I can't remember where I read this or which GM it was that said it, but a GM was asked at an exhibition game how he manages to think so far ahead on all of those games so quickly. His answer was 'I only think one move ahead, but it's the correct move for every game'. This got me thinking that maybe by playing so many games you're developing your intuitive abilities. That there's another way to play chess that lets your subconscious mind make the moves perhaps?
Originally posted by adam warlockIs it quiet possible that even when you are "supposed to" learn more by analyzing small amounts of games. In which you learn from your mistakes. Couldn't you learn as much by learning not from your mistakes, but your opponents strengths? By playing a vast amounts of games, you learn from experience how to checkmate in different ways. Such, if you saw a smothers mate, you would be more inclined to be able to make a smothers mate in the future. As you see it more and more, you will not only be able to defend yourself from it, but find ways to use that checkmate and win your games.
One other thing that I think it's important is if you enjoy your chess while having so many games? Sometime ago I too got too many games for me to propperly handle. And I didn't playing chess in that time. I was making stupid mistakes not having enough time and so I decided to resign most of my games and never to repeat that mistake again. I think most ...[text shortened]... ames. Even at this time I'm starting to feel a little overcomed with my current game load. 🙁
~~ R4ng3 Bl4sts
Originally posted by range blastsI think that I anlyse my games that I win more the ones that I lose. And when I do that I always get more disappointed that when analysing the games I lost. It goes normally like this: when I lose a game I already have a pretty good picture of why it happened. Either I miscalculated a combo, or I didn't even pay attention to possible combos of my opponent, or I permitted to be dragged to a lifeless position and than got suffocated... In my winning games at first I'm always high and mighty but then I analyse them and find some inacuracies, or even mistakes that my opponent didn't know how to take advantage of and then I get the feeling that I won not because I diserved but because the other guy did something wrong. I don't know if this the right approach or not but I just can't shake this stance out of me.
Is it quiet possible that even when you are "supposed to" learn more by analyzing small amounts of games. In which you learn from your mistakes. Couldn't you learn as much by learning not from your mistakes, but your opponents strengths? By playing a vast amounts of games, you learn from experience how to checkmate in different ways. Such, if you saw a ...[text shortened]... rself from it, but find ways to use that checkmate and win your games.
~~ R4ng3 Bl4sts
For me having lesser games means more time to think and more time for the knowledge o sink in. When I had a lot of games I was doing fine in some games and then being a complete dumba$$ on others: And I couldn't take too much time between moves cause if I did that I'd login and see that I had 60+ games to move. I'd be like: "I can't handle this!"I just couldn't keep everything in control. I'd forget my plans. In games were I was to win a piece in one move I'd do something else and then look at the board realise that I'd had forgotten that I had a piece to win and feel even more miserable. I just wasn't enjoying myself anymore. Moving in games was an obligation. I don't think I even was appreciating the games I was winning at that time.
Some people here can keep up with a high game load but I've already learned that I'm not one of them. Maybe if I really tried I could go to 40 (you see how ridiculously low my high expectations are?) games and then get the hang of it. But I have other things to do and chess takes enough time out of me as it is.
I don't know if I could learn much from my opponent strenghts in a high game load situation cause in that I'd have lots of games to post-analyse too. And I'm pretty sure I couldn't cope with that and I'm dead sure that my girl wouldn't cope with that too. It's been a while since I really did a post game analysis on one of my games and I want to be able to really to a game after it is over and gain something out of it.
So for now on I'll try to have something like 20 games at a time and give them my best.
Originally posted by adam warlockPerhaps a compromisation could occur? With good 21 21 time limits, and 100 game load? Simply finishing everysingle one of those before getting new games? and repeat?
I think that I anlyse my games that I win more the ones that I lose. And when I do that I always get more disappointed that when analysing the games I lost. It goes normally like this: when I lose a game I already have a pretty good picture of why it happened. Either I miscalculated a combo, or I didn't even pay attention to possible combos of my oppone ...[text shortened]... try to have something like 20 games at a time and give them my best.
Originally posted by range blastsEven so I'd run into the chance to log in and see 100 games to move. But this is my limit and my program. Just that. If you think you handle a game load like that try it and see if you actually can. If not try something else. As long you are having fun that's all that matters. Cause i don't even care tht much about the rating. I care about learning and improving. And it seems like that those two goals on my case are achieved with 20 something games with time controls like 7/7, 7/14, 3/14 at least.
Perhaps a compromisation could occur? With good 21 21 time limits, and 100 game load? Simply finishing everysingle one of those before getting new games? and repeat?
Originally posted by adam warlockBut chess is a game of mistakes. 🙂 The winning player is usually just the guy who made the second to last mistake. Take pride in your wins despite the flaws and inaccuracies - the other player didn't lose the game, you won it. I spend more time on my losses, to make sure I know how to handle the position if I see it again.
I think that I anlyse my games that I win more the ones that I lose. And when I do that I always get more disappointed that when analysing the games I lost. It goes normally like this: when I lose a game I already have a pretty good picture of why it happened. Either I miscalculated a combo, or I didn't even pay attention to possible combos of my oppone ...[text shortened]... don't know if this the right approach or not but I just can't shake this stance out of me.
