Exercises to increase calculation depth?

Lack of calculation depth is one of my serious deficiencies in chess. Another is that I regularly miss certain motifs, quite a few of them in fact. An example of the latter is me failing to see or forgetting to look for trapped enemy pieces. I am sure there are many motifs I am poor at. I feel I need to train at motifs and increasing my depth of calculation. I feel that puzzle streaks and mixed puzzles have been useful to a point but they jump around too much and I am not getting reinforcement for one idea / one motif at a time. Do I need targeted training in mates and motifs one at a time? Then maybe I can focus and try to see deeper into one idea / one motif at a time. Will this help me?

Well, thats exactly how you improve the calculation depth.
You need to learn a lot of motifs and then being able to combine them.
The motifs will give you a 2-3, maybe 4 forced or semi forced moves in the variation, so there is not really like a calculation, just a natural flow of moves, if they can be combined, you can extend the sequence a couple of extra moves.

But else, its just the motif and learning to understand the position, being aware of what you want to do, and knowing if the opponent can ignore you, only defend against your plans , defend while at the same time advance on its own plans and/or how he can attack you.

So, maybe what you are lacking is to take your opponents plans into account, because if you know what he wants to do, his moves become obvious (and your own counter), its just a matter of guessing in which sequence he is going to execute his plan, most likely the one that puts you in a more disadvantageous position or give him extra tempos first.

When neither has a clear plan is when the game gets muddy, kinda hard to know what he will do next if neither can tell whats the next step.

Obviously, the better the player the clearer the path, so, at low levels, its just better to learn motifs, the more motifs you learn, the easier it is to understand how to attack weaknesses and thus, easier to formulate an attack plan and understand how your position can be attacked even if he never exploit your weakness. You just get awareness of your own situation.

Then its just matter of gauging your opponents strength, if you sense he can read the position about as well as you, then you assume he sees your weaknesses, so just assume he will exploit them in about the same manner that you would.

Well, somehow or other I managed to improve (before there even was all this talk of training & motifs). As you improve, you increase calculation depth.

Rather than focusing on any one set of "skills," I think it all improves as a unit (in those admittedly rare moments when you make a real breakthrough). Just keep studying in general and practicing and it will come (as it did eventually--and gradually--for me).

@MrPushwood said in #3:

Well, somehow or other I managed to improve (before there even was all this talk of training & motifs). As you improve, you increase calculation depth.

Rather than focusing on any one set of "skills," I think it all improves as a unit (in those admittedly rare moments when you make a real breakthrough). Just keep studying in general and practicing and it will come (as it did eventually--and gradually--for me).

I agree it all improves as a unit. However, one does not always train skills as a unit. Whenever I look at physical sports training I see them training in specific skills, initially one at a time. Like in tennis where there is serve training, volley training, backhand training, forehand training etc. etc. Then they try to put the elements together eg. serve and volley training where there are more elements added in like how many steps you take after the serve and where you split-step for the first volley return.

It seems to me I need to train chess elements in the same way and then try to put them together in training games and real games. I agree improvement does not come quickly or easily. There are so many elements to be aware of. Natural tacticians may see all these elements quickly and easily compared to me. I am not a natural tactician and not a natural calculator. I think I am going to have to drill myself in these skills.

Perhaps those people who practice a lot of motifs can tell me how they do it. I imagine they go through all the motifs one at a time. Then they would combine them by adding motifs together, one at a time? Maybe they start with 10 very easy (-600) puzzles then 10 easy (-300) then 10 at normal then 10 at +300 and then 10 at +600 but requiring a pass (6 or more) to go to the next level?

I am starting to think brain training requires easy warm-ups too just like physical puzzles. If I try to go straight into hard puzzles I struggle. I am thinking of trying this "build up to it" method with targeted motifs and then combined motifs, from easy to hard. Of course, this motif training won't be my only training.

I agree that checkmate puzzles are important too because one can build up from 1 move to 3 move puzzles and maybe even higher in each session. This applies the "warm-up and progressive increase of difficulty" principle.

It's just that I feel "healthy mix" and "puzzle streak", though very useful do not apply the repetitive reinforcement that motif concentration would provide. Anyway, I am going to try this out. I am interested in others' experiences and comments.

