Abstract vs. Concrete thinking in chess

There is a healthy debate about the left and right hemispheres of the brain. We're not going to resolve (or even weigh-in) on this. Instead we posit the theory that the ability to think concretely (numbers, rote memorization, follow rules) is unrelated, and therefore, feasibly at odds with the ability to think in the abstract.

One way that concrete and abstract thought differs is that concrete is limited by language. When I ask my students how many squares are on a chessboard, they are limited because they consider a square to be a location for a piece. But to see the squares beyond the 64, you need to not be restricted by the word, "square" and think of it's other possible meanings. Most riddles are based on abstract thought.

Concrete thinking in chess is when we do brute force calculations (what computers excel at). This includes mating patterns, tricks, and traps we learn and use.

Abstract thinking in chess is when we use concepts and principles to evaluate a position or make a decision. Things like trust and loyalty and integrity are abstract concepts. And in chess, prophylaxis, restraint, and space are concepts in the abstract realm. When we say, "that Bishop is worth more than the Rook in this position," we are using abstract thinking to make that call.

Using Concrete principles and explanations to adhere to Abstract Concepts
If you are teaching a beginner (which I do a lot), it's much easier to give concrete explanations and techniques to promote understanding and adherence to, abstract principles.

When I teach about King Safety, in the abstract we discuss if the King has escape squares, if the situation dictates the King become an attacking piece, or if the King can hide behind its own pawns or the enemy's. To help beginners adhere to this principle, we can give simple, concrete "rules." Castle early, don't move pawns in front of the King (unless you have to), keep a minor piece (Knight or Bishop) around to help. IF you move a rook off the back rank, create luft first for your King. If the Queens are traded off, look to use the King as an attacking piece. These are just helpful guidelines, these are not hard and fast rules.

Sometimes the Concrete and Abstract collide - and rightly so. When we're analyzing a position, we need to use both. Concrete: Evaluate material imbalances, identify undefended pieces, and identify any current and imminent attacks. Abstractly we want to evaluate the pawn structures, the development of the pieces (to include coordination), and any other positional considerations (outposts, backward pawns, weak/strong color complexes, etc.)

Using abstraction to make quicker decisions
Have you ever spent a lot of your game clock trying to calculate a complex position? Have you given up and either chosen a different line because you couldn't see (visualize) or calculate far enough? Abstract thinking can help you with these decisions. Go as far as you can in your visualization (not calculation - that would be concrete), and think about the position that you can see - in an abstract manner. Will you have more space? Will you have the initiative? Will you have a good or bad pawn structure? Will your pieces be coordinated? Or will they be all over the board, disconnected? If your answers are in the positive, then you can opt to go forward.

You'll hear very strong players use this technique in deciding to go down a path without the concrete assurance that they are winning.

So, there is room for both ways of thinking, and we want to be good at both. But remember you may have a propensity for one way of thinking over the other. That just means you will have to work a little harder in the area you don't naturally excel at.