Wednesday, September 07, 2005
New Attitude
I went back into Seirawan's tactics book and got test #31 wrong again for like the umpteenth time. That seemed to clarify things, and I am starting TCT Step 3 thinking, "This can't be right" and "What else am I not seeing?" just about every problem. I know that they are going to keep tossing in those ringers, so I am looking closer at whether or not my opponent has a way out.
Blue Devil asks "Even though the problems are easy for you for the most part, do you find yourself recognizing pins, mates and the like with less effort in OTB?"
Yes, I miss less stuff. Now, after a minute or two of looking at a position, tactical threats are beginning to stand out clearer, ones that I would have miscalculated or missed completely just a year ago. I knew all the themes back then, so something must have improved. It's still a challenge for me to keep track of diagonal threats from Queens and Bishops, especially check threats. I have a few other blind spots, as the TCT scores under 99% indicate. The big question now is have I calculated enough? I suppose just asking that question is a step forward.
I'll say that in my OTB games I miscalculate 5-15% of the time, though I see my opponent's threats a little deeper. Typically my opponents are seeing my threats, too, so many potential pins, forks, and discoveries are often threatened and then prevented.
Are you still alternating how much time you can spend per problem in different circles in the see-saw approach mentioned here?
No, I decided to go with the traditional "decreasing time" approach for TCT, and going through it from beginning to end rather than sets of 40-100 problems. The idea was to minimize early memorization and build more calculation "muscle". I was figuring on 3 circles of Step 1 and 2, but I am need to extend the number of circles to get to 100%.
From what I can tell, except for minimizing memorization, the two approaches yield the same results. I like the see-saw approach better, and I probably will return to that approach if I ever want to cover problem sets of more complicated combinations.
I have forgotten the majority of the problems from Circles 1 and 2, so I did get what I wanted out of the "decreasing time" approach. It's funny not aiming at memorizing these too early. I am usually stopping on at least one problem per set of 10, coming up with what might be the right answer in 1-2 minutes, then spending the rest of the time eyeing it suspiciously. I go ahead with my educated guess answer, which frequently turns out right. I'll look and find out I got this right before. If I rush ahead with overconfidence I usually get one or two wrong, even if I have gotten it correct before.
Blue Devil asks "Even though the problems are easy for you for the most part, do you find yourself recognizing pins, mates and the like with less effort in OTB?"
Yes, I miss less stuff. Now, after a minute or two of looking at a position, tactical threats are beginning to stand out clearer, ones that I would have miscalculated or missed completely just a year ago. I knew all the themes back then, so something must have improved. It's still a challenge for me to keep track of diagonal threats from Queens and Bishops, especially check threats. I have a few other blind spots, as the TCT scores under 99% indicate. The big question now is have I calculated enough? I suppose just asking that question is a step forward.
I'll say that in my OTB games I miscalculate 5-15% of the time, though I see my opponent's threats a little deeper. Typically my opponents are seeing my threats, too, so many potential pins, forks, and discoveries are often threatened and then prevented.
Are you still alternating how much time you can spend per problem in different circles in the see-saw approach mentioned here?
No, I decided to go with the traditional "decreasing time" approach for TCT, and going through it from beginning to end rather than sets of 40-100 problems. The idea was to minimize early memorization and build more calculation "muscle". I was figuring on 3 circles of Step 1 and 2, but I am need to extend the number of circles to get to 100%.
From what I can tell, except for minimizing memorization, the two approaches yield the same results. I like the see-saw approach better, and I probably will return to that approach if I ever want to cover problem sets of more complicated combinations.
I have forgotten the majority of the problems from Circles 1 and 2, so I did get what I wanted out of the "decreasing time" approach. It's funny not aiming at memorizing these too early. I am usually stopping on at least one problem per set of 10, coming up with what might be the right answer in 1-2 minutes, then spending the rest of the time eyeing it suspiciously. I go ahead with my educated guess answer, which frequently turns out right. I'll look and find out I got this right before. If I rush ahead with overconfidence I usually get one or two wrong, even if I have gotten it correct before.
-=-=-=-=-
TCT Results | Circle 1 | Circle 2 | Circle 3 |
| Step 1 | 97% | 99% | 99% |
| Step 2 | 93% | 96% | 95% |
| Step 3 | 93% | 97% | 98* |
| Step 4 | 80% | 86% | ?? |
| Step 5 | 74% | 77% | ?? |
Comments:
<< Home
Thanks for the encouragement. Alas my graduation date is far from near. I estimate it will be late Spring (of the year 2037).
Yeah, they are sneaky, those Tascmasters. They're always leaving a bishop or Knight lurking in the edges of the board to stomp that obvious fork or mate.
What the heck does TASC stand for, anyway?
Post a Comment
What the heck does TASC stand for, anyway?
<< Home
