It's been a while since I read that book, but I'm pretty sure I remember Silman saying somewhere in there that you can skip the fantasy position setup and do what he calls "fast food" planning by just noting the imbalances and trying to make use of them. The bulk of the book is focused on learning what the critical imbalances are (from his point of view) and how to correctly use them once they are created.
This is all fascinating stuff…
US Master Mark Buckley in his book Practical Chess Analysis gave what is probably the most clear description of a master’s thinking process.
“…the process of finding an attacking scheme… Decide on a point to attack. Find what pieces and pawns are required to break through that point and which defenders must be removed. Determine the path of each attack piece – don’t include any defensive moves but be flexible, the scheme should be malleable. Solve the weak point problem by coming up with a sequence of moves. Calculate lines of play that include defenses to the scheme. Try to find efficient refutations of your attack. Modify the attack to cope with the new defenses. Try various move orders; add to or change the composition of the attack force. Re-assess the position, restarting the schematic process at whichever step required. Impose your will on the opponent. Choose a new target if necessary and go through the process again.”
Note the following research which shows a difference in master thinking and average players:
http://www.cogsci.northwestern.edu/cogsci2004/papers/paper402.pdf
“…experimental results show that chess masters falsified their hypotheses: they thought about how their opponent might refute their plan in their move sequences. Chess masters tended to evaluate their moves as good or bad for them more realistically than experienced novices. Experienced novices exhibited something of a confirmation bias: they tended to think about how their opponent would play moves that fit in with their plan, somewhat more than chess masters did."
Originally posted by masscatInteresting article - I never thought about it this way. Somehow falsification seems like pessimism and confirmation like optimism though :-), maybe more fun to not be a master. I know it makes sense to play the best move as far as you can tell, but sometimes I like to just make it complicated and increase tactical possibilities...
This is all fascinating stuff…
US Master Mark Buckley in his book Practical Chess Analysis gave what is probably the most clear description of a master’s thinking process.
“…the process of finding an attacking scheme… Decide on a point to attack. Find what pieces and pawns are required to break through that point and which defenders must be removed. ...[text shortened]... r opponent would play moves that fit in with their plan, somewhat more than chess masters did."
Originally posted by ExumaSeveral years ago a master rated friend told me he was giving up chess (and he did). He told me "you have no idea how hard I have to work to keep my rating." I guess his rating was more important than just enjoying the game.
[b] maybe more fun to not be a master. b]
Originally posted by masscathe should just play on here then...
Several years ago a master rated friend told me he was giving up chess (and he did). He told me "you have no idea how hard I have to work to keep my rating." I guess his rating was more important than just enjoying the game.