On the Origin of Good Moves: A Skeptic's Guide at Getting Better • page 1/5 • General Chess Discussion • lichess.org

The famous eye-opener Move First Think Later has a successor by the same author Willy Hendriks:

On the Origin of Good Moves: A Skeptic's Guide at Getting Better

One Quote:

„I think this evolutionary perspective is a welcome correction to traditional chess thinking, both at the individual and the historical level. Chess theory is not the mother but the daughter of chess practice, and progress in the history of chess is mainly the result of the bottom-up accumulation of small bits of knowledge, not of some brilliant ‚top-down‘ theories. And on the individual level, this same accumulation is the motor of improvement and the source of understanding.“

The famous eye-opener Move First Think Later has a successor by the same author Willy Hendriks: On the Origin of Good Moves: A Skeptic's Guide at Getting Better One Quote: „I think this evolutionary perspective is a welcome correction to traditional chess thinking, both at the individual and the historical level. Chess theory is not the mother but the daughter of chess practice, and progress in the history of chess is mainly the result of the bottom-up accumulation of small bits of knowledge, not of some brilliant ‚top-down‘ theories. And on the individual level, this same accumulation is the motor of improvement and the source of understanding.“

tpr

#2

https://ratings.fide.com/profile/1000713
Why did not he got better/improved more himself?
I still like the top down theories of Lasker, Capablanca, Nimzovich better.

https://ratings.fide.com/profile/1000713 Why did not he got better/improved more himself? I still like the top down theories of Lasker, Capablanca, Nimzovich better.

CM Sarg0n

edited

#3

As far as I am concerned: I have learned how chess (training) really works way too late. I believed those old myths way too long. Probably Hendriks -yet an IM- as well?

LukaCro

#4

Hendriks was a real eye-opener for me. I am looking forward to this new book!

BlackSalt

#5

@tpr
True, but since you are following your own advice why haven’t you improved?

As for the different methodologies, I’m not going to put all my eggs in one basket

@tpr True, but since you are following your own advice why haven’t you improved? As for the different methodologies, I’m not going to put all my eggs in one basket

shreyas0402

#6

@tpr

Just curious, do you comment on everything?

@tpr Just curious, do you comment on everything?

tpr

#7

#5
I feel unqualified to write any chess book, My time of improvement is gone, I am on my downhill curve.
Anyway I value Lasker, Capablanca, Nimzovich, Kotov, Bronstein, Fischer, Kasparov, Dorfman above Hendriks, Silman, Heisman.

#5 I feel unqualified to write any chess book, My time of improvement is gone, I am on my downhill curve. Anyway I value Lasker, Capablanca, Nimzovich, Kotov, Bronstein, Fischer, Kasparov, Dorfman above Hendriks, Silman, Heisman.

BlackSalt

#8

@tpr
Downhill curve, implies that the result on chess board is influenced by other factors than the approach to chess. And I kind of agree, I haven't seen any adult beginner getting titles. And that would also explain why Hendriks can't just become a world champion.

As from where to derrive the most value, I don't know. I like Silman and I like Hendriks, the rest I haven't followed.

@tpr Downhill curve, implies that the result on chess board is influenced by other factors than the approach to chess. And I kind of agree, I haven't seen any adult beginner getting titles. And that would also explain why Hendriks can't just become a world champion. As from where to derrive the most value, I don't know. I like Silman and I like Hendriks, the rest I haven't followed.

CM Sarg0n

edited

#9

The old masters played really well but they were horrible teachers. I like Carlsen and Kramnik describing their thinking as random because it is IMHO. Often you see the best move without lists, candidate moves, counting material. Believe in good moves but don't believe those old masters's tailor-made stories, made with hindsight.

biscuitfiend

#10

@Sarg0n I agree. It doesn't make their written works worthless, not by any stretch. But every chess beginner should be reminded, fairly early on, that analysis you read in books, is almost always the end result of a post-game analysis session and an editing process, at the very least. So it is not a great example of how to actually think at the board; it only helps you to understand the moves in front of you.

Of course, the next natural question is "well, how should you think at the board?". I guess that's what Hendriks is trying to answer.

@Sarg0n I agree. It doesn't make their written works worthless, not by any stretch. But every chess beginner should be reminded, fairly early on, that analysis you read in books, is almost always the end result of a post-game analysis session and an editing process, at the very least. So it is not a great example of how to actually think at the board; it only helps you to understand the moves in front of you. Of course, the next natural question is "well, how should you think at the board?". I guess that's what Hendriks is trying to answer.