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

I quite agree almost entirely with what has been said in this thread already, but would like to mention that an interesting angle to approach the topic is that of the dichotomy between neural networks and traditional algorithm engines. Neural networks really are just computer emulated mammalian brains, and the fact that these things learn from chess games and not from being taught theory tells you that we as actual humans must learn in a similar way.

It brings to mind that one zugzwang game between Stockfish and Alphazero, wherein AlphaZero gets Stockfish into a completely stuck position, in which it looked as if Alphazero had calculated far deeper than Stockfish did. I believe Alphazero did not calculate farther than Stockfish, per se, but I believe it highlights the duality between human, position play and raw machine computation. Stockfish calculates like a beast, but AlphaZero really understands what Chess should "feel" like, and each have their merits, but AlphaZero also has some calculating power that is on comparable magnitude to Stockfish's.

As humans, we know what "feels" right in chess, but I believe our innate inability to calculate and see everymove is the main hindrance that we have against machines. But this is where theory and chess literature really has to help: I loved the earlier analogy about the Greek Gift, because I have noticed myself that I got noticeably better when I knew some moves were good in some positions if some criteria were met (learning Evan's Gambit has taught me a lot in this regard), and I believe this helps to ease the burden of computation, which is extremely important if you want to play good moves.

The general approach to getting better then is dead simple: look at master games for pattern recognition, practice engame, tactical, and checkmating MOTIFS/ PATTERNS with the main goal to ease computation, and do all this in conjunction with thorough practice.

@tpr studying classics if for sure helpful but there are points you do not consider when estimating worth Hendriks methods:

• good players probably do not even know why they made some move in non tactical situation. They just have exposed them to huge amount of games automating the situation analysis. This true for professionals of like experience nurse putting drip to old person with chalk hardened veins.. he/she can do it but can he/she explain it in a way so that this explanition would persion following the explanation would not need the huge amount just doing it to become proficient in the art.
• Hendriks is freekingly good player. We all plateu at something. No method will make Kasparovs out club players. estimate is that about 2% of tournament players reach NM level. out that very few reach FM and out those very few reach IM. So population chess players IM is clearly in top per mille
• quality of training method cannot be judged from success of the trainer. In sports very many top trainers did not reach top of the art. there logical reasons why it is so. Obvious one is that teaching is art of itself

Top down theories are a great help in non tactical situations.

"No method will make Kasparovs out club players."
Agreed, but I believe any dedicated adult can get to a title with time and hard work.

Some player again failed to score his last required IM norm.
A present grandmaster said: "If only I could teach my dog to move the pieces, I would make him an IM in 3 months"

Dad Polgar claimed he could make any kid to excell in either chess, mathematics, or classical music.
Some grandmasters called the Polgar sisters "trained dogs".

@tpr
I'm dissapointed by your last post.
Calling somebody trained dogs, just because they train hard is not ok.

As for hard work will get any adult to IM title, FIDE has a rating graph, show me examples. Otherwise that's just a myth.

In chess those old BS myths die extra hard.

I've been learning various things as an adult. Do you know how tiresome training becomes say >30 y.o.? Even if you have enough spare time, just talking biology? And how ineffective compared to youngsters?

The problem is that playing chess well is more a practical/procedural thingy instead of accumulating dry theoretical ("declarative") knowledge. The latter would be problematic enough, but in this practical respect kids outweigh adults even more...

Millions of players have noticed that there is something special about chess training. It is not as easy as those authors and trainers claim, in fact they are somewhat severely overrated. You have to train your brain with small chunks of chess and let it compose the whole stuff over years and decades. (bottom-up approach, see #1). There is no easy way from outside/above.

#44 Sorry, not my words, I only quote Kasparov.
#45 Yes, biology... Capablanca suffered from high blood pressure, Korchnoi from his eye sight. You have to be physically fit to sustain hours of concentration. Nimzovich, Botvinnik, Fischer and others stressed the importance of physical exercise for chess players. Most top grandmasters now have a physical coach.

Yes, training is more tiresome above 30 years, but I for example learned an entirely new and unrelated language when I was over 30. It can be done. It is not as fast as a kid immersed in the language, but on the other hand previous exposure to other languages, to grammar helps.

