Eingorn has a book on this stuff which seems interesting. "decision making at the chess board".
but in general it sounds to me like you could just work on strategy in general, i.e. less obvious positional goals like creating weak squares / pawns or creating a situation where you can use a colour complex strategy etc.
you have a million times more experience in chess than me, i've only been playing somewhat seriously since august, so you can take my advice with a grain of salt i guess.
I don't understand if your problem is that you feel you have nothing to do, or if you can't decide between possible candidates. Of course the real problem is only the latter.
I don't understand if your problem is that you feel you have nothing to do, or if you can't decide between possible candidates. Of course the real problem is only the latter.
Its more about not being able to assess positions clearly after looking at plausible moves. There never seems to be one clearly best continuation in a position and therefore the confusion is in making a choice between several equally reasonable looking moves. I guess that if I see something that isn't obviously bad I should just go with that but it just feels like an advanced version of 'hope chess'...
There are many ways to find a move in a quiet position. One very simple idea to have a look at weakness of your own pieces and also of your opponent. If opponent has some weakness try to think about putting more pressure on it. This can take more than a move. Else check if any of your piece is not doing much if so try to improve position of that piece. Again it can take more than one move.
At times you find that all your pieces are fairly well placed then what ? If really your pieces well placed then there is every chance to start some attack. You can try to open up some line for attack. In one word in positions when there is no clear move try to make a plan ( positional type ).
Vease wrote:
I have been playing chess on and off for twenty years and I still find myself playing moves that in hindsight make no sense. This is usually in positions where there are no forcing continuations and no obvious positional goals like putting rooks on open files or occupying an outpost.
I have been looking for books or articles online that address the fundamental issue of choosing a move but theres a lot of convoluted, confusing and sometimes contradictory advice about this topic.
Kotov's ideas in Think Like a Grandmaster just don't seem practical in quiet, closed positions. Although its the famous 'Kotov Syndrome' I am actually trying to break. Thats where you flit around from one variation to another in a half assed way and then play something that you barely considered because you couldn't see a clear continuation in any of the other lines. Silmans ideas don't cater for the many positions where there is more than one 'imbalance' in play. Dan Heisman's move choice algorithm is not focused enough etc. etc.
I haven't read Soltis' 'How To Choose a Move' book which obviously has exactly the title I am looking for but I am not sure if he provides a simple formula or just goes into the usual 'take into account all of the positional elements and create a list of candidate moves' discussion which creates the mental fog in the first place.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
There is a book that outlines the one factor on the chessboard that holds everything under its remote control. Of course it is only a grammar book on this factor, not a dictionary. To be specific, the author writes on page 107 of his book, "...During the brief initial stage of the game, the pawn formation normally assumes sufficient character to be classified...", as one of 8 archetypal pawn formations. Mr. Kmoch explains further, "...Since there are only a few characteristics pertaining to navigability, namely outlets for the Rooks, and prospective outlets due to levers and possible levers, it is possible to distinguish between positions of several basic types, each one leading to its own type of middle-game..."
In the book, "Pawn Power In Chess", Hans Kmoch, on pages 107 - 300 sheds a clarifying light on 6 of those 8 characteristic pawn formations. He explains with insightful detail how to handle each characteristic pawn formation from both the White side and the Black.
A word of warning to the first-time reader. Read and study from page 107 to the end of the book first. Referring to earlier pages only for explanations and definitions of key terms, jargon and uniquely named concepts.
Vease wrote:
This is usually in positions where there are no forcing continuations and no obvious positional goals like putting rooks on open files or occupying an outpost.
This is the characteristic formation known as the "Free Formation". In this type of pawn structure no pawns have crossed the mid-line of the board and no pawns have come in contact either as rams or levers. If you have an opening repertoire then you know the opening that typically results in a Free Formation pawn structure. Because of this you should know the plans of attack/defense for both Black and White. The indicated pawn breaks in the pawn structure should be well known to you and the preliminary moves necessary prior to the execution of those pawn breaks. But that is just the beginning of the middle game. If you are well versed in your opening repertoire you should also know the thematic middle game plans for both Black and White in this opening.
In other words, your thought process in the position becomes a recall of memory and fine tuning to fit the particular position you have in front of you.
Hi,
This is a very interesting facet/topic. I am currently writing a chess engine. Now, I am in the process of creating CHOICE, as if the pieces had a mind besides the process of creating the path from A to B that allows the piece to move. --No, this is not the Matrix lol...but I would like to have some insight in to this topic because, it will help me write up the core choice algorithm. Remember, I am dealing with multi-choices that are systematically unobvious. But, that's where I am trying to get, I want the engine to think like a chess piece when selecting a move vs latter.
Can someone help me in this? I like the idea of getting these two books:
1. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1901983870/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?smid=A8146B9Q816MQ&psc=1 (As suggested in the first response to this thread)
2. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0553263153/ref=ox_sc_act_title_2?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&psc=1
I have been playing chess on and off for twenty years and I still find myself playing moves that in hindsight make no sense. This is usually in positions where there are no forcing continuations and no obvious positional goals like putting rooks on open files or occupying an outpost.
I have been looking for books or articles online that address the fundamental issue of choosing a move but theres a lot of convoluted, confusing and sometimes contradictory advice about this topic.
Kotov's ideas in Think Like a Grandmaster just don't seem practical in quiet, closed positions. Although its the famous 'Kotov Syndrome' I am actually trying to break. Thats where you flit around from one variation to another in a half assed way and then play something that you barely considered because you couldn't see a clear continuation in any of the other lines. Silmans ideas don't cater for the many positions where there is more than one 'imbalance' in play. Dan Heisman's move choice algorithm is not focused enough etc. etc.
I haven't read Soltis' 'How To Choose a Move' book which obviously has exactly the title I am looking for but I am not sure if he provides a simple formula or just goes into the usual 'take into account all of the positional elements and create a list of candidate moves' discussion which creates the mental fog in the first place.