Which, do you feel is the most important to be successful at chess? Analytical, Critical or Creative thinking?
I think Creative thinking
All that matters is good moves (RJF).
"If you see a good move, look for a better one" Thats what i remember
@AnonymousChessKing " if you see a better move look for the best one " 😜
Critical
By the way, I hate to burst some people's dream(s) but you can become the best player in the world not having a single creative thought.
Botvinnik looked down on Karpov as: "the user of other people's ideas". That is to say he didn't think Karpov has any creative ideas of his own and worse, he's using and relying on what others find (so essentially, he's a thief).
And? Did that stop Karpov from becoming champion and the one and only player Kasparov never dominated?
People either don't want to admit it or otherwise don't have the technical knowledge to fully understand this but creativity, while beautiful and amazing to witness, is probably the most overrated aspect of chess.
In the end, chess, is technical.
This is like the difference between a magician and Tesla (for those who have watched the prestige).
What Tesla did appeared more magical while in reality it was science (i.e - technical).
Someone's flawless technique is often confused (by less knowledgable players) as creativity when in reality it's simply higher levels of skill.
Obviously, all that said, the ability to take everything into account and produce the "best" move comes down to talent.
You could argue (easily I might add) that there are several top players who are more analytical than Carlsen but it's hard to argue against the brut force of his natural gifted talent.
Here's what I know about myself...
When I stopped trying to find "creative" ways and started focusing on learning technique, I became better.
I'm still playing within the confinements of my own limited talent but once I spent the time learning about pawn structure, how to play against weaknesses, what sort of development fits what, how to maintain order, when to attack and when to improve, endgame techniques, etc, - that is when I personally became a "decent" player and it sure as hell had nothing to do with creativity.
If this were math everyone would just agree you must study it but for whatever reason when it comes to chess people assume they can avoid technique and reinvent everything by producing ideas no one has ever thought about before.
Botvinnik looked down on Karpov as: "the user of other people's ideas". That is to say he didn't think Karpov has any creative ideas of his own and worse, he's using and relying on what others find (so essentially, he's a thief).
And? Did that stop Karpov from becoming champion and the one and only player Kasparov never dominated?
People either don't want to admit it or otherwise don't have the technical knowledge to fully understand this but creativity, while beautiful and amazing to witness, is probably the most overrated aspect of chess.
In the end, chess, is technical.
This is like the difference between a magician and Tesla (for those who have watched the prestige).
What Tesla did appeared more magical while in reality it was science (i.e - technical).
Someone's flawless technique is often confused (by less knowledgable players) as creativity when in reality it's simply higher levels of skill.
Obviously, all that said, the ability to take everything into account and produce the "best" move comes down to talent.
You could argue (easily I might add) that there are several top players who are more analytical than Carlsen but it's hard to argue against the brut force of his natural gifted talent.
Here's what I know about myself...
When I stopped trying to find "creative" ways and started focusing on learning technique, I became better.
I'm still playing within the confinements of my own limited talent but once I spent the time learning about pawn structure, how to play against weaknesses, what sort of development fits what, how to maintain order, when to attack and when to improve, endgame techniques, etc, - that is when I personally became a "decent" player and it sure as hell had nothing to do with creativity.
If this were math everyone would just agree you must study it but for whatever reason when it comes to chess people assume they can avoid technique and reinvent everything by producing ideas no one has ever thought about before.
CT's Sarcastic Jokes!
CT's lovely jokes!
I hope creative thinking replies to this topic
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.