1. i look the board
2. i see the problem
3. i don't care about the problem and i make the move that i like
4. i hope the adversary do not notice the problem
@nayf Maybe, trying to understand the intention is just an entry point into the thinking processes that some might call logical, a scaffolding, because of our limited brain ability and the power of story telling.
having some story of the game could keep some processes going, as long as one knows that is not the ultimate platonic best logical one, it might be the best way to keep focused on the game.
perhaps all the opening theories are like that. we stick close to the main variations (the story we tell ourselves), and try little steps out, knowing there might be some better logical possibilities there. that's very psychological, i know, i thought i would throw that. see what happens... and as always, i may be wrong, but how?
@dboing I agree that guessing the intention behind a move can be helpful on occasion. But as NM Overschlumpf himself observes above, there is also bluffing in chess. You can't know whether a move is a bluff (fake threat) or not unless you analyse the position PRIOR to determining the intention. Similarly, you can't know whether an adversary's move is sound or not unless you analyse the position INDEPENDENTLY of the intention. But knowing or guessing the intention, as you say, can direct your focus to a set of possibilities.
About openings I don't think I agree, as far as I understand what you said. The theory is pure logic and good players try to know theory as much as possible. One may avoid variations that are complex or less familiar, not because of any "story we tell ouselves" but simply due to lack of sufficient knowledge.
" The theory is pure logic and good players try to know theory as much as possible. One may avoid variations that are complex or less familiar, not because of any "story we tell ourselves" but simply due to lack of sufficient knowledge"
I am not agreeing with myself 100% either. But some 10% doubt area keeps lingering when i look at how the semantic slip from abusing the word "theory" in opening theory might have left the impression that there is any (some) method in opening discovery.
My understanding (debate splashing rock in the pond) is that it is purely historical exploration, that schools of thoughts and fashion have been the discovery engine influencing the usage of some opening over others, with hindsight "analyses" (stories, not pejorative, i think we work like that and like to look like adults so we put jargon on top).
I had hoped at some point that there were clear intentions and known correspondence between strategy principles or positional conventional descriptors (e.g. open versus closed game) and some structure in the multi-roots current bush of known openings.
I thought the ECO nomenclature was a methodical one, based on such correspondance, but any opening whatever the ECO prefix can end up into any position description or educated characterization that any other opening may also lead to, the ECO nomenclature is just for housekeeping, it is not semantically ordered. I must be wrong at some point, but pretty sure the labeling is not what I would call based on some theory of chess (i come from physical sciences, and may be narrow minded about the meaning of theory....). There might be a method in the ECO family assignments, probably keeping root and some branches, relationships with the pgns, but when transpositions show their faces, move sequence memory gets meaningless and what is guiding assignments. or are openings all last moves defined before any transposition might introduce conflict of designation.
I think there are no chess game principles or analytic hypothesis behind the groupings, that it is more botanical morphology labeling than physiology based ones. This is my doubt very developed. my average belief, does have to include that i may be making up hypotheses way too early in my chess world discovery. Maybe this is just a story to keep me interested in chess theory....
How do nms think so accurately and fast?/?? I saw a gm lose to an nm and the first idea from the gm was cheater. If the first thought is cheater, i dont think thats a clear indication of nms being suspected of very accurate play in general .
1- Make any non retarded move as quick as you can so that you flag your opponent.
I don't have a check list. And I believe check lists are only for beginners who have yet to come up with any form of thinking technique. I think I used a check list when I was first starting out and when I learned about tactics and some positional understanding I stopped the check lists.
I am in the process of following a GM suggestion of improving my thinking process though. And several titled players have released their own versions of a thinking process. For example: I don't use it, but Silman's HTRYC is a type of thinking process. Albeit very long winded process in my opinion. I like some of his ideas. Like, "Know when to calculate and when not to calculate."
@dboing (#14)
You probably already saw this but may find it interesting if you have not:
www.chessprogramming.org/ECO I think kung fu is the best example. I think bruce lee was the most successful , he said the kung fu schools were all dogmatic laden with useless and unnecessary bs movements. He said the most efficient action is either kick in the balls or kick the leg because its easiest to reach. Chess is like kung fu.
Also its too small sample but its also funny when you compare bruce lee to ther shaolin fighting monk bs in mma. Bruce was so fast, the other people couldn't even hit him. In his exhibition fights with renowned martial artist that did other stuff instead kung fu
