Shown a Position: Do You Calculate Lines First or Do You Assess Positional Factors First? The Case - Chess Forums - Page 2

SeniorPatzer · 2018-03-22T11:51:09-07:00

This was some months ago and I was watching an interview of Fabio Caruana on Chess.com/tv after one of his games. I think it was the Isle of Man Tournament. Anyways, they were showing Fabio some positions from games on other boards, and he would like instanteously start rattling off lines from his

SeniorPatzer

Mar 22, 2018

0

#21

blueemu wrote:

I almost always find my move (and my candidate-moves) by intuition rather than by calculation. Calculating lines comes after I've narrowed it down to two or three candidate-moves to examine.

Off the top of my head, I can recall only one occasion when I found my move by the brute-force approach of examining and calculating almost every reasonable alternative:

In this position I found Bc4 by brute-force... but this is very much the exception.

I can definitely see your approach being used in blitz or rapid chess.

With respect to your position, what's the follow-up to your Bc4 if Black plays Bxf5?

godsofhell1235

Mar 22, 2018

0

#22

SeniorPatzer wrote:

blueemu wrote:

I almost always find my move (and my candidate-moves) by intuition rather than by calculation. Calculating lines comes after I've narrowed it down to two or three candidate-moves to examine.

Off the top of my head, I can recall only one occasion when I found my move by the brute-force approach of examining and calculating almost every reasonable alternative:

In this position I found Bc4 by brute-force... but this is very much the exception.

I can definitely see your approach being used in blitz or rapid chess.

With respect to your position, what's the follow-up to your Bc4 if Black plays Bxf5?

This sounds like a really dumb trick, but it's surprising how useful it is when solving tactics IMO.

And that's never miss, in any position, mate in 1 threats.

So after Bc4 Bxf5 I'm sure you considered Rxf5 gxf

So hold that position in your mind and look for any/all moves that threaten mate in 1.

blueemu

Mar 22, 2018

0

#23

SeniorPatzer wrote:

blueemu wrote:

I almost always find my move (and my candidate-moves) by intuition rather than by calculation. Calculating lines comes after I've narrowed it down to two or three candidate-moves to examine.

Off the top of my head, I can recall only one occasion when I found my move by the brute-force approach of examining and calculating almost every reasonable alternative:

In this position I found Bc4 by brute-force... but this is very much the exception.

I can definitely see your approach being used in blitz or rapid chess.

With respect to your position, what's the follow-up to your Bc4 if Black plays Bxf5?

SeniorPatzer

Mar 22, 2018

0

#24

godsofhell1235 wrote:

SeniorPatzer wrote:

blueemu wrote:

I almost always find my move (and my candidate-moves) by intuition rather than by calculation. Calculating lines comes after I've narrowed it down to two or three candidate-moves to examine.

Off the top of my head, I can recall only one occasion when I found my move by the brute-force approach of examining and calculating almost every reasonable alternative:

In this position I found Bc4 by brute-force... but this is very much the exception.

I can definitely see your approach being used in blitz or rapid chess.

With respect to your position, what's the follow-up to your Bc4 if Black plays Bxf5?

This sounds like a really dumb trick, but it's surprising how useful it is when solving tactics IMO.

And that's never miss, in any position, mate in 1 threats.

So after Bc4 Bxf5 I'm sure you considered Rxf5 gxf

So hold that position in your mind and look for any/all moves that threaten mate in 1.

Actually, much to my pleasure I had calculated gxf5 but saw that there was no good defense for black after Qh5.

So after white captures the bishop with Rxf5, I would play e6, and blunt the power of the bishop on c4.

blueemu

Mar 22, 2018

0

#25

See my above edit.

blueemu

Mar 22, 2018

0

#26

SeniorPatzer wrote:

godsofhell1235 wrote:

SeniorPatzer wrote:

blueemu wrote:

I almost always find my move (and my candidate-moves) by intuition rather than by calculation. Calculating lines comes after I've narrowed it down to two or three candidate-moves to examine.

Off the top of my head, I can recall only one occasion when I found my move by the brute-force approach of examining and calculating almost every reasonable alternative:

In this position I found Bc4 by brute-force... but this is very much the exception.

I can definitely see your approach being used in blitz or rapid chess.

