I don't really know to be honest with you, only read a few pages, mentioned it because the content seems appropriate.
Calculation - Any tips from strong players?
Sort:
transpo wrote:
duniel,
Spielkalb explained it very well. I believe that when he writes, "field(s)" he is referring to the imaginary fields of force that the pieces and pawns create on squares on the board whether occupied or not by any other pawn or piece. The complex of squares that the enemy K is restricted from forms the mating net. As you get stronger in your mind it will become second nature to see the mating net.
Also, after 2.Rd5+ Black has 3 options:
a. 2...Rxd5 as SpiSelkalb writes
b. 2...KxB(c4) 3.Qb5#
c. 2...Ke4. 3.RxR(d6) (discovered check with White Q at b7 check)
3...Ke5. 4.Qd5#
It is not a forced mate in 3.
It is a forced mate in 3.
2...Ke4 3. Nd2# (corrected)
Also, if the advice is good, then it doesn't matter where it comes from.
duniel wrote:
Thanks everyone for sharing ideas, especially ThirllerFan, it was helpful. However, Spielkab, in Tactics trainer you do not know that you are supposed to look for mate in 3.
The way I solved was actually the one I used. I checked Qc7+ and Qb5+ becouse queen is the strongest piece and it did not involve saccing material. Then I checked Qd5+, but did not find anyting. Winnign Ra5+ was the last to consider and I found winning line almost immediately.
This is why I find it interesting. Out of 1m 35s it took me to solve the problem I spent 90% calculating wrong first moves, this is why I was looking for ideas which move to condider first.
Actually, I am 2000+ FIDE but this does not seem too relevant to me.
Maybe you struggled a bit on this one because the pattern is unusual. I guess you have a "check forcing moves" routine at your level of play.
I'm not sure Kotov's tree of analysis method is very relevant : nowadays, the concensus of strong players seems to be that some 'fuzzy thinking' is necessary (cf. Tisdall, Nunn and Hendriks)
Sunshiny wrote:
transpo wrote:
duniel,
Spielkalb explained it very well. I believe that when he writes, "field(s)" he is referring to the imaginary fields of force that the pieces and pawns create on squares on the board whether occupied or not by any other pawn or piece. The complex of squares that the enemy K is restricted from forms the mating net. As you get stronger in your mind it will become second nature to see the mating net.
Also, after 2.Rd5+ Black has 3 options:
a. 2...Rxd5 as SpiSelkalb writes
b. 2...KxB(c4) 3.Qb5#
c. 2...Ke4. 3.RxR(d6) (discovered check with White Q at b7 check)
3...Ke5. 4.Qd5#
It is not a forced mate in 3.
It is a forced mate in 3.
2...Ke4 3. Nd2# (corrected)
Also, if the advice is good, then it doesn't matter where it comes from.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
After 3.Nd2+ Qxd2
It is not a mate in 3. You need to double check your calculations.
Exactly, with all due respect for player of Kotov's level, apart from "do not check any variation more that once" I was never able to see any value added in tree of analysis. And as you mentioned, the consesus is that this is not really advisable.
Transpo, you're right. ...Time to hit the tactics.
Can someone give me a short impression what Kortov's "Tree of analysis methods" means?
Spielkalb wrote:
Can someone give me a short impression what Kortov's "Tree of analysis methods" means?
Basically, Kotov says to list your candidate moves, and then to analyze them one by one, until you reach a clear conclusion, without ever going back.
Other strong players believe this is an incorrect way to proceed, as some idea you uncork in line B may reveal a hidden branch in line A and justify you get back to line A and re-evaluate. Nunn says this 'back-and-forth' thinking is pretty common, and actually a good way to get deeper ideas in a given position.
I did not. Is that worth trying? I know that Kotov work is considered to be really good but for some reasons this tree-of-analysis stuff never thrilled me (I read about it in one Averbakh's book). Maybe it is just a matter of taste, I do not know...