Easiest to use perhaps, but the least useful IMHO. Relying on the "novice point system" (P=1, N=3 etc) to evaluate positions is unreliable at best and meaningless at worst. If your system concludes "net gain of 1" due to the gain of two rooks (2x5=10) for 3 minor pieces (3x3=9) then this really doesn't tell us much about who is going to have an advantage after the complications die down - that entirely depends on evaluation of the resulting unbalanced position.
What basic skill am I missing?
Sort:
One skill you are lacking is the ability to know the difference between the words loose and lose.
Calculation and evaluation go hand in hand, one is useless without the other. We, as mortals, can only calculate so far, eventually you have to evaluate the position you are imagining.
Calculating just means working out what happens in a line after x moves by visualising. It doesn't mean counting points according to the fundamentally flawed scale taught to novice players - something I try to avoid doing apart from in trivial examples e.g. exchange rook for rook. I don't like 'brain crutches'.
It sounds like what you're doing is calculating lines with the sole intention of winning material 'points', and then once you've done that, 'fault checking' the end result for positional/strategic flaws before playing the line. I doubt you'll break about 1800 with that approach.
You need a number of skills, most of which amounts to what Charles Hertan in his book 'Forcing Chess Moves' calls COMPUTER EYES.
1. The will to overcome human bias. This will make you consider 1.b4 and 1.Kf1 as move candidates, however 'silly' they look.
2. Paranoia is good for your chess. What this means is, for a while you have to come to terms with thinking 'in trees (of variations)', something that is generally scorned in the world of chess because it's supposedly 'not the way humans think'. I call bull on that. Engage your left brain and consider all forcing moves.
3. The will to go deep. As a corollary, the will to visualise as far as needed. And therefore, the skill to do it. Comes with experience, among other things.
4. Understanding piece interactions and motifs and pattern recognition. Friendly, as well as you-to-opponent, interactions. 'Chess Tactics From Scratch' by Martin Weteschnik may help with some of that. Note that motifs are not the end goal in themselves, the end goals are Mate(rial) or Forced Draw, arrived at by brute force calculation and accurate evaluation. It's easy to get caught up in asethetics. Also, all pattern recognition does, is speeds up the 'human' thinking process, nothing more. Think about it, what are the chances that Paul Morphy read of the 'Morphy's mate' pattern off of some chess tactics workbook of his day?
Sample thinking process:
"...Qa5+. I have three broad options:
1. Take the Queen. Not possible.
2. Interpose/shield (an example of you-to-opponent interaction). 1.b4 (nope), 1.Nc3 then he has ...Nxc3 and 2.bxc3 or Bd2 don't do anything for me while he's up a piece, 1.Bd2 then ...Nxe3 Bxa5 Nxd1 Bd2 Nxb2 and he's up a piece and pawn, 1.Qd2 then Nxe3 Qxa5 Nc2+ Kd1 Nxa5 Rb1 Nc4 and it's just too much for me to handle.
3. King moves. 1.Kf1 Nxe3 loses. 1.Kf2 holds the knight, so it's the best (even though overall my position still sucks anyway after ...Nxe3 Bxe3 Nb4.)
Of course, all this will happen in a nanosecond and you may not even think like this. It was excruciating having to type this 'sample', since I immediately saw 1.Kf2 by pattern recognition and process of elimination. But sometimes when it comes down to it, especially when things become more complicated than this, you just have to dig in and crunch the numbers.
madhacker wrote:
Easiest to use perhaps, but the least useful IMHO. Relying on the "novice point system" (P=1, N=3 etc) to evaluate positions is unreliable at best and meaningless at worst. If your system concludes "net gain of 1" due to the gain of two rooks (2x5=10) for 3 minor pieces (3x3=9) then this really doesn't tell us much about who is going to have an advantage after the complications die down - that entirely depends on evaluation of the resulting unbalanced position.
No no noooo. Visualisation is the key to chess success (says GM Lev Alburt). Almost every, if not all, chess skill hinges upon this. That arithmetic of yours hurt my brain, man. Just like trying to remember that c7 is a dark square by saying c = 3 (odd number), 7 = odd number, same = dark. You gotta let it go eventually and just 'see' c7 in your head as a dark square.
For calculation improvement, you need to solve problems that has long variations to get the solution. Endgame puzzle is also good for calculation training. Easier problems are for pattern recognition. No pain no gain. Try as hard as you can at calculating these long variations.
Try to take a look at this calculation training series.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Kn15YfU8cU