Training Diary 1. Thoughts on the use of modules integrated into the study and practice methodology. The threshold of limit difficulty and optimal performance.

Contemplations on the utility of modern digital resources in chess training

As I organize the publication of the content related to the previously classified preparation topics, I find it relevant to outline some key ideas highlighted in my recent training sessions. This is to complement the possible postulates that may derive from them and their respective corollaries of systematic application in the various multifunctional processes of learning and competitive performance in this discipline.

The first thing to clarify is that the moderate use of chess engines to exercise the nuances of the player's independent thinking system is practically an indisputable requirement in perfecting pragmatic approaches for designing opening repertoires, creatively applying methods for calculating variations, and strengthening the natural understanding of each technical and conceptual element related to the subject. This requirement leads to realizing the importance of practical parameters that can be formulated in evaluating results and possible solutions to difficulties in these processes, where the implementation of digital tools presents inherent challenges to the personal development of each chess player with at least a minimal interest in optimizing their understanding and technique in the game.

Learn From Michal Krasenkow (2019), M. Krasenkow: 

"I don’t understand the strange approach of some chess commentators (mostly those providing online coverage of games), who decline using chess engines in order to give more "human" commentaries (which leads to numerous mistakes and blunders as they can't fully concentrate on the games in the same way as players do). I don't see any contradiction between human explanation of decisions taken in the games and their verification with technical aids. On top of this, computer analysis often reveals fantastic possibilities hidden in the position, which are as instructive as details of human thinking."

The main example in this regard is seen in the presence of complications at maintaining a consistent performance rhythm at the various levels of regulated strength of the chess engine applied to training. For experienced players, the relatively "weak" levels of the engine do not present much difficulty to overcome. Therefore, their training emphasis should concentrate on mid-advanced levels of play and study. Nevertheless, this does not mean that incorporating lower strength levels for such players is pointless. Similarly, for beginners who still find it challenging to overcome the initial strength levels of the engine, sporadic implementation of higher difficulty levels can undoubtedly benefit their learning. The key to success lies in the objective criterion acquired in evaluating the technical precision achieved in continuous practice: the advanced player cannot forgive himself the slightest inaccuracy when playing at a basic difficulty level, and the inexperienced player cannot excuse himself for the lack of experience for errors made at a higher difficulty level. In any case, to develop this objectivity, I consider that mastering both the elementary concepts of the game's theory and the systemic nuances of intuitive thinking and calculation should be regarded as constant parameters in understanding what needs to be neglected, modified, or improved in this process of practical refinement.

From all this, an additional parameter to the previously discussed elementary concepts stands out for its relevance in assessing the utility of the chess engine in training: the presence of the threshold of limit difficulty and optimal performance.

My proposal, derived from the previously mentioned considerations, to highlight the productive efficiency implicit in the use of the chess engine integrated into skill development in this discipline and to implement the parameters derived from the mentioned system of play and learning, boils down to the scrutiny of the technical possibilities of attack and defense which have been ignored, omitted, and/or spoiled during training games and their relation to individual time management. This becomes evident when the notation of played games is subjected to an analytical process using the engine after game sessions. However, due to the lack of a clear and flexible methodology concerning such a postulate, establishing a thorough working direction and instructive feedback in many learning cases during the logical interpretation of the strengths and weaknesses of independent technique emerges as one of the essential requirements for implementing a complete system of learning, performance, and autonomous orientation in chess.

I believe that the essence of this methodological challenge lies in the exhortation to execute a flawless attack or defense when playing at a level of difficulty below the threshold of limit difficulty, deliberately selected to carefully exercise this approach of conscious technique improvement. Meanwhile, when using a higher difficulty level above that of the optimal performance, this exhortation should focus on meticulously verifying the reasons for any inaccuracies or errors. In any case, respective error correction procedures should be applied, progressively applying the various nuances and relevant resources to acquire a comprehensive perception of each technical and conceptual element of the game.

A possible methodological sequence to apply these arguments in the chess player's game and study session is:

1. Select a sample of games played at the threshold of limit difficulty. It is recommended not to discard games won in which inaccuracies or errors are present, independently of the opponent's omissions, which must be included as references for aspects to correct in one's technique, apart from lost games. The number of games to include in the sample is at the player's discretion, but in any case, it should be an even number that considers games played with both white and black pieces. Using a small sample (2-8) is useful for raising awareness of short-term technical nuances to work on, while using a large sample (10-20+) would be useful for detecting common technical subtleties to work on long-term during extensive training intervals.

2. Develop a synthesis of key criteria to focus on in correcting errors detected during the engine's analytical processes. Highlighting the time per move and the time intervals according to the clock control used that manifest the efficiency (or lack thereof) of transitioning between phases of strategic development (opening, middlegame, endgame). In addition to the conceptualizations obtained through constructive criticism of the errors found, contrasting them with positional chess theory and the player's individual psychological impressions, such time management parameters should be considered complementary in evaluating the strengths and weaknesses to work on. For example: in which types of positions there is more difficulty in maintaining consistent play, which repertoire variations need polishing or discarding to align with the natural style of play, what nuances of 'rhythm' or calculation focus need mastering at what time controls, etc.

3. Based on this synthesis, focus on eliminating technical and conceptual weaknesses. Emphasize the orderly application of hierarchical processes of analysis, evaluation, and standard calculation, contrasting them with the decisions proposed by the chess engine. Play the previously selected positions with the engine at a difficulty level below the threshold of limit difficulty (optimal performance) recognized in recent training performance. The estimated result should be ZERO inaccuracies and errors to be considered as the fixed objective of improvement.

4. Once the expected performance result is obtained, resume the training process by incorporating game sessions with the engine at a level HIGHER than the threshold of optimal performance. Regardless of the results obtained at this level, adjust the error correction criteria to the new established difficulty level and perfect them based on the recognized difficulty limit threshold in the player's current performance. Repeat the described process at the student's discretion according to the objective results achieved.

    

How to Recognize the Threshold of Limit Difficulty and Optimal Performance?

To detect these "skill levels," you should play against the engine at progressively higher difficulty levels until you identify the level that represents an absolute obstacle to achieve at least one victory and only draws as other results. The presence of continuous negative results (at least 3) at that level will indicate that you have reached the threshold of limit difficulty to overcome.

The immediately lower level will then be defined as the threshold of optimal performance to work on as a moderate difficulty parameter. For example, if the limit difficulty is 4, the optimal performance threshold must necessarily be 3, according to the platform or program used to develop the play sessions. You should practice your technique at this level until you consistently achieve at least 2 consecutive victories and draws in the remaining games, of course, free of any inaccuracies or errors. Once these results are consistently achieved, following the described method, increase the threshold level until you achieve only victories and perfect draws at all practical performance levels.

It is worth mentioning that the presence of a negative result at the threshold of optimal performance should not be considered a regression or decrease in playing ability. Instead, it should be seen as a sign of fatigue, complementary to the performance criteria on which to resume practice and training with renewed clarity after a short break from the activity.

A contemporary reference for interpreting these practical performance levels can be found in terms of the chess engine on the platform www.lichess.org, for example, where threshold levels are interpreted according to digits from 1 to 8, as implemented in the example below. Or in terms of tournament ELO classification, in intervals of 250 to 300, as a guideline for independent training evaluation.

A Practical Example

Based on the minimal sample of one of my students, whose threshold of limit difficulty on the lichess.org platform is level 6 of the engine, certain evaluations can be made after the digital analysis of the following games:

Coreldraw1989 - Lichess Lvl. 6 (Time control 10+5): 1. c4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 e5 4. dxe5 dxe5 5. Qxd8+ Kxd8 6. Bg5 c6 7. O-O-O+ Nd7 8. e4 Kc7 9. Be2 h6 10. Be3 Bb4 11. Bf3 g5 12. h3 b6 13. Nge2 a5 14. a3 Bc5 15. Rd3 Re8 16. Rhd1 Ba6 17. Bxc5 Nxc5 { White resigns. } 0-1

According to the clock management graph, the times per move are inconsistent starting from White's move 6. The choice of move 6.Bg5 suggests a lack of preparation in the correct central control scheme, and subsequent inaccuracies indicate unfamiliarity with play in this type of semi-open position. However, the possibility of avoiding the variation leading to this position from the fourth move suggests that either time should be invested in properly preparing the variation that arises with 4.dxe5, or the preparation should be updated by implementing a different variation that leads to a game more in line with the player's natural style and time management.

The selected positional sketches to work on these nuances using the engine at the threshold of optimal performance (in this case, the lichess.org engine at difficulty level 5) are classified as follows:

White to play: dxe5, Nf3, d5, e3, b3 or e4.

White to play: Nf3, b3 or e3.

Lichess Lvl. 6 - coreldraw1989 (Time control 10+5): 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Nf6 5. Ng3 e5 6. Nf3 exd4 7. Qxd4 Nbd7 8. Be3 Bc5 9. Qc3 Bxe3 10. Qxe3+ Qe7 11. Bd3 Qxe3+ 12. fxe3 O-O 13. h3 Nc5 14. Kf2 Nxd3+ 15. cxd3 Re8 16. a4 c5 17. Ra3 b6 18. e4 Ba6 19. Nf5 Rad8 20. e5 Nd5 21. Rd1 Nf4 22. Nd6 Re7 23. a5 b5 24. d4 cxd4 25. Nxd4 Rf8 26. Nc6 Re6 27. Rc3 f6 28. Nd4 Rxe5 29. Rc6 { Black resigns. } 1-0

As in the previous case, there are inconsistent times per move, but here they start from the beginning of the middlegame with the move 16.c5, which is far from the best move, considering the simple 16.Nd5 which leads to a good position and the possibility to fight for the initiative in this type of open structure. The presence of the inaccurate 9.Bxe3?! calls for the conceptual correction of such confusion regarding the underestimation of attacking possibilities by exchanging pieces with loss of time, preferring the logical 9.Qb6 instead in training practice. It is also advisable to consider updating the player's opening repertoire by studying the possible continuations available at move 5.

The corresponding positional sketches to optimize these nuances are classified as follows:

Black to play: g6, c5 or e6!?.

Black to play: Qb6.

In short, the fact that both case studies concluded in favor of the engine in the early middlegame suggests that the lack of opening knowledge in the variations posed during training is the main criterion to consider (in this specific training case) with the aim of integrating theoretical understanding into the move selection processes to achieve playing efficiency in overcoming the individual threshold of limit difficulty and defining the achievement of appropriate results in the player's natural performance.

Of course, the considerations of the utility of applying these mentioned computer resources to the methodology of independent training do not stop here. The possibilities in this field of didactic rationalism aimed at efficient chess learning and performance are practically inexhaustible and, in any case, dependent and relative to the objective purposes of each student, competitor, or devotee of the game. Undoubtedly, the individual exhortation to the detection and correction of inaccuracies as can be addressed through the relevant training tools is one of the indispensable factors to pay attention to with the purpose of improving and perfecting the quality of play at every performance level, whether recreational or competitive.