people actually do this. You'd count to assess the material balance after a series of exchanges as part of deciding whether the exchange is something you want to enter into. Material balance is a consideration in chess.
Counting
Sort:
If they catch you counting, they throw you out of the casino.
no, what JamesColeman wrote is not what is referred to as counting. I suggest you read the following including the links on the counting primer and the two types of counting problems and then ask you question if you are still wondering. Dan Heisman who wrote the article and the articles linked is the person who came up with the term 'counting' problem, so you're getting it straight from the horse's mouth.
http://www.chess.com/article/view/counting-vs-counting-material
no counting is not another word for calculating. Counting is a particular type of 'error'. See the articles by Heisman on 'counting' if you're interested in finding out what 'counting' refers to. He is the one who penned the name 'counting' problem. James Coleman is 'not sure why anyone would think in those terms' because he doesn't know what 'counting' refers to. If he, or you, are interested...I've already included the links if any of you are interested. But at risk of casting more pearls before swine, here are those links again. http://www.chess.com/article/view/counting-vs-counting-material
frankomail7 wrote:
I'm not really one to click on random links proffered by a total stranger. Those links seem NSFW.
Who are you to argue with a Canadian Master about chess tactics anyhow?
lol "Canadian" Master
I clicked on the totally NON-RANDOM link. It's a legit chess.com article....you can trust me :)
Bronco70 wrote:
I clicked on the totally NON-RANDOM link. It's a legit chess.com article....you can trust me :)
of course it is. Its an article by the person who created the term "counting problem" "counting error" and who has written much on the subject. But "Canadian Master" James Coleman knows better, hehe.
Oh wow, neither of those are what I was asking about, although the links are very interesting. The video is http://www.chess.com/video/player/development-part-i-counting2.
JamesColeman wrote:
You may for example use it in a king and pawn ending type position to see who is quicker in a race. For example, it takes my king 9 moves to harvest his pawns on that side and it takes him 10 moves on the other side, plus it's my move, so I get there first and win etc. Done correctly, it can clarify a complicated looking ending in a few seconds.
Personally I never want to rely on that method alone, the potential for a surprise intermediate move to put you out of sync in the sequence (leaving you behind in a race you thought you were ahead in) must always be considered, so time permitting, I'd always want to back it up with a verbal analysis in my head just to double check things. I would also never use it for piece exchange calculations. That can be badly flawed. But yeah, it can be useful sometimes.
no, that is calculating, not counting.
Womble- wrote:
Oh wow, neither of those are what I was asking about, although the links are very interesting. The video is http://www.chess.com/video/player/development-part-i-counting2.
In those videos Pruess is using counting to refer to counting tempi of development. Yes, people do do that too, however Pruess is using 'counting' there in a non-standard way. Pruess' use of 'counting' there conflates tempi with counting, and thus introduces a layer of confusion. For the purpose of that video 'tempo', 'with tempo', 'two tempi', etc would have been sufficient.
JamesColeman is confusing 'counting' with 'calculating'. He simpply does not know what counting refers to, neither in the Pruess video, nor in Heisman's now-standard usage of counting. Enjoy those links; they should be very helpful.
Somebodysson wrote:
Bronco70 wrote:
I clicked on the totally NON-RANDOM link. It's a legit chess.com article....you can trust me :)
of course it is. Its an article by the person who created the term "counting problem" "counting error" and who has written much on the subject. But "Canadian Master" James Coleman knows better, hehe.
My comment was more for franko but looks like he got the boot ;)
Why should he know what you are talking about? Why is counting tempi in a king and pawn endgame a nonstandard use of the word counting while counting how many pieces can capture on a given square is standard? Both involve counting not real calculation, and both should be backed up with real calculation unless you are in severe time trouble.
Heisman is not a universally read source, do not assume that people are familiar with his writing quirks.
JamesColeman wrote:
What I am talking about certainly IS called counting, thank you very much - maybe the original poster though did mean something else, I don't claim to have seen the video in question...
you're welcome. If you're going to be offering your coaching services on chess.com you should bone up on your understanding of key terms in chess pedagogy. Counting errors, counting problems, are now standard fare. The best book that focusses on counting skill is the Chess Visualization Course by Ian Anderson
http://chessconfessions.blogspot.ca/2007/12/review-chess-visualization-course-book.html
I agree with Sombodys definition of counting and I agree with his source of Dan Heisman ....but... Dan also says that there is no "official " chess dictionary. So I can see how people use counting in different circumstances
aggressivesociopath wrote:
Why should he know what you are talking about? Why is counting tempi in a king and pawn endgame a nonstandard use of the word counting while counting how many pieces can capture on a given square is standard? Both involve counting not real calculation, and both should be backed up with real calculation unless you are in severe time trouble.
Heisman is not a universally read source, do not assume that people are familiar with his writing quirks.
no, in the video the OP references Pruess is not talking about counting tempi in a K+P endgame. If you took the time to see what the OP was referencing, youd see that it was counting tempi in opening development. The OP is asking whether counting tempi in opening development is something that people do. Pruess' use of 'counting' there is certainly non-standard. However, being aware of tempi esp in opening development is certainly standard, although it is not the sine qua non of a good opening.
Bronco70 wrote:
I agree with Sombodys definition of counting and I agree with his source of Dan Heisman ....but... Dan also says that there is no "official " chess dictionary. So I can see how people use counting in different circumstances
yes, of course there is no official chess dictionary. But what JamesColeman did was use calculating and counting interchangeably, and that introduced another layer of confusion to the discussion. JamesColeman was not answering the OPs question, which had to do with the Pruess video and opening development, counting tempi. JamesColeman further put his foot in his mouth by his 'thank you very much I certainly know what I'm talking about' which had nothing at all to do with the OPs question.
haftling wrote:
The mere fact that the Bolivian 1000 rated player would even consider arguing this point shows everything that is wrong with society today.
Put the lotion in the basket!
Bolivian or not, 1000 or not, what a stuffy thing to say. A lower chess-score is equally valid in terms of judging society. Do you imagine we low-scores should hold our tongues?
These are my thoughts on the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UFc9lMyhMY
I have just started some study and have reached the recommended videos about "counting". Do people actually do this? I am struggling to understand why you'd count and what benefit it brings?