be better than men in many things, not only in leading companies, but also as chess players. For example, Hungarian Judit Polgar participated in chess tournaments with men since the age of 8 and won against most of them from the age of 11. Her two sisters, Zsuzsa and Sofia, also played chess exceptionally well. In Ukraine, we also have our chess stars, grandmasters Maria and Anna Muzychuk, as well as many other excellent female chess players.

                          Love for scientific progress Chess can also interest technology enthusiasts. The idea that the first "chess computer" was invented as far back as 1914 is worth noting. Long before the appearance of desktop computers, Spanish engineer and mathematician Leonardo Torres y Quevedo invented one of the first radio-controlled systems capable of playing endgames (the final stage of the game). The model was so good that none of the masters of that time could win against Torres's machine.

                          In the 1960s, Mikhail Botvinnik had a significant influence on the development of computers by studying the thought process of chess players and formulating the concept of imprecise play, the method of successive approximations, and constructing multi-level decision trees. These concepts, which were initially useful not only for chess but also for developing strategies, were ahead of their time. Botvinnik presented his computer chess program "Pioneer," which attempted to truly understand the chess position rather than simply calculate the best moves. Botvinnik's article "Man and Machine Behind the Chessboard" at the time was also well-known and significantly impacted the development of computer chess technologies.

                          In 1984, the movie "Terminator" with Arnold Schwarzenegger was released. A year later, several graduate students in the laboratory of Carnegie Mellon University in the United States began developing the chess program Chip Test. This program became the basis for the future Deep Thought system and then the foundation for the Deep Blue chess processor. The match between Garry Kasparov and Deep Blue in 1996 was more dramatic than the movie "Terminator" and raised the same question: can a computer beat a human?

                          Many years have passed since then. After Deep Blue came Stockfish, Elmo, AlphaGo, AlphaZero, and chess has always attracted the brightest minds who want to apply complex algorithms to a multidimensional strategic game. But this is a separate story that requires a separate narrative. And who knows, maybe your child will someday write this story.

                          Poetry and Creativity
                          It's important to note that chess is a very beautiful and poetic game - with its grandiose designs, it can provide true artistic pleasure. Children and adults can also develop creativity - players of different ages can come up with beautiful chess problems and studies. Like music or any other art, chess can make a person happy, or at the very least, help avoid melancholy and maintain well-being and friendliness.

                          Chess has its own muse - the patroness Caissa. Caissa is younger than the game of chess itself - her name was first mentioned in 1513 in the poem "The Game of Chess" by Italian author Marco Antonio Vida. The poem tells the story of how one of the most respected ancient gods, "radiant" Apollo, plays with Mercury, while other inhabitants of Olympus watch their game. After winning, Apollo decides to teach the people of the earth how to play chess, and he chooses the beautiful nymph Shahis as his first student, whom he met during his travels in Italy. Agree, it's a beautiful and poetic story, just like the ancient game itself.

                          Chess is a gender-neutral game, so if your son or daughter is 5-8 years old and you're thinking about how to keep them occupied during the summer, try to instill a love for chess in them. The skills that are developed through chess will be very useful in life.

                          In the text, I quote statements from Alekhine, Capablanca, and Botvinnik. Believe me, they were world stars of their time. They were bright, extraordinary personalities, role models for youth. There were also Paul Morphy, Reti, Steinitz, Chiburdanidze, Polgar, and many others - all of them had something to teach. In my childhood, Harry Kasparov was such a model for me. For my son today, it's Norwegian Magnus Carlsen, who became a grandmaster at 13, or Hikaru Nakamura, a five-time US champion. Sasha follows their games online every day, marveling at the beauty, variety, and speed of their play.

                          At the same time, it is worth remembering that, as Isaac Asimov said, "unlike chess, the game of life continues after checkmate." So don't worry if your children don't succeed in chess. Sometimes the game is just a game, even if it's very interesting and exciting.

                          And don't make fun of chess players: it's not easy to maintain mental health when day after day you lose knights, capture bishops, and attack the queen.

                          nv.ua
                          ]]>                           Wed, 20 Jul 2022 14:04:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?why-children-should-taught-love-chess https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000009                           <![CDATA[Computer chess]]> imblog
                          Computer chess is a popular name for the field of artificial intelligence research that involves the creation of software and special computers for playing chess. Besides, computer chess is also referred to as a game against a computer chess program, a game between programs, as well as their development.
                          History
                          Chess computer

                          The history of chess machines predates the history of computers. The idea of creating a machine that could play chess dates back to the eighteenth century. In about 1769, the Mechanical Turk, a chess-playing automaton, was created for the entertainment of Queen Maria Theresa. The machine played quite well – inside it sat a strong chess player who made the moves.

                          Research on mechanical chess machines ceased around 1950 with the advent of digital computers. In 1951, Alan Turing wrote an algorithm that allowed a machine to play chess, but in the role of the machine was the inventor himself. This nonsense even got a name – "Turing's paper machine". It took a person more than half an hour to make one move. The algorithm was quite conditional, and even the record of a game where Turing's "paper machine" lost to one of his colleagues was preserved. Due to the lack of access to a computer, the program was never tested in operation.

                          Around the same time, in 1951, mathematician Claude Shannon wrote his first article on chess programming. He wrote: "Although it may have no practical value, the problem is theoretically interesting, and we hope that solving this problem will serve as a stimulus for solving other problems of a similar nature and greater significance." Shannon also noted the theoretical existence of the best move in chess and the practical impossibility of finding it.

                          The next step in the development of chess programming was the development of a chess program for a 6x6 chessboard without bishops, on the Maniac 1 computer (clock frequency of 11 kHz) at the Los Alamos nuclear laboratory in 1952. The machine calculated 4 half-moves and took 12 minutes to do so. It is known that this computer played one game against a strong chess player, which lasted for 10 hours and ended with the chess player's victory. Another game was played against a girl who had recently learned to play chess. The machine won on the 23rd move. Although it may seem funny now, it was a significant achievement for its time.

                          In 1957, the first program for playing on a standard chessboard with all the pieces was created, and the machine calculated 4 half-moves in 8 minutes.

                          An important event for computer chess occurred in 1958 when Alan Newell, John Shaw, and Herbert Simon developed the alpha-beta pruning algorithm, which is the basis for the search functions of all strong modern programs.

                          The first machine to achieve the level of a chess master was Belle, completed in 1983 by Joe Condon and Ken Thompson. "Belle" was the first computer designed solely for playing chess. Its official Elo rating was 2250, making it the strongest chess machine of its time.

                          In 1994, Garry Kasparov lost a blitz game to the program Fritz 3 in Munich. The program also defeated Viswanathan Anand, Boris Gelfand, and Vladimir Kramnik. Grandmaster Robert Huebner refused to play against the program and automatically lost. Kasparov played a second match with Fritz and won with 4 wins and 2 draws.

                          In February 1996, Garry Kasparov defeated the chess supercomputer Deep Blue with a score of 4-2. This match is notable because Deep Blue won the first game, becoming the first computer to defeat the world chess champion in tournament conditions. Deep Blue computed 50 billion positions every three minutes, while Kasparov considered 10 positions in the same amount of time. Deep Blue had 200 processors.

                          In 2015, the smallest chess program Super Micro was created, taking up only 455 bytes.

                          Since then, chess enthusiasts and computer engineers have created many chess machines and computer programs.

                          Chess computers are now available at very low prices. There are many open-source programs, such as Crafty, Fruit, and GNU Chess, which can be freely downloaded from the Internet and can beat many professional chess players. And the best commercial programs, such as Shredder and Fritz, have already surpassed the level of human champions. Currently, the engine Rybka ranks first in computer rating lists such as CEGT, CCRL, SCCT, and CSS.

                          Wikipedia
                          ]]>                           Thu, 14 Jul 2022 12:30:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?computer-chess https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/48v06fi9                           <![CDATA[The power of imagination: how to activate the imagination to solve business problems]]> imblog
                          Authors:
                          • Maasaki Hasegawa (Madrid, Spain), creator of Creativida, advisor to Strategic Design Company and ambassador of the Contemporary Museum of Calligraphy. He is an artist and author of three books on creativity, including Art and Innovation, which was published in Japan this year.
                          • Oksana Sedashova, PhD, KROK Business School, expert on creativity and innovative development of individuals and teams. Author of the Total Creative development model, trainer, speaker

                          The power of imagination is hard to overestimate. The best minds of mankind have said that the beginning of each of their inventions was laid down with the help of an idea that arose in their minds.
                          This is evidenced by Leonardo da Vinci's notes, where he transferred ideas from his head to paper with the help of small sketches. Nikola Tesla, a scientist who was ahead of his time, spoke about the power of imagination: "I am in no hurry to start practical work. When I have an idea, I immediately begin to develop it in my imagination: I change the design, make improvements and mentally set the mechanism in motion. It doesn't matter to me at all whether I drive my turbine in my mind or test it in the workshop. I even notice that its balancing has been disturbed. No matter what type of mechanism, the result will be the same. Thus, I can quickly develop and improve the concept without touching anything."

                          And today, in the VUCA world, where everything is unstable and unpredictable, mental processes, including the ability to skillfully use imagination, are of particular value.

                          At the end of September 2018, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, China, Jay Walker, an entrepreneur with 700 patents, gave a speech about the importance of imagination in the business world. According to him, in all the talk about innovation, imagination is not given any role. "Imagination is a great resource that not everyone uses. We talk about innovation, but there is no innovation without imagination - the moment when we have an original thought."

                            What is Imagineering?
                          Imagineering is a way to make your ideas a reality. In today's education system, precise execution is considered more important than imagination and individual creative solutions. Grades are based on the results of clearly executed tasks provided by the teacher. In this context, imagination is often a hindrance, as it is believed to distract from the task at hand, and often causes misunderstandings among teachers. Growing up, most people start to pay attention to developing practical skills that can be used for work at the enterprise or to get various bonuses, rather than exploring their boundless world of imagination, as it is considered meaningless and impractical for achieving success in society. Creative people rarely receive support in the traditional education system, and later try to find themselves in art, design, music, and other humanistic fields. As a result, the world is divided into businessmen who are highly performance-oriented and creative people who do not always find application for their abilities as subjects of creative activity.

                          First imagination, then action
                          Today, most creative approaches are not aimed at obtaining the desired results. This idea is based on a cause-and-effect relationship: behaviorism. For example, if you do A, then B will always happen. This is simply an application of Newtonian mechanics to human activity, an attempt to find a convenient formula for duplicating desired results through copying and imitation in groups of individuals, mainly those who have achieved outstanding productivity in the economy. However, Newtonian mechanics is designed for objects such as cars and tables. Human activity is activated by thought and emotion, which are not objects. So, it's not a good idea to expect certain results by copying actions. It's important to shed light on how the human mind functions, what causes actions. People can imagine everything that is in their experience and feel comfortable with it. Reality is limited. For example, those who cannot imagine themselves flying cannot fly an airplane. Therefore, in order to turn some ideas into reality, you must first be able to imagine them.

                          Enhance your cognitive abilities
                          Actions, including unconscious actions and behaviors, come from decisions. Decisions are the results of thought and imagination. Some actions try to maintain a consonance between physical reality and imagination, which is the main source, in order to avoid dangers and maximize expected results. Unconscious processes and information from the world around us, received through the 5 senses, prioritize information, and thus a person pays attention to things that are important to him or her - it is through this filter that a person gets results. This is called the reticular activation system, which keeps parts of the brain in a state of excitement and filters out unimportant sensory stimuli. This system has evolved to increase the likelihood of survival. Thus, reality does not actually consist of what is around us, but only of what we actually consider important and prioritized. Thus, the more you can imagine, the more you activate cognitive processes, and the information that was ignored can be used to enrich your imagination.

                          How to pump up your imagination
                          For imagination to work at its full capacity, you need to allow yourself to do so. Because imagination is preceded by beliefs and states. Pay attention to your beliefs: are they supportive or limiting? Imagination is unlimited freedom. Believing that everything is possible will help you think outside the box. Believing that everyone has all the resources to achieve the desired result will help you gain confidence and move you forward. Limiting beliefs, such as "It's impossible", "Only the rich/smart/scientists/those who have time can do it", the belief that being dreamy and imagining things are mostly signs of immaturity, trigger unresourceful states of personality: despair, doubt, laziness, self-doubt, depression, helplessness, anger, fear, confusion, anxiety. These states transform the imagination so that it activates the development of productive scenarios that can run through your head. And this is the end of innovation. Resource states - drive, joy, flow, inspiration, and others - help you feel physical, mental, and spiritual strength and energy, and channel the power of imagination to successfully solve any problem.

                          Create your own creative environment
                          To strengthen one's imagination, it is important to create a special environment where people can fantasize freely without fear of judgment. This can be an individual or group space, but in both cases, the first step is to learn to imagine things that would be considered unrealistic. Soon the habit will become natural: you will get used to repeating mental actions to imagine something unrealistic, and after a while these actions will become normal for you. However, in order to realize this, it is necessary to prepare an environment in which a person can freely imagine.

