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

@Triangel I think the training wheels analogy is better than the math analogy with regard to rules-of-thumb in chess. Another analogy would be learning to pronounce words by the phonetic method. You don't use that after you know how to pronounce the word. Indeed, the phonetic method is criticized because there are so many exceptions. The critics say it is better to just say the word to the student and have them repeat it. I think you understand what I was saying.

@Triangel Your post #29 is exactly what I had in mind, and it also describes my own experiences. It's not always how it works, but I think you've described the typical situation near-perfectly.

As for "randomness": you didn't consider h6. Why not? One might say that it's a result of your past experiences, etc., but I think on a different day, or even at a different time of day, or perhaps faced with the same position in a different time control, you would consider h6.

My point is that set of moves which your intuition might suggest is usually larger than the set of moves it actually does suggest. That's the "random" element which it seems very difficult to overcome, probably because it depends on your attention span, what you were thinking about on previous moves, your mood, the result of your immediately previous game (for example, if you lost the previous game then you might be more willing to accept a draw in the current game) - things it is very hard to control or maintain consciousness of.

@Triangel
You are spot on.
¨
But on the other side, I will go further than @jomega, language is more than a useful tool for teaching the concepts,
It is also a way of making sense of the position. MFTL would call this rubbish, this is not the way your mind works, but sometimes I get stuck and then I need a different path from how my mind usually works.

@biscuitfiend
I don't follow, just because you can't consciously see the pattern it doesn't make it random.

@BlackSalt It's random in the sense that you have little control over which moves your intuition suggests. You could systematically check all moves in a given position and see which ones your intuition deems reasonable; but I think when Carlsen or Kramnik describe their thought process as "random", they mean precisely that they don't do that. That's certainly what I mean. If nothing else, it would be a waste of time.

Side note: At least for me, this also holds especially true in the middle of visualising a sequence of moves. It's hard to hold several positions in your head; at some point, it's almost impossible (for most, but I'm sure not all, humans) to check things systematically.

Jomega is spot on on point number 28. Others hit the root of the topic quite nicely as well. I would also say what Jomega said is very applicable to learning in general.

@Sarg0n, #3: "As far as I am concerned: I have learned how chess (training) really works way too late."

Why do you think it's too late?

@SeniorPatzer Don't listen to him!

I still like top down theories
Common sense - Lasker
Fundamentals - Capablanca
System - Nimzovich
Logic - Karpov
Method - Dorfman
Nothing is as practical as a good theory.