I enjoyed it very much. Right on things I keep wondering about.
Is is better to have a longer but more within own sub-expertise territory (confidence from experience for example, the notion of being familiar with something about the positions being encountered) or a "better" (because the thing says so, or more seriously:) one that is overloading a player calculation memory or horizon with little clues along the way (again for any level of play that can be conceptualized).
Too bad if the other player is not the same level and can see better and longer, the question is about given a player state of learnedness (needing some word). The risk assessment part is about the current game decision making.
But we can report such questionning to learning theories. Should one try to learn such long seqeuences over building up knowledge or experience with different position challenges to learn things within human calculating horizons, that would leave the player to play better autonomously over more games not requireing that long haul exactitude which becomes a gambling game in reality. We also need to have degree when we say gambling and random. There is the notions of visible board cues within minds eye horizon.
These are thoughts that reading your chess blurb (i did elsewhere actually) made me want to share. An echo of sort.
That characterisitc of long and narrow calculation appears in all phases of chess.. Each with different oracle tools that do not make the difference between human chess best and best chess.. EGTB and engine and opening theory (as repertoire knowledge, not the chess theory part of it which can actually be part of the within-horizon visible knowledge, a moving target as we learning chess theory from the board or others via communicatoin, like yours).
There is a notion of own confidence in assessment of position seens or seeable upon thinking in your blog. I may have overinterpreted but the reasoning seems to be adapable to one's own level of knowledge at risk assessment time give the stakes of the game and the time control. In non-rated games one can change the parameters of the risk assessment toward exploration, but, should it be about calculations we can't perform live or find boring anyway, because they require some level of imitation without autonomy within horizon (rote learning or reflex learning based on the meager move links, not based on position so much, otherwise if it were, we would have the clues that would mean confidence). I thought I would rephrase myself, in case paragraphs were not doing the job.
Is is better to have a longer but more within own sub-expertise territory (confidence from experience for example, the notion of being familiar with something about the positions being encountered) or a "better" (because the thing says so, or more seriously:) one that is overloading a player calculation memory or horizon with little clues along the way (again for any level of play that can be conceptualized).
Too bad if the other player is not the same level and can see better and longer, the question is about given a player state of learnedness (needing some word). The risk assessment part is about the current game decision making.
But we can report such questionning to learning theories. Should one try to learn such long seqeuences over building up knowledge or experience with different position challenges to learn things within human calculating horizons, that would leave the player to play better autonomously over more games not requireing that long haul exactitude which becomes a gambling game in reality. We also need to have degree when we say gambling and random. There is the notions of visible board cues within minds eye horizon.
These are thoughts that reading your chess blurb (i did elsewhere actually) made me want to share. An echo of sort.
That characterisitc of long and narrow calculation appears in all phases of chess.. Each with different oracle tools that do not make the difference between human chess best and best chess.. EGTB and engine and opening theory (as repertoire knowledge, not the chess theory part of it which can actually be part of the within-horizon visible knowledge, a moving target as we learning chess theory from the board or others via communicatoin, like yours).
There is a notion of own confidence in assessment of position seens or seeable upon thinking in your blog. I may have overinterpreted but the reasoning seems to be adapable to one's own level of knowledge at risk assessment time give the stakes of the game and the time control. In non-rated games one can change the parameters of the risk assessment toward exploration, but, should it be about calculations we can't perform live or find boring anyway, because they require some level of imitation without autonomy within horizon (rote learning or reflex learning based on the meager move links, not based on position so much, otherwise if it were, we would have the clues that would mean confidence). I thought I would rephrase myself, in case paragraphs were not doing the job.
Thanks for sharing your chess Games and your recommendations about using calculation more sensibly.
I think I can improve a little bit My chess rating with your recommendations that You Say I am a chess player who has 1600-1700 rating and I learned much with your chess Game about Martha Samadashvili moving the rook because she was to going moving the knight and it's a pin so moving the rook it's actually the Best move.
I think I can improve a little bit My chess rating with your recommendations that You Say I am a chess player who has 1600-1700 rating and I learned much with your chess Game about Martha Samadashvili moving the rook because she was to going moving the knight and it's a pin so moving the rook it's actually the Best move.
Nico post. I actually often think like you suggest.
1. "If it's too complicated, don't go there."
2. But I also: "If it's a bit complicated, trust your calculation." That can work a fair amount of times.
3. However my nuclear disasters usually come from: "This aint complicated. They have no threats." I simply fail to see any complications and resign six moves later. THAT, is the bug (one of them) in my brain.
And your "you will have to calculate all the lines all over again" was my key takeaway!
Thanks
1. "If it's too complicated, don't go there."
2. But I also: "If it's a bit complicated, trust your calculation." That can work a fair amount of times.
3. However my nuclear disasters usually come from: "This aint complicated. They have no threats." I simply fail to see any complications and resign six moves later. THAT, is the bug (one of them) in my brain.
And your "you will have to calculate all the lines all over again" was my key takeaway!
Thanks
That's actually a nice insight, particularly in the first example. My first instinct was Rb1, but then I saw Nf3 and briefly calculated it, even if I give up the rook on a1 for the bishop, Qxa1 attacks the rook on h8 giving me a tempo with enough compensation. The knight is heading to d4, similar idea that black has in the Catalan, there's no good discoveries at the moment etc... so it seems it's fine, but that approach is not practical, as the GM said and you've explained nicely. In OTB I tend to over-analyze and over-complicate my positions, leading me to play with little time on intuition and that often times goes wrong.
I tend to take useless, unbalanced risks out of curiosity to "find out". I agree game interest, position objectivity or stuff like that are irrelevant factors when as a competitor you prioritize game result way over anything else. But, on an other hand, Nf3 Ne4 (g4 !? Ne5 (Nd4 e5 Nxc6 bxc6 e4 !? d4 Na4) Nh5 idk what's happening) Nxe4 dxe4 Qxd8 Kxd8 (Nxd8 Nd4 e5 Nb3) Nd4 Nxd4 exd4 Bxd4 0-0-0 seems good for white you know... Oh sh*t I only have 1 minute left and every pieces are still on the board, panic mode activated.
So yes, seems wise to just learn not to overthink on obscure and complicated paths when there is a safe, easy path and time is a resource.
So yes, seems wise to just learn not to overthink on obscure and complicated paths when there is a safe, easy path and time is a resource.
Another practical lesson: if you want to win, do NOT relax until the game is over.
I disagree, chess should not be a pain in the neck or other body regions.
good one very interesting.
I like this article