With respect to your position, what's the follow-up to your Bc4 if Black plays Bxf5?

This sounds like a really dumb trick, but it's surprising how useful it is when solving tactics IMO.

And that's never miss, in any position, mate in 1 threats.

So after Bc4 Bxf5 I'm sure you considered Rxf5 gxf

So hold that position in your mind and look for any/all moves that threaten mate in 1.

Actually, much to my pleasure I had calculated gxf5 but saw that there was no good defense for black after Qh5.

So after white captures the bishop with Rxf5, I would play e6, and blunt the power of the bishop on c4.

That drops the Bishop on e5, since the Black Queen must guard d8 against mate.

HorribleTomato

Mar 22, 2018

0

#27

Smositional factors.

AntonioEsfandiari

Mar 22, 2018

0

#28

SeniorPatzer wrote:

JMurakami wrote:

It's about seeking for active piece coordination, which implies a concrete approach (calculation). When none is found, it's about working on the conditions to obtain favorable piece coordination.

All that "positional assessment" corresponds to the stage of no active coordination available, and is meant as a guide to achieve them. But, for some reason, some believe chess is about massing positional factors as an end, instead of as a mean.

I'm seeking to understand. So if I ask a poor question, please bear with me. Now I understand the concept of active piece coordination. Or maximum piece activity.

But someone shows you a position, be it an opening position, middlegame, or endgame. Or it's a puzzle. Do you start calculating lines right away, or do you assess the positional factors for both sides first?

Do you look at forcing moves first? Or does it even matter what sequence your chess thinking process takes? Perhaps it doesn't matter. I don't know. Just calculate forcing moves. If nothing's there, then look at positional factors to maximize your piece activity and coordination, whilst restricting your opponent's?

Or do a positional assessment, and then calculate?

Or it's irrelevant in what order you "process" the position, you'll eventually arrive at the same place in your decision-making?

All of your questions can probably be answered by reading "an amateurs mind" by silman, or how to reasess your chess. both can be found online PDF.. In amateurs mind he shows the same position to different strengths of players and you will see the direct thoughts of all ranges of players from beginner to master, and you can see the differences in their approach and the first things they notice. Most strong players can look at a position for under 10 seconds and they will absorb the pawn structure,the pieces, and a glazed glance over the immediate captures and checks. After this initial absorption, If the tactical complexity is high (many potentially promising variations to consider) they will start going through candidate moves (one at a time typically, unless a detail in variation A hints that variation B might be more worth while to look at) If the position is tactically simple then the strong player will usually develop a potential plan based on the strategical considerations of the position (same/opposite sides castled? weak squares, critical squares, outposts, weak pawns, backward pawns, isolated pawns, queenside pawn majority? Good pieces, bad pieces, development, and activity/coordination) As you get stronger this process is refined, or maybe as this process is refined you get stronger

SeniorPatzer

Mar 22, 2018

0

#29

blueemu wrote:

SeniorPatzer wrote:

godsofhell1235 wrote:

SeniorPatzer wrote:

blueemu wrote:

I almost always find my move (and my candidate-moves) by intuition rather than by calculation. Calculating lines comes after I've narrowed it down to two or three candidate-moves to examine.

Off the top of my head, I can recall only one occasion when I found my move by the brute-force approach of examining and calculating almost every reasonable alternative:

In this position I found Bc4 by brute-force... but this is very much the exception.

I can definitely see your approach being used in blitz or rapid chess.

With respect to your position, what's the follow-up to your Bc4 if Black plays Bxf5?

This sounds like a really dumb trick, but it's surprising how useful it is when solving tactics IMO.

And that's never miss, in any position, mate in 1 threats.

So after Bc4 Bxf5 I'm sure you considered Rxf5 gxf

So hold that position in your mind and look for any/all moves that threaten mate in 1.

Actually, much to my pleasure I had calculated gxf5 but saw that there was no good defense for black after Qh5.

So after white captures the bishop with Rxf5, I would play e6, and blunt the power of the bishop on c4.

That drops the Bishop on e5, since the Black Queen must guard d8 against mate.

Ah yes. Saw the weak back rank originally and then promptly forgot about it in the e6 line.

blueemu

Mar 22, 2018

0

#30

It was the 15. ... gxf5 16. Qg4+! line that "made" the variation for me. A pity that my opponent played 15. ... Bxf5 instead.

