Forums

Using an analysis board during turn-based games: good or bad?

Sort:
Avatar of HungKnight
HungKnight
Sep 1, 2015
0
#21

I don't use any opening books or the analysis function.  IMO it's a terrible crutch.  I never move the pieces, only in my head.  If I lose the game that's fine.  I'd rather have stronger OTB chess muscles, than to have a higher correspondence chess rating.  Chess.com ratings don't mean squat anyway.  I do prefer correspondence to live chess (blitz) because I'm an old dog that blunders and loses on time.  Like many have said, correspondence allows you to think deeper and not blunder (as much ), without having to sit OTB for hours.

Avatar of PossibleOatmeal
PossibleOatmeal
Sep 1, 2015
0
#22
HungKnight wrote:

I don't use any opening books or the analysis function.  IMO it's a terrible crutch.  I never move the pieces, only in my head.  If I lose the game that's fine.  I'd rather have stronger OTB chess muscles, than to have a higher correspondence chess rating.  Chess.com ratings don't mean squat anyway.  I do prefer correspondence to live chess (blitz) because I'm an old dog that blunders and loses on time.  Like many have said, correspondence allows you to think deeper and not blunder (as much ), without having to sit OTB for hours.

It has been suggested in this thread that you can strengthen your OTB muscles while also doing your best in correspondence games.  What did you think of that idea?

Avatar of harterhare
harterhare
Sep 1, 2015
0
#23
Colin20G wrote:

How did correspondence players do in the good old times? When they were no computers, engines but paper mails?

Did they analyze with the help of a wooden board?

Yes!  My dad was a CC IM and I grew up in a house full of chess boards and chess magazines.  And yes, the moves were sent on postcards by snail mail all over the world.  I remember knocking over one of the boards one time, sending all the pieces flying everywhere.  I was terrified that my dad would be furious.  But of course he wasn't, because he could remember all the positions.

Avatar of thegreat_patzer
thegreat_patzer
Sep 1, 2015
0
#24

I'm neither a coach or an expert- but I think its very good practic that helps you think deeply in correspondance chess.

I have been working on my blitz recently, and I noticed something.  the very month where I did SO much with the analysis board so a significant fall for my blitz game.

if you are trying to be good at blitz; you shouldn't think deeply ; and you need to see simple good moves with no help at all.  so I think its a matter of goals.  are you just trying to raise a rating- maybe not so helpful.  are you trying to understand chess more deeply- its is very good.

after I lift my blitz game I intend to get more into CC and yes I will be using the analysis board exhaustively....

Avatar of MrKornKid
MrKornKid
Sep 1, 2015
0
#25

Sorry to unhinge this particular convo but...I am one those people that believe it's crap.  If you can;t envision it, then that is your fault.  It is the number one reason for rating inflation.

Avatar of PossibleOatmeal
PossibleOatmeal
Sep 1, 2015
0
#26
verylate wrote:

I suppose that yes, you can have it both ways. My problem is that after sending that lemon move and losing one game, I start using the board in another where I don't really need it.

correspondence chess (should I start calling it turn-based now?) not only has different rules and a different rhythm, it also has a different discipline. Like the old master who is giving a simultaneous exhibition, you have to be able to carry all those positions inside your head. Like harterhare's father ;-). Although you haven't seen the position for 2 or 4 days or more, you have to remember your analysis from before. It helps, no doubt, to have a notebook and write it all down. 

food for thought.

Don't send a lemon move.  Decide on an "OTB move" without making any moves on an analysis board.  Just visualize and analyze as you would in an OTB game.  Commit to it, but don't make it.  Then decide on your actual correspondence move by using all legal means.  Compare your analysis from the OTB style analysis to your analysis from the correspondence style analysis to see what you missed.  The key here is trying to understand *why* you missed what you missed.  Did you make visualization errors?  Is it the same type of error you've made before?  Is there a way to practice that would reduce the amount of that type of error?  etc.

Avatar of thegreat_patzer
thegreat_patzer
Sep 1, 2015
0
#27
MrKornKid wrote:

Sorry to unhinge this particular convo but...I am one those people that believe it's crap.  If you can;t envision it, then that is your fault.  It is the number one reason for rating inflation.

and I guess my point is that not everyone is working towards the exact same goal.  if you just wanted a high blitz rating you are a zillion percent right!!!

on the other hand, there is the pursuit of chess truth; and actually TRYING to find the very best move.   how could that NOT be instructive to a slow OTB player?  I know you don't agree to that....but my point is that I half agree with you.