Of course playing chess is practical/procedural, but so is solving a differential equation, or writing a legal text, or playing music, or swimming, or riding a bicycle, or driving a car, flying an airplane... Almost nothing is dry theoretical declarative knowledge. Also Lasker stressed that people should not read his book, but work on it.

I would not toss away the wisdom of the old masters just because some IM tells us these are BS myths.

Many good thoughts here, indeed. Isn't it confusing sometimes to find this in the books about thinking in chess and having no real progress over all, is it?

I have an idea about this. If Kramnik talks about his thinking process as "random" (and if you check what's written about the meaning of this word here) and he is right and wrong. Before he uses this word he describes explicitly the evaluation of the position (who is attacking, where is he attacking) and this in not random. Then he starts "moving pieces" and calls this process random. This maybe right, it maybe his naming of the human borders in observing the own thinking process.

Is it helpful to speak from the calculation process as "random" if you discuss it? I doubt it. I prefer talking about today not observable processes, which may be random.

Is "the thought process" a helpful wording. Shouldn't we talk about aspects of the thought processes, should we? Is it the same looking for a chess or looking for a better square for a knight in a position with 28 pieces?

Every rule has it's domain. There's a german proverb: The one only having a hammer sees a nail in everything.

Sorry, i skipped all the posts but the first 2. Thanks @Sarg0n , for this stimulating pursuit of that thesis on chess thinking by .....

well, that is not made precise. but it is assumed. let's say any chess player that wants to improve its own chess playing ability.

I think the dichotomy between top-down versus bottom-up relation between compressing concepts (theory) and non-conscious internalization from practice, is an interesting one to make progress toward understanding chess as a whole, including how individuals play it and actually improve it.

I also agree that bottom-up will beat top-bottom always, as it is the experimental data that each individual is experiencing.

I do not agree, if that was implied, that the incomplete, partial, theoretical constructions have no value or interest, even toward one own improvement at playing. It just needs to have some method of adaptation.

There are 2 analogies that i can think of. Psychology (of the individual), and French grammar (I assume other languages too).

the grammar taught in schools, if I am not mistaken, is a recent (1800s) construction from the population evolved state of practiced spoken or written apparent rules, the fact that it is taught in a very centralized way may give the impression that it has always been the other way around (from Plato to you).

Freudian theories of individual psychology to modern psychology (at least in therapy). Both have held some complexity gathering (compressing the space of possibilities) statements, but the discovery process and its relation to empirical data has changed. At least, in therapeutic efficiency, but also with the notion of statistical basis, control experiments. The wheel of science was not complete in the psychoanalytic pioneers, it was stuck at half of it, the generation of hypothetical principles. The need for the art of therapy may have given it some shortcut to wide dissemination. I am not saying that none of the hypotheses were valid or not saying that they have no range of applicability in the art of therapy in general population. But having completed the wheel, in a methodical dialog between generating theory and adapting it to data, have helped bring psychology to a scientific aspiration.

that was for the scientific value of chess top level construction efforts. and the need to have some ever spinning wheel of adaptation for that set of constructs.

I also think there is pedagogical value in considering the historically generated hypotheses as they may provide some structure of efficient bottom practice efficiency.

how many games should I play from the same initial sequence of n moves? how wide should I practice withing a week, and from which n initial moves should I explore. what is the most efficient spacing for improving the speed of learning, and not building internalized rules that are biased toward an improper limited breath of seeds or too deep a starting point of exploration (those that learn by rote long sequences, may start building internal rules that do not apply elsewhere).

etc.. sorry if i use cryptic terminology, i can elaborate in personal discussions if needed, or even here for the curious).

having some theoretical scaffold may help toward teaching and preparing the terrain to make the most out of the bottom practice, but it needs to develop some method of flexibility with range of validity and or usefulness (toward scientific understanding of chess, and or individual player practice level improvement). The danger of dogma from the mystical aura that lurks around tournament, vestigial of medieval knight jousting, in my amused mind, or from grasping at the rarity of testing attempts is made by the op thesis. But the opposite, invalidating even the attempt to make principles and use them to guide ones evolution in practice (or just to understand all of chess, without necessity to internalize it, just for the scientific fun of it) is also a dogmatic approach, and might lead to the conclusion that any practice will improve one's ability. why not repeat ad infinitum the very same game, in the extreme case to make my point? if not, how to proceed?