Ultimately, my brain will impose a limit just as the body imposes limits. I am interested where the best targeted training would get me. Rapid 1850s would be okay, 1900s would great. I would be over the moon if I could get to 2000.

You can only calculate as deeply as you can visualize, so if you have trouble moving the pieces in your head (like me) then visualization is a good place to start. I think the Visualise series on Chessable is excellent, but there are some free options elsewhere based on the same principle I believe.

For actual calculation exercises you can solve puzzles with a series of forcing moves or longer mating attacks. There is a great book called Forcing Chess Moves by Charles Hertan, but you can use these two studies for free:

Update:

Oh wow, I tried the trapped piece motif on -600. I didn't find it that easy either. Clearly, this is a weak spot in my perception of the board and tactical possibilities. I got 9/10 but it took me a little while on some puzzles.

There was one almost "ring-in" puzzle, much harder for me than the others, and it had a puzzle code #V8kD5 and a rating which the minus rating puzzles do not usually have as they are unrated. Its rating was 1571 which is just -607 my puzzle rating. I failed this puzzle as I thought I was looking for an instant trap. It was really interesting because it required other tactics to reach the trap.

I am really excited about the idea of getting better at trapping pieces. I wonder how often it happens in real play? It seems to me there are some general principles. Talking of material gain, minor pieces must be trapped by a pawn move or by the other type of minor piece, otherwise it could lead to a swap at best. (I suppose it could win the "minor exchange": as in a bishop for a knight.) Rooks can be trapped by a pawn or minor piece move. Queens can be trapped by any piece but a queen or a king. Can kings ever apply a trap move? Yes, it looks like they can in some cases. Trapping a knight in the corner with or even without assistance is an example. Correct me if I am wrong on any of this.

calculation, really, or seeing consequences deepers. actually having a better smell for which calculation to deepen, or some subset to deepen in pseudo parallel, jumping across branches upon seeing or smelling something better.

Is that calculation if you do not even calculate all the possible moves on ones turn, or not all the opponents possible or its turn to all your moves?

I think we should come up with better words, than calculation, depth, seeing, smelling. There is something else than pure calculation that is improving, and it is more about what not to calculate, or what to calculate in priority, and when deepening learning to abort when it does not look as good, as the other candidate waiting for its deepening too. and being able to sense shallow that a branch is not worth deepening, while the candidate we have not yet considered, might need also some comparative deepening.

that improvement, could it be counted in number of motifs (can those motifs themselves be made distinct, and how distinct enough for improvement about their perception be comensurate to counting the numbers of distinct such motifs).

I find that calculation and depth, have become very poor vocabulary to describe any chess improvement, beyond core rule application. other handles might help more understand what is actually happening in an adult improving. (or any player doing so, no matter the level, not just accomplished players). Some vocabulary from psychology of learning, and cognition, might come in handy, and actuallly since chess is used as laboratory, the discussion might actually be happening where we really care about it from both angles psychology and chess..

otherwise it seems that the bridging might be one way.. Also.. i am not sure that just streaks of fast puzzles can help, once we admit that the boundaries of motifs might be fuzzy and need some delibrate slower approaches.. there might be optimal blends of various such paces.. but surely, always having blur experience, might not allow some separation of certain patterns that might cross-over, or have been always fuzzy or never really checked for meaning being the same from who writes and who listens... (i don't know, for some Anastasia mate, is the very first example they were taught, and there is not generalizing about restriction by various configurations that would amount to the same luft plugging around the king. To generalize in such direction, and eventually do away with the name crutch, one has to actively scrutinize the problems.. I suggest the op. to work hard with the theme in lichess puzzles. look at the definitoin in conjonctions to the puzzle experience.. ask yourself if the others were right, according to your rational understanding of the words.. if not confident than take that information in.. and keep testing.. it might be better to slow down after puzzle and look back on which themes were there according to you, then to other players, then to the worded definitions.. rinse and repeat while you are in the mood for such level of cogitation.. take recreations back in blur mode puzzles.. find you optimal distribution, it might be itself not constant.. trial and errros..