                          Do not just imagine, but use the power of the 5 senses
                          Imagination is often associated with visualizing an idea. In order to get the power of the unconscious to contribute to the imagination, it is important to use the five senses to visualize as vividly as possible, as if it were real. By reinforcing the homeostasis that tries to maintain consistency between how it perceives reality, the conscious and unconscious mind can be activated to discover more information and opportunities to turn that imagination into reality. In order to imagine things vividly, you need to deeply explore the real world, activate cognitive search activities, start doing various new actions, and free your mind. Under these conditions, the process is really accelerated, and a person gets the opportunity to see imaginary images as real and realize ideas.

                          Connecting points beyond
                          Creativity is often thought of as a special talent or an innate ability, but it is just a pattern of connecting the dots. Creativity is not about making something new, but about connecting the dots in different ways. In order to turn an irrational idea into reality, it is necessary to connect the dots in a different way than the usual pattern, because such a pattern is a source of new ways of observing reality, opening up new territories and generating new meanings in what was considered meaningless.

                          European Business Association
                          ]]>                           Mon, 20 Jun 2022 21:59:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?syla-uiavy-yak-aktyvizuvaty-uiavu-shchob-vyrishyty-biznes-problemy https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/00000000F                           <![CDATA[Splendor and poverty of the first world champion: chess Mozart solved Kempelen's scam, beat gendarmes, and impressed the king himself]]> imblog
                          François Fillidor playing chess with his fans / Illustration from open sources

                          AUTHOR:
                          VOLODYMYR VOYTYUK

                          In his understanding of the chess game, Fillidor was decades ahead of his contemporaries.
                          Bent Larsen,
                          the best Scandinavian chess player before Magnus Carlsen.

                          Philidor walked through the maze of sounds as easily as he played chess. No opponent could defeat him in a game filled with an overwhelming number of combinations. No other musician has ever achieved such radiant clarity in his compositions.
                          André Ernest Modest Gretry,
                          French composer.
                          It's hard to come up with a bigger nonsense than comparing the strength of chess players from different eras. However, if we base it on two specific criteria, such as domination over opponents and influence on the game, it's hard to name a figure equivalent to Philidor, from the genius to the unfortunately insane Paul Morphy. Interestingly, André would be very surprised to learn that he is now known primarily as a top chess player rather than as a composer.

                          The French maestro did not let the next generation of players sleep peacefully. This thesis is eloquently illustrated by the fact that the successors of the first unofficial world champion competed with his shadow. Thus, the best chess player of France in the first half of the 19th century, Alexandre Deschapelles, and a Napoleonic general, like André, agreed to play with opponents only by giving them a handicap. This trend did not even pass Morphy. He conducted spectacular blindfold game sessions, trying to surpass André's achievements, who was the first to leave several opponents behind without looking at the board. As we have already mentioned, Philidor always considered himself a composer and never saw himself as a chess professional. Although, perhaps he was unhappy. After all, thanks to the "useless wooden figures," he earned much more than with his notes.

                          It seemed that fate was preparing Andre for a career as a composer, as three generations of his ancestors wrote operas, but unexpected circumstances arose in Philidor's life when chess appeared. Bones and cards in the chapel where Andre sang were banned, so court musicians had to waste time moving pieces around, simulating figures. Interestingly, chess battles often ended in fights. The table with black and white cells immediately attracted Andre, like a magnet. At first, he was just a spectator. Watching his colleagues' battles, the boy quickly learned the moves. Philidor did not dare to suggest playing with anyone, and the adult singers had no desire to play with a novice.

                          But chance helped Andre. Once, a musician came much earlier than others and sat alone at the board. And here Andre finally gathered the courage to offer him a game. At first, the adult laughed, but then kindly waved his hand. "Come on, little one, I think we'll finish just in time for my opponent to come." The musician turned out to be a good Nostradamus. The game did not last long. However, he did not predict that the winner of the game would be the boy. After winning his debut game and not coping with his emotions, following in the footsteps of his older colleagues, Philidor shouted "Checkmate!" and rushed out of the room. The next day, Andre was challenged to play by all the leading chess players in the chapel. And Philidor proved that his first victory was not a coincidence. Andre won all the games.



                          In 1740, a 14-year-old boy who made a living by copying music notes and giving music lessons went on his first pilgrimage to the French chess Mecca - the Café de la Régence. There he was fortunate enough to meet Legall, the strongest chess player in France and possibly the world. He decided to take the talented young boy under his wing. Legall liked to have fun in the following way. Before the game, he would remove a piece and instead add himself several pawns (from two to eight, depending on the strength of the piece exchanged for the pawns), but on the condition that they did not cross the demarcation line. Perhaps it was this pawn game that convinced Philidor that pawns were not just cannon fodder, but the "soul of the game."

                          After the first game with Maestro André, he realized that he knew nothing about chess. At first, the teacher easily won, giving the boy a rook for a handicap. However, the boy quickly learned, and the gap between teacher and student quickly narrowed. The handicap began to decrease, and later they played on equal terms. The young Philidor, a true Frenchman, was never lacking in courage. Once the police arrested an innocent man who protested against the tyranny of the authorities. Learning about this, André flew at the "pharaohs" with his fists, for which he received 15 days behind bars (does that remind you of anything?). Not even the advocacy of Count Saint-Germain helped the maestro.

                          After serving his sentence, André began a decade-long chess tour. Traveling around the Netherlands, the Frenchman gave paid lessons, competed in matches, and played games for stakes. André's fame spread throughout the country like a forest fire. It is not surprising that anyone who knew how to move the pieces a little wanted to try their own hand in a battle with the reigning champion. In The Hague, the maestro met with British officers who were so enthusiastic about Philidor's game that they invited him to London. André had long planned to return home, but he also wanted to test his skills in a struggle with English masters. That is why the Frenchman set out for Albion. Stepping on English soil in 1747, Philidor did not yet know that he had taken the first step towards immortality.



                          In the capital of the British Empire, there was a counterpart to "Regence" called "Slough". Here, a Frenchman defeated the trio of the best players from the Island. Abraham Janssen gave him the greatest resistance. Andre played against him without any handicap and scored three points out of four. However, the most crucial match for the Frenchman was against a native of Aleppo - Philippe Stamma. The Syrian was the main apostle of the Italian chess school, which stood on a combinational foundation. Its representatives everywhere tried to find deadly attacks, focusing on the open game. From the very first moves, the "Italians" tried to get to the enemy king, ignoring the principles of positional play. Philidor constantly criticized the representatives of this school.

                          Stamma clearly did not suffer from modesty. He brazenly stated that good chess players only existed in the East and that he could play with a handicap against all Europeans. However, seeing Philidor's brilliant performance, the Syrian somewhat changed his mind. So it was Andre who gave Stamma several bonuses to level the playing field. For example, in all games, the Syrian had the right to move first, but that was just the tip of the iceberg. Here's an incredible point from the rules of the "match of the century" between Stamma and Philidor: every draw is counted as a victory for Philippe. Despite such luxurious conditions, Stamma would prefer to forget this match like a bad dream. The Frenchman won 8:2, and one of his "victories" Stamma gained thanks to a draw.

                          Then Filidor came up with the idea of writing his own chess textbook, as it had become evident that Stamma's recommendations were somewhat outdated. In search of sponsors, Andre set off to the Netherlands, where his performances had caused a sensation in the past and there were many wealthy enthusiasts of the ancient game, so he hoped to find the funds necessary to publish his magnum opus. However, the key moment of the Frenchman's journey was the meeting with John Montagu, the Earl of Sandwich, who became famous for inventing the sandwich. The Englishman played cards from dawn to dusk and, in order not to be distracted from the game for a single moment, ordered his servants not to call him to dinner and to bring food between two slices of bread. And that's how sandwiches appeared. The Earl had great respect for the Frenchman, as he too belonged to Homo Ludens, so he happily subscribed to 10 copies of the book.


                          John Montague

                          Indeed, it turned out that the main contribution of the card player to the appearance of Philidor's "Analysis" was not significant. He sent a letter of recommendation to William Augustus, Duke of Cumberland, who was then staying in Eindhoven. After several games, the Englishman, impressed by Philidor's genius, not only subscribed to 50 copies of the book but also advised his friends and subordinates to follow his example. Thus, Andre's book received the green light. Philidor worked for several months, and in 1749, the world saw "Analysis of the Game of Chess." Despite a small print run of 433 copies and a fairly high price (one guinea), all the books were instantly sold out by pre-order.

                          In his work, Philidor continued the discussion with the Italians. He opposed their culture of combinations with positional theory. The Frenchman particularly emphasized the role of pawns. "Pawns are the soul of chess, only they create attacks and defense, their good or bad position is key to the outcome of the game." In the humble infantry, Andre saw a formidable force: advancing in a solid line, they push the opponent's pieces and break his defense. It was Andre who first formulated the principle that still holds true today: "pawns go ahead, figures go behind." For over 200 years, Philidor's treatise has withstood over 100 editions.

                          The following story highlights just how dominant Andre was over his competitors. In 1750, Philidor was visiting the French ambassador, the Duke of Mirpua, in London. In addition to the usual game of chess, they often played a new variation on a 14x10 board with extra pieces. The champions of this chess variant were considered to be Janssen and Stamma. However, just two months later, Andre was already beating them with a knight advantage. In the early 1750s, Andre decided to return to composition, but by then he was so strongly associated with chess that someone started a rumor that Philidor was stealing someone else's music and passing it off as his own.

                          At one point, the Hungarian inventor Ferenc Kempelen was touring Paris with his miraculous automaton. A mannequin moved the pieces on the board, but the mechanism was operated by a person who was hidden inside the box. Initially, the chess-playing "Turk" was not known for its strong play. So when French academics asked Philidor to examine the automaton, Kempelen was quite scared. He was worried that a crushing defeat by Andre would significantly lower the public's interest in the "Turk". The inventor asked the maestro to play a game for him, saying "I'm not a magician, and my automaton doesn't play better than me. But right now, it's the only source of my existence. Imagine how much I could raise in the future if the newspapers came out with the headline, 'Kempelen's Automaton knocks out Philidor himself.'" Andre understood how difficult life could be for traveling artists and agreed to play.



                          Indeed, the Frenchman had set one condition that rendered the whole plan useless. "Your automaton must show a decent level of play so that no one will notice that I am throwing the game," he said. The operator played so poorly that Filidor only had to worry about accidentally winning. He didn't dare make a mistake or overlook a checkmate, as the audience would immediately realize that the triumph of Kempelen's technological wonder was rigged. The situation was so comical that one of the opponents wanted to lose, and the other could not win. Eventually, the champion was so upset by this absurd situation that he packed up the Turk. None of the victories brought André as much negativity. He blamed himself, Kempelen, the machine, and the whole world. Turning to music, Filidor appeared much less often at the "Café de la Régence," although his portrait hung over the designated table. However, the forced hiatus did not affect Filidor's strength at all. In 1755, he confidently defeated Legall.

                          In 1770, a chess club was established in one of the London cafes. It was quite serious, as its 100 members donated three guineas each year. With this money, they invited masters, arranged matches and tournaments. However, the English lacked a star to attract the public. That's why they remembered Filidor, whose triumphant tour of Albion was still on everyone's lips. The maestro was invited for a several-week tour, and André agreed immediately. By doing so, he killed two birds with one stone. He not only significantly improved his finances, which were usually singing romances, but also republished his "Analysis." Although Filidor's treatise did not enjoy as much popularity as its first version, there were still many significant names among the subscribers who agreed to buy the Frenchman's book. Voltaire, Diderot, and future King Louis XVIII signed up for the "Analysis."



                          In 1773, another chess club opened in the heart of London. It was a typical English establishment for its time, with many notable members, including George Spencer, Duke of Marlborough, Charles Fox, leader of the Whigs, and renowned historian Edward Gibbon. The new club aimed not only to sign the "world champion" for a few weeks but also offered him a full contract, according to which Andre was supposed to reside in London for four months, play games there, give sessions, and share secrets of the ancient game with British amateurs. Andre was also not forbidden to cheat on the side, as Philidor, as always, was penniless. The maestro did not earn enough to feed his large family (seven children!). The great chess player once joked sadly when approached by one of his admirers who exclaimed, "You have conquered chess!" to which the Frenchman replied, "Unfortunately, no. Chess has conquered me." Andre wanted to make a living from music, but it didn't work out.

                          During Filidor's time, composers' copyrights were not respected very much. Usually, theater owners treated artists harshly, paying them pennies for both brilliant and mediocre works. Some theaters gave their composers annual pensions to attach authors more firmly to themselves. Andre also received several such gifts. But this did not help his ship leave the financial shoals. Not to mention Filidor, if Mozart and Beethoven were also not thriving. And the Frenchman was far from these geniuses. This situation did not suit Andre at all. In one of the letters to his wife, he wrote: "It is ridiculous that the author of 'Ernelinde' is forced to play chess in England for six months to feed his family."

