(Also, I'd already edited the original post once in order to add coloured text to the format, but it didn't stick for whatever reason. Hope it sticks now.)
Can better calculation make you a worse player?
Sort:
@1
The deeper you can calculate, the better you play.
The trick is to adjust the width and depth of the calculation to the position.
You cannot look at all possible moves, you have to prune.
Pruning an important move may be catastrophic.
You cannot calculate a line all the way through to checkmate or a draw.
You should stop the calculation when an evaluation is possible without further calculation.
tygxc wrote:
@1
The deeper you can calculate, the better you play.
The trick is to adjust the width and depth of the calculation to the position.
You cannot look at all possible moves, you have to prune.
Pruning an important move may be catastrophic.
You cannot calculate a line all the way through to checkmate or a draw.
You should stop the calculation when an evaluation is possible without further calculation.
I agree, but I was talking about those situations in which you discard a good move because you "see a ghost" as you're considering it, so you ultimately play an inferior move. I've even played a handful of defensive puzzles like that on Chess.com itself, and they're usually about grabbing "obvious" free material then proving the correctness of your choice through refuting the trickiest possible continuation immediately afterwards.
I can provide a similar example, albeit of the attacking kind, later today.
Anand has notoriously claimed to have calculated nothing for important moves on multiple occasions.
The situation you described (playing the right thing for the wrong reason) can happen. but it's incredibly rare.
For every instance of that, there will be a dozen situations where the guy guesses and guesses wrong. The intuition of weak players is bad.
In most of these cases, the slightly better guy will easily calculate and play the right move.
magipi wrote:
The situation you described (playing the right thing for the wrong reason) can happen. but it's incredibly rare.
For every instance of that, there will be a dozen situations where the guy guesses and guesses wrong. The intuition of weak players is bad.
In most of these cases, the slightly better guy will easily calculate and play the right move.
Even though I agree with what you said, I don't think it gives me any clues as to how to guess at least those first moves correctly, at least in puzzles.
Here's the example I wanted to tell tygxc about:
I tried to find the winning tactic in the above example, as presented by Agadmator in his video on this game... but I failed, due to the reasons I've outlined in the annotations.
The example puzzle is a bad example, as the Intuition Guy has 0% to solve it. Sure. he may start with Bg2+ (a nice-looking aggressive move), but next he'll certainly play the "obvious" Nf4+ and fail.
Optimissed wrote:1. That's a very interesting and provocative O.P. I think the answer is don't do puzzles.
If you analyse some of your blitz games, it's far more beneficial because it's about positions you will actually get.
In blitz we try to play instinctively and meet the tricky part as and when in comes. In slowplay, there's no point doing that. If we get into a possibly winning position once, it'll probably happen again in the same game. Also we can afford to think for half an hour over a whole move once in a game and perhaps twice. If we can't see the tricky bits in half an hour under match conditions, we're no good anyway and we shouldn't have any self-confidence.
2. Pity it's such a poor board and pieces. I don't want to look at that diagram. And a pity you didn't tell us who is to move but instead showed us the solution.
1. "Don't do puzzles"? I was hoping solving more of them would help me solve even more of them but faster and faster until I really internalise the patterns for my rapid games, but oh well. xD I get the rest of your reply, except I really don't see the downside to having self-confidence over and over again. The way I see it, if I can skip building it back up every time, I'mma skip it! xD
2. Pity we have such diametrically opposite tastes when it comes to visual design in chess. Still, I've converted the position to a puzzle!
magipi wrote:
The example puzzle is a bad example, as the Intuition Guy has 0% to solve it. Sure. he may start with Bg2+ (a nice-looking aggressive move), but next he'll certainly play the "obvious" Nf4+ and fail.
Perhaps, and perhaps not. On one hand, it's a forward-moving check with a piece, but on the other hand, so is ...h1=Q+. The question would be: what's more intuitive to the Intuition Guy? To consider checks by pieces that are already closer to the opponent's King, or to consider checks that don't (immediately) lose material?
I'm reminding myself to hone a Tal-like mindset of sacrificing big material first, but my mind's eye is lazy and short-sighted. xD
Tychooju12 wrote:
This thread embodies the word "Redundant".
How come? Why, even?
Feb 11, 2024
0
#12
There are occasions where a better player will play a worse move than a weaker player because he “sees a ghost” down the line that a weaker player missed. But for every such instance, there are 100 instances in which the stronger player finds a better move to their more advanced calculation.
SoupSailor72 wrote:
There are occasions where a better player will play a worse move than a weaker player because he “sees a ghost” down the line that a weaker player missed. But for every such instance, there are 100 instances in which the stronger player finds a better move to their more advanced calculation.
Reminds me of what they used to say about Petrosian: he seemed to prevent his opponent's ideas before they even realised they might have them in the future... although, again, those calculations would be defensive ones. Still, the principle applies, it's just that the stakes are even higher that way.
Feb 16, 2024
0
#15
Of course, it is okay to do puzzles. It gives significant boost in your play. The only problem in the situation of what OP is telling about is the player himself disregards visualization practice. They became obsess that tactics is the only way to win in chess, that is why they disregard the importance of strategy. There is a great Philosopher called Sun Tzu that says "Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
You are still improving by means of solving tactics puzzle, but the only problem is you forgot the importance of strategy to set up multiple tactics to employ. If you already feel confident that you are already good at solving tactics, I suggest that you should study strategy to implement that talent.
Here's an example of what I mean:
(The numbers are as generalised as possible, for the sake of simplicity.)
We have three main data points here:
- 2/2 a.k.a. the "Peak of Intuition", at which I (accurately) calculate just deeply enough to initiate the correct first move in the sequence without seeing everything through to the end, meaning that I end up playing the right thing for the wrong reason;
- 4/-2 a.k.a. the "Valley of Self-Doubt", in which I calculate just deeply enough to realise that there is a trick to the sequence down the line, and being unable to find a refutation for it, I opt for choosing a different (and thus incorrect) first move in the sequence, meaning that I end up playing the wrong thing for the right reason;
- 6/2 a.k.a. the "Peak of Calculation", at which I calculate at least deeply enough to see both the aforementioned trick down the line and its refutation even further down the line, and thus having accurately envisioned the entire sequence through from the beginning to the end, I work out the (clearly and undoubtedly the best) intended solution, meaning that I end up playing the right thing for the right reason.
I feel like the example is better if the given problem occurs as an isolated puzzle rather than a position during an actual game, so that the player knows that exact calculation is the way to go... but at the same time, it's also best if the player doesn't know the length of the correct solution. Bottom line, real game or not, the player should treat the position like his only chance to secure the highest possible result is to calculate it all the way up to the point of a perceived forced end of tactical operations.
The tricky thing is, if you can only accurately calculate up to 4 moves ahead in the given position, then the best course of action is to play the initial couple of moves on intuition and only start the decisive calculations when the trick becomes apparent (which often enough happens as it gets played), being that visualising 4 moves ahead is generally easier than visualising 6 moves ahead. However, I have no idea how to achieve that. All I know is that I've been losing mad puzzle rating points on Lichess lately, due to being in the Valley of Self-Doubt. xD