@MrPushwood said in #3:

Rather than focusing on any one set of "skills," I think it all improves as a unit (in those admittedly rare moments when you make a real breakthrough). Just keep studying in general and practicing and it will come (as it did eventually--and gradually--for me).

That is probably, the memory faculty of forgetting what is not needed anymore, that might, when having reached that stage, make it counter-performance-productive to hold on to such chunks consciously, where we once had to have words, possibly our own internal set of those while digesting new experience and while still not having digested the ensemble of things. Memory is not just about retention, it is about strengthening certain associations, while letting other fades. Well, there is a lot of evidence to that, at many time scales. And I think, some more efficient connections can happens that we can't verbalize or share anymore, but that does not mean that it did not help in the past to get to that point where it became superfluous. or even getting in the way of faster performance, or just better performance.

I do agree, that combination of such chunks is likely the reality in performance in the wild (guess what that could be....:), but how first one was exposed and how long before such things were merged into the efficient and fast expression long term memory systems involved in already expert enough players? I think during that incubation times, and if already adult and not yet, already expert, it matters to start separating things that can be, and having correct estimation of how much they are in random positions to be encountered in the wild of own future experience. We can't reboot into another parallel universe, and when young decide with such across universe "hindsight", to dedicate our youth or some serious morsel of our life early enough to serious chess, so that when at the same age, writing this thread, it would seem like motifs are not needed anymore. I think one can't take own present way of thinking as an expert as a model about how to learn to get to that stage. At least not about the parts that needs to be subconscious for performance efficiency, often in time control constraints.

But yes, there is a whole job remaining on the motif learning path, which is about planning with those, and how foggy that can get when not having had the correct flexibility about the disguise they might show up, and not right there in the current position face, but among the possible mind's eye future objectives that might look like one or many of those motifs or not some hybrid given the particular new position possible legal futures.

do i make sense. there is a need for dissection, and a need for recombination.. This is the rational approach to much of what is called reductionnist sciences. like molecular biology. And there was at time, where there was so much dissection going on, that yes, it was clouding the picture, and postponing the also needed integrative task.... back to the living systems and this whole organisms functionning in some ensemble of molecular mechanisms. Yet another analogy. I think it stands.

Lack of calculation depth is one of my serious deficiencies in chess.

No problem, we are all somewhere between no skill and perfect.

Another is that I regularly miss certain motifs, quite a few of them in fact.

I recommend working on these tactical motifs to begin with: the pin, skewer, fork, and discovered attack. Best tactics book that will raise you 2-400 points to if you are 1200 USCF or so, is Winning Chess, by Irving and Reinfeld.

Anyway.

An example of the latter is me failing to see or forgetting to look for trapped enemy pieces. I am sure there are many motifs I am poor at. I feel I need to train at motifs and increasing my depth of calculation.

Understandable. Again I would say practice tactics - and I would as well add a second book; this one in itself indespensible to all chess libraries:

Chess; 5,333 + 1 checkmates combinations and games
(I got the title wrong ...)
By Lazlo Polgar (a master)
Who was father to the Polgar
Sisters including Judith Polgar;
Frequent top ten, etc, player.

So yeah it's a great book and beyond indespensible.

2-3k mates in 2, etc.

I feel that puzzle streaks and mixed puzzles have been useful to a point but they jump around too much and I am not getting reinforcement for one idea

Yes, hese tactics are good. I would structure practice around all three: Puzzles, Storm and Streak.
Each have their advantages and all. But you should also focus your study on masters, grandmasters, and world champions. Only these have taken hess to it's pinnacle heights and can yeah you anything pure and correct about chess.
Even Kasparov didn't play perfect chess, but his miniatures, etc are arguably the closest you have to perfect human performance in chess.

/ one motif at a time. Do I need targeted training in mates and motifs one at a time?

I would say focus on tactics and also make other forays into chess theory. (Openings, middle games, etc. - Throw it all into the mix.

Then maybe I can focus and try to see deeper into one idea / one motif at a time. Will this help me?

Yes.
There is a lot of support to this idea of learning:
Focus on one idea, or one skill at a time.
However the second thing is just learn how to learn, as much as possible.
In chess this is deep study and practice.

Good luck!!

You know the funny part is you Completely know what the problem is and you just gave yourself the solutions without even knowing.