Friday, March 18, 2005

New Math?

Leave it to me to add up the number of problems incorrectly. It only took one complete cycle of problems longer than it should have for me to catch the error. I am actually doing 600 problems each cycle instead of the 500 I gave in the original layout. I was beginning to wonder why I was a couple of nights behind heading into the second weekend. Figured I had taken one too many nights off. Then it dawned on me that the original idea of taking a rest day each week wouldn't fit within the 2-2-2 plan, if I wanted to maintain the same start and stop days. I even have it on paper as not working in my sketch pad of ideas. In my haste and desire to allow for the club night I somehow managed to view the second grouping of 50 problems as just one pass when I was adding up the totals. That's what I get for trying to squeeze everything into a 2-week time frame.
Sorry for the confusion. So here is the corrected version which allows for time off if you don't mind starting and finishing on a different day with each complete set of 100 problems.
Really it hasn't been a problem to tackle the problems on club nights, and it actually seems to serve as a warm up. I think the only night I can remember not doing problems prior to playing at the club was this past week, which may explain why I wasn't seeing anything at the board.

(4 nights x 25 problems=100) 2 passes = 200 problems [200 completed total]

(2 nights x 50 problems=100) 2 passes = 200 problems [400 completed total]

(1 night x 100 problems=100) 2 passes = 200 problems [600 completed total]

Here are the results of the previous 2 cycles.

Cycle 1 96% success ratio

Cycle 2 97% success ratio

1,200 completed 4,800 to go.

How do I miss mate–in-one exercises? Well it’s easy if you start to push on how fast you can complete the task. Normally I can do them inside of 10 seconds, the fastest has been 2 seconds. The average is 5 seconds per problem. It takes about a second or so to get your bearings with the side move, and just locating the enemy King. Yes I know rushing is a bad habit, but it something I wanted to try just to see how fast I could solve these easier problems. Back to solving before moving now that I’m into the Mate-in-2 problems. I promise no more blitz!

Also I started working through Jacob Aagaard & Esben Lund’s “Right Decisions” CD.

This really is an excellent CD, I picked it up after purchasing Aagaard’s book “Excelling at Chess Calculation” which I’m currently reading. (I think I mentioned that I had just purchased the book during our first online meeting of the Knight’s Errant a few months ago.) This is the first time to my knowledge that this has ever been done. (Averbakh’s “Comprehensive Chess Endings” gets honorable mention.) Meaning a CD created by the author to further reflect his ideas of his written work. Where Aagaard differs from Averbakh is in the fact that he mentions the companion CD in his book, and not the other way around.

Just imagine if Kasparov published an interactive Chessbase version of his “My Great Predecessors” works showing all of his analysis while personally talking us through the games. It would be huge.


Nezha said...

Can you give further feedback on the CD after youve finished it?

Don Q. said...

You know, Sancho, I always thought the most interesting part of these blogs was going to follow people efforts in de la Maza's program. In fact, the most intereesting thing may be seeing the different trajectories our chess life takes after taking on the program. I think it quite interesting what you and J'Adoube are up to and am curious to see how it turns out.

Pale Morning Dun - Errant Knight de la Maza said...

Your program is intriguing. I have one question. Do you think by doing a smaller number of problems at a time and repeating them you are more apt to memorize the problem versus obtaining pattern recognition?

Sancho Pawnza said...

That is a good question. Actually it is my intent to memorize the patterns involved. I am not trying to memorize the actual problem. Plus I really don’t think it’s necessary to do so. I’m looking for familiar piece positions hovering around the enemy king. If I see a king tucked away in a corner without escape squares, and I have one of my knights hovering in close proximity, I automatically think smothered mate.
Keep in mind that currently I'm working through a CD that contains a series of Mate-in-1, 2, or 3 move problems. So usually by the time you see the answer the ride is over.
The real question is how to transform “pattern recognition” into knowledge. To get a better understanding of what I’m trying to convey think back to your first days of trying to learn how the knight moved. Did you use the “One, two, and over method”? Did you think “L-Shape”? Or utilize some other method? Now ask yourself is there any thought given to how you move your knights presently? Probably not, so what once was a “pattern” is now knowledge.
I believe repeated exposure to the same problems will give me the best opportunity of converting an idea or pattern into “knowledge”.

Pale Morning Dun - Errant Knight de la Maza said...

I see your idea here. By solidifying pattern recognition you ingrain the knowledge so it becomes, hopefully, second nature. To a certain extant I am already feeling this with certain piece placement and corner king positions. The less you have to think about it because it's part of your hard wiring, the more powerful your moves will be and the less time you will take to think.