Implicit Commitments

Comments on https://lichess.org/@/felew699/blog/implicit-commitments/KwhZnGXy

Congrats on FM! FM Felew even has a nice ring to it. anyways to the topic. Can an initiative be called an implicit commitment?
What do you think might be a good way to find some implicit commitments? In my mind, I think implicit commitments are a part of explicit commitments, and if that is true, we can call my initiative question true, because you can change a dynamic advantage to a static one. anyways, implicit commitments may evolve into explicit ones (which is bound to happen if it was a good one and you played one). So implicit commitments can be justified. Share your thoughts on this hypothesis if you can. Thanks and Congratulation once again.

Thank you for your wishes @ViAaNjS, now to answer your questions.

Yes, initiative can be considered as an implicit commitment. You might lose control of an important square to get the initiative, committing your full energy towards getting something out of it. But sometimes you might do enough calculation to prove that it works for you, then it is an explicit commitment. When you make an explicit commitment, the tactics or calculations have to work. However, in an implicit commitment, your logic must work. It's a matter of thinking technique that determines what kind of commitment you are making. So you can use either calculations or logic when you are committing to gain the initiative.

Usually, humans only go for explicit commitments in tactical positions, or when they have improved their position to the maximum. Hence, in other positions, they make implicit commitments based on logic. If you can calculate even in super dry situations like Stockfish can, then you can get through your game only with explicit commitments. But as a human, using logic is better than calculating in every single position. Don't get me wrong, you have to calculate even when you make implicit commitments to make sure you haven't blundered anything, but calculations are not what you use to prove your commitment; it should be logic.

Justification of implicit commitments can only be done through explicit ones. As in the game I have included in the blog post, white's implicit commitments would not have been justified if not for the explicit commitment of 58.Rh8!, taking a calculated risk of giving up the d1 square, thought that at this particular instance, the risk is minimal. So yes, implicit commitments must evolve into an explicit one at some point for them to be justified.

@felew699 said in #3:

Thank you for your wishes @ViAaNjS, now to answer your questions.

Yes, initiative can be considered as an implicit commitment. You might lose control of an important square to get the initiative, committing your full energy towards getting something out of it. But sometimes you might do enough calculation to prove that it works for you, then it is an explicit commitment. When you make an explicit commitment, the tactics or calculations have to work. However, in an implicit commitment, your logic must work. It's a matter of thinking technique that determines what kind of commitment you are making. So you can use either calculations or logic when you are committing to gain the initiative.

Usually, humans only go for explicit commitments in tactical positions, or when they have improved their position to the maximum. Hence, in other positions, they make implicit commitments based on logic. If you can calculate even in super dry situations like Stockfish can, then you can get through your game only with explicit commitments. But as a human, using logic is better than calculating in every single position. Don't get me wrong, you have to calculate even when you make implicit commitments to make sure you haven't blundered anything, but calculations are not what you use to prove your commitment; it should be logic.

Justification of implicit commitments can only be done through explicit ones. As in the game I have included in the blog post, white's implicit commitments would not have been justified if not for the explicit commitment of 58.Rh8!, taking a calculated risk of giving up the d1 square, thought that at this particular instance, the risk is minimal. So yes, implicit commitments must evolve into an explicit one at some point for them to be justified.

Thanks! I get it now.

I know I should've added this with the message above. Sorry about that. Is there a way to improve whatever implicit commitments we take? Maybe guess the move or just look at grandmaster games?

No worries @ViAaNjS, I appreciate your enthusiasm,

I prefer doing positional exercises included in books such as "Strategic Play - School of Chess Excellence 3", but using implicit commitments as a way of making positional decisions in practical games is also highly effective. Furthermore, trying to identify the implicit commitments that lead to the decisions made by high-level players, such as Grand Masters and computers, can also improve your ability to apply them in real games. There are multiple methods for you to improve your ability to make implicit commitments, but what's important is doing to consistently.

Thank you for asking this question. I now realise that I should have included that in my blog post. I will be more careful when writing these kinds of posts in the future.

who wants to play agame with me ? play with me fm !!

Sure @OuF4, just tell me when you want to play, and I will come online if I am available at that time.

@OuF4 said in #7:

who wants to play agame with me ? play with me fm !!

I WANNA wait what i got a nice checkmate in the captcha noicee

@ViAaNjS said in #9:

I WANNA wait what i got a nice checkmate in the captcha noicee

Lol