So call it PAST FIG.
I use FATPIGS because I found it quite memorable, but feel free to use FASTPIG, or something else.
First: Count pieces
If there is a great imbalance in puzzles then you have to look for a mate. That excludes a lot of options.
If there is a great imbalance in puzzles then you have to look for a mate. That excludes a lot of options.
@Meriten said in #14:
> First: Count pieces
> If there is a great imbalance in puzzles then you have to look for a mate. That excludes a lot of options.
Well, not knowing the theme, the puzzle could be just about reducing the imbalance. I assume you meant material.
I never know what kind of objective is expected, and how deep to look. never being an exaggeration. I mean i hesitate.
So you say that puzzle starting with material imbalance are about escaping that through a mate, defying the material only based odds projection? Or did mean advantageous imbalance.
> First: Count pieces
> If there is a great imbalance in puzzles then you have to look for a mate. That excludes a lot of options.
Well, not knowing the theme, the puzzle could be just about reducing the imbalance. I assume you meant material.
I never know what kind of objective is expected, and how deep to look. never being an exaggeration. I mean i hesitate.
So you say that puzzle starting with material imbalance are about escaping that through a mate, defying the material only based odds projection? Or did mean advantageous imbalance.
@dboing said in #7:
> Well, that may be an aspect. but that depends on current chess mapping level of individual. if in new territory, pattern discovery or acquisition precedes recognition. That may be the problem with too many psychological studies about chess, the focus on accomplished experienced doing fine grain discovery (imperceptible through communication, and experimental means I would say), and which mostly can be tested only for recognition.
Clearly discovery once to have any meaning must be repeatable otherwise it is completely random. Moves themselves are finite. There are after all only 64 knight moves etc. It is true there are infinite sequences, but that is the games score.
The issue is one of trusting the process. You have to try and solve the puzzles. If you fail the answer reveals the truth. If you succeed the time taken to identify is the difference. It is in this way that chess is like music or math. You want to get tactical patterns to the point where you just know and don't need calculation. Just as a musician doesn't need to count triplets. Or a fifth grader knows the answer that 8x8=64 instantly.
When you use a tool like an acronym it is simply pandering to control insecurities. It may be useful in the short term, even necessary, but it has to be thrown out eventually because it slows your intuition down. It may help you play a disciplined correspondence game, but it will slow down your thought process.
> Well, that may be an aspect. but that depends on current chess mapping level of individual. if in new territory, pattern discovery or acquisition precedes recognition. That may be the problem with too many psychological studies about chess, the focus on accomplished experienced doing fine grain discovery (imperceptible through communication, and experimental means I would say), and which mostly can be tested only for recognition.
Clearly discovery once to have any meaning must be repeatable otherwise it is completely random. Moves themselves are finite. There are after all only 64 knight moves etc. It is true there are infinite sequences, but that is the games score.
The issue is one of trusting the process. You have to try and solve the puzzles. If you fail the answer reveals the truth. If you succeed the time taken to identify is the difference. It is in this way that chess is like music or math. You want to get tactical patterns to the point where you just know and don't need calculation. Just as a musician doesn't need to count triplets. Or a fifth grader knows the answer that 8x8=64 instantly.
When you use a tool like an acronym it is simply pandering to control insecurities. It may be useful in the short term, even necessary, but it has to be thrown out eventually because it slows your intuition down. It may help you play a disciplined correspondence game, but it will slow down your thought process.
@Firegoat7 said in #16:
> Clearly discovery once to have any meaning must be repeatable otherwise it is completely random. Moves themselves are finite. There are after all only 64 knight moves etc. It is true there are infinite sequences, but that is the games score.
>
> The issue is one of trusting the process. You have to try and solve the puzzles. If you fail the answer reveals the truth. If you succeed the time taken to identify is the difference. It is in this way that chess is like music or math. You want to get tactical patterns to the point where you just know and don't need calculation. Just as a musician doesn't need to count triplets. Or a fifth grader knows the answer that 8x8=64 instantly.
>
> When you use a tool like an acronym it is simply pandering to control insecurities. It may be useful in the short term, even necessary, but it has to be thrown out eventually because it slows your intuition down. It may help you play a disciplined correspondence game, but it will slow down your thought process.