                          The English audience massively flocked to the blindfold simultaneous game sessions given by the maestro. The Frenchman easily dealt with three opponents at once, which at the time seemed simply unbelievable. Filidor also did not hide his enthusiasm for his genius and left such lines, which from the height of our days, when no one is surprised by blindfold play, seem somewhat naive: "I present to you a few of my games, which I played without looking at the board, I also indicate the names of my opponents, so that future generations do not doubt that I could play blindfolded simultaneously with three opponents."


                          Denis Diderot

                          By the way, philosopher Denis Diderot was very skeptical of his compatriot's blind feats: "I could justify such a dangerous experiment if Andre were paid 500-600 guineas for it, but why risk his health and talent for nothing? Once I talked to Legal, and he told me that when he tried to play a game blindfolded, he got such a headache that he never signed up for such adventures again. If Andre wastes his talent on such foolishness, do you really think the English will lend him a helping hand? They'll just say of the maestro, "Just look at this Philidor, now he's nobody, unfortunately, he wasted his talent on worthless wooden toys."

                          Despite his impressive performances, Andre was not living in luxury in London, as evidenced by his letter to his wife dated April 20, 1787: "My dear, as always, I observe a constant fast, only dreaming of luxurious dishes. And in my blue suit, even a beggar would not want to parade. But I have to stick to the plan, according to which I live on additional income, and the money I receive under contract, I send to you." Philidor tried to earn money on the third edition of the "Analysis," but this venture ended in disaster. Andre sold only 65 copies of the book.

                          In December 1792, the maestro once again set off for Albion. According to one version, he was fleeing from his homeland from the cruel Robespierre, who often gave the chess player suspicious glances at "Rejans" (the bloody revolutionary allegedly did not like that the chess player was constantly supported by people of royal blood). Soon the war between France and Britain began. After three years, peace finally prevailed, but one obstacle prevented Andre from returning home. The new French government included the chess player in the list of emigrants, and such "traitors" were prohibited from returning home. Eventually, Philidor's family managed to have his name removed from the blacklist.

                          Upon receiving this joyful news, Andre began to pack his bags. This can be learned from the chess player's letter to his wife, dated May 12, 1795: "I am eagerly awaiting my passport to fly into your arms and kiss all our dear children. I believe I will receive the document within 6-7 weeks and hope that I will have the strength to cross the strait from Dover to Calais." Unfortunately, the maestro was mistaken. Bureaucrats continued to procrastinate, so the disappointed Andre, unable to endure the separation from his loved ones any longer, flew to the chess paradise on August 31, 1795. Several London newspapers responded to the champion's death with such an obituary. "Yesterday, the brilliant chess player, Mr. Philidor, made his last move and moved to a better world."

                          On September 3, the Frenchman was buried in the cemetery of St. James's Church behind the chapel. A fairly large procession followed the coffin. However, as soon as people paid their last respects to the maestro, everyone immediately scattered about their business. Without bothering about the tombstone or the cross. Years passed, the nameless mound was overgrown with weeds and lost among other neglected graves. The outstanding chess player who had always sought the glory of Mozart shared the fate of the brilliant Austrian.

                          sport24.ua
                          ]]>                           Wed, 08 Jun 2022 16:58:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?splendor-and-poverty-of-the-first-world-champion-chess-mozart-solved-kempelens-scam-beat-gendarmes-and-impressed-the-king-himself https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000016                           <![CDATA[Mechanical Turk]]> imblog
                          The Turk, also known as the Mechanical Turk or the Automated Chess Player (German: Schachtürke, "chess Turk"; Hungarian: A Török), is a fake automaton built in the late eighteenth century that could supposedly play chess with a human. It looked like a pedestal with a chessboard mounted on it, next to which was a sculpture of a man in Turkish clothes.


                          Copper engraving by Turk showing open cabinets and working parts. The operator in the lower right corner is operating the levers. Kempelen was a skilled engraver and may have created this image himself.

                          From 1770 until its destruction in a fire in 1854, various owners presented this device as an automaton, although it was eventually proven to be an elaborate hoax and covertly operated by a human[1]. It was designed and inaugurated in 1770 by Wolfgang von Kempelen (Hungarian: Kempelen Farkas; Kempelen Farkas, 1734-1804) to impress Empress Maria Theresa. The mechanism was perceived as an artificial chess player capable of defeating any human opponent, and was also able to solve the chess problem "Knight's Roundabout", which requires a player to move his knight around all the squares of the chessboard, visiting each one only once.

                          Charcoal self-portrait signed by Kempelen, who built the Turk

                          Publicly advertised as the "Turk" automaton (he received this nickname due to the typical appearance of the sculpture), it was a mechanical illusion that allowed a human chess master to hide inside and control the machine from there. With a skilled operator, the Turk won most of the games. The machine traveled throughout Europe and both Americas for over 80 years until it burned in a fire in 1854. During its existence, it defeated many players who challenged it, including well-known statesmen such as Napoleon Bonaparte and Benjamin Franklin. In 1804, Johann Nepomuk Maelzel bought the device and exhibited it. The chess masters who secretly controlled it were Johann Allgaier, Henri Boncour, Aaron Alexandre, William Lewis, Jacques Mouret, and William Schlumberger, but the operators inside the mechanism during Kempelen's initial tour remain unknown.

                          The Creation of the Turk

                          Kempelen was inspired to create the Turk after visiting the court of Maria Theresa of Austria in Schönbrunn, where François Pelletier performed an illusion. In a conversation that took place afterwards, Kempelen promised to return to the palace with an invention that would surpass the illusion.

                          As a result of the challenge, an automatic chess player was created, later known as the Turk. The machine was a mannequin with a human-sized head and torso, with a black beard and gray eyes, dressed in a Turkish robe and turban. According to journalist and author Tom Standage, it was a "traditional costume of an eastern magician." In his left hand, he held a long Ottoman smoking pipe while in a state of repose, and his right hand lay on a large closed table that was approximately 110 cm long, 60 cm wide, and 75 cm high. The table had an 18-inch wide chessboard. The front part of the table consisted of three doors, a hole, and a cabinet that stored a set of red and white ivory figurines.


                          Illustration of the mannequin's working principle. A human operated the various parts using internal levers and machinery. This is a misconception based on Raknitz's calculations, showing an impossible design relative to the actual dimensions of the machine

                          The car's interior was very complex and designed to deceive those who watched it. If you opened the left front door, you could see several gears and screws that resembled a clock mechanism. This compartment was designed so that if the back doors of the table were also open at the same time, the car could be seen through. On the other side of the machinery table, there was no machinery; instead, it contained red cushions and removable parts, as well as brass structures. This compartment was also designed to provide a clear view through the car. Under the Ottoman mannequin's robe, there were two other doors. They also contained clock-like mechanisms and provided a view through the car. The design allowed the presenter to open all the doors for the audience to maintain the illusion of its full automation.

                          Neither the clock mechanism visible from the left side of the car nor the box in which the chess set was stored extended all the way to the back of the table, occupying only a third of its width. Inside, there was a movable chair that allowed the operator to move from place to place and thus avoid observation when the presenter opened different doors. When the seat was moved, the dummy machinery moved into its place, allowing the person to continue to hide inside the table.


                          The problem of the knight's move, as solved by the Turk.
                          The resulting closed loop allows you to go around the chessboard from any starting point on it

                          The chessboard on the table was thin enough not to obstruct the action of magnets attached to the base of each chess piece. The piece was attracted to a magnet placed under the corresponding square of the chessboard, with a string attached to it. This allowed the operator inside the machine to observe the movement of the pieces. The squares under the chessboard were marked with corresponding numbers, 1-64, allowing the operator to accurately see which square the opponent moved their piece to. The internal magnets were arranged in such a way that external magnetic forces did not affect them, and Kempelen often allowed a large magnet to be placed near the chessboard to show that the machine supposedly did not use magnetism.

                          As an additional means of deception, the Turk had a small wooden box-shaped chest, which the presenter placed on the table. While Johann Nepomuk Mälzel, the next owner of the machine, did not use the box, Kempelen often gazed at it during the game, hinting that the box controlled certain aspects of the machine. Some believed that the box possessed supernatural power; in his book "The Animated Mind" of 1784, Karl Gottlieb von Windisch wrote that "an old lady, who had not yet forgotten her childhood tales... went and hid on a bench by the window, as far away as possible from the evil spirits who, in her firm belief, possessed the machine."

                          Inside, there was also a perforated board through which levers connected to pantograph-like levers passed, controlling the mannequin's left hand. A metal pointer on the pantograph moved along an internal chessboard, while the pantograph simultaneously moved the Turk's hand over the table's chessboard. The range of motion allowed the operator to move the Turk's hand up and down, while the lever's rotation closed and opened the fingers, allowing the figures to be taken on the chessboard. The entire space inside could be seen by the operator thanks to the light of a simple candle burning through a ventilation system that passed through the mannequin. Other parts of the machinery created a clock-like sound when the Turk made a move, which further enhanced the mechanical illusion and allowed the Turk to make various facial expressions. After Mälzel acquired the Turk, he added a voice box that allowed the machine to say "Échec!" (the French word for "check") during matches.

                          The operator inside the machine also had tools to communicate with the outside presenter. Two copper disks with numbers on them were placed opposite each other on the table's inner and outer surfaces. The rod could rotate the disks to the required number, which served as the code for communication.

                          Speeches

                          The Turk made its debut in 1770 at Schönbrunn Palace, about six months after Pelletier's illusion. Kempelen addressed the audience, introducing his creation, and began demonstrating the machine and its parts. Each of Kempelen's displays of the Turk began with opening the doors and drawers of the table, allowing the audience to inspect the machine. After this demonstration, Kempelen announced that the machine was ready to accept the challenge.

                          Kempelen informed the player that the Turk would play white and make the first move. Between moves, the Turk held its left hand on a cushion. The Turk was able to nod twice if the opponent's queen was threatened and three times if a check was made to the king. If the opponent made an impossible move, the Turk shook its head, moved the piece back, and made its own move, thereby forcing the opponent to miss a turn. Louis Dutens, a traveler who attended one of the sessions, tried to trick the machine by "moving a knight as a queen, but my mechanical opponent did not agree with this, he took my queen and put it on the square from which I moved it." Kempelen allowed the audience to walk around the room during the game, holding magnets, iron, and magnetite to the table to check if the machine was controlled by a magnet or weight.

                          The first person to play against the Turk was Count Ludwig Cobenzl, an Austrian palace courtier. Among other contenders that day, he was quickly defeated, and match observers noted that the machine played aggressively and usually defeated its opponents in thirty minutes.

                          European Tour

                          After the machine's debut, interest in it grew throughout Europe. However, Kempelen was more interested in his other projects and avoided showing the Turk, often lying to potential opponents that it was undergoing repairs. At one point, von Windisch wrote that Kempelen "refused his friends and the crowd of interested people from all over the world the pleasure of seeing this famous automaton." Over a decade after its debut in the Schönbrunn Palace, the Turk only played against one opponent, Scottish nobleman Sir Robert Murray Keith, and Kempelen even went as far as completely dismantling the Turk after the match. It was said that Kempelen called his invention a mere "bagatelle," was dissatisfied with its popularity, and decided to continue working on steam engines and machines that imitated human speech.

                          In 1781, Emperor Joseph II ordered Kempelen to reconstruct the Turk and transport it to Vienna for the official visit of Grand Duke Paul I and his wife. The event was so successful that Grand Duke Paul proposed a European tour for the Turk, a request to which Kempelen reluctantly agreed.


                          François-André Danican Philidor won a match against the Turk in Paris in 1793

                          The Turk began its European tour in 1783, with its debut in France in April. Stops in Versailles preceded performances in Paris, where the Turk lost a match to Charles Godfrey de la Tour d'Auvergne, the Duke of Bouillon. After arriving in Paris in May 1783, it played before the public and faced various opponents, including a lawyer named Monsieur Bernard, who ranked second in chess ability. Demand for a match with Francois-Andre Danican Philidor, considered the best chess player of his time, grew after sessions in Versailles. Moving to Cafe de la Regence, the machine played against many of the most experienced players, often losing (for example, to Bernard and Verdoni), finally playing a match against Philidor at the Academy of Sciences. Although Philidor won his match with the Turk, Philidor's son noted that his father called this game "his most exhausting game of all time!" The Turk's last game in Paris was against Benjamin Franklin, who was then serving as the U.S. ambassador to France. According to reports, Franklin enjoyed playing with the Turk and remained interested in the machine for the rest of his life, keeping a copy of Philip Thicknesse's book "The Speaking Figure and the Automaton Chess Player, Exposed and Detected" in his library.

