I am quite proficient in "seeing" 4-5 moves ahead because I can keep track of every piece. However, the problem arises when I'm calculating 8-10 moves where while I can visualize a position close to the actual position, I often lose track of the pieces. For example, a bishop was traded off in my calculation but I forgot that it got traded off and still visualized it there and ultimately lost that game to a skewering mate threat.
Improve Your Chess Calculation by Ramesh ... Book of the year 2022 ... Should you read another book before this ? Maybe look at some Chess Endings they have calculation as well with clear objectives I would say two books to have around read Capablanca's Best Chess Endings by chernev Endgame Strategy by Mikhail Sherevesky & Rewire Your Chess Brain by Cyrus Lakdawala
Do you stare at the board when you are calculating? Some GMS close their eyes or stare off into space, saying that looking at the board is distracting.
GM Jonathan Tisdall, in his book "Improve your Chess Now", says that strength of visualization & depth of analysis is a muscle that can be exercised. He recommends blindfold chess as the exercise, and devotes an entire chapter to exploring that concept.
Some say that reading chess books without the benefit of a board is helpful also.;
This sort of thing is not easy. You may wish to ask yourself if it is worth it, just to think maybe a move or two deeper. Easier for the young teenage brain to do this, compared to the fully formed brain of an adult.
Lasker used to say, 'Long analysis, wrong analysis'! The more ply you look ahead, the more likely you will miss resources for either side along the way. If you can consider all realistic candidate moves and accurately calculate them 2-3 moves deep you'll become a GM.
It has long been my understanding that Kasparov's main advantage over his rivals was just what we are talking about, visualization and depth of analysis, rather than chess knowledge. I have also thought that Kasparov's style was more computer-like than other GMs. So perhaps we can look at how he achieved this. If I had to guess I would say it is biological.
Alekhine also was very deep calculator. Petrosian as well.
> Lasker used to say, 'Long analysis, wrong analysis'!
That's because Lasker never read Kotov!
@grammalu_son That is kind of my problem. Looking at the board while calculating just breaks my visualization because what I'm visualizing is so far off than the current position. When it's 3-5 moves, it's no biggie but any more than that and I have to start squinting to ignore the board pieces and try to create a mental image.
@ThunderClap Thank you, I'll definitely check these books out. I'm very curious as you are a National Master, how many moves can you calculate generally? I know it largely depends on the positions but a ballpark would be nice.
Well that's also interesting ... but for me it's about seeing my opponents mistakes mostly @PhonythatPony I do like schematic thinking in Endings
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.