DanielGuel

Mar 22, 2018

0

#31

For me personally, I look for tactics first, then ponder the strategic ideas.

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov

Mar 23, 2018

0

#32

There is another rule, maybe number 2055: use calculation more extensively, ONLY if there are multiple attacks on the board, meaning the position is not quiet and a range of tactics might be available.

Such positions are relatively infrequent, maybe 15-20% of all, so the pattern approach is generally more valid.

What will you calculate extensively in the 80% of positions that are quiet?

There is nothing to calculate and you will actually lose your time.

On the other hand, in non-quiet, tactical positions, you should calculate heavily, as a single option missed for one side might change the outcome.

So, basically, it is all about patterns, 20% calculation.

SteamGear

Mar 23, 2018

0

#33

SeniorPatzer wrote:

I'm like, how does he do that?!!! Aren't you supposed to, like, you know, look at the position first, AND THEN, start looking at moves? Have I been doing it wrong and in the wrong order? Should I just start calculating concretely, and then hope that the positional and strategic essence will come to me at some time later during my calculations?

What do you guys do? Someone shows you a position and you just start calculating right away? Or do you get the lay of the land first, and then start looking at lines afterwards?

Fabi's a 2800-level player. It's hard to fathom how deeply a player of that level sees the board. But it's safe to guess that he can glance at any position and immediately see candidate lines (while the rest of us mortals are still trying to find candidate moves).

I play at the 2100-2200 level, and I don't start with calculation. I look at the position, first identifying any tension points (these are squares/pawns/pieces that are currently being attacked). I'll look at those first to see if there are any immediate tactics that can win material, or improve my position, or weaken my opponent's position.

If I don't find a playable move from that step, I'll then look for threats that can be made, or threats that need to be prevented.

Still no move? Then I'll look for general positional moves (like contesting an open file, securing an outpost, gaining space, et cetera).

Still nothing to find? Then I'll grasp, finally, for random candidate moves and calculate them out. But this is usually only done if I can't find anything else. Usually some other move presents itself before this point, due to the needs of the position. (In blitz and bullet, I rarely reach this step, as there just isn't enough time.)

So, for me, brute calculation is last. (Which might explain why I'm not a GM. ) For GMs, all those initial steps are likely completed intuitively, in a few short seconds—which then frees them up to calculate ahead.

godsofhell1235

Mar 23, 2018

0

#34

SteamGear wrote:

SeniorPatzer wrote:

I'm like, how does he do that?!!! Aren't you supposed to, like, you know, look at the position first, AND THEN, start looking at moves? Have I been doing it wrong and in the wrong order? Should I just start calculating concretely, and then hope that the positional and strategic essence will come to me at some time later during my calculations?

What do you guys do? Someone shows you a position and you just start calculating right away? Or do you get the lay of the land first, and then start looking at lines afterwards?

Fabi's a 2800-level player. It's hard to fathom how deeply a player of that level sees the board. But it's safe to guess that he can glance at any position and immediately see candidate lines (while the rest of us mortals are still trying to find candidate moves).

I play at the 2100-2200 level, and I don't start with calculation. I look at the position, first identifying any tension points (these are squares/pawns/pieces that are currently being attacked). I'll look at those first to see if there are any immediate tactics that can win material, or improve my position, or weaken my opponent's position.

If I don't find a playable move from that step, I'll then look for threats that can be made, or threats that need to be prevented.

Still no move? Then I'll look for general positional moves (like contesting an open file, securing an outpost, gaining space, et cetera).

Still nothing to find? Then I'll grasp, finally, for random candidate moves and calculate them out. But this is usually only done if I can't find anything else. Usually some other move presents itself before this point, due to the needs of the position. (In blitz and bullet, I rarely reach this step, as there just isn't enough time.)

So, for me, brute calculation is last. (Which might explain why I'm not a GM. ) For GMs, all those initial steps are likely completed intuitively, in a few short seconds—which then frees them up to calculate ahead.

That's an interesting thought. Pretty cool actually.

Although, as I type this, I wonder if the truth isn't actually really boring

Maybe GMs do everything we do, they just do it at a ridiculously high level.

For example I'm sure sometimes they get confused and have to look around for correct ideas.