Thinking Habits

Originally posted by Varenka
Many players spend a lot of effort improving what they *know* about chess. This may include opening lines; tactical pattern recognition; or how to play a certain endgame. And this can indeed be useful.

But we’re also aware that in addition to what we know, it is important that our minds have an effective thought process. While our thought process is of ...[text shortened]... irm our assessment, we need to reassess.



I could add more but have ranted enough for now.

That's why most of us don't reach expert level. It's the right way to play chess, but it's so easy to get lazy and stop making the effort. Playing a high-level game is a lot of work.

Originally posted by Golub
Implementing the thought process seems to me to be the "difficult" part. The brain thinks for itself like it is trained and it is seldom we get/take a chance to take a step back and reflect, or think about something else before we think about what we wanted to think about. So, how can all these thinking traps be actually be avoided in one's game?

Doing the ...[text shortened]... cially OTB/live chess. I just don't think that way, and I doubt people do, even good ones.

(Thanks to all replies.)

Yes, I agree and ask such questions myself… without any easy answers…

Words which realistically explain the way our minds work include: spontaneous, impulsive, automatic, sporadic, subconscious (partly), habitual, etc.

Words which do not include: mechanical, sequential, predictable, “programmable”, etc.

As you suggest, trying to insert a new “checklist item” into our thought processes isn’t straightforward. It’s not like adding some lines to a computer program. If we have any chance of succeeding we must accept the way our brains work and not pretend otherwise.

GM Hodgson said something like: “you cannot learn chess directly- 'it seeps in'”.

And GM Rowson: “The biggest problem with thought in general is that we can observe the product but not the process. We only have glimpses of the process because so much of it is 'behing the curtain'- i.e. beyond introspective access. In so far as your brain is a machine, it is a machine that has taken millenia to design. I agree there are some ways of working that work with the brain's natural tendencies and other ways that work against it, but in general it is better to think of chess as a skill that needs to honed rather than a subject that needs to be learned.”

I think “learning by osmosis” is more realistic than “stepping through a checklist” on every move. Rather than expect a conscious step to kick in mechanically on each move, what we need to aim for is a heightened general awareness of the factor… like a cloud hanging over our heads. We hope that our minds get drawn more to this factor and start to incorporate it more automatically.

To help increase this awareness, it may be worth considering what aspects of your game you’re hoping to improve, just before starting a game and immediately afterwards. And while playing, don’t be too disappointed if you’re not frequently conscious of thinking about this factor… often we need to let our minds do their thing. Finally, it goes without saying, that a single game will change little. We need to persist.

Dvoretsky analyses his pupils games for weaknesses. He then sets up training positions and games with a focus on the weaknesses. But there is no prompting on a per move basis. And of course the crux… this is repeated again and again. Do; assess/review; repeat. Don’t underestimate the effort to get our brains to change habit. Rowson: “if you temporarily stretch a piece of cloth, it will return to its original shape... but stretch it often enough and it won’t go all the way back”.

High time for a bump..

Chess is a reflection of attitude. From the opening lines we choose, to our tacticalxpositional variants in the middle game. Our games are constantly revealing our personality.

Human error may be the best window into personality and psychological characteristics in general. Chess it just so happens is a game built around errors.

Your attitude is spilled onto the board every time you play. Everytime you move a piece, you move it in one of three ways; offensively, defensively, in response to. Play chess when your angry, and play chess when your sad. Analyze these two games, and notice the different paths.

I know that when i'm angry I become tactically motivated... Whereas when I'm depressed, or somewhat saddened, i play positionally and defensive.




Attitude is the medium, to molt our lives onto the chess board.

-Adorea

i appreciate your thoughts and ability to express them. The observation about the IM at the beginning was very telling. I think it's the reason why I like the historic games posted at theimmortalgame.com. Re-playing those games and asking the 'why' behind each move is a thinking exercise akin to what i think you're talking about.

Sometimes I read a posting here and think: this is so good it should be saved and published somewhere on the site. Not just a rec that'll disappear in a short while, something like "the 100 most thought-provoking posts ever to appear in an RHP forum". Then a body of collective knowledge would be readily available on the site.

The opening post of this thread would certainly qualify for admission, perhaps with a couple of edited extracts from the comments following it.

Should I take this to Site Ideas?

Originally posted by Varenka
Many players spend a lot of effort improving what they *know* about chess. This may include opening lines; tactical pattern recognition; or how to play a certain endgame. And this can indeed be useful.

But we’re also aware that in addition to what we know, it is important that our minds have an effective thought process. While our thought process is of ...[text shortened]... irm our assessment, we need to reassess.



I could add more but have ranted enough for now.

I guess I am lucky then...because this is basically how I think...that is probably the only reason I can play at up to a 1700 level on here, because my tactics are shoddy and so I am forced to think this way just to find those tactical finesses that most take for granted.

Originally posted by MissOleum
Sometimes I read a posting here and think: this is so good it should be saved and published somewhere on the site. Not just a rec that'll disappear in a short while, something like "the 100 most thought-provoking posts ever to appear in an RHP forum". Then a body of collective knowledge would be readily available on the site.

The opening post of this ...[text shortened]... ouple of edited extracts from the comments following it.

Should I take this to Site Ideas?

Yes!

I like this post, essientially chess is two things: A)Decision making B)Time management.

There are many decision making modules available on the internet which you could use, including Kotov's famous tree of variations.
Basically a good process to follow if you have the dicipline is: A) Observation(evaluation of position) B) ideas (candidate moves) C) calculation(risk assessment) D)Judgement.

easier said than done though!

I have just read this - and thought people who have joined recently might like to read it, so have bumped it from page 20.

This thread is an oasis in the middle of a sea of cretinism (just check the threads and the opinions of ultra weak players regarding cheating: instead of moaning and complaining one has to study hard in order to become stronger, but that's another story);

Congrats Varenka!! The checklist you provided surely works for a player that grasps the important principles, evaluations and standard techniques, so the problem is to find a good plan ("understanding the position"😉 and then make it work through the right tactics. As long as we see Kings and Rooks and Queens instead of the chessboard and the chessmen as a whole and the squares as corresponding ones, we will be dead in the water; so at the phase of the opening we know what to do: accurate development lookin' for the initiative and maybe for a slight advantage. In the middlegame a checklist like the one you mentioned is more than precious, while at the endgame we have to look for the assimilation of standard techniques. All these projects are possible only if our evaluation is correct, therefore the most important thing is one's ability to evaluate. This ability is essential, and IMHO all kinds of checklist/ strategy/ tactics/ combinational motifes they derive from there;

Originally posted by Varenka
Many players spend a lot of effort improving what they *know* about chess. This may include opening lines; tactical pattern recognition; or how to play a certain endgame. And this can indeed be useful.

But we’re also aware that in addition to what we know, it is important that our minds have an effective thought process. While our thought process is of ...[text shortened]... irm our assessment, we need to reassess.



I could add more but have ranted enough for now.

Interesting ideas. Worth considering.

Originally posted by black beetle
This thread is an oasis in the middle of a sea of cretinism (just check the threads and the opinions of ultra weak players regarding cheating: instead of moaning and complaining one has to study hard in order to become stronger, but that's another story);

Agreed, it's seems many are far too hung up on the number of cheats playing here which, whilst is a problem, gets in the way of what we're all here to do; play chess and enjoy playing it. Great post by Varenka, words like that [and well written too] may just have a positive effect on some people's play. This game is a battle of the minds after all.

Much thanks, Varenka, for an excellent read and for starting one of the best threads on chess I've ever read on RHP. I learned a lot, not only about chess, but how one needs to think about chess while playing chess, and how to be aware of the thought processes while playing chess. Please don't think that you were "ranting" and I believe a great many of us would appreciate any and all further sharing of your thoughts and experiences about chess.

Thanks to Varenka for the original post and thanks to Mr Ch for bumping the thread, since somehow I missed it the first time around.