I think that it's good that you recognize the flaws in your victories as this can also help you to be a better player, but don't ever be ashamed to make a mistake in a chess game.
2 edits
Originally posted by adam warlockthe thing that really blindsides you is when the next rounds start. you're thinking you have a lot of games, but can still manage them. then you wake up and there's suddenly 20 games more (against group winners, so no easy games there). you think okay, it's the opening, no matter, I'll just play the other games faster. but after a while you get hit with ANOTHER new batch. -and naturally at this point you have finished all easy games, and have only those horrible positions left where you're not really losing yet so your head won't let you resign, but you need to wreck your brain in the endless mental torture of not going down easily.
Even so I'd run into the chance to log in and see 100 games to move. But this is my limit and my program. Just that. If you think you handle a game load like that try it and see if you actually can. If not try something else. As long you are having fun that's all that matters. Cause i don't even care tht much about the rating. I care about learning and ...[text shortened]... y case are achieved with 20 something games with time controls like 7/7, 7/14, 3/14 at least.
then of course real life kicks you right in the nuts, in some totally unpredictable and devastating fashion, and you're screwed.
Originally posted by wormwoodThat would only occur in a tournament, right?
the thing that really blindsides you is when the next rounds start. you're thinking you have a lot of games, but can still manage them. then you wake up and there's suddenly 20 games more (against group winners, so no easy games there). you think okay, it's the opening, no matter, I'll just play the other games faster. but after a while you get hit with ANO ...[text shortened]... t in the nuts, in some totally unpredictable and devastating fashion, and you're screwed.
3 edits
Originally posted by icantwritebelieve me, GMs don't look only 1 move deep. that statement of that GM is solely made for aestethical purposes. GMs do calculate and they calculate long variations quickly and accurately.
I can't remember where I read this or which GM it was that said it, but a GM was asked at an exhibition game how he manages to think so far ahead on all of those games so quickly. His answer was 'I only think one move ahead, but it's the correct move for every game'. This got me thinking that maybe by playing so many games you're developing your intuitive ...[text shortened]... there's another way to play chess that lets your subconscious mind make the moves perhaps?
Dvoretsky, one of the best trainers and writers, suggests that the key to strength is the ability to analyse. This is Kasparov's approach too. He describes the "1 and the best move" approach pragmatist. I think that's why he and the computers today surpassed all those "positional masters" of the game. Chess is much more resourceful and unstable than we are taught, and analysing concrete variations is the only way to get into those resources.
Intution and pattern recognition only tells you what candidate moves to analyse, you still have to painfully analyse all of them accurately and most of the time, deeply. (especially in tactical positions.)
1 edit
I think with that quote you have to read between the lines. By saying that he only thinks one move ahead, but makes the best move, he's implying that there is obviously tactical and strategic knowledge otherwise he wouldn't be able to make the best move. It's a statement about speed not a lack of analysis, which brings the statement back to the intuitive nature of developing your knowledge. Like becoming fluent in a language, you no longer need to think, you just speak.
Originally posted by icantwriteGMs do NOT really just think one move ahead. If they were able to only make simple one move analyses, then they wouldn't be GMs.
I think with that quote you have to read between the lines. By saying that he only thinks one move ahead, but makes the best move, he's implying that there is obviously tactical and strategic knowledge otherwise he wouldn't be able to make the best move. It's a statement about speed not a lack of analysis, which brings the statement back to the intuitive ...[text shortened]... r knowledge. Like becoming fluent in a language, you no longer need to think, you just speak.
Originally posted by range blastsOMG am I the only one that can read between the lines?! He's not actually saying he only thinks one move ahead. He's saying that he can make an analysis of the board, work out the best move and make it. It's there in plain English, he says he makes the BEST MOVE. Not just a move, but the BEST move. Besides we're talking an exhibition game here where he's playing 20 or 30 people. It's not rocket science at GM level.
GMs do NOT really just think one move ahead. If they were able to only make simple one move analyses, then they wouldn't be GMs.
1 edit
Originally posted by diskamylI agree that calculation ability is very important, but many weaker players tend to exaggerate its importance. "Analysing" means much more than only "calculating".
believe me, GMs don't look only 1 move deep. that statement of that GM is solely made for aestethical purposes. GMs do calculate and they calculate long variations quickly and accurately.
Dvoretsky, one of the best trainers and writers, suggests that the key to strength is the ability to analyse. This is Kasparov's approach too. He describes the "1 and all of them accurately and most of the time, deeply. (especially in tactical positions.)
Also modern chess with its faster time controls demands for more intuition than before. So ability to analyse will not bring you good results without intuition and "feeling" of position. Also your personal qualities and character is very important. To say nothing about psychology.
For example GM Lev Polugaevsky was probably the best chess analyser in history, but he never had real chances to became world champion. Main reason - his peaceful character and lack of intuition in some kind of positions. Also he was weak psychologist.
Originally posted by icantwriteThank you for expressing your thoughts on our stupidity...
OMG am I the only one that can read between the lines?! He's not actually saying he only thinks one move ahead. He's saying that he can make an analysis of the board, work out the best move and make it. It's there in plain English, he says he makes the BEST MOVE. Not just a move, but the BEST move. Besides we're talking an exhibition game here where he's playing 20 or 30 people. It's not rocket science at GM level.