Discovery more than just once, because one has to construct the boundaries in some internal chess map given the discrete but exponentially numerous (with nearly infinitie evaluatoin nuances possibles, do not forget evaluation of position odds toward final outcome, or other intermediate form of evaluations, known as centipawn for some reason). when does a pattern of decision given a pattern of interaction on the board does applie.
the separation between the slow discovery process and after some magically zapped period where one would just be relying on intuition is not that clear cut. Intuition may have been neglected in some training approaches in the past, but denying the importance of discovery and walking the perimeter of such discovery (also discovery), in its intricate interactions with intuition, is equivalent.
patterns don't just pop up in the "intuition". But I agree with you nonetheless. These are scaffold, and once patterns of action and board information triggers are well surrounded in intuition one could practice for speed. because that is what OTB has become with its clocks. (and even more some part of online chess, only online chess is additive it does not force every body through the same physically bounded limiting process and I can play correspondence, for example, and feel satisfied to evolve there and only there).
I would hone intuition, just to be able to see more discovery. the drive to improving is secondary. but even improvers first (not caring how that much) need to get some sense of how to generalize the "pattern" on some internal map, and not go overboard....
Note: this discussion is not only about the checklist of the op but about how deliberative should puzzle approach be (should?) for progress (enlightment or improving or both).... but it is good opportunity because checklist is what has been shunned lately as red herring of past teachings, but I wish that the swings would converge....
> Clearly discovery once to have any meaning must be repeatable otherwise it is completely random. Moves themselves are finite. There are after all only 64 knight moves etc. It is true there are infinite sequences, but that is the games score.
>
> The issue is one of trusting the process. You have to try and solve the puzzles. If you fail the answer reveals the truth. If you succeed the time taken to identify is the difference. It is in this way that chess is like music or math. You want to get tactical patterns to the point where you just know and don't need calculation. Just as a musician doesn't need to count triplets. Or a fifth grader knows the answer that 8x8=64 instantly.
>
> When you use a tool like an acronym it is simply pandering to control insecurities. It may be useful in the short term, even necessary, but it has to be thrown out eventually because it slows your intuition down. It may help you play a disciplined correspondence game, but it will slow down your thought process.
Discovery more than just once, because one has to construct the boundaries in some internal chess map given the discrete but exponentially numerous (with nearly infinitie evaluatoin nuances possibles, do not forget evaluation of position odds toward final outcome, or other intermediate form of evaluations, known as centipawn for some reason). when does a pattern of decision given a pattern of interaction on the board does applie.
the separation between the slow discovery process and after some magically zapped period where one would just be relying on intuition is not that clear cut. Intuition may have been neglected in some training approaches in the past, but denying the importance of discovery and walking the perimeter of such discovery (also discovery), in its intricate interactions with intuition, is equivalent.
patterns don't just pop up in the "intuition". But I agree with you nonetheless. These are scaffold, and once patterns of action and board information triggers are well surrounded in intuition one could practice for speed. because that is what OTB has become with its clocks. (and even more some part of online chess, only online chess is additive it does not force every body through the same physically bounded limiting process and I can play correspondence, for example, and feel satisfied to evolve there and only there).
I would hone intuition, just to be able to see more discovery. the drive to improving is secondary. but even improvers first (not caring how that much) need to get some sense of how to generalize the "pattern" on some internal map, and not go overboard....
Note: this discussion is not only about the checklist of the op but about how deliberative should puzzle approach be (should?) for progress (enlightment or improving or both).... but it is good opportunity because checklist is what has been shunned lately as red herring of past teachings, but I wish that the swings would converge....
@Bishop1964 said in #17:
> chessfox.com/the-5-most-common-tactical-motifs-in-chess/
thanks that was one of my submerged questions in some earlier post..... good to hear from you.
(about frequency as basis for any checklist and possible ordering).
> chessfox.com/the-5-most-common-tactical-motifs-in-chess/
thanks that was one of my submerged questions in some earlier post..... good to hear from you.
(about frequency as basis for any checklist and possible ordering).
@Firegoat7 said in #16:
> The issue is one of trusting the process. You have to try and solve the puzzles. If you fail the answer reveals the truth. If you succeed the time taken to identify is the difference. It is in this way that chess is like music or math. You want to get tactical patterns to the point where you just know and don't need calculation. Just as a musician doesn't need to count triplets. Or a fifth grader knows the answer that 8x8=64 instantly.
