My beta systematic thinking process

Here's a few less tangible ideas that might help the systematic process be more effective:

Vision

I think it was Soltis who said something like "Grandmasters play for the position they see 5 moves from now." One thing I noticed I do is focus too much on a limited portion of the board or worse, a limited portion and my own plan. With that technique my view of the board 5 moves away probably isn't going to be very accurate.

A Karpov blitz video with him routinely scanning the entire board made a big impression on me. I'd think trying to make that a habit and maybe practicing memorizing an entire position, then doing the analysis without the board, would have to increase the accuracy of one's future vision.

Intuition

Having a feeling that one's move or opponents move doesn't fit the position. That it doesn't feel right has often come up in my games. Many times I played a move that looked OK but didn't feel right and suffered. Or had a urge to play a move but played a "better" one and found the original was more principled and best.

I'm not sure how this can be improved. Maybe just being super grounded in principles, being really alert, gain more and more experience, and take the intuitive feeling seriously.

Flow

I heard an interview where Magnus said the most important thing in blitz was flow. In Fischer's MSMG he mentioned a game where Petrosian continued his good plan without getting side tracked, even by better moves.

There probably is lots of value in making an accurate assessment, coming up with a good plan, and sticking with it. Even when other opportunities might present themselves. Silman refers to these opportunities, like grabbing a non crucial pawn, as baubles by the side of the road that should be avoided. Top GM's show this as well when they usually dismiss computer lines that show a slightly quicker win.

I'd guess having a good systematic analysis process plus better future vision, tuned in intuition, and a disciplined focus on a good plan, probably has to make playing good chess more often much more likely.

The example of losing the initiative is a great example of someone who isn't listening or reading. It is in reference to a person who goes from a better position to a neutral one. How does that automatically mean that they lost the initiative? Does black have a threat that wins the initiative and tactically refutes white's last move? If so, then how in the world is the position neutral and not in black's favor? Not only does black have to have a threat, but black has to have a threat that is greater than any that the white pieces can impose. So again, how is the position neutral? A more likely scenario is that black completed his development and achieved his goal in neutralizing in the opening, with help from his opponent of course.

Quite the assumption. It is hard to find any worthwhile advice when it is based solely on assumptions and attacks at my understanding that pawn structure has a lot to do with overall chess. Which as I said before, I know nothing substantial about chess but I am fairly confident that pawn structure is a big deal to any GM.

Nckchrls, very well put.

I have played a few blindfold games successfully and feel that my visualization abilities are probably my strongest attribute. The problem is that after I analyze a continuation, my evaluation skills aren't accurate enough for me to be able to tell if it is an improvement or should be avoided. The reality of chess is that there is so many subtle things hidden from the eyes of an amateur. Masters see things that the amateur can't even bring himself to consider.

 

That's not uncommon even for grandmasters. Most positions, between themselves, are equal or unclear. I've come to the conclusion that overestimating the position is the worst outcome. If not sure, it has to be assumed worse or unclear which calls for defensive priority.

Funny, it seems in computer vs. computer games the machine losers tend to over estimate their positions more than GM's vs. GM where maybe the humans fault more to caution and underestimating. Chess computers are so arrogant!

Check it out over at the TCEC site if interested.

Good points. I have been studying Capablanca's games trying to find some ways to help simplify my games a little. I don't find that Capablanca's games are more simplified as much as he made them look so simple. This is also someone who had one of the greatest natural abilities of all time so it makes me wonder if I should be more inclined to the people who had a more study intensive approach like Alekhine or Botvinnik.

I watched the TCEC championships a few years back and that was rather interesting. I never really tried to correlate AI vs Human that much though. I just look for the differences in tactics. Computers seem to pull them out from everywhere.

As a beginner, it seems unnecessarily complex to me, but as time goes by and I hopefully increase my automated thinking skills on broader ideas and plans, perhaps it will make more sense and prove simpler to understand and apply.

Most of the list isn't going to be applied every move. Since the game is a process, things aren't going to change too much per each move. One key is making sure knowing the ramifications of each opponent move. 

If this is done, usually the game is in control and most of your previous analysis only has to change based on the slight potential differences from the last move. Best case is you were expecting that move anyway.

The main idea is that you really don't want to be surprised by an opponents move. Means you missed something in your analysis moves back and if it's a serious miss that could mean big trouble.

The practical key with the process is probably to be aware of the major categories most of the time and then the specific minor details as they might come about from the result of the opponents last move.

 

Wow, now that is a very good point... I would like to hear your opinion on the following:

 

What if you find that your organic thought process is rather sporadic?

Do you think it's possible that a list like this would help mold a better organic thought process?

 

Your post really hit me. Logically, I would say that playing over master games would be the best way to build a stronger organic thought process (obviously playing over your own games with stronger players would work too) without much need for supplementation perhaps.  The only problem with that is it seems that it is harder to correlate that over to my games whereas a list seems to prove beneficial directly. Especially at my level where every 8th move is a novice novelty and I am definitely trying to avoid the tempting endeavor to study opening theory in depth even though it is the most appealing aspect to me. On a side note, I think my study of endgames is definitely helping in my ability to evaluate a position which leads me to believe that it is just my lack of knowledge that is contributing to the list. Obviously being efficient enough to cut ties with any list and just trust my intuition would be more than welcomed. I am not sure that day will ever come for me though.

 

I couldn't of said it better myself, whether it be the quoted part or the rest of the post.