                          After visiting Paris, Kempelen transported the Turk to London, where it was exhibited for five shillings per day. Thickets, known in his time as a skeptic, sought opportunities to expose the inner workings of the machine. Although he respected Kempelen as a "very inventive man," he claimed that the Turk was a carefully crafted fraud with a little child inside the machine, and characterized the machine as "a complicated specimen of clockwork... no more than one of many other cunning devices that deceive and mislead spectators."

                          After a year in London, Kempelen and Turk set out for Leipzig, stopping along the way in various European cities. From Leipzig, Turk traveled to Dresden, where Joseph Friedrich Freiherr von Racknitz saw the Turk and published his conclusions in "Über den Schachspieler des Herrn von Kempelen und dessen Nachbildung," along with illustrations showing his ideas about how the machine was operated. He then moved to Amsterdam, after which, according to reports, Kempelen accepted an invitation to Sanssouci Palace in Potsdam from Frederick the Great, the King of Prussia. It was said that Frederick was so impressed with the Turk that he paid a large sum of money for Kempelen to reveal the machine's secret to him. Frederick never revealed the secret, but according to reports, was disappointed to learn how the machine worked. This account is almost certainly unreliable; there is no evidence of a meeting between Turk and Frederick, the first mentions of which date back to the early 19th century, when false stories about Turk also circulated, such as that he played against George III. It seems most likely that the machine remained untouched at Schönbrunn Palace for over two decades, although in the last years of Kempelen's life, he unsuccessfully tried to sell it. Kempelen died on March 26, 1804, at the age of 70.

                          Wikipedia
                          ]]>                           Thu, 19 May 2022 09:58:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?mechanical-turk https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000004                           <![CDATA[How did physicist and inventor Nikola Tesla explain his genius?]]> imblog
                          What is the famous scientist and inventor who made many discoveries in physics? How did Nikola Tesla explain his own genius?
                          1. Nikola Tesla himself explained this with his highly developed imagination: he imagined the operation of the next apparatus so vividly that he didn't need any calculations or experimental verifications. But this was just the final result of a whole chain of events and intermediate achievements. I don't know to what extent he was aware of all this because Tesla never spoke aloud about it.

                          And it all started with the death of his brother. He had an older brother whom young Nikola literally adored. The brother died in front of Nikola's eyes: he was riding a horse, but lost control, fell, and hit his head on a rock. Nikola couldn't help him, and his brother died in his arms a few minutes later. The death of his beloved brother so affected Nikola that he began to have mental problems. He started having nightmares about devils, witches, monsters, and all sorts of creatures. In order to get rid of the nightmares, young Nikola forced himself to imagine beautiful landscapes and scenery: in this way, he tried to replace the nightmarish images with beautiful ones. This played a major role in his future fate. And this is why.

                          A person has two hemispheres in the brain. The left hemisphere is responsible for all logical, rational, thoughtful, linguistic, doubtful, and behavioral thinking, while the right hemisphere is responsible for all illogical, irrational, spontaneous, emotional, imaginative, and paranormal abilities (which every person has without exception). Energy is needed to operate both hemispheres. Furthermore, the development of language leads to the need for constant and increasing activity in the left hemisphere. As a result, the small amount of energy we possess at birth is mainly spent on activating the left hemisphere, leaving almost no energy for the right hemisphere. This results in the right hemisphere becoming minimally active, with its energy only sufficient for emotions and internal organ function, but nothing remains for paranormal abilities. As people age, these abilities are essentially turned off in almost everyone.

                          Nikola Tesla unintentionally activated a mechanism for gathering additional energy from the surrounding space by imagining beautiful landscapes. Since imagination is related to the activity of the right hemisphere, Tesla's constant imagining of beautiful landscapes caused his right hemisphere to become more active. In other words, Tesla began to train his right hemisphere, just like a weightlifter trains muscles. Through increased activity in the right hemisphere, Tesla's body received a higher flow of energy than most people. Energy is inseparably linked with information. Furthermore, energy and information are two sides of the same substance known as the ether in esotericism. By receiving a lot of energy, Tesla also began to receive a lot of information from the ether surrounding us. Specifically, he received information about various technical devices and ways to operate them, which interested him. Subjectively, this was manifested in his mind as images of a rotor spinning and even showing different phases of wear.

                          Why do I know all of this? Because I receive a huge amount of information from various topics from the ether. The reason was similar to Tesla's, but not quite. In my early childhood, I fell from the second floor staircase landing and was in a coma close to death for several days. And after waking up from the coma, I constantly had some nightmares bothering me, I remember that. And my mother advised me to think about something good and beautiful. She probably didn't even know who Tesla was. It was just maternal intuition that suggested the right way to solve the problem. That's why my imagination has been well-developed since childhood. And in the end, I also started receiving a huge amount of information on the most global problems of the universe.

                          2. Well, he didn't really consider himself a genius. But he explained the arrival of ideas with the ability to predict, which, by the way, he had quite well developed. According to him, at some point, his feelings became so acute that he already saw a ready-made model of some coil or electric car, and later he developed this ability for his own needs. Although in my opinion, his genius is just an interesting feature of the brain, that is, while other scientists were busy with calculations and experiments, he did all of it somehow in his head and then made a prototype that could easily go to market or work. Plus, this person had just a phenomenal memory, which allowed him to conduct complex mathematical calculations in his head, and to make it clear, he could easily calculate a triple integral in his head, while others would spend 20 minutes on paper.

                          zkan.com.ua
                          photo: likeme
                          ]]>                           Mon, 11 Apr 2022 22:54:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?how-did-physicist-and-inventor-nikola-tesla-explain-his-genius https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000010                           <![CDATA[Psychological and Pedagogical Conditions of Mental Education of Children in the Works of V.O. Sukhomlynsky]]> imblog
                          Nataliia DAVYDIUK
                          Candidate of Pedagogical Sciences,
                          Associate Professor of the Department of Pedagogy, Psychology and Correctional Education,
                          methodologist of Rivne OIPE

                          ... let us single out the psychological and pedagogical conditions of mental education of children proposed by V. O. Sukhomlynsky, which are important for the professional activity of a modern teacher.
                          V.O. Sukhomlynsky foresaw that the more knowledge children would need to learn, the more the teacher would need to take into account the nature of the child's body during the period of growth, development, and formation of the individual.

                          Taking this into account,
                          the first condition we establish is the consideration of the laws of intellectual development of the individual and the psychophysiological mechanisms of human thinking. V. Sukhomlynsky's insight into psychophysiological processes emphasizes the importance of educators understanding the natural laws of child development. In particular, the pedagogue-researcher stated: "The switching of thought, which is the essence of thinking, is possible only when there is a visual, real or verbal image before the child... The nature of a child's brain requires that its mind be educated... among visual images, so that thought switches from the visual image to the 'processing' of information about that image... The educator considered this characteristic a fundamental mechanism of thinking."

                          The second condition is the consideration of the age-specific characteristics of children by educators. Thus, Vasil Oleksandrovych states: "The thinking of children in the early grades is inseparable from feelings and experiences. The emotional saturation of the learning process is a requirement imposed by the laws of children's thinking."

                          The third condition is the gradual development of a child's thinking - from concrete to abstract. In his works, the educator notes that "a child thinks in images. The more vivid they are, the deeper he/she understands the laws of nature." In addition, V.O. Sukhomlynsky points out that "imaginal thinking is a necessary stage for the transition to conceptual thinking." The educator shares his professional achievements with his readers, revealing his goals: "I tried to get children to work with concepts such as 'phenomenon,' 'cause,' 'effect,' 'dependence,' 'difference,' 'similarity,' and so on... Because these concepts play a big role in the formation of abstract thinking. It is impossible to master these concepts without studying living facts and phenomena,... without a gradual transition from a concrete object, fact, or phenomenon to an abstract generalization," the educator asserts.

                          The fourth condition is the creation of psychological comfort and adherence to the culture of mental work. Vasily Oleksandrovych attached great importance to adhering to the regime of mental work for children, with mandatory alternation of active periods with rest or physical work, and alternating between different types of activities.

                          The fifth condition is the interaction of the child with nature and society, which is the basis for the child's cognitive development. The teacher considered every trip to nature as a lesson in thinking and the development of the mind.

                          The sixth condition is the research-based nature of children's mental work. V.O. Sukhomlynsky attached exceptional importance to the research-based nature of mental work. He understood that a child's brain develops in the process of establishing multifaceted connections with objects and phenomena of the surrounding world - causal, temporal, and functional. Therefore, he sought to help children understand these connections in the phenomena of the surrounding world to develop their curiosity and observation skills.

                          The seventh condition is the development of personal qualities in children that contribute to their cognitive development: the ability to concentrate, set goals, the ability to make voluntary efforts and overcome difficulties. In particular, the teacher warned that "under no circumstances should everything be easy for the child, so that they do not know what difficulties are... The development of willpower begins with setting goals for oneself, focusing mental strength, understanding and self-control. It is important that children feel what is difficult in mental work." He argued: "Just as muscles develop and strengthen from physical exercises in the process of overcoming difficulties, so work and effort are necessary for the formation and development of the brain."

                          The eighth condition is the development of a child's cognitive motivation and curiosity. To achieve this, the educator suggests surprising the child, as "thinking begins with astonishment"; maintaining a measured pace in storytelling, giving the child time to reflect on what they have heard or seen, leaving something unproven so that the child will want to return to what they have learned, and so on.

                          The ninth condition is the creation of an intellectual environment. The educator noted that learning should not be reduced to continuous accumulation of knowledge, to memory training, but should be a "boisterous intellectual life that takes place in the world of games, fairy tales, beauty, music, fantasy, and creativity." Components of the intellectual environment that the researcher considered included reading books, children's games, creating fantastic images, writing miniature works, discussing the surrounding world, solving problems of ingenuity, playing chess, and so on.

                          The tenth condition, valuable for contemporary reflection, is V. O. Sukhomlynsky's view on the purpose of school. In particular, he asserted that the school should first and foremost teach a child how to learn, by forming in them the necessary skills and abilities.

                          Conclusions.
                          The psychological and pedagogical conditions for intellectual education of children, as defined and characterized by V. O. Sukhomlynsky, are aimed at taking into account the regularities of intellectual development of the individual, psychophysiological mechanisms of human thinking, age-specific characteristics of children, creating a psychologically comfortable intellectual environment, organizing interaction of children with nature and society based on research activity, as well as fostering personal qualities in children that contribute to their intellectual development.

                          Rivne Regional Institute of Postgraduate Pedagogical Education
                          ]]>                           Fri, 18 Mar 2022 22:36:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?psychological-pedagogical-conditions-mental-education-children-works-sukhomlynsky https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000012                           <![CDATA[Formation of Elements of Intellectual Culture in Senior Preschoolers in the Course of Mastering the Game of Chess]]> imblog
                          The article offers methodological recommendations devoted to the coverage of psychological and pedagogical issues of forming elements of intellectual culture in senior preschoolers in the course of mastering the game of chess. The article defines a personal and mental approach that will be useful to parents, educators, and practical psychologists.
                          Cognitive development in preschool age is the foundation for the formation of intellectual potential in subsequent age periods. The Constitution of Ukraine, the National Doctrine of Education Development of Ukraine in the 21st century, the State National Program "Education" (Ukraine in the 21st century), the Law of Ukraine "On Preschool Education," and the Basic Component of Preschool Education in Ukraine direct specialists in the field of pedagogy and developmental psychology to search for additional ways of intellectual development of preschoolers, to reveal the mechanisms of formation of their mental ability to consciously and independently use acquired knowledge, skills, and abilities according to their age. Works of domestic and foreign psychologists such as L.I. Bozhovich, L.A. Venger, L.S. Vygotsky, P.Ya. Galperin, O.L. Kononko, D.B. Elkonin, and others are dedicated to the problem of forming intelligence in preschool age.

                          In many countries, programs for teaching children chess in school are being developed. V.O. Sukhomlynsky spoke well about the importance of chess in the system of school education: "In the cultivation of the culture of thinking, chess played a big role... The game of chess disciplined the mind and cultivated directionality. But the most important thing here is the development of memory... Without chess, it is impossible to imagine a full-fledged development of mental abilities and memory."
                          © O.Yu. Khodosenko.
                           
                          How do chess affect the intellectual development of teenagers?
                          This was the goal of a scientific study conducted in Venezuela by a special commission composed of educators, psychologists, and medical professionals. During the experiment, the commission members observed two groups of students. All the children underwent regular school training, but in one of the groups, the children combined their learning with intensive chess classes. After six months of observation, a control test was conducted. Carefully analyzing the results, the experts concluded that the reaction speed of the children who actively played chess during the observation period had increased by almost 40%.

