Psicological problem when thinking about a move

Yesterday I commented a problem with my teacher and he was not able to show a fix for it, although he promised will think on it. Also I share the problem here to see other's thoughts and see opinions. I think is a problem many people has.

I am a 1900 FIDE elo rating player. I am very good to find creative ways to conduct the game, mainly tacticaly. I did in the past hundreds of tactics from different books. The problem cames in real games. It is like if I think in one of two different ways:

- thinking like 'this position is play an win", like in front of a tactical book. This of course train your
brain to treat position like a problem, while it is not.
- try to think in order: check, capture, thread.

I usually try 2), but it is like I always loose the goal to think so, and end my brain thinking in differents thought that cames and go, like if I were dreaming been awake.

So, I think the only way to be a strong player is always been pragmatic, thinking in the move and analyzing all consecuences and been meticulous about all details of the position. On the contrary, I can start so, but ends in a set of ideas that float in the air. I fall into weak moves, sometimes tactically decisive.

How to train your brain to think like a pro, and not dream in ideas that divert from doing thought process well?

I think this is a difficult matter. Tactics books does not solve the problem, as you end thinking like I move and win. Dont know if is there any book that deal with this psicological problem.

My teacher says to me, that if this problem would not exit, I would be a very strong player (2100+).

Thanks all for sharing your ideas about it.

Hi,

I have the opposite problem, on the board i am less of a tactical player because of nerves and sometimes miss those unfortunally. Anyway, maybe it is a good idea to look at the problem systematically? What i normally do is to force myself to use a thinking process which goes something like this:

This works for me very good personally(for you it might be different).

1) Opponent move(what changes on the board when he moves his piece)? Example: his Bishop moves from Be7 to Bb4(pinning my Knight on c3, stops deffending knight on Nf6).

2) What is the idea of the move(don't go further until you can describe his idea). Example: he wants to pin my Knight on Nc3 and play Ne4. IKf you cannot find it come to a conclusion anyway.

3) Ask yourself the question: Do i need to stop this Y/N?

4) Y: Think about how to counter his idea.

   N: Go with your own plan

And only now i start calculating, looking at new plans/ideas/tactical motives.

Also talk slowly in yourself answering those questions, i had some time ago a IM trainer(irl) for a while and he told me it is important you look SLOWLY and systematically to a position. The last thing you want to do is start right away with calculating, you need to filter first what is going on with the position.

However this is all theory. I have the same problem in real games(getting to nerves) and i sometimes even forget those points i mentioned when i play irl with the result i stop calculating and start with my bad habbit(playing pure on positional feeling).

I think this fascinating article might be worth a read:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.117.8670&rep=rep1&type=pdf

The gist of it is that the pros succumb less to confirmation bias and instead are rather "pessimistic" in outlook .... even when they land up with a final candidate, they still ask "What is wrong with this move" rather than excitedly ask "What is so awesome about this move".

Thinking "I move and win" is a GOOD thing.

My advice to an eager student of the game would be to always assume there is a winning tactic on the board, any time you don't recognize the position from theory.

Know enough positional and prophylactic strategy to play a reasonably competent move in a hurry if you can't find the tactic, but always look for it.

Tal has said something eerily like what you described above.  He said that he simply looked at this psychological problem and resolved early in his career to always err on the side of aggression.  If he couldn't find the sure thing, but found possibilities, to go ahead and embrace the complications, knowing his hyper-aggressive strategy was more likely to lead him to success in muddy theoretical waters than a more defensive, positional strategy.

Objectively speaking, looking for the tactic whether it's there or not IS the most optimal strategy we as a species have found for chess success.  Why do I say so?  Because at their root, this is all engines do.  And they outpace the greatest human GM's by several hundred points of strength.

You'll never calculate as fast or thoroughly as a computer, but your opponents will never defend as well as one, either.  Embrace the chaos.  The way to get past this problem is to embrace it.