My beta systematic thinking process

 

 

0. WHAT WAS YOUR OPPONENTS LAST MOVE AND WHAT DID HE LEAVE BEHIND?

(SKIP 0 IF N/A)

 

1. WHO'S POSITION IS STATICALLY (WITHOUT A MOVE) BETTER?

A) FIRST IMPRESSION
B) MATERIAL COUNT
C) KING SAFETY/ACTIVITY
D) PAWN STRUCTURE
E) PIECE IMBALANCES
F) WEAKNESSES
G) WHO IS BETTER WITH THE QUEENS OFF THE BOARD?
H) WHOSE POSITION IS EASIER TO PLAY?
I) EVALUATE

 

2. ARE ALL YOUR PIECES ADEQUATELY DEFENDED?

A) IF NOT, IT NEEDS TO BE TACTICALLY JUSTIFIED, GIVE GOOD COMPENSATION, OR BE DEFENDED

 

3. WHAT ARE ALL YOUR CHECKS, CAPTURES, THREATS?

A) DAUT - DON'T ANALYSE UNNECESSARY TACTICS

B) IN GENERAL, TO TAKE IS A MISTAKE

 

4. WHAT IS THE PAWN STRUCTURE TELLING YOU?

A) PAWN CHAIN DIRECTIONS
B) BACKWARD AND PASSED PAWNS
C) WEAK COLOR COMPLEXES
D) PAWN ISLANDS
E) WHAT ARE THE TYPICAL PLANS?
F) FIXED OR MOBILE?

 

5. WHAT ARE THE PIECES TELLING YOU?

A) COORDINATION
B) MANUEVERABILITY
C) NUMBER OF PIECES ON EACH SIDE OF THE BOARD COMPARISON
D) PASSIVE OR ACTIVE
E) DO THEY EACH HAVE A FUTURE?

F) DO THEY HAVE ESCAPE SQUARES?
G) WHAT IS THE BEST MOVE FOR EACH PIECE?

H) CAN YOU FORCE ANY PIECE OR PAWN TO MOVE/EXCHANGE TO WHERE IT CAUSES/RESOLVES ANY PROBLEMS WITH A-G LISTED ABOVE?

I) CAN YOU DOUBLE ROOKS OR A ROOK AND QUEEN ON AN OPEN FILE?

J) CAN YOU TRAP THE ENEMY KING IN THE CENTER?

 

 6.WHAT IS THE POSITION TELLING YOU?

A) KEY SQUARES

B) KEY IMBALANCES

C) KEY MOTIFS 

D) KEY PIECES CONTRIBUTING TO A-C

 E) WEAKNESSES

F) WHAT IS THE MOST "DOMINANT FEATURE"?

 

7. WHAT IS YOUR PLAN? (SHORT-TERM/LONG-TERM)

A) WHAT STAGE OF THE GAME IS IT?
B) WHO HAS THE INITIATIVE?
C) WHAT IS YOUR OPPONENT'S IDEA? DO YOU HAVE TO RESPOND TO IT?
D) WHO STRIKES FIRST?
E) WHAT ARE YOUR POSITIONS STRENGTHS AND HOW DO YOU CONVERT THEM INTO AN ADVANTAGE?
F) WHAT ARE YOUR WEAKNESSES AND HOW DO YOU LIQUIDATE OR DEFEND THEM?

G) WHAT ARE YOUR OPPONENTS WEAKNESSES AND HOW DO YOU MAKE THEM INTO LONG TERM WEAKNESSES? HOW CAN YOUR OPPONENT LIQUIDATE OR DEFEND THEM?

G) MAKE A "TO-DO-LIST"  EVERY 3 MOVES OR ANYTIME THERE IS ANY IMPORTANT CHANGE TO THE POSITION.
H) DON'T TRY TO FORCE SOMETHING THAT ISN'T CONCRETE.
I) DON'T ADMIRE YOUR OWN POSITION. ONE ADVANTAGE HAS TO BE CHANGED INTO ANOTHER.

J)THE CHANCES OF OBTAINING AN ADVANTAGE ARE THE BETTER THE SMALLER IT IS. PLAY FOR AN IMPORTANT ADVANTAGE IS JUSTIFIED ONLY ON THE BASIS OF GRAVE ERRORS COMMITTED BY THE OPPONENT.

 

8. WHAT ARE 3 CANDIDATE MOVES AND THEIR FOLLOW UPS?

A) FORCING MOVES FIRST
B) FIND AN IDEA (TRY THINKING IN THEMES AND MOTIFS), PEHAPS WHILE ANALYZING A CONTINUATION, AND THEN LOOK FOR ALL THE MOVES THAT GO TOWARDS THAT IDEA. GATHER AS MANY IDEAS AS POSSIBLE AND FIND THE BEST IDEA.
C) ARE YOUR OPPONENTS PIECES ALL ADEQUATELY DEFENDED? IF NOT, LOOK FOR A TACTIC

D) WHERE IS THE PRESSURE AND HOW SHOULD YOU INFLUENCE IT?
E) WHAT SIDE SHOULD YOU PLAY ON?

