Solving chess puzzles OTB

Sort:
Aarvens

When solving chess puzzles OTB:

 

Would it be helpful or harmful to write down variations?

Is looking at the answer on a stumping problem a poor idea? 

 

What is your process while solving chess puzzles?

Shivsky

This process has evolved for me over the past few years...here's how I look at it now:

Step 1. Look at a puzzle/problem.

Step 2. Knowing that there is treasure buried somewhere here (as opposed to real chess games where you can't assume there's a tactic waiting to be found) implies that I need to treat this much more strictly as an analytical exercise with severe time restrictions.  In other words, I don't expect to get patted on the back for finding the answer ... rather, I expect to get called an idiot for not seeing it QUICK when I'm told a solution exists.  Harsh, but that's part of the training! :)

Step 3.  After marking down all forcing lines (checks, captures, threats), start grinding them down via analysis. As a rule, I do the easier forcing lines first as they are less deep and if I hit upon the solution, I'm more time-efficient.  You eventually begin to grind the tougher lines until you figure it out/your time expires.

Step 4.  Doing it in your head is the goal, I'd rather work on relatively easier problems rather than have to solve tough ones by writing down variations, as it defeats the purpose of pushing the calculation boundaries of your brain at this moment.

Step 5.  Referring back to step 2, if I don't see it/solve it within 1-2 minutes, I probably WON'T see it in an actual OTB game, so I stop, look at the solution and figure out if I was just lazy instead of being thorough or was this a genuine visualization/analysis error.  

I normally keep repeating steps 1-5 until I get stumped by 3-4 problems and then call it a day.  IM David Pruess wrote a fantastic post about this (search these forum posts) in a thread where he indicated that there's only so much new stuff your brain can take in at a time, so forcing stuff into it is usually futile.  Setting lofty goals like "I will do 100 problems each day" is just silly. Better to say "I will get stumped and learn 10 new patterns each day".

The key here is to absorb new patterns ... kind of like a few notes of a peculiar musical tune you never heard before.  After playing over it once or twice clearly, humming the tune on your own until you get it right,  your ear will be able to pick it up even if it is buried amidst a noisy crowded environment or as part of a bigger song.  That's exactly how tactics training translates to actual chess game skills.

So in summary, be thorough at solving it and give it your best ... but don't spend too much time either as it defeats the purpose of building your mental  pattern database efficiently. For example, if you spend 10 minutes trying to figure one new pattern out as opposed to learning 5 new patterns (with a 2-minute time-limit to figure it out) within the same timeframe.

waffllemaster
Shivsky wrote:

This process has evolved for me over the past few years...here's how I look at it now:

Step 1. Look at a puzzle/problem.

Step 2. Knowing that there is treasure buried somewhere here (as opposed to real chess games where you can't assume there's a tactic waiting to be found) implies that I need to treat this much more strictly as an analytical exercise with severe time restrictions.  In other words, I don't expect to get patted on the back for finding the answer ... rather, I expect to get called an idiot for not seeing it QUICK when I'm told a solution exists.  Harsh, but that's part of the training! :)

Step 3.  After marking down all forcing lines (checks, captures, threats), start grinding them down via analysis. As a rule, I do the easier forcing lines first as they are less deep and if I hit upon the solution, I'm more time-efficient.  You eventually begin to grind the tougher lines until you figure it out/your time expires.

Step 4.  Doing it in your head is the goal, I'd rather work on relatively easier problems rather than have to solve tough ones by writing down variations, as it defeats the purpose of pushing the calculation boundaries of your brain at this moment.

Step 5.  Referring back to step 2, if I don't see it/solve it within 1-2 minutes, I probably WON'T see it in an actual OTB game, so I stop, look at the solution and figure out if I was just lazy instead of being thorough or was this a genuine visualization/analysis error.  

I normally keep repeating steps 1-5 until I get stumped by 3-4 problems and then call it a day.  IM David Pruess wrote a fantastic post about this (search these forum posts) in a thread where he indicated that there's only so much new stuff your brain can take in at a time, so forcing stuff into it is usually futile.  Setting lofty goals like "I will do 100 problems each day" is just silly. Better to say "I will get stumped and learn 10 new patterns each day".

The key here is to absorb new patterns ... kind of like a few notes of a peculiar musical tune you never heard before.  After playing over it once or twice clearly, humming the tune on your own until you get it right,  your ear will be able to pick it up even if it is buried amidst a noisy crowded environment or as part of a bigger song.  That's exactly how tactics training translates to actual chess game skills.

So in summary, be thorough at solving it and give it your best ... but don't spend too much time either as it defeats the purpose of building your mental  pattern database efficiently. For example, if you spend 10 minutes trying to figure one new pattern out as opposed to learning 5 new patterns (with a 2-minute time-limit to figure it out) within the same timeframe.


I need to start doing it this way.  Sometimes on chesstempo I look up and it's been 10-15 minutes and I realize in a real game I wouldn't have found it (even if I go ahead and work it all out after a few minutes more).

1-2 minutes is a little too fast for me though :)  Maybe I'll start by limiting myself to 5 ;)

Saber4

In  a OTB game, after the opening, (move 15 or 20 depending on how the game progressed or when I think I see a tactic) I will look at the move and maybe pick 2 or 3 others which look good.  Then I analyze 1 then 2 then 3 and so on.  In faster time controls (10-15 minutes) I will spend 30 seconds- a minute on 1 variation.  looking it over and stuff, then I will looking at the ending of the most likely move(s) of my opponent and see if the out come will be good for me.  If its not then I move on to move 2.  It could take me a good 5 minutes to see which move I should chose.  Every once-in-a-while, I will see a move which is completely winning and will quickly analysing it, then play it.  I've also found that playing yourself helps your calculating ability.

Aarvens

I've never been able to play myself from the beggining-- only from select positions.