>
> When you use a tool like an acronym it is simply pandering to control insecurities. It may be useful in the short term, even necessary, but it has to be thrown out eventually because it slows your intuition down. It may help you play a disciplined correspondence game, but it will slow down your thought process.
I can see your points. I play fingerstyle guitar, where the fingers on my right hand pluck the strings in a specific pattern, very quickly. When I learned how to do this (about 30 years ago), I followed a protocol for the order of plucking the strings very slowly, and over time was able to build up my speed. I don't consider myself to be all that good at playing guitar, but if you don't know how to play and were to watch me, it almost looks like magic, that I can play so fast! I am not even thinking about my fingers at all, it happens on auto-pilot, almost no brain activity is required.
My intention here with the FATPIGS acronym is to introduce a protocol for analyzing a chess position, follow the protocol slowly, and over time the speed should improve. This is just one way to accomplish the goal though.
What is the point of solving chess puzzles? If it is strictly to improve one's chess game, then just doing a high volume of puzzles, starting at low complexity and moving higher over time, is a fine way to go. No protocol is required. Slowly build up the pattern recognition skills that will eventually be very useful during a game. Of course I am hoping that my ability to solve puzzles will help me become a better chess player, but sometimes I just enjoy solving the puzzles themselves, for their own sake! It exercises the neurons, and gives me a level of pleasure that I don't often get playing an actual game. In the puzzles on Lichess, the opponent has just made a major blunder, and it is my job to spot it and take advantage of it.
In solving a puzzle, perhaps the best method is to start by trying to find the solution using your intuition, and give yourself some standard length of time (5 or 10 minutes). Then, if you haven't found the answer, you have 2 options:
1) Hit the "View Solution" button, and consider this puzzle to be a fail.
2) Employ a protocol such as FATPIGS, and take a few more minutes to see if the answer is obtained.
One other thing to mention here is the effect of age on the brain's ability to learn new skills. My brain has already made many trips around the sun, and is not able to pick up new skills as quickly as I would like. A protocol that helps me perform an activity better is a welcome thing.
> The issue is one of trusting the process. You have to try and solve the puzzles. If you fail the answer reveals the truth. If you succeed the time taken to identify is the difference. It is in this way that chess is like music or math. You want to get tactical patterns to the point where you just know and don't need calculation. Just as a musician doesn't need to count triplets. Or a fifth grader knows the answer that 8x8=64 instantly.
>
> When you use a tool like an acronym it is simply pandering to control insecurities. It may be useful in the short term, even necessary, but it has to be thrown out eventually because it slows your intuition down. It may help you play a disciplined correspondence game, but it will slow down your thought process.
I can see your points. I play fingerstyle guitar, where the fingers on my right hand pluck the strings in a specific pattern, very quickly. When I learned how to do this (about 30 years ago), I followed a protocol for the order of plucking the strings very slowly, and over time was able to build up my speed. I don't consider myself to be all that good at playing guitar, but if you don't know how to play and were to watch me, it almost looks like magic, that I can play so fast! I am not even thinking about my fingers at all, it happens on auto-pilot, almost no brain activity is required.
My intention here with the FATPIGS acronym is to introduce a protocol for analyzing a chess position, follow the protocol slowly, and over time the speed should improve. This is just one way to accomplish the goal though.
What is the point of solving chess puzzles? If it is strictly to improve one's chess game, then just doing a high volume of puzzles, starting at low complexity and moving higher over time, is a fine way to go. No protocol is required. Slowly build up the pattern recognition skills that will eventually be very useful during a game. Of course I am hoping that my ability to solve puzzles will help me become a better chess player, but sometimes I just enjoy solving the puzzles themselves, for their own sake! It exercises the neurons, and gives me a level of pleasure that I don't often get playing an actual game. In the puzzles on Lichess, the opponent has just made a major blunder, and it is my job to spot it and take advantage of it.
In solving a puzzle, perhaps the best method is to start by trying to find the solution using your intuition, and give yourself some standard length of time (5 or 10 minutes). Then, if you haven't found the answer, you have 2 options:
1) Hit the "View Solution" button, and consider this puzzle to be a fail.
2) Employ a protocol such as FATPIGS, and take a few more minutes to see if the answer is obtained.
One other thing to mention here is the effect of age on the brain's ability to learn new skills. My brain has already made many trips around the sun, and is not able to pick up new skills as quickly as I would like. A protocol that helps me perform an activity better is a welcome thing.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.