Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

lichess.org
Donate

The 4 Pillars of Chess Improvement

"Pawn structure, space, and outposts"

  • I think those are overrated.
    Example: black accepts a hole on d5 with 5...e5 and a backward pawn on d6 with 6...d6, but white does not fight for an outpost with 7 Bg5, but plugs the hole on d5 with 7 Nd5, making d6 no longer backward.
    https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1937842

Example: white gains space, black wins the game
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1008397

"Pawn structure, space, and outposts" * I think those are overrated. Example: black accepts a hole on d5 with 5...e5 and a backward pawn on d6 with 6...d6, but white does not fight for an outpost with 7 Bg5, but plugs the hole on d5 with 7 Nd5, making d6 no longer backward. https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1937842 Example: white gains space, black wins the game https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1008397

@tpr said ^

"Pawn structure, space, and outposts"

  • I think those are overrated.

Yep I agree somewhat. That's why the three first criterias are the important ones. For example doubled pawns are often viewed as weak but sometimes they can be useful as they open up a file for the rook.

@tpr said [^](/forum/redirect/post/tlTWiO2o) > "Pawn structure, space, and outposts" > * I think those are overrated. Yep I agree somewhat. That's why the three first criterias are the important ones. For example doubled pawns are often viewed as weak but sometimes they can be useful as they open up a file for the rook.

"doubled pawns"

  • Yes:
    1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 Nxe5 d6 4 Nf3 Nxe4 5 Nc3
    1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 dxe4 4 Nxe4 Nf6
    are considered viable now, voluntarily accepting doubled pawns.
"doubled pawns" * Yes: 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 Nxe5 d6 4 Nf3 Nxe4 5 Nc3 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 dxe4 4 Nxe4 Nf6 are considered viable now, voluntarily accepting doubled pawns.

Regarding the woodpecker method:
As far as I have seen, no-one has really explained clearly why it is better to practice the same puzzles again and again rather than doing many similar puzzles once each. As I understand it, the typical way a human learns a pattern is to see many different instances of the same pattern, which allows the mind to gradually extract an abstract schema. On the basis of that abstract schema, we become able to see when a new situation arises that it is another instance of that pattern and respond accordingly.
In the woodpecker method, is the claim that the selection made by the authors already includes multiple examples of all the important patterns and that those examples are somehow more archetypal than those in other collections? Or something else?

Regarding the woodpecker method: As far as I have seen, no-one has really explained clearly why it is better to practice the same puzzles again and again rather than doing many similar puzzles once each. As I understand it, the typical way a human learns a pattern is to see many different instances of the same pattern, which allows the mind to gradually extract an abstract schema. On the basis of that abstract schema, we become able to see when a new situation arises that it is another instance of that pattern and respond accordingly. In the woodpecker method, is the claim that the selection made by the authors already includes multiple examples of all the important patterns and that those examples are somehow more archetypal than those in other collections? Or something else?