Are you more strictly logical or intuitive in your thought processes?

Hello!

I wanted to ask a bit of a loaded question in order to stir up interesting discussions about the way we play chess. In particular, how do strictly logical and intuitive thought processes play roles in your games?

Logical is for when you want to make sure you go by the book, play it safe, try to work out variations.

Intuitive guides you to go for the juggly and have a blast.

Logical ... but logic, by its very nature, cannot find brilliant moves except if one emulates a brute force programme and considers everything.

Logical can be good when you find a spectacular tactic.

Rated standard games - logical

Unrated/blitz/bullet games - intuitive/suicidal

suicidal. That's a good one.

So chess is neither a game nor a sport, it's a matter of life and death.

Humans lean heavily on pattern recognition, so there is a lot of intuition at work when selecting candidate moves and evaluating positions.

We also use logic.  Organizing, interpreting, and otherwise building our personal database of patterns takes logical thought.  Calculating forcing variations is also logic.

So in a real game intuition and logic are inexorably intertwined.  Calculation, evaluation, and after the game the act of learning.  In bullet games it's more (much more) intuitive, but strong players are still calculating tactics throughout the game.

Guys, guys, guys, guys, if you don't have time to calculate in a bullet game, it doesn't mean intuition automatically takes over. Some people have little or none of that to begin with!

Interesting statement.

However, it would seem to me that a 'brilliant move', in and of itself, can only be logical regardless of how its inventor claims to have discovered it.

A brilliant move is usually one that bestows upon it's inventor an advantage, or even a win. Since the move has undermind the enemy in a way that it cannot be overcome, it is the logical move since dominating and defeating your opponent is the point of chess.

I think when players say they are using intuition, it usually means they are doing, as Kaynight suggested, closing their eyes and hoping for the best.

Just think about tactics, the supposed 99% of chess. Effective tactics requires precise calculations. Even a GM would never look at the tactical element of a move and say "Well, I'll just move here because it feels right.".

The only place intuition might have a place is in the strategic aspects of moves. Looking at an unclear position and saying, "Ok. It seems to me that if I increase activities on the q-side, I may be able to create an advantage." But, even here, the line between calling a decision logical and calling it inuitive seems pretty blurry.

Is kaynight "some people" ?

The mind or eyes boggle.

Yes, Kaynight is 'some' people. Here is a recent pic:

Oh right, I stand corrected.

Logical when I'm playing well, intuitive when I'm not.

So, intuitive. Or more accurately lazy logical.

Chess players make the best spinners.

That's the spirit, Scotty.

I Urban Dictionaried 'spinners'. Interesting.

That does sound funny.

I meant 'as in' spin doctors.

Logical

A combination either wins material, or loses it. I have no "sixth sense" for guessing when a sacrifice might offer some long-term initiative.

        I try to think and move logically. If the way forward does not present itself to me logically, I try to follow what I regard as sound policy.