SHOULD YOU PLAY WITH YOUR PAWNS OR PIECES?
F) WHAT IS YOUR LEAST ACTIVE PIECE?
G) WHAT MOVES SEEM NATURAL?

H) WHAT MOVES OPEN LINES?
I) DOES YOUR CANDIDATE MOVE MATCH THE POSITION?

J) DON'T PLAY A PASSIVE MOVE WITHOUT A DEEPER CONSIDERATION
K) WHEN YOU SEE A GOOD MOVE, LOOK FOR A BETTER ONE.
L) ANALYZE CONTINUATIONS (TRY SWITCHING MOVE ORDER) AND THEN PICK.

 

 

9. IS YOUR CHOSEN MOVE SAFE?

A) HOW MUCH OF A COMMITMENT IS IT?
B) WHAT DOES IT LEAVE BEHIND?
C) CAN YOUR OPPONENT QUICKLY TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT?
D) SAFETY OVER STRATEGY
E) ARE YOU MISSING SOMETHING? BOARD VISION - LOOK AT EACH PAWN AND PIECE BRIEFLY.

F) IF A KNIGHT IS SUSPECTED TO BE INVOLVED IN A LINE, TAKE SOME TIME TO VERIFY YOUR ANALYSIS. KNIGHTS ARE TRICKY.

 

10. WHO'S POSITION IS DYNAMICALLY (WITH MOVES) BETTER?

A) RE-EVALUATE THE POSITION RESULTING FROM YOUR CHOSEN MOVES CONTINUATION (SEE STEP 1).

 

11. MOVE!

I like it, but it would only be practical to follow those steps in such a way for a daily game, unless you can train yourself to do it instinctively with little thought. I like to consider all checks and captures, no matter how crazy they may seem, keep everything protected, glance for weaknesses that can be exploited, mine or my opponents, and then look for tactics and pattern recognition type stuff. I think your list is good and well thought out though.

G/30 d5 is a classical time control under USCF.   Would you adapt or modify your process?

I lost a game the other day after my opponent initiated an attack on the kingside that I thought was busted so I continued with my plans on the queenside. There was no immediate attack as I expected, but instead a long lasting snowballing attack that was absolutely crushing.  My pieces were not quite as able to assist on the kingside as needed while his forces gathered and without an adequate number of defenders it turned into a new real threat with each move.

 

Alas, this made me add a little check to help mitigate this problem. I also tweaked a few other things that were left out.

My basic process for middlegames:

Calculate short forcing sequences while keeping in mind the larger strategic framework e.g. you don't want a heavy piece endgame as the owner of an IQP.

Other than that, short forcing sequences aim to increase the influence of your pieces, especially contact with weak points like undefended pawns. E.g. an open file for your rook is useless without infiltration squares where it can come into contact with weak points (unless it stops the opponent's rook from doing the same).

This still mostly applies in endgames, although theory can have a heavy influence on evaluations / calculations.

 Thanks for your input. This reminds me that I've been getting caught up in the short term and losing sight of the "larger strategic framework" while analyzing lately. 

e.g. I discarded a move because it resulted in my opponent gaining space and attacking my queen with a pawn.

The pawn move left behind a big long-term weakness and the queen was easily able to move to a better square but I got caught up in my queen being attacked...

 

tweaked it again

can someone explain the difference between captures and capture threats?

I think that BobbyTalparov means this:

capture: a piece capturing an opposing piece

capture threats: threats posed by piece after capturing (e.g. 1.Nxe5+ results in a fork of my king and queen aka royal fork)

It is beginning to seem like the list hits everything finally. 

It is to be noted that the list is only supposed to be as complicated as the position.

It is more of a supplemental asset and mental checklist to mitigate overlooking something.

The more detailed and granular the list, the better, especially for lower-rated players ... better to lose on time with a better position than to slap out some "intuitive" move. Over time, many of these steps will coalesce and the answer to several will be instantly known the stronger a player gets (that is why strong players in classical time controls tend to be strong players with blitz time controls).

Of course, these "list" methods are really just a big blunder check (tactical and positional)... If you don't quickly have a good sense of what you should be doing, then you are playing "hope" chess (I hope my opponent is just as clueless as me right now; I hope s/he makes the last mistake that I recognize and can capitalize upon).

If you think, you are dead (I think, therefore I am not?).

This list is an attempt at improving my subconscious thinking process. My in-game thinking can be quite sporadic and unreliable and it rarely follows any process so glancing at a detailed list ever so often is an attempt to help with that and gradually make it a more logical and consistent protocol.