                          However, an analysis of scientific sources shows that they almost do not reflect such an important aspect of this problem as the influence of chess on the formation of intellectual qualities of a preschooler's personality. Special psychological studies of the relevant aspects of this game are necessary for the targeted use of chess as a means of developing the intellectual abilities of an individual.

                          The goal of the article is to use the psycho-pedagogical potential of chess to develop elements of intellectual culture in the personality of preschoolers. After all, at this age, intensive processes of intellectual and other personal qualities formation occur, which are manifested in a unique situation of intellectual competition between two partners under the guidance of an adult coach, that is, in a unique developmental system "child-child-adult coach".

                          In a game that reproduces human relationship situations, a child has to internally lose not only their actions, but also their consequences. This gradually forms an internal plan of action and the ability to plan and anticipate them (emotionally and then rationally). The active desire to enter adult life, contradictions between demands and knowledge and skills become the driving force of game activity (O.L. Kononko, S.V. Kulachkivska, S.O. Ladivir). This has led to the need for analysis of scientific sources on the problem of game activity, in particular, the study of the problem of the influence of chess on the formation of intellectual qualities of personality in older preschool children.

                          Analysis of these data gives reason to believe that the psychological peculiarities of the influence of chess on the intellectual sphere of the personality of a preschool child are still insufficiently studied and developed. In modern studies, coaches mostly tend to believe that chess training should start from a younger school age (A.V. Karpov, O.O. Moroz, H.V. Nesis, O.O. Podgaets), but there are also those who advise introducing preschool children to chess (V.G. Grishin, I.G. Sukhin).

                          During classes, they suggest involving parents in a collaborative partnership with the chess coach, teaching the child on a partnership basis, stimulating them to show creativity, and non-standard solutions to various chess tasks.

                          In its original form, chess educational activity is a collectively distributed activity, in which the solution of a chess cognitive task is carried out jointly with the coach and the preschooler - in the distribution of chess educational actions between them. Gradually, chess educational actions are assimilated by children, and chess activity turns into the ability to formulate and solve chess problems ("learning to learn"). "...A free personality appears where there is free work, which acquires a creative character..." emphasizes O.K. Dusavitsky.
                           
                          The structure of chess educational activity is formed by certain chess actions performed sequentially. The central component of the chess educational activity process is determined by a chess cognitive task, the content of which should not be a partial result, but a general way of solving partial chess cognitive tasks. The psychological sense of such a chess task is to introduce a senior preschooler to a problematic situation, to awaken in them the need to search for the unknown, where the child's "I" is affirmed. It is through this method that new psychological content enters the personality, transforming it.

                          At the same time, important aspects of the influence of chess on the personality of an older preschooler are not taken into account in chess psychology, in particular:

                          • chess is played and carried out in the interaction of "chess player-chess player" according to clear rules and time norms;

                          • the motivation for success is clearly present, that is, the achievement of victory by one partner (checkmate) and the defeat of another. In the case of a tie (stalemate), the child is encouraged to play again, giving them a chance to achieve victory;

                          • interdependence between partners in the game, determined by the tactics and strategy of the game, such as: activity, decisiveness, willingness to take risks, direction towards victory, respect for the partner;

                          • self-esteem, self-regulation, self-actualization, and reflexive behavior regulation of partners during the game;

                          • the enormous role of one's growing chess experience, knowledge of chess theory, and the chess experience of outstanding chess players, as well as the ability to act according to the rules of the game, such as: "touch the piece - make a move", "do not talk during the game", and so on;

                          • intellectual reflection in perceiving and understanding the dynamics of the chess situation, creative use of various moves, logical and operational thinking, ability to switch and distribute attention;

                          • workability, emotional stability, flexibility as a temperament property of partners.

                          As we can see, the entire personality of the player is involved in the process of playing chess, so it is advisable to use a special approach in teaching chess.
                           
                          How is the personality-intellectual approach defined, based on the following methodological principles:

                          • The principle of theoretical understanding of the intellectual qualities of the personality of a preschooler as a personal new formation, as essential features of the mental and cognitive processes of the personality of a preschool child that ensure the cognition of the surrounding reality and are determined by the need to solve chess cognitive tasks. They are formed in correlation with other personality traits - communicative and educational, motivational, reflexive, psychophysiological;

                          • The principle of empirical study of the intellectual qualities of the personality in correlation with other personal qualities, since they do not exist separately but are part of the personality. Hence, it is necessary to identify criteria and establish correlation links between these qualities, which is provided at the stage of a constative experiment;

                          • The principle of experimental formation of intellectual qualities of the personality of a preschooler based on a specially organized, psychologically appropriate game of chess for this age.

                          The personality-intellectual approach allows for much higher effectiveness of the intellectual qualities of the personality of preschoolers in the process of learning the game of chess. Such an approach to the formation of the intellectual qualities of the personality of a preschooler involves forming a holistic understanding of the process and result of chess educational activity as a necessary condition for solving partial chess cognitive tasks.

                          Intellectual qualities that are formed in preschoolers during the process of learning the game of chess as an element of their intellectual culture.
                           
                          After analyzing the works of scientists, coaches, and researcher V.V. Knyazeva, who synthesized the sphere of pedagogical influence of chess on a child's personality from preschool to adolescence, she presents the general results of her research. In particular, she summarizes that chess:

                          • develop combinatorial abilities, cultivate the ability to identify the main points, set goals, plan actions, transfer skills to educational activities, and reduce the workload on students (O.O. Avramenkov);

                          • cultivate the ability to determine a goal and achieve it, mental activity, and creative abilities (V.O. Alatortsev);

                          • develop imagination, combinatorial and logical thinking, creative potential, and operative memory (O.O. Bartashnikov);

                          • cultivate cognitive needs and creative thinking (V.V. Vasyukova);

                          • accelerate personal development, develop various potential abilities and talents, help better understand oneself, and activate cognitive activity;

                          • develop imagination, analytical skills, unique forms of thinking, and attention;

                          • cultivate independence in creativity, a sense of time, responsibility for one's actions, purposefulness, perseverance, external and internal speech, aesthetic taste, and improve academic performance (V.V. Knyazeva);

                          • teach empathy, penetrate the inner world of another person, withstand difficulties, and overcome failures.

                          • Develop willpower, memory, attention, imagination, intuition, self-knowledge, readiness to take risks, objective and realistic attitude towards game partners and oneself; foster high discipline of thinking, logical thinking - making decisions based on judgments, ability to plan, conduct a consistent alternative calculation, forecasting, adequately assessing one's abilities, reflection; influence the child's character overall, help maintain calm in extreme situations (M.V. Krogus);

                          • Foster an active life position, increased interest in spiritual values, develop intellect, purposefulness, desire to be useful, promote a creative character of work, foster a focus on knowledge, independence in judgments and assessments, high cultural needs (G.V. Mints, V.A. Tenetkin);

                          • Order thinking, promote flexibility and logic of thinking, teach goal-setting by overcoming obstacles to achieve it (Ya.M. Rokhlin);

                          • Develop mental abilities, teach comparison and making conclusions as a means of character education (I.G. Sukhin);

                          • Form a wide range of logical techniques of mental activity, generalized intellectual skills, cognitive activity, increase success in all subjects, improve memory, imagination, mental processes (N.F. Talizina, Yu.O. Yakovlev).
                                
                          Based on our own chess experience, we provide a classification of personal qualities that are most developed in different structures of chess game.


                          Recommendations for parents, educators, and practical psychologists on organizing intellectual and developmental activities for preschoolers through playing chess:

                          • It is necessary to carefully consider the individual age characteristics of each participant (perception, attention, memory, thinking, personality as a whole). To do this, before starting chess lessons, it is advisable to study each participant as well as possible.

                          • The chess coach should take on the role of a "generator" of ideas, especially during moments of pause or difficulty.

                          • The chess coach should prepare various questions in advance that can be activated in case of passivity of players of older preschool age.

                          • From the very beginning of learning chess, it is necessary to teach all players to follow the rules and time limits, especially melancholic and phlegmatic children who tend to "stretch" time when considering chess problems.

                          • It is necessary to focus on success and luck. Each chess player should believe in the possibility of finding an interesting solution. At the same time, the coach should in a sense be a "guardian" of optimism.

                          • When conducting group training, it is necessary to monitor the sequence of chess players' performances. It is advisable to use the rule: starting with less confident and less prepared chess players so that more experienced game partners do not "pressure" them.

                          • During chess lessons with the same participants, it is necessary to diversify the chess cognitive tasks and teaching methods. Usually, for group learning of chess, the recommended number of participants is from 8 to 10 (research results show that it is better when there are 6-8 of them).

                          • It is necessary to stimulate the imagination of the participants during chess lessons - everyone should have the opportunity to generate as many ideas as possible when solving chess cognitive tasks.

                          • When teaching a child the game of chess, it is necessary to leave room for personal self-improvement (to form personal mental experience) by creating the strongest possible foundation for this. This emphasis is also placed in order to give full rights to the manifestations of the child's individuality through their mental activity.

                          Taking into account the differences in mastering chess educational activities by children of different temperaments.


                          Conclusion:
                          Thus, this work proposes a certain personality-cognitive approach to the study and formation of intellectual qualities of a preschooler's personality in the process of mastering the game of chess. This approach involves forming a holistic understanding of the process and result of chess learning activity as a necessary condition for solving partial chess cognitive tasks.

                          The main task of forming the intellectual qualities of a preschooler's personality during chess learning is to enable the child to transfer the acquired knowledge to other educational activities through the acquisition of general ways of solving chess cognitive tasks.

                          Therefore, there is a need to improve the educational process of preschool educational institutions, which would provide a more qualitative and comprehensive formation of intellectual and other personal qualities of preschoolers, and the need to use the powerful potential of chess as an effective means in achieving this need by psychological and pedagogical specialists.

                          biomedtech.kpi.ua
                          ]]>                           Thu, 17 Feb 2022 23:30:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?formation-elements-intellectual-culture-senior-preschoolers-course-mastering-game-chess https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000017                           <![CDATA[Chess: how this game is useful for the development of intelligence]]> imblog
                          The human brain is no different from our body and is capable of mental training and building "mental muscles". In this case, chess is a universal simulator that has no analogues in terms of its effectiveness. The peculiarity of the game is that it affects two hemispheres at once, forcing the use of gray matter to the maximum. Let's take a closer look at the benefits of playing chess.
                          Features of the game
                          Chess is a game with a long history that is distinguished by complex multi-layered logic and an extraordinary game world that operates under strict rules. However, the advantage of the game is that in most cases, these rules can be broken (not referring to the rules of chess), resulting in the rule-breaker winning. The phenomenon of chess lies in the development of unconventional thinking.

                          Let's consider a situation: during the game, a player intentionally sacrifices one, two, or even three pieces. The player's strategy is well-hidden, and the opponent's vigilance is lulled. Suddenly, the situation on the board changes dramatically, and the first player launches a checkmate attack. Just a few moves can drastically change the situation, crushing the opponent. This is the magic and higher logic of the game.

                          The game allows players to engage both logical and abstract thinking. The player must think several moves ahead, building possible scenarios for the development of events. During the game, both short-term and long-term memory are activated simultaneously. Few activities can evoke these states. The maximum load has the most favorable effect on mental abilities.

                          What Chess Develops:
                          Logic - all moves of a player are interconnected and follow a general plan. Moves can change during the game, as it is necessary to navigate the existing state of affairs and the dynamic development of the game. Logical thinking is developed naturally in this case, without the need to make an effort. The game itself provides the ability to use logical structures constantly, even after the game is over.

                          Analysis - the ability to assess the situation on the board and build a plan of action based on it. Achieving goals in life without analyzing and working on mistakes is impossible.

                          Memory - one of the main advantages of chess is undoubtedly the development of memory. The player needs to remember their moves in advance, calculate numerous options for the opponent's moves, memorize typical positions - all of this makes the human brain work at its maximum.

                          Concentration of attention - success in chess is impossible without attentiveness. After all, carelessly moving a piece without protection can result in losing it. Even if you are not naturally inclined to focus, regular training will help develop this trait. Progress comes not immediately, but from game to game the opportunity for complete concentration and attention will open up and grow.

                          Character development - the only goal of the game is to win over the opponent, so the struggle of wills is inevitable. Searching for the best solution, the ability to repel a sudden attack, the ability to maintain composure in the most critical stages of the game and continue the fight - all of this toughens and shapes character.

                          Developing focus - any plan during the game has a goal that both participants strive for. Chess teaches you how to achieve your goals by facing resistance from your opponent. Chess allows participants to learn how to find the shortest paths to achieving their desired outcome, without getting distracted by game variations that lead astray.

                          Increasing learning ability - nobody likes to lose in a game, so sooner or later, a person will turn to additional materials in books or on the internet. But this is far from enough, since textbooks provide only a surface overview and recommendations. A person needs to independently analyze the data received and learn how to apply it in different games, using recommendations in each unique game.

