New chess thinking process.

Someone online (a strong expert) once recommended that in long games I look at literally every move possible for both me and my opponent in any given situation and analyze each one, dropping the obviously bad moves out at a second glance. He said to look at what every move does and judge your candidate moves/ final move accordingly. I of course thought it was a little exhausting, yet I was just slightly intrigued, he was an expert after all.

Any thoughts?

By the way, the player was definitely not cheating. I analyzed the game with a computer afterwards and he made good moves but some innacuracies.

It doesn't sound practical. If you were given all the time in the world, then go ahead and knock your socks off trying to analyze like a computer. I agree that it would be exhausting, and maybe even a waste of time, as i don't believe any human is that thorough.

Sunshiny wrote:

It doesn't sound practical. If you were given all the time in the world, then go ahead and knock your socks off trying to analyze like a computer. I agree that it would be exhausting, and maybe even a waste of time, as i don't believe any human is that thorough.

I agree, but in correspondence (online), I might give it a shot and report how I do.

This is what I do in correspondence chess.  If you have time, it goes a very long way in avoiding blunders (several hundred ratings points, for sure), and you would also be surprised how often you will find a really interesting pawn move that completely changes the game.

The key is to train yourself to run through each move...it doesn't matter if you dismiss that move right away at a glance as long as you actually consider it and don't just assume it is not viable.  A pawn move you discarded 15 moves in a row might suddenly open up a diagonal that allows a new attack, or something similar.

Even more important for the opponent's moves...first, evaluate what changed, then run through the moves anyway.  I got lazy in the current 960 game I am playing and gave up most of my hard-earned advantage by allowing a knight takes pawn move that I did not review because it seemed worthless up to that point.  Whenever I vary from the "check all moves" rule, I invariably regret it.

The saying "when you find a good move, sits on your hands and look for a better one" also holds here.  See a way to fork the opponent's queen and rook?  Keep looking for the forced mate before you jump on it.  This will often net you a nice zwischenzug ("in-between move") that gets you something worthwhile positionally or material-wise and still gives you the fork as well ;). 

In "online" chess this technique will give you a a surprisingly large advantage...many "online" players are running far too many games at once and will not be putting more than 5-10 minutes into any particular moves, just like an OTB game.  This is a big mistake in this format.  Play no more than 3-4 "online" games at once and your understanding of the position will be far greater.

I think what separates grandmasters from ordinary chess players is the ability to zone in the important moves in a position and to ignore what moves are insignificant. Looking at every move in a complex position is hard work. I look for moves that will improve my position.

That's strange advice, because almost no chess player thinks that way,but maybe his motivation was to try and widen your range of candidate moves...

let's say you looked at every move possible in otb game 2 hours game.

changes are you will end in a good position. the downside is that you may get in time trouble and lose on time.

but if you only have 5 minutes left on the clock and you are better. it should be no problem "blitzing" a win.

I think what separates grandmasters from ordinary chess players is the ability to zone in the important moves in a position and to ignore what moves are insignificant.

Ignoring insignificant moves...like this?

http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=588385994

Here's a game of the week candidate from the US Chess League last week...Banik wins with the surprising Qa3! move.  Why didn't his opponent see it?  Maybe because it seemed like an absurd and insignificant move...and he ignored it.

Check all the moves.  Here's the key...nobody, not even a grandmaster, can determine a move is insignificant if they don't even consider it, however briefly.

btickler wrote:

Ignoring insignificant moves...like this?

http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=588385994

Here's a game of the week candidate from the US Chess League...Banik wins with the surprising Qa3! move.  Why didn't his opponent see it?  Mayeb because it seemed like an absurd and insignificant move...and he ignored it.

Check all the moves.

I mean useless pawn moves you know do nothing. In tactical situations, of course you would need to consider it, then see it mates.

I mean useless pawn moves you know do nothing.

How do you know they do nothing without looking? ;)

The "useless pawn moves" are actually the quickest to check, and cost very little time to ponder (you can go left to right and check every pawn advance and capture in well under a minute usually), yet can yield big benefits when you find one that is not as useless as you thought.