Avatar of HungKnight
HungKnight
Sep 3, 2015
0
#28
PossibleOatmeal wrote:
HungKnight wrote:

I don't use any opening books or the analysis function.  IMO it's a terrible crutch.  I never move the pieces, only in my head.  If I lose the game that's fine.  I'd rather have stronger OTB chess muscles, than to have a higher correspondence chess rating.  Chess.com ratings don't mean squat anyway.  I do prefer correspondence to live chess (blitz) because I'm an old dog that blunders and loses on time.  Like many have said, correspondence allows you to think deeper and not blunder (as much ), without having to sit OTB for hours.

It has been suggested in this thread that you can strengthen your OTB muscles while also doing your best in correspondence games.  What did you think of that idea?

 

I can only speak for myself but...

 

I have a rule that I never move the pieces around.  If you allow yourself that luxury, then it's too easy not to put in the work needed to build visualization/calculation skills.  I know for me, I would be lazy and "try" to vis/calc for a bit, then just say screw it it move the pieces.  For me zero tolerance is best.  

Remember, in real chess there are no crutches. 

I play turn-based for quality chess and blitz (at which I am terrible) to try out openings and improve under time pressure.

 

Avatar of PossibleOatmeal
PossibleOatmeal
Sep 3, 2015
0
#29

Fair enough.  I think if you approach it as a learning tool you could probably be disciplined enough to handle it.  It has been amazing for me.

Avatar of RG1951
RG1951
Sep 3, 2015
0
#30
TurboFish wrote:

Use of an analysis board is common in correspondence chess.  Whether it's on a computer screen or with a physical board does not matter -- both are allowed by the rules.  Use of the analysis board is perfectly legal and therefore ethical.  It is a good habit, if you want to learn to think more deeply.

        It doesn't logically follow that something which is legal is ethical - not that I have any objection to the analysis board.

Avatar of ThrillerFan
ThrillerFan
Sep 3, 2015
0
#31
PossibleOatmeal wrote:
verylate wrote:

I suppose that yes, you can have it both ways. My problem is that after sending that lemon move and losing one game, I start using the board in another where I don't really need it.

correspondence chess (should I start calling it turn-based now?) not only has different rules and a different rhythm, it also has a different discipline. Like the old master who is giving a simultaneous exhibition, you have to be able to carry all those positions inside your head. Like harterhare's father ;-). Although you haven't seen the position for 2 or 4 days or more, you have to remember your analysis from before. It helps, no doubt, to have a notebook and write it all down. 

food for thought.

Don't send a lemon move.  Decide on an "OTB move" without making any moves on an analysis board.  Just visualize and analyze as you would in an OTB game.  Commit to it, but don't make it.  Then decide on your actual correspondence move by using all legal means.  Compare your analysis from the OTB style analysis to your analysis from the correspondence style analysis to see what you missed.  The key here is trying to understand *why* you missed what you missed.  Did you make visualization errors?  Is it the same type of error you've made before?  Is there a way to practice that would reduce the amount of that type of error?  etc.

In essence, you are executing chapter 1 of "Training for the Tournament Player" by Dvoretsky.  Identifying your strengths and weaknesses.

Are you like today's typical ADHD teenager who can throw an 8 move tactical combination in your face and blow your King away, but when it comes down to a Rook and Pawn ending, he's incapable of doing squat and even a 1200 player could blow him off the board?

Are you strong at endgames and knowing various endgame strategies like shouldering, tempo, etc, but are horrible with tactics or finding candidate moves?

 

If you are a 1st grader doing math, and you have a 100 question math test.  You score 50 out of 50 in the addition problems, but 17 out of 50 in the subtraction problems.

The next day, you claim to be "practicing" by doing 200 addition problems.  Have you really improved at all?  Same thing goes for chess.  If you are a great tactican that doesn't know a lick about endgames, what good is studying a bunch of tactics problems going to do you?

Avatar of PossibleOatmeal
PossibleOatmeal
Sep 3, 2015
0
#32

Yes, exactly this!