                          Developing creative abilities - a person who practices chess often feels a surge of inspiration. This is a paradoxical phenomenon, since chess is an intellectual game. Nevertheless, it is capable of developing creative skills and non-standard thinking.

                          Systematic thinking - many people do not know how to think in an organized way. Chess teaches a person discipline, how to build logical chains of moves, taking into account the available circumstances. Chess is also capable of taking players beyond established boundaries, expanding horizons, and working out complex combinations of moves.

                          The benefit of the game is confirmed by research"
                          The positive impact of chess is subject to annual research and experiments. For example, in 2008 in Germany, primary school students from 4 schools were divided into two tested groups.

                          The first group had to spend one hour a week playing chess for a year. The second group used this time for math lessons. Students from both groups previously struggled to grasp the school curriculum and fell behind their peers.

                          As a result of the experiment, it became known that the participants in the first group significantly outperformed their "colleagues" in computational abilities, which were tested during the experiment. Similar studies were conducted in Italy in 2013.

                          500 schoolchildren were divided into groups and the first group was regularly offered to play chess. After six months, scientists conducted math tests between the groups, and the first group showed the best results. Scientists also found that the increase in students' intellectual abilities increases as the load in the chess game increases.

                          Chess as the Right Model of Perceiving the World
                          The key advantage of chess is that the game teaches players to think ahead and to use the necessary resources in the most efficient way to achieve their goals. Today, chess is a kind of business model of the world, where we learn to win, accept defeat or agree to a temporary compromise. The game forms the right attitude towards achieving goals and the ability to accept loss, toughening the spirit of purposefulness.

                          Whether an adult or a child plays, the habit of thinking this way is developed during mental battles. In other words, to plan your moves in life, to look beyond the lines of the present day. Chess teaches us to set short-term and long-term goals, to develop tactics and strategies to achieve them, to anticipate possible costs and "sacrifices". All of this is necessary for modern people to achieve success in life.

                          Additional Benefits
                          • Improving verbal skills - during the game, communication between opponents is minimized, but at the same time, areas of the brain responsible for communication and language skills are activated.

                          • Developing critical thinking - studies have shown that people who play chess have 19% more developed logic and critical thinking skills compared to others.

                          • Normalizing emotional state - during the game, cold calculation is used, which involves minimizing emotions. Chess teaches self-control and emotional regulation in any situation, maintaining inner peace and harmony.

                          • Protection against age-related diseases - medical research has shown that older people who practice chess are less likely to develop Alzheimer's syndrome.

                          After considering the features of the game, it can be confidently stated that chess is beneficial for people of any age and social status. Unlike physical exercise, it has no contraindications or restrictions. Chess represents a unique combination of enjoyable pastime and mental development.

                          ]]>                           Thu, 11 Nov 2021 19:14:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?chess-useful-game-intelligence-development https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/00000000B                           <![CDATA[About rationality]]> imblog
                          Oleksii Ihnatenko

                          The notion of rationality is one of the key concepts for understanding game theory. Robert Aumann's extremely interesting and insightful work "What exactly is game theory trying to achieve" offered a rather extraordinary view of what game theory and science in general should look like.
                          The main idea (I won't summarize the entire work, which can be found here http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu) is that science is not about truth, but about understanding. Understanding (according to Aumann) is primarily the realization of connections with other elements, understanding how it works and what it leads to. He gives the analogy of a huge puzzle - a picture of the world that you need to put together, and understanding comes from connecting the details. The emergence of the picture as a result of combining the elements is understanding. Therefore, if there are several theories about how people behave in strategic situations (game theory, behavioral economics), and they contradict each other, it does not mean that they are both wrong. We just need to understand their boundaries of application and how they relate to each other.

                          He cites an example of a physicist who said that on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, he believes in Schrödinger, while on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays, he believes in Heisenberg (obviously, the physicist did not work on Sundays).

                          In game theory, we deal with the ideal Homo Rationalis, who knows exactly what he wants and how to best achieve it. Of course, this is an ideal model, ordinary people cannot act in the same way, and this is where behavioral theory comes in - people behave as they do, and we cannot model it. We need to conduct experiments and take cognitive biases into account. An interesting question is: how useful is the general model today? Maybe we can already say that it doesn't work and we need to return to individual experiments?

                          Here's another example: it is known that any game with complete information has a Nash equilibrium, which is a pair of strategies that rational players should choose. Chess is a game with complete information - there is no randomness involved, we know the full history of moves at each step, and we know all the moves the other player can make. Theoretically, it is known that there is an equilibrium - it can be a theoretical tie or a win for one side (more likely for white), but we cannot compute it - we do not have enough resources. So, it is known that the equilibrium (solution) definitely exists, but it cannot be computed. This is like a monkey that grabbed a nut in a box and cannot reach its hand out - it is frustrating.)))

                          Now let's imagine that we have succeeded in this and have two perfect mechanisms playing chess and we are observing them. They will make perfect, optimal moves - will this help us, humans, to play chess? It will probably help somewhat, but we cannot "embed" this algorithm in our heads (at least not yet). But we can learn, analyze our own mistakes, and learn to play better over time. So, the development of such perfect mechanisms is not a pointless task.

                          But there is one caveat - the presence of computers and the (possible) complete solution of chess has almost not improved people's ability to play this game. Grandmasters use programs for preparation, new opening moves are tested on supercomputers (although using the programs themselves in a real game is not allowed - only preparation), but the quality of human play has not improved significantly.

                          However, von Neumann, when he developed game theory, had exactly this idea in mind - to use mathematical tools to find these "perfect solutions" for real strategic situations. Thus, rationality in game theory is understood as two properties:

                          Each player can assign a number to each possible outcome of the game (this is called defining a payoff function). That is, they can compare two outcomes (ideally, saying which is better and which is worse). Then, naturally, the player tries to choose a strategy that gives them a better result. Of course, in life, situations often arise where a person does not maximize their payoff function. Cultural and social factors, or simple habits, can influence a person's behavior. They may not think about how their strategy aligns with the desired outcome and instead behave in a way that society expects or they are accustomed to. Modern experiments show that people often (and unknowingly) make errors in their behavior.

                          The second point for which game theory is criticized is intelligence. Game theory assumes that a player must be able to calculate the best option for themselves. However, as a rule, people who play an unfamiliar game or find themselves in a new strategic situation cannot do this. They need to spend some time and effort to understand how to act correctly.

                          That's why it's important to study game theory —to understand how to act in unfamiliar situations and what actions can be expected from others.

                          Let's think for a moment what would happen if we did not consider the interests of others in strategic situations? There is a well-known phenomenon (which even has a separate name, the "Cobra Effect").

                          This name originated from a situation in colonial history. Once in India, cobras multiplied and the British administration, based on their experience in Britain (when there are many wolves, a reward is offered for their ears), offered a reward for each cobra head. After some time, they realized that the amount of reward paid was increasing. Locals simply started breeding cobras! Then, the angry British declared the cessation of any payments. What did the Indians do? They just released the cobras into the wild… perhaps because it corresponded to their beliefs. The British did not take into account that in the strategic situation they created, local people might have their own interests.

                          The story described above, as noted by the English Wiki, is based on an anecdote, that is, it is a later invention, but the term proposed by Horst Siebert describes a real problem. Similar situations have arisen repeatedly and are well known. For example, a real story is about Hanoi rats, the number of which the French tried to reduce during colonial rule. The French appointed a fixed reward for one tail. And try to guess what happened? After a while, tailless rats started running around Hanoi! Because the locals caught them, cut off their tails, and sent them back into the sewer "to reproduce".

                          A very similar situation happened relatively recently in America, where a reward was offered for killing wild boars that were damaging greenery. It was expected that the population would decrease or be exterminated, instead the number of pigs increased. People started feeding the valuable commodity.

                          site.ua
                          ]]>                           Fri, 30 Jul 2021 12:34:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?about-rationality https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/5j3kb9u8                           <![CDATA[The benefits of chess for children: what develops and how to teach to play]]> imblog
                          Chess is an interesting, exciting and useful game that develops logical and analytical, creative and abstract thinking. It trains endurance and the ability to think ahead, plan and build actions in advance. Chess teaches you to follow the rules and be organized, and has a positive impact on school performance.
                          A child playing chess can easily master the exact sciences. At the same time, this sport is accessible to every child, regardless of physical data and health characteristics. It is universal and suitable for both girls and boys. Chess will remain relevant at any age. Let's learn more about the benefits of this game. Let's look at how to get your child interested in chess and teach your child to play.

                          What are the benefits of chess for a child?
                          1. Multi-move games teach children to think and reason independently, make careful and timely decisions, think ahead and take responsibility for their actions;
                          2. Chess develops logic and intelligence, memory and imagination, patience and attentiveness, goal orientation and perseverance, and the ability to concentrate and focus in a short period of time;
                          3. It cultivates the ability to perceive losses and failures adequately, teaches working on mistakes, and drawing conclusions;
                          4. It expands the horizons, boundaries of systematic and strategic thinking, imagination, and creative potential;
                          5. It instills self-confidence and shapes character, teaches communication, and develops knowledge of the opponent's psychology, and instills willpower;
                          6. Chess performs the most important functions in a child's preschool development. It increases productivity and discipline, endurance and resilience.

                          From what age to start
                          The benefits of playing chess are invaluable for both children and adults. As practice shows, a child can master the rules of chess as early as three or four years old. However, keep in mind that at such a young age, it is very difficult for a child to concentrate on such a process for a long time. Therefore, classes should not be too long. Many experts recommend starting training at the age of four or five.

                          Don't rush to take your child to a chess school right away. In many such institutions, children behave very noisily and actively, chaos and noise reign inside. A coach in such clubs cannot work with each person individually. A child may not understand the rules and be afraid of what is expected of him. The first losses, stress, new people and surroundings, disorder and confusion will deter interest in chess and the desire to play.

                          Therefore, it is better to start learning at home, in a familiar and comfortable environment. When the child has mastered the basics of the game, you can turn to a coach or send the child to a chess club. And parents should instill a love for the game of chess. Explain the basic rules, but do it gently and patiently, without pressure.

                          Choose convenient equipment for your child. The board should not be too big or small, magnetic or plastic. Choose a classic wooden board 40x40. The figures and details should be in the child's field of view. The figures should be well distinguishable from each other so that the child can understand the value of each and be able to distinguish the necessary one. They should be comfortable and not slip out of the child's hands.

                          Rules of Learning
                          Watch educational videos and programs, play on a computer or smartphone, and read relevant books. During the process, pay attention to the child's abilities. Based on this, create an approximate learning plan.

                          The first lessons should be short and last up to ten minutes. Otherwise, the child will get tired, and the game will become boring for them. Use a game format for the lessons and gradually introduce the rules. Gradually increase the duration of the lessons up to 30-60 minutes a day. In school age, it is already possible to play for two hours. However, as soon as you see that the child is bored or tired, stop the game.

                          Do not scold the child if something does not work out for them. Explain the mistake calmly and always praise them. Note that this time they played better than the previous time. Do not force them to study forcefully; otherwise, it will take away their love for chess.

                          Do not focus on the result and do not scold the child if they lose. On the contrary, support and praise them. Identify mistakes and reasons for the loss. It is important to develop the right attitude towards losing; otherwise, it will negatively affect the child's psyche.

                          How to teach a child to play chess
                          To get the child interested, tell them that this is an ancient game with two armies fighting against each other. Children love mystery and intrigue. Talk about the pieces, come up with an interesting story or legend for each one. Colorful and beautifully designed pieces will definitely captivate the child.

                          Explain that the chessboard is divided into squares and each square represents one move. It is important to convey to the child that the game should be fair and that it is important to strictly follow the rules.

                          Don't explain all the pieces at once, take it gradually. Learn the names, placement, and rules of movement. It's better to start with pawns. You can even start by playing only with pawns. Play a few games and reinforce the skill, and then add a new piece and so on.

                          To develop the child's chess skills, they should always have a partner to play with. Do not refuse the child if they ask you to play with them. Once they have mastered the rules and principles of the game, consider enrolling them in a chess club or hiring a personal coach, as professional training is necessary for further growth.

                          To interest a child who does not want to play, psychologists recommend using an interesting technique. Simply don't let them play. Forbidden fruit is sweet, and every child wants to do what is forbidden. Show them how interesting it is to play chess, but don't let them look at or touch the pieces or take part in the game. Then the child will definitely say that they also want to play.

                          By the way, this technique works in many areas. If a child doesn't want to play a musical instrument or even eat, tell them that they cannot eat vegetables right now. You'll see how the child will start eating the dish they refused just a few minutes ago.

