Turn based chess: Move Quickly or Explore Deeply

When one is playing online chess--the one to three day per move variety, what, in your opinion, is the best way to improve: (1) simulate conditions in an over-the-board game--using only your brain for calculations or (2) Engage in deep study, using the Explore feature to analyze candidate moves until you are blue in the face.  Obviously, the latter method may be the best way to beat the other guy, but is it the best way to improve your chess?  I would think the answer might be "no" based on how fast the tactics training software insists you make your decisions.  On the other hand, I find that I see things 3 to 4 moves ahead that I would never visualize at my level if depending only on a combination of instinct and limited ability to calculate.  Or is it best to combine all the methods, (1) deep study using tools, (2) simulation of tournament conditions, and (3) rapid play?

Your thoughts would be appreciated.

Russ

Study the moves deeply, and you will improve.

I don't understand words "using tool" how do people using tool playing chess?

When other using their brain it is quite unfair play to use a machine for the

aids, isn't it.   I used to play with my brain without any help of machine.

johnny48

johnny48,

As I understand the rules for online (turn based) chess, (Someone correct me if I am wrong), it is not considered unfair to use the analysis and exploration tools as well as the opening tool.   It would be strictly against the rules in live chess.  On the other hand, if you tried to use tools there and cheat,  I think you would get in serious time trouble.  So the question I asked here is simply whether taking a lot of time to analyze every possibility would hurt or help my chess when it comes only to using the brain!

I do have to say I feel a little bit unfair when I play 4 gmes at once and some other poor slob is playing 20. 

Thanks for your comments, doublecorner and chessisgood.

Russ

Looks like you've pretty much answered your own question. 

I play more turn-based than live now. I think the analysis board is actually very useful, since it's almost like learning or studying while I play. I feel l am (slowly) developing more of a sense for the long-term effects when I can play it out rather than just giving up after the two moves I can see right off the bat. Of course, that still doesn't stop me from playing blunders or from just being lazy sometimes and playing what looks good anyhow without using the analysis board!

Of course, try to figure it out on your own first. If you cannot, then use the analysis board. This will help develop your calculating skills.

I (for one) still use the analysis board plenty. 

I'm not a correspondence pro like estragon :) , but I like to pretend it's an OTB game at first, and try to break things down without moving any pieces.  I think this actually raises (at least my) level of play because if I go straight to the analysis board I seem to treat it like a blitz game and want to look at all sorts of things that don't matter :p

Afterward I'll verify my moves on the analysis board, as much to get a 2nd look as anything, see if anything "pops" out at me.  If it involves a sacrifice I'll sometimes write out a tree of variations to be sure  (and so I don't forget my analysis!)

I do appreciate all the considered replies to my question.  It sounds like the consensus (which I have pretty much decided on myself, but appreciate the confirmation), is to keep a few games going, when the opponent moves, treat it like an OTB situation, calculating without assistance, then take the candidate moves that survive that process over to the analysis or exploration board and work out all the alternatives. 

Right now, I am at the mid-1300 level (online)--way below many of you who answered.  I am encouraged that even with the ratings at or above 2K, there is still something to be gained by use of these tools.  I just don't want to become dependent on them.  So my plan for improvement is as follows (comments appreciated):

1.  Read all of Seirawan's series (I am on "Strategy" at present).

2.  Develop a repertoire with a standard opening as white, with replies to the major openings when playing black.  Learn the top 2 or 3 major variations of each.

3.  Play a half hour to an hour per day of rapid-fire tactics or the Chess Mentor each day.

4.  Keep 2 - 5 games going online at all times, using first, mental analysis, then deep analysis using the tools.

Best regards to all.

Russ

Great thread.  Right now I'm sweating blood over every move I make and have a ridiculously inflated rating as a result.  Not only do I use the analysis board, but I also have the position set up on chessboards at home as well.  I have a small magnetic board to "remember" the position so I don't have to log on in case I forget where I am on my main board.  I've spent up to 2 hours happily shuffling pieces around and exploring lines on just 1 move.  Because I'm a premium member here and have unlimited access, I also watch pertinent videos and review ChessMentor courses.  I look at correspondence chess as "trainer wheels" chess.  I like to use the pressure of a game to find out everything I can about a certain opening and where it logically will go in the endgame.  My goal is to get good enough to take the "training wheels" off and be able to play OTB at the local club in a year or two.  As someone mentioned, I do feel a little guilty when I notice my opponent has dozens of games going and I have at most 2 or 3.  He obviously isn't pouring his heart and soul into the games the way I am.  Yes I know I should play more live to balance things out, but the 14,000 tactical trainer problems I've done in the last year seem to provide plenty of time pressure. Anyway, that's my 2 cents, and as you might imagine; yes, I am retired.

Two hours on one move!?!?!? Hats off to you, sir!

If I don't see anything compelling in about 5-10 minutes, I'll just put the game back in the queue and look at it later in the day, hoping my subconscious will find something better. If this lasts more than a couple of days I figure I'm hosed in any case and play one of my mediocre candidates. But I have about 30 games on the go, so I'm clearly emphasizing quantity over quality - I realize that.

Not sure that kind of obsessive behavior deserves a hats off, but thank you for the sentiment.  Actually there are people worse than me.  On one of the many "Danny and David" shows on chess.com TV IM Pruess confessed that he no longer played correspondence chess because he found himself thinking about the game the whole 3 days between moves.  Of course I'm not comparing myself to an IM.  In fact, it's always pretty brutal when the computer analysis comes back and you see that less than half of the moves you made were "correct".

I agree.  I also have a board on my dresser which I set up to whatever position I'm pondering. 

I am really enjoying playing chess this way.  It's fun to take my time to think about my moves.      

The only problem I have had with my method is that when I do play a 30 minute game, I'm like that old Patsy Cline song:

"I fall to pieces." 

That usually only happens to me on the ones that I'm losing. 

My gut reaction when I started this thread was a suspicion that using any tool, whether board and men or software-based, such as the Explorer function on this site, might create such a dependency on them that it would decrease one's ability to visualize and analyze when over the board. 

But what I am hearing from some fairly strong players is that this is not necessarily so--that any deep study of chess positions, by whatever means, will ultimately pay off in a better understanding of new positions when encountered. 

I think the key may be in what was said by a couple of posters who urge studying the position with eyes only first, prior to using the tools to break them down.  That is what I have started doing.

I think there is certainly a difference between using a tool (either time, or an analysis board) and not; this certainly explains some of the large typical difference between "live" ratings and "online" ratings. And it certainly feels different to play live than to play CC. But I'm not sure I would classify this difference as dependency versus lacking-a-crutch. It's more like studying versus a final exam. Or doing slower drill training in karate to build muscle memory versus using that memory in a hard fast sparring session. Each has its place; they complement each other I suspect. In any case, after reading some of the discussion I'm more motivated to spend more effort into exploring and really focussing on my CC games. That can't be a bad thing!