My 5 Step Thinking Process

Hello, I wanted to share my 5 step thinking process that I am currently trying to implement in my games, when I analyze my games and master games, doing tactical puzzles, etc. I am trying to break the bad habit of first looking at a position and immediately calculating moves before really paying attention to the imbalances.

Most of this is from the Amateur's Mind book by Silman. So this is mostly based from summarizing the book.  

Please let me know what you think. I welcome all criticism. I am just trying to use a thinking system that is practical and consistently effective.

Thinking Process

Step 1: Ask: How has my opponent’s move changed the current position?

Step 2:  Ask: What are the positive and negative imbalances that exist in this position for white and black? (Update your mental awareness of the changes in the imbalances as the position changes with each move).

Step 3: What are the candidate moves which allow me to improve my position based on the positive imbalances that already exist in this position?

 Step 4: Calculate each candidate move in the position and the opponent’s best response to these candidate moves. Also take note of how the imbalances may change as a result of these moves. (For Example: “If I go here, then he should play x,y,z”)

Step 5:  Finalize the best candidate move and conceptualize an overall plan that this move helps you accomplish. Finalize your opponent’s best response to this move and what his best continuation should be.

List of different imbalances and questions to ask yourself 

Statics vs Dynamics- Is the position static or dynamic in nature?

(If the position is static, you will spend less time, if any, looking at forcing moves and tactics. If the position is dynamic, you will know that you need to put more investment in calculating different variations and increase your tactical awareness.)

Minor Piece-

• Can I improve the position of one of my minor pieces or restrict my opponents?

(Bishop are best in open positions whereas Knights love closed positions.)

Pawn Structure-

• Are there doubled, isolated, backward pawns, hanging, or passed pawns in my or my opponent’s position? (Are these pawns a weakness or an advantage?)
• If my opponent has a pawn weakness, how can I exploit this weakness?
• If I have a pawn weakness, how do I rectify this weakness or defend it?

Space-

• Who controls the center? (If I control the center, do I need to strengthen it? If my opponent controls the center, should I attack it?)
• Who has more space is this position?
• Is the position open, closed, or semi-closed?
• (Closed or semi-closed positions)- How can I continue play on the wing where I have more space? 
• (Open positions)- Do I have a developmental advantage? Can I attack? Are there tactics?
• (If you have more space) How can I avoid trading pieces and take my time to restrict my opponents counter play? Can I gain more space?
• (If you have less space) How can I look to exchange a piece or two to give myself more room?

Files and squares-

• Can I create or utilize any open files?
• Can my opponent make use of any open files?
• What are the key squares in this position?
• Can I fight for a key square that improves my position or do I need to defend a key square that my opponent can make use of?

Development-

• Who has the lead in development?
• (If the position is open and you have a lead in development) Can I use my lead in development to attack? Are there tactics?
• (If the position is closed and you have a lead in development) Can I open the position to be able to utilize my lead in development?
• Can my opponent make use of their lead in development to attack?

Initiative-

• Can I or my opponent take the initiative in this position?
• Can I or my opponent utilize the initiative to create an advantage?

King Safety-

• Is my king safe from attack?
• (If not) What should I do to secure my King’s safety?
• Can I attack my opponent’s king? Does the position justify a kingside attack?

Material-

• Can I win material is this position?
• (If yes) Is the material worth the positional changes that occur?
• Does my opponent have any threats?
• (If yes) How should I prevent the threat?
• Should I ignore the threat and continue with my own plan?

This is my 5 step thinking process:

1. <alarm goes off> UUUUGGGGGHHHH...I cant believe im getting up this early on a Saturday"

2. They better have coffee made and ready.

3. Just accept my draw offer, so i can go to lunch.

4. What do you mean the Pai Gow table is closed????

5. Wheres the sports book?

actually it appears to me that we should look at all forcing continuations first (for both ourselves and our opponent) because not only are they easier to calculate they are sometimes decisive.  If there are no forcing variations that lead to any kind of advantage then we can begin to look at positional considerations.  Essentially there are four scenarios that can happen.

1. we can strengthen our position

2. we can accentuate the weaknesses of our opponents positions

3. we can liquidate our weaknesses

4. we can liquidate the strengths in our opponents position

I think you are right robbie. I believe it comes down to having a good sense on when to look at the forcing moves in a position and when to apply for positional considerations. But when both are present, it definitely feels more natural to consider the forcing moves first. 

The problem arises when we look at forcing continuations and then evaluate the outcome erroneously or not at all.  I think there is something to be said for intuition in chess also.

1. What is the threat?

This is my number one question. 

What is your next question after you discern there are no threats?

that were some good tactics to playng

Seems like a very aggressive/offensive thinking process.  I have been trying to think more defensively to avoid blunders which is a problem for me.  

One of the quickest ways to lose, is to start thinking not to win.

Yeah but...

Biceps, quads, hamstrings, traps and lats.

Wait, was the question?

Good thinking process but the devil is in the detail. Clearly if you could really evaluate the opponents "best" response and have answers for it then you'd always win a la Alpha Zero. I think half the fun in chess is realising you haven't made the best choices and neither has your opponent but you just try to be as resourceful as possible with whatever you have.

Well said francis, of course when I mean "best" I am referring to the best we can conceptualize based on our personal abilities, which will surely be full of flaws.

Exact! The fact is: Weak players are often weak because they can not play their best. In this case it is important for the player to make sure that he is using everything HE knows in the game.

Determination and willingness to win helps a lot. Kasparov when he was 10 cried like a child (ok, he was really child) when he lost a match! He hated to lose.Fischer had the same determination and Carlsen had too!

I'm sure GM Timur Gareyev could be a chess world champion if he was VERY interested in that, since this man's mental abilities are astounding: he played against 48 boards in blinded chess (world record).

Actually that is my point, weak and strong players differ psychologically.

+1

You should check out the ABCDE method of move selection, it works well and is a lot simpler method.

You should check out the ABCDE method of move selection, it works well and is a lot simpler method.

This seems like a modern approach to learning. We are in the age of NLP (neuro linguistic programming), discoveries about the power of habit, and increasingly scientific discourses about motivation and willpower. Apparently we are trying to take advantage of a downside of the brain. This drawback is just that: inflexibility.
Imagination and creativity? No need, just memorize some secret formula or stick to some cake recipe on how we should think.

Not to mention IFWATLASTM.

* I Forget What All These Letters Are Supposed To Mean.