                          ]]>                           Wed, 07 Jul 2021 18:27:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?the-benefits-of-chess-for-children-develops-teach-to-play https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/00000000C                           <![CDATA[Alpha Zero, checkmate]]> imblog
                          Oleksii Ihnatenko

                          Stockfish
                          Now a little about the best chess program. In simple terms, it consists of a position evaluation function based on general principles and specific factors (such as material balance, king safety, control of squares, doubled pawns - usually bad, rooks - best when controlling open files, and bishops - bad when blocked by their own pawns, etc.), a well-developed opening database, endgame tablebases with known results, and a combination calculation engine based on optimized Alpha-Beta pruning.

                          As a result, the program didn't make mistakes in the opening, calculated combinations better than a human, achieved better positions, and won games. The maximum rating of Magnus Carlsen is 2882, and the rating of the latest (official) version of Stockfish 8 64-bit 4CPU is 3495.

                          The hopes of protein chess players
                          But there was a reason that pleased the chess players' egos, namely positional thinking. Under some conditions, the program evaluated the position worse than a not very strong player. Here is one problem from 1912 (White's move)



                          If you input this position into a chess engine, it will show a decisive advantage for Black. No chances for White whatsoever. However, White easily achieves a draw, which is obvious to anyone who plays even a little bit. Let's explain it for others, especially since it demonstrates the player's thought process:

                          1. Taking our own pawns is not allowed, so if we place White pawns on white squares, it will block the position (as Black doesn't have a light-square bishop or knights). As a result, Black's pieces won't be able to cross or destroy this 'great wall' of pawns. That's our goal, and now we'll think about how we can achieve it.
                          2. From here, a specific idea emerges: we need to place pawns with checks; otherwise, Black will advance their pawns and create a breakthrough for their pieces. Thanks to the White bishop behind Black's position, the Black king is limited in its movements, but the combination with c4+ doesn't work—after its completion, there are two pawns left that need to be placed on white squares, and it can be done in just one move.
                          3. Therefore, the tactical decision is to sacrifice the bishop on a4 to lure the opponent's king there.

                          After the obvious sequence of moves Ba4+ Kxa4 b3+ Kb5 c4+ Kc6 d5+ Kd7 e6+ Kxd8 f5, we obtain a position where Black's rooks, bishop, and king can move to any square in any sequence—the situation remains unchanged.

                          It's amusing that even in this position, the computer considers Black to have an advantage and only reluctantly acknowledges a draw after 50 moves (the 50-move rule without any captures or pawn moves results in a draw). Unfortunately, it was impossible to exploit this peculiarity in practice, but a certain doubt remained—after all, people evaluate such positions instantly.

                          Alpha Zero vs Stockfish
                          The application of the AlphaZero concept to chess and shogi is described in the article [2]. This match was commented on by many grandmasters (you can find it on YouTube). It's worth noting the factors that made the confrontation unequal (there are different opinions on how to evaluate them):

                          1. The programs used different computational resources.
                          2. Stockfish was prohibited from using opening databases and endgame tables.
                          3. Stockfish was limited in its available memory.
                          4. The time settings were very unusual, with only 1 minute allotted for each move.

                          Tore Romstad from the Stockfish team stated that the results are not indicative because Stockfish was effectively tied down and deprived of its strong points (including opening databases, and Stockfish also has a complex time management system for standard time settings). The fact that AlphaZero was trained for 4 hours doesn't mean much, as it was trained on several thousand TPUs - specialized processors. Therefore, under such conditions, the Stockfish vs AlphaZero match is like comparing apples to orangutans (a standard program running on regular hardware versus a specialized neural network on custom processors).

                          The result of the match was a resounding defeat for Stockfish — it didn't win a single game and lost in 28 games (with 72 draws). Despite the fact that Stockfish calculated some variations better in certain positions, AlphaZero simply outplayed its opponent, masterfully employing positional ideas (which was perhaps the biggest surprise of the match). Chess commentators note that they have never seen such deep and human-like moves from a program before. In fact, in just 4 hours of self-learning, AlphaZero uncovered strategic principles of chess, learned tactical maneuvers, and revealed new openings (in one of the games, it even played the most sharp and principled variation, which had only recently appeared in tournament practice).

                          Conclusions
                          As one commentator said, "I've always dreamed of advanced aliens coming to Earth and showing us how to play chess. Today, I witnessed that."

                          The main result is as follows: First, we created a program that plays as a program, playing better than a human, and we understand the algorithm behind its functioning. Now, we've created a neural network, and we don't understand how it plays, but it's much closer to how humans play, better than a human, considering the inequality in the conditions of the game.

                          The second result is that the network didn't use any of the previous knowledge accumulated by humanity (openings, strategy, endgame manuals - and there are around 200,000 chess books - sad but true), and it learned by playing against itself. Viswanathan Anand commented on this, saying, "We played chess for 600 years, and it learned in 4 hours. What a good joke."

                          Considering that the quantity and quality of data are key issues for training neural networks, the joke is indeed a good one. It's a bit disheartening for humanity.

                          The third point is that Alpha Zero considered significantly fewer variations than Stockfish, quickly discarding bad branches. This indicates that a program that was extensively developed by many programmers can be replaced by a neural network that learns quickly and performs the same task even faster (there are still many challenges, but there are already examples of success).

                          On the relatively good news side, for now, the application of this algorithm is limited to games with deterministic rules (probably not for long).

                          And this is another step towards creating algorithms for general cognitive abilities - the ability to learn without a teacher, understanding, and perhaps consciousness (in reality, nobody can predict the ultimate outcome).

                          Sources
                          1 Mastering the game of Go with deep neural networks and tree search
                          2 Mastering Chess and Shogi by Self-Play with a General Reinforcement Learning Algorithm

                          P.S. Following a tip from Anton Senenko (thanks to whom this article was written), I'd like to add two more great articles by Dmytro Mishkin here https://goo.gl/5BNqGc and here https://goo.gl/3QBzoZ where you can learn more about the neural network algorithm and the match inequality with Stockfish.

                          site.ua
                          ]]>                           Tue, 08 Dec 2020 17:21:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?alpha-zero-checkmate https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000005                           <![CDATA[Women's chess: does the reality correspond to the series "The Queen's Gambit"?]]> imblog
                          Oleksandra Kozlova
                          Sociologist
                          Cultural activist, activist and copywriter.
                          She is a student researching the influence of media on public opinion.


                          The Queen's Gambit is the name of the chess opening (the beginning of the game), which is considered one of the most difficult techniques. It is the main character of the series of the same name, Beth Harmon, who has mastered it. The brilliant chess player is trying to become the number one player among men. But why is it so difficult for her? Where is the truth in the plot of the series and where is fiction? What obstacles and limitations affect women in chess?
                          In February 2019, the organizing committee of the 2024 Olympic Games received a proposal to include chess in the list of competitions. There are several reasons for this, just as there are reasons why chess is considered a sport despite its intellectual nature. Chess is a strategic duel that requires significant concentration and the ability to calculate the opponent's moves. Like any sport, physical endurance is also important in chess, as some matches can last for hours. Finally, chess competitions are supported at the international level, making the achievements of participants a matter of not only individual but also national pride. Like in physical sports, there are men's and women's competitions in chess. However, women can participate in men's tournaments and compete for the title of "International Grandmaster," which requires a higher rating than the title of "Grandmaster" for women. Therefore, only women's competitions are gender-segregated.

                          How did this happen? Are women truly "naturally" less capable in chess? What factors do we need to consider when discussing "women's chess"?



                          THE HISTORY OF CHESS: WERE THERE ANY WOMEN IN IT?
                          Chess first appeared in the East. Of course, their primary role, appearance, and player functions differed significantly from what we are accustomed to seeing in chess today. However, chess has always been considered a game of military strategy. The piece that stood next to the king was not always the most powerful. European players endowed it with additional abilities, and it began to perform the functions of a queen. In the precursor game to chess called "shatranj," the queen was a much weaker piece as it could only move and capture the enemy one square diagonally, similar to the modern pawn.

                          By the way, the word "ferz," which we use in the Ukrainian language, derives precisely from the name of the piece in shatranj - "ferz," a word of Persian origin. In translation, it means "vizier," the closest advisor to the king. While for us, "queen" is an informal name for a piece that is never used in the professional sphere, in the West, the piece is considered a full-fledged queen - it is called "chess queen" or simply "queen." Thus, in Ukrainian chess, there exists a king and a ferz - ruler and their closest advisor, while in the Western version, there is a king and queen. In some languages, the chess queen is also referred to as a "dame."

                          Most women did not have access to military strategy in both the Arab world and medieval Europe, and chess could replicate this social reality. This raises the question of whether the modern figure of the queen has a living historical model.


                          Isabel of Castile - a possible historical model of a chess queen

                          The historian Marilyn Yalom associates the image of the chess queen with the Queen of Castile, Isabella I, who was considered the most warlike ruler in the history of Spain. Perhaps it was her political power that led to the power of the chess piece, as it was during Isabella's reign that the chess queen began to walk not only straight, but also diagonally and at any distance.


                          Movements of the chess queen in the game

                          The game of chess has not always been a domain dominated by men. In the book "Birth of the Chess Queen" published in 2004, Marilyn Yalom describes the long history of chess as a game that initially gained popularity among women in Europe. The greatest historical popularity of chess dates back to the 15th century when the chess queen firmly established herself on the board as the most powerful piece. In medieval Spain, women played chess after childbirth - due to their lack of strength, they could only lie down, so the game provided them with entertainment. Later, chess began to be used during negotiations as a tool for resolving disputes or even for courtship. Thus, there is a possibility that the popularity of the game in the West owes much to women.

                          Folklore also testifies to this fact. Yalom gives an example of a French fairy tale from 1230. It tells the story of a knight who has to win a game of chess against the emir's daughter in order to marry her. In India, the birthplace of chess, there is a legend about a king who was able to win at chess thanks to his wife - he overheard the words of her lullaby in which the queen encrypted winning moves.


                          "Ladies Playing Chess" by Leonard Taylor, 1913.

                          In the 17th century, women suddenly stopped playing chess. Yalom attributes this phenomenon to a change in the capabilities of the pieces. Before that, chess was considered a "calm" game, with limited movements of the pieces. Over time, the queen and bishop began to move more actively along the board. The main function of chess changed - from a leisurely game between lords and queens, chess turned into a real duel, an attribute of the public sphere, where women's activity was not welcomed.

                          WAS BOBBY FISCHER (AND OTHERS) SEXIST?
                          Since then, women's participation in chess has declined. Moreover, for several centuries, stereotypes have been perpetuated about women's alleged "natural" unsuitability for logical games. An article published in the American Chess Magazine in 1897 attributed the "failure" of women in chess to their supposed "deviation from logic." The authors speculated that hairpins could be the cause of this[1].

                          One of the most famous American grandmasters, Bobby Fischer, once gave an interview to Ralph Ginzburg, a journalist from Harper's magazine. The chess player said, "They're all weak, all women. They're stupid compared to men. You know, they shouldn't play chess. [...] There's never been a woman player, never, who's worth a damn in chess" [2]. Ironically, Fischer learned how to play chess from his own sister.


                          Bobby Fisher and his sister, Joan, on the left.

                          Such stereotypes are detrimental to women's careers. In her essay "Where's Bobby Fischer?" Hannah Shank describes, using her own daughter as an example, why girls can have little interest in chess from an early age. The author refers to this as a "threat of stereotypes." American researchers Katie Woolfifer and Henk Rotgans found that by the age of six, girls are already aware of the stereotype that "good chess players are usually boys." Furthermore, this mindset affects how girls play, as evidenced by an analysis of the results of 12 chess tournaments.

                          The "threat of stereotypes" not only affects children but also influences the performance of adults. In a 2008 study, researchers from the University of Padua (Italy) invited 42 experienced female chess players to play online against men with similar ratings. The participants achieved better results when they were told they were playing against a woman. However, when the female chess players discovered they were playing against men, their results were significantly lower[3].

                          It may seem difficult to hear something similar to Bobby Fischer's statements in the modern world. However, in 2015, British grandmaster Nigel Short called on the public to "gratefully accept" the fact that men simply play chess better [4]. This led the Twitter community to inquire about why Judit Polgár, a chess player from Hungary, won a game against Short in one of the championships. Nigel's argument was based on centuries-old repetitions of the "innate" inability of women to win in logical games.

                          Such prejudices still exist even in academic circles. In 2013, a psychologist from the University of New South Wales (Sydney) published a study titled "Explaining male predominance at the apex of intellectual achievement" [5]. The main conclusion of the article claimed that the "innate abilities" act as a barrier for women in the intellectual sphere, suggesting that men are inherently better at playing chess, according to the psychologist's perspective.

                          JUDITH POLGAR IS A TRUE QUEEN OF THE CHESSBOARD
                          The main character of "The Queen's Gambit" does not have a real-life prototype — the directors were inspired by several personas. The producer of the miniseries mentions that the internationally renowned Garry Kasparov lived a life similar to the protagonist, as he also demonstrated genius abilities in his childhood and grew up during the Cold War era [6]. In reality, the miniseries is an adaptation of Walter Tevis' novel "The Queen's Gambit," which tells the fictional story of a girl from an orphanage who plays a strategic game with the janitor in the evenings. Over time, the girl abuses alcohol and tranquilizers, making it difficult for her to continue achieving success. In the series, the character Beth Harmon manages to overcome her addiction.

