For example:
1. A systematic examination and evaluation of data or information, by breaking it into its component parts to uncover their interrelationships. Opposite of synthesis. 2. An examination of data and facts to uncover and understand cause-effect relationships, thus providing basis for problem solving and decision making.
Would anyone like to comment on these questions? Any insights or ideas of how these things are applied in chess? Whether they are different or if calculation , analysis, synthesis, evaluation is the same in chess as it is in philosophy or mathematics ...
Analysis is study of a position to determine what is the right way to play it. It involves calculation and evaluation.
Calculation is a process of selecting candidate moves, then opposing candidate moves in reply and so on followed by evaluation of the position.
Evaluation is determining if a position is won, drawn, or lost. It involves counting material, but also king security, pawn structure, placement of pieces.
How we think in chess is partly analysis, calculation and evaluation, but probably even more pattern recognition: transposing ideas from known positions. Somebody said the strength of a player is directly linked to the number of positions he recognises. The positions