I tend to think that anyone's protocol is logically only as difficult as the position is interpreted to be. Lists that lack detail are somewhat inferior in my opinion as a little spark to the memory is sometimes all you need.

Now people are just confusing themselves...

 

I guess the hopes of any further helpful inputs are rather far-fetched. 

When all you say is "No more than five bullet points.", it means to me that you didn't read the following posts (which I hinted at in my last comment) and the explanation of what I am trying to achieve. I edited the intro before the list since I know people are going to only read the first post and jump to criticize as is the trend.

A little snippet: The protocol is only as complicated as the position is interpreted to be.

The list isn't meant to be a "follow this whole list on every move" as I have tried to clarify in further posts.

"You stop thinking and play that move"

So you mean the protocol is only as complicated as the position. Amazing.

"How can you improve your position? What is your worst piece? What targets should you be attacking? etc."

It's starting to sound like you have a flow chart too (as everyone does to some extent whether it is conscious or subconscious) and the etc makes it sound like your list isn't as simple as you are trying to imply. I am also quite certain that you take more time before moving in some positions as others. Probably because you are having to ask yourself more questions and calculate more lines. Maybe none of the master games you studied looked quite like this. Memories of positions that you have to draw from is definitely one of, if not, the biggest parts of getting stronger at chess. This point is another reason why I think practicing being able to deal with any type of position (familiar or unfamiliar) is important.


In short, I don't necessarily believe that my list is any more complicated than most people's as it is wrote with the intention of handling the most complicated position where you spend a fair amount of time looking around before you even have an idea of what moves should be considered. Maybe you guys don't have that problem but I feel that you do. I am simply trying to imply that I deeply believe that your list gets a little longer in positions that you don't really know what you should do.

I think your argument is indeed valid but I also think that this might also differ from person to person just as style of play does.

This has been in the works for a while and it has had a noticeable impact on my game. It isn't really about finding the best move, but rather one that keeps me in the game. Often times the "best move" according to the engine is less appealing to me than another move with a 3 centipawn difference that seems to turn into a bigger advantage later on than the supposedly best move. That was a bad example but I was trying to use it as a transition to this, I usually try to find crucial positions from my game and analyze it thoroughly post-mortem as I feel like that is the real time to learn. I then run it through Komodo or the like and have it list 3 different moves and their evaluations. From there I compare them to my analysis. Often times I find that if I would of just checked the mobility of my pieces or another quick logical check, then a more correct move would of jumped out at me.


I am not expecting the list to improve my playing strength per-say, but rather make it more consistent and in the process give me a more accurate rating perhaps. I make too many stupid moves because I am a very sporadic thinker.


Side note: I think you undervalue how important pawn structure is to long term strategies and overall chess.

I also strongly agree in prioritizing studying master games as that is what I spend most of my time devoted to chess doing. I do get burned out on that sometimes though and that is when the accessory studies like this happen.

Bobby Talparov,

your list is good. I use a similar thought process in my games. And you are right, one needs to keep such lists simple, otherwise it will only lead to confusion and frustration.

Not at all,

I know how to use a chess engine to meet my needs.

The stupid moves have nothing to do with a simple safety check which is rather elementary... I am talking about moves that unnecessarily relinquish an advantage in some way or make my opponent's life easier. There is no tactical refutation usually. If you don't recognize that you have a dynamic advantage and don't play with enough energy while your opponent slowly neutralizes your advantage because you made stupid moves it doesn't mean you failed your safety check.

If the last thing you said was true then sacrifices (which happen a lot in master games) wouldn't be a thing. If you think that being up a piece is more important than looking at the whole board then I feel you are in for a rude awakening.

The bold parts are the list. I still don't see how it is crazy complicated. It seems rather simplex to me. The letters go into more details yes, but that only matters if the position is complicated. A lot of the time they will be irrelevant and not even considered. This will be determined mainly from your intuition which is derived from your memory bank of chess positions. When the time comes that they are relevant and should be considered, you will have something similar to studying flash cards in case the information might end up on the test. You have no idea if the information will be on the test, but you are trying to create something that will spark your memory and point you in the right direction if it ends up on the test.

I would rather be the guy studying flash cards than the guy with the keep it simple approach before the test.

Your ego is impressive. Did I not just say that I agreed with your argument on post 25? Hmm, look at that. I'm sorry that you are soooo good at chess that you are above any debate and think what you say is like the word of god. I am not one of your admirers and I do not share this pretentious belief that you are good at chess.

I was actually reading and listening to everything you said. Since this is MY post, I felt it necessary to explain myself as you seemed to not understand what I meant and I wanted to clarify before your confusion spread to others.

You gave me your thinking process, I am thankful for your input. You expressed why you didn't think my process was right, again I am thankful. But this whole "I'm better than you and so you should automatically listen to everything I say without hesitation!" bullshit is a good riddance situation indeed. You don't hold a title and the only thing that is certain is that neither of us knows anything substantial when it comes to chess.