                          A notable inspiration for the portrayal of the main character in "The Queen's Gambit" is Judit Polgár (born in 1976) — the first woman in history to reach the same heights in men's chess championships as Beth Harmon. At the age of 15, Judit became the youngest grandmaster in the world. She defeated opponents who were considered unbeatable, including a notable victory against Garry Kasparov in 2002. At that time, he was the world's top chess player. Polgár's peak rating was 2735, making her the eighth-highest-ranked player overall, alongside male players. In 2014, she announced her retirement from competitive chess and currently serves as an honorary Vice President of FIDE.


                          Judith Polgar during her famous game with Garry Kasparov.

                          Two of Judit's sisters also played chess, but she was the one who achieved significant success. Susan, the eldest of the Polgár sisters, spoke to Psychology Today in 2005, saying, "Girls can learn to play just as well as boys, but they often approach the game differently. Girls are more likely to solve chess puzzles rather than play against their friends. Boys always choose competition" [7].


                          Polgar sisters Judith, Susan, and Sofia (from left to right)


                          Judith Polgar - Grandmaster, FIDE Vice President

                          As long as there are no chess puzzle tournaments in the world, women should develop a thirst for competition. Judith Polgar is known for her critical stance on separate women's championships. The chess player refused to play in tournaments for women only - she was a supporter of open competitions.

                          MIXED CHAMPIONSHIPS: TO BE OR NOT TO BE?
                          Female chess players have the opportunity to compete with men. The annual US Open Chess Championship is one example of such an opportunity. However, national federations still adhere to the tradition of segregating men and women in competitions.

                          The selection of champions has a strictly segregated structure, with separate championships based on age, geography, gender, and in some cases, even profession (such as the US Armed Forces Championship). The title of Grandmaster can be achieved by both men and women. However, there is a separate title for women - Woman Grandmaster (which requires a slightly lower rating than its male counterpart). Women's tournaments attract media attention, feminize the field, and help increase the number of female chess players in competitions. At the same time, this approach is criticized because women do not gain experience playing against men, who currently have higher ratings, and the overall level of women's chess remains lower. "Our goal is to have women and men compete on equal footing," stated renowned Grandmaster Judit Polgár [8].

                          WOMEN'S CHESS IN UKRAINE
                          Similar segregation of competitions also exists in Ukraine. Natalia Buksa from Lviv, the winner of the World Junior Girls' Chess Championship in 2015, has extensive experience participating in both women's and men's chess competitions. In March 2015, she achieved second place in the men's international tournament "Lviv Tradition," and in 2018, she won the gold medal at the Women's Chess Championship of Ukraine. The chess player highlights the one-sidedness of gender segregation, where women can participate in men's competitions, but not vice versa (thus women's chess remains exclusively for women, while men's chess becomes mixed).


                          In 2015, Natalia won the world chess championship for junior girls

                          Among the factors that hinder women from being more successful, Natalia highlights the challenges of concentration and female responsibilities. "Women need to juggle multiple tasks simultaneously, such as household chores and childcare. As a result, they may have less focus during competitions, as some games can last up to six hours." Participation in chess championships is particularly difficult for female chess players with families. "It's challenging to balance family and professional life when you have three or four children—to participate in competitions throughout the year and return home tired, with the same household chores as everyone else. That's why my acquaintances often rely on the services of a nanny or involve grandparents in the upbringing process," adds Natalia.

                          Despite segregation, there are different evaluation standards in chess games. For example, one of the requirements for obtaining the title of male Grandmaster on the FIDE website is to have a rating of at least 2500, while the threshold for the title of female Grandmaster is 2300. "It's like running a hundred-meter race in 9 seconds for the male Grandmaster title and 9.5 seconds for the female title. Those women who can complete the hundred-meter race in 9 seconds receive the title of male Grandmaster," explains Natalia. She holds the title of International Master among men and FIDE Women's Grandmaster. "Women with potential should keep moving forward, just like Beth Harmon from the renowned series," believes the chess player.



                          After her victory in 2015, Natalia's activities were not limited to chess. In 2019, she completed her studies at the Law Faculty of Lviv National University. Currently, the Grandmaster continues to train and participate in competitions. Recently, she traveled to Serbia, where she secured the second place on the first board in the Women's Chess League.

                          Currently, there are 21 female Grandmasters in Ukraine, including well-known players such as Anna and Maria Muzychuk, Yulia Osmak, and Anastasia Rakhamangulova.

                          RESULTS
                          According to statistics, there are significantly more male chess champions than female champions. Similarly, there are more male players than female players. The FIDE list provides 121 names of international sportswomen, while there are over three and a half thousand male players. The top female players, Hou Yifan (China), Koneru Humpy (India), and Aleksandra Goryachkina (Russia), currently hold the 86th, 298th, and 278th positions, respectively, in the FIDE rating.[10] As of 2020, there has never been a female world chess champion in the history of chess.

                          Despite the low number of women in chess, research conducted by Merim Bilalić in 2007 shows that they play on par with men. The researcher analyzed the ratings of the German Chess Federation for the year 2007 and found that women constituted only 5.82% of participants, yet their results corresponded to what statistically could be expected from this 5.82%.[11]

                          The series "The Queen's Gambit" set a record on Netflix. Within just 28 days of its premiere, it was watched by over 62 million subscribers (and even more worldwide). This is a record for the platform, as no other film has gained such a large number of views so quickly. Discussions about the series have been ongoing on Ukrainian Facebook for several weeks, indicating the relevance of women's chess and the untapped potential of women for society.

                          Women have been playing chess for centuries. Even at times when women's public participation was not encouraged, the queen piece remained present and powerful. Today, the main barrier for female chess players is the set of biases and stereotypes that hinder girls from developing an interest in chess and later nurturing their abilities. Double burdens, family obligations without support, and gender pressure remain significant obstacles. Therefore, women should not be considered inferior chess players "by nature."

                          Currently, no female player has achieved the status of the highest-rated world champion. This is not a verdict against female chess players but rather another reason to encourage women in every possible way to realize their potential. The popularity of the series "The Queen's Gambit" is likely to inspire more girls to take an interest in chess and contribute to dismantling outdated stereotypes about women.


                          At the end of the series " The Queen's Gambit", the main character Beth Harmon appears as a white queen

                          [1] Winter, Edward. Chess and Women. www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/women.html.
                          [2] http://www.chessmaniac.com/Bobby_Fischer/Bobby_Fischer_Articles4.shtml
                          [3] https://aeon.co/essays/why-are-only-two-of-the-world-s-top-100-chess-players-women
                          [4] https://time.com/3828179/chess-nigel-short-sexist-inequality/
                          [5] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S019188691400261X#:~:text=One%20view%20attributes%20male%20predominance,male%20gatekeepers%20downplaying%20female%20achievement.
                          [6] https://www.salon.com/2020/10/23/the-queens-gambit-netflix-anya-taylor-joy-william-horberg/
                          [7] Flora, C. (2005). The Grandmaster Experiment. Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/articles/200507/the-grandmaster-experiment.
                          [8] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/30/chess-grandmaster-women-only-tournament-play-men
                          [9] https://handbook.fide.com/chapter/B01Regulations2017
                          [10] https://ratings.fide.com/
                          [11] Bilalic, M., Smallbone, K., McLeod, P., & Gobet, F. (2008). Why are (the best) women so good at chess? Participation rates and gender differences in intellectual domains. Proceedings of the Royal Society, 276(1659).
                          ]]>                           Thu, 26 Nov 2020 13:21:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?womens-chess-does-reality-correspond-series-queens-gambit https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/qf16483m                           <![CDATA[Why are chess tournaments held separately for men and women?]]> imblog
                          Chess is an intellectual sport. Chess is definitely an excellent tool for developing memory, logical thinking, attention, perseverance, and intellectual endurance. At the same time, chess ≠ intelligence, just as sport ≠ health. If a person is a very strong chess player, this does not mean that they are extremely intelligent.
                          Therefore, it is not possible to objectively compare the intellectual abilities of men and women solely based on their main chess results. Moreover, there is a significantly larger number of men playing chess.

                          Now let's return to the first part of the question: why do men and women play separately? The reason lies in the concept of the FIDE rating among professional chess players. This rating is formed based on the games played against other professional chess players. For example, if a chess player performs well in the first half of a Candidates Tournament, their rating will increase by 10 points. To simplify it further: if you win, your rating increases; if you lose, it decreases.

                          Here is where we encounter the harsh reality, as it may seem to some. Let's compare the top ratings of men and women:





                          It is easy to see that the difference in the rankings is enormous. There is a difference of more than 200 points between Magnus Carlsen and Hou Yifan, and the difference between the top 10 is about the same. It's a real gap. It's like between a FIDE master (2300) and a grandmaster (2500+). It's also worth noting that there is only one woman in the top 100 strongest chess players in the world, Hou Yifan.


                          Hou Yifan

                          The reasons why women play chess less well than men can be discussed for a long time, and there is no point in dwelling on it. If you're interested in the opinion of a professional chess player, check out this interview with Anna Muzychuk (3x world champion - 2x blitz, 1x rapid, 3x European champion - 2x blitz, 1x rapid, 2017 world vice-champion) on the topic.


                          Anna Muzychuk

                          However, it is worth noting that among women there were chess players of such strength who played and competed on an equal footing with men. The first on this list was Vera Franzivna Menchik, a native of the Russian Empire, who beat Max Euwe (the 5th world chess champion). At first, she played only with women, became the first world chess champion, but then decided to compete with men. At first, of course, this caused smiles and ridicule.


                          Vera Menchik

                          Grandmaster KmoKh remarked, "If Vira Menchik scores more than three points, I will join the women's ballet." When Menchik achieved a third point, KmoKh noticeably became nervous. One more point, and, true to his word, he would have to join the ballet, which he wasn't particularly eager to do. Fortunately for him, Menchik stopped at three points. Another well-known chess player, Albert Becker, had a more interesting and instructive experience. He made the imprudent joke of creating a club in Menchik's name. The club would only admit men who lost to her in chess. Those who drew with her would become candidates for membership in the honorary club. Ironically, during the same tournament, Becker lost to Menchik and became a member of the club himself. He was later unanimously recognized as its immutable president. In the end, the "club" comprised 147 male chess players. An equal number were considered candidates.

                          The rightful heiress to Vira Menchik's legacy is Judit Polgár (one of the three chess-playing sisters), who never competed for the women's chess crown and always played among men. Judit earned the title of male grandmaster at the age of 15. She became the youngest grandmaster at that time, surpassing even Fischer's achievement. Fischer once jokingly claimed that he could give any woman a knight's advantage and still win. To which they responded, "Fischer is Fischer, but a knight is a knight." In 1991, she became the champion of Hungary (among men), and she won super tournaments in Hastings, Madrid, and Jakarta. In the 2003 tournament in Wijk aan Zee, Judit Polgár finished in second place (8 out of 13 points), only behind Viswanathan Anand. Judit defeated Anatoly Karpov, Garry Kasparov, Vishy Anand, and even the current reigning world champion, Magnus Carlsen, when he was younger.


                          Judith Polgar

                          Grandmaster Alexei Shirov, who played against Judit Polgár multiple times, said about her, "She is a killer and can hear checkmate twenty moves ahead." Judit Polgár remains the only female grandmaster who achieved a super-grandmaster rating of 2700. Her highest rating was 2735 (compared to Hou Yifan's maximum of 2680), and she held the 8th position in the overall FIDE top ratings. After Judit retired from professional chess, women's chess became less seriously regarded. Firstly, this is due to the absence of women with a super-grandmaster rating of 2700+.

                          So, when you hear the phrase "women's super tournament," it means the strongest female chess players in the world are competing, but there are no super-grandmasters among them. Secondly, Hou Yifan is the only woman in the top 100 and occupies the 84th position, while the second-strongest female chess player in the world, Humpy Koneru, is ranked only 336th. The dismissive phrase "learn endgames" is often heard after every major women's tournament.

                          It is important to approach any question from different perspectives. On average, men play chess more and perform significantly better. It is completely unfair to compare the intellectual abilities of men and women solely based on the fact that there is only one woman in the top 100 FIDE ratings.

                          For those who seek correlations with intellectual abilities in such matters, it is interesting to note that within the same top 100 ratings, there are Europeans, Americans, Chinese, Arabs, and Indians, but there is no black chess player. That's quite a twist!
                          "Mors"
                          ]]>                           Fri, 17 Jul 2020 14:35:00 GMT https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/?why-chess-tournaments-held-separately-men-women https://www.chesswatch.in.ua/en/blog/rss/000000002