There is the "tree of variations" technique explained in Kotov's books, and touched on here: http://www.onlinechesslessons.net/2011/03/12/the-tree-of-variation/ .
Is there any technique at all?
Sort:
Looks interesting. Has it help you?
The tree method in itself is rather trivial. The real problem is threefold:
1) If the moves are not totally forcing, the tree grows too big to handle very soon. So pruning the tree down to contain only plausible candidates in every line is mandatory. This requires a "feel" for what is worth considering (checks, captures, developing moves etc.)
2) Evaluating the positions. You may only stop calculating once a position is "quiescent" (no more immediate tactics). If the lines entail material loss/wins its (normally) quite easy to evaluate the positions, but if there's no such material difference, you have to have a feel for the immaterial aspects of the position (space, initiative, weak points etc).
3) The real issue with calculating IMHO is that visualisation is involved. Correct visualisation of complex board situations can be trained, but some people seem to be better in this than others. When asked about it, Siegbert Tarrasch conceded that its very difficult for him to visualize the whole board/position at once. Actually, psychologist have found that it is for the most part impossible and that its rather chunks of 4*4 (or 3*3) squares that are visualized at any one time.
Bubatz wrote:
The tree method in itself is rather trivial. The real problem is threefold:
1) If the moves are not totally forcing, the tree grows too big to handle very soon. So pruning the tree down to contain only plausible candidates in every line is mandatory. This requires a "feel" for what is worth considering (checks, captures, developing moves etc.)
2) Evaluating the positions. You may only stop calculating once a position is "quiescent" (no more immediate tactics). If the lines entail material loss/wins its (normally) quite easy to evaluate the positions, but if there's no such material difference, you have to have a feel for the immaterial aspects of the position (space, initiative, weak points etc).
3) The real issue with calculating IMHO is that visualisation is involved. Correct visualisation of complex board situations can be trained, but some people seem to be better in this than others. When asked about it, Siegbert Tarrasch conceded that its very difficult for him to visualize the whole board/position at once. Actually, psychologist have found that it is for the most part impossible and that its rather chunks of 4*4 (or 3*3) squares that are visualized at any one time.
I do agree with the idea we can only remember smaller portions except for one piece of evidence. I can see the entire board and all of the pieces from any game that is played. I can do this everytime I play. What seperates me from a grandmaster is that I can only do this for the first few moves of a game. They seem to be able to go through entire games this way, without even needing a board in front of them.
nameno1had wrote:
Bubatz wrote:
The tree method in itself is rather trivial. The real problem is threefold:
1) If the moves are not totally forcing, the tree grows too big to handle very soon. So pruning the tree down to contain only plausible candidates in every line is mandatory. This requires a "feel" for what is worth considering (checks, captures, developing moves etc.)
2) Evaluating the positions. You may only stop calculating once a position is "quiescent" (no more immediate tactics). If the lines entail material loss/wins its (normally) quite easy to evaluate the positions, but if there's no such material difference, you have to have a feel for the immaterial aspects of the position (space, initiative, weak points etc).
3) The real issue with calculating IMHO is that visualisation is involved. Correct visualisation of complex board situations can be trained, but some people seem to be better in this than others. When asked about it, Siegbert Tarrasch conceded that its very difficult for him to visualize the whole board/position at once. Actually, psychologist have found that it is for the most part impossible and that its rather chunks of 4*4 (or 3*3) squares that are visualized at any one time.
I do agree with the idea we can only remember smaller portions except for one piece of evidence. I can see the entire board and all of the pieces from any game that is played. I can do this everytime I play. What seperates me from a grandmaster is that I can only do this for the first few moves of a game. They seem to be able to go through entire games this way, without even needing a board in front of them.
I've heard that too. Maybe the four square thing just applies to the average player.
I can't even visualize (in my head) the whole board with the starting position. Not really anyway - if I try it's rather like I move my eyes from the queenside to the kingside or from White's side to Black's side.
When I was 12, I played one single game blindfolded with another member from my chess club in the presence of a judge. It was extremely exhausting and I never did it again. I still have the notation sheet with the game, though. It shows that we both struggled to visualize and therefore played rather tame and "orderly" moves trying to not complicate the position. And ... we blundered a lot, which taught me that it is extremely difficult to calculate lines if you don't have the board to start with where you can focus your eyes on parts of the position at will.
Bubatz wrote:
I can't even visualize (in my head) the whole board with the starting position. Not really anyway - if I try it's rather like I move my eyes from the queenside to the kingside or from White's side to Black's side.
When I was 12, I played one single game blindfolded with another member from my chess club in the presence of a judge. It was extremely exhausting and I never did it again. I still have the notation sheet with the game, though. It shows that we both struggled to visualize and therefore played rather tame and "orderly" moves trying to not complicate the position. And ... we blundered a lot, which taught me that it is extremely difficult to calculate lines if you don't have the board to start with where you can focus your eyes on parts of the position at will.
I can easily visualize the whole board as long as there are no pieces on it. 
To calculating a few moves ahead.