86 ( +1 | -1 ) Novice Nook #29OK, I really did skip a week and I'm sorry. But rather than double up this week, let's just stick with the next one in line. This is called "Learning from Dr. de Groot" and, in addition to an interesting bit of chess culture/psychology and history, there's a discussion of a "minimally correct thought process" at the end of the article that is pretty much what I think most strong players actually do. (Not that I would know what a strong player actually does - but some of you out there might corroborate my assumption.)
thunker has tried to explain why my links aren't working, but it sure seems like what I've been doing already was the correct process. We'll see if this takes. If not, someone please post the link? Thanks.
167 ( +1 | -1 ) I find......Heisman's articles on thinking processes most enlightening. I don't always follow the process that he recommends (though I do value time, and the initiative, very highly). One difficulty worth thinking about, though, is this. What constitutes a good move? You see, Heisman, following that 'praeceptor Germanicorum' Dr Tarrasch, advises one that having found a good move, look for a better one. A contrary advice I've read, from an IM, is: having found a good move, play it! One suspects that maybe 'good move' means something different for each. It is even arguable that the 'best' move is the only 'good' move, anything short of the best is a bad move. Against that, I recall someone remarking, after Bobby Fischer's emphatic victories in the Candidates' Matches of 1971, that he didn't waste too much time looking for the 'best' moves, but maintained the pressure on his opponents by consistently playing 'good' moves. Clearly, moves require some quality that makes them 'good': moves that improve one's position, or that take or retain the initiative, or disturbs the material, temporal or spatial equilibrium in one's favour, or just sets the opponent problems. Fischer's uncompromising attitude led him to win endgames against Taimanov and Larsen that were 'drawn' from an objective standpoint. Of course, the qualities just listed are what one looks for in the evaluative process: how things look in that quiescent position a number of moves hence. But how do we then understand Harry Pillsbury's dictum, to make your combinations so that when the fire is out, it isn't out!? Cheers, Ion
104 ( +1 | -1 ) Good article.I actually read this article out of sequence about 2 weeks ago, I think I was looking for more thought process related articles. I've been trying to concentrate on that area recently - though I'm never sure if what I'm constructing as my own system is a 'correct' or at least 'good' if it is more subjective. I've been typing it up and trying to streamline it to make it usable, adding in or altering things to tackle my most recent/common mistakes. I based it around Dan Hiesman's article 'A Generic Thought Process' (somewhere in the first 11, I don't know which off the top of my head) but I don't think I totally agreed with the specific order, or with some of the exlusions (I make a point of at least spending a moment thinking schematically in positions that warrant it, something which he didn't mention at all) I don't know whether I am wrong because I'm not good enough to know why, or if my ideas were actually perfectly reasonable - its hard to believe the latter when it means I'm not in total agreement with someone who is so much better than me.