You've never been caught by surprise by a sudden pawn advance that ruined your plans by forcing a piece away or blocking a key file/diagonal?

Yes you SHOULD look at them, but the point is after maybe 5 or 10 seconds you should move on if nothing has changed besides the pawn. Look at every move, but don't calculate into depth the variations and varitations of the move. Just do a reassuring check. No need to burn yourself out.

I never said I burn myself out playing out every move several moves deep...but what I try not to do is just completely skip over any moves because of any assumptions that they have looked innocuous in previous moves and therefore cannot be dangerous/worthwhile.

I think the main difference between me (a strong A Class OTB player) and chess masters is not the moves they see that I don't. Rather, I am weaker because I consider and often play moves that they reject instantly.

Calculation matters, too. First, examine only those moves that are worth examining. Then, assess them correctly both tactically and positionally.

Whether I could improve by considering every move or not is an interesting question. I suspect not. I've beaten experts OTB, and I'm more interested in getting advice from those who dominate experts: masters.

The "review every move" method only works in longer time controls or correspondence chess, but I do think it's worthwhile when the time is there.  I was trying to find a famous Fischer game that also illustrates this...a game where he summarily plops his queen on a square on black's back rank and sacks his queen just to move a rook one square to the left (I think it was left, anyway).  It was such a shot that it shows how looking at all the possible moves can benefit someone...nobody ever would have expected it (or some kind of Spanish Inquisition), but using this method might have tipped Fischer's opponent off to the possiblity at least (Benko?  Wish I could find it...).

I agree with what you guys are saying. Besides, looking at every move seems awfully tedious. Maybe if I can find his account I could ask him for more pratical details. High 2100's

I think if a grand master has made a plan a move that might be overlooked by weaker players might be part of the plan and considered as a candidate move some time before the move is played.  I like to look at the position of the pieces and find the move in the position. It's easier to be aware of the position and keep an awareness of the position [and what you can do] than to go back to it everytime it's your move and check every possible move.

Human awareness of what's going on on the board is limited. How  much you see depends on your chess IQ.

Masters understand what matters most in a given position. Super elite GMs understand what matters most in an even more refined and deeper way then regular masters. Understanding the positions most important characteristics and elements is the cornerstone in sound thinking and understanding. The rest; which move is best, adopting the proper plan, which pieces to trade and not to trade, all stem from the correct understanding of what matters most.

Andrew Solis would agree with you Outofbookdirectly. In his book, What it takes to become a Grandmaster, and he points out that the difference between a Master and an Amateur is that the Master knows what matters most about the position and zeroes in on those factors to find the best moves and plans. Very interesting book.

I personally think it is good advice to a point. I have blundered many times because I didn't look at each move closely enough, that seemed feasible, or the replies to them while thinking I had the right move chosen.

Looking at the replies to them is equally as important in my opinion. I recommend looking at least 3 to 4 plies deep at every candidate move to see if it is really good and to help separate it as best.

One key to separating the best move from a candidate move, even if a computer rates them as equal, is it has to fit your strategy. However,your plan has to be the right plan for the position. I am finding it takes time to learn what principle supercedes the others in a given position. Logic may deceive you if you don't look at the possibilities.

I recommend that you generally approach each position first as if it is a tactical puzzle, instead of thinking about your overall strategy. If you don't see anything obvious jump out at you, then try the recommended method of looking at all of the moves that aren't obvious blunders or mistakes.

I have tried to discuss this in a blog, but it didn't seem to generate much discussion. I find it somewhat difficult to find the words, unless I have input from others to strir my brainstorming. Where it gets tricky for me, is when you don't see a tactic and the moves to try putting yourself into position to possibly generate the opportunity for one, as opposed to trying to get a mating net or assault on the king's position, seems no more feasible than the other. This usually at the point where the game begins to transition from the middle to end game.

It is at this point I will gladly defer the direction and remainder of the discussion to the better players. I am still trying to figure out how the masters find their moves. Sometimes I do well guessing master moves and sometimes I don't. Getting the right move 50% of the time on average is where I am at.