Sometimes I can tell that a particular move is "good" in that it creates opportunity or leads to certain advantages. But often, I see that I am not a skilled enough player to leverage those advantages into a win.
I really do not enjoy open, dynamic positions; rather grind it out in the trenches, you know. So I reject the scientific move when it doesn't fit my style of play.
Funnily enough I had this very discussion at the Scottish Champinship
with some very strong players in the company.
I often bring up this topic when I have a set of chess players with me.
We all agreed that when our opponent made a move our 'instinct'
suggested a reply right away.
We then spend ages convincing ourselves why or why not we should
play our 'instinct' move.
A 1600 player said 50% of the time it was the move he would play.
I said it more like 70% and one of the GM's said 80% of his first
choice moves was the move he would select.
It does appear that the better you are and more experience you have
then your 'instinctive' choice narrows.
Obvious. Yes.
I was reminded of tests that CHESS carried out in the 80's.
They showed the same positiion to a group of players of varying
strength asking them for their thoughts and assessement.
The stronger players would follow their instinctive choice while the weaker
players would look for a reason to reject their 'gut feeling'.
"I wanted to play Bxh6 (which was the correct move) but could not
see my way though the maze of complcations."
My advice here, and I do practise what I preach.
If you cannot see why a move is bad but 'you want' to play it. Play it.
I've sat in on many post-mortems hearing excuses for not playing
an unclear sacrifice (which was sound). The player usually goes on to lose.
Trust and KNOW yourself.
Most of you are better chess players than what you think you are.
Originally posted by greenpawn34I find this interesting because I've just begun reading Chess for Zebras by Rowson. In the second chapter he argues that stronger players are stronger because they're better at critically evaluating a position and falsifying lines that look good but actually aren't (i.e. finding a reason to reject their 'gut feeling'😉.
The stronger players would follow their instinctive choice while the weaker
players would look for a reason to reject their 'gut feeling'.
I Know Zebra's touches on this.
Based on all the people I spoken with about this subject .
Move Selection
All other things considered It goes something like this.
Inexperienced Players ignore completely gut reaction, they have not
yet built up a gut base and do not know themselves. It will come.
Good Players: lean on 'gut feeling, instinct' far too much.
GM's and titled players: Know when to to play against their instinct.
(they have an instinct their instinct is wrong!).
For me, there's the obvious and then I spend some time trying to see why not and his possible responses. Often my first choice is not the best on analysis. However, when faced with a choice of seemingly good moves, I play the one that follows the basic chess principles (like space, pressure, time etc) even though I don't know where it's going. One other factor in move choice is that I want him to worry about my plans and react, rather than continuing with his. When he does so, I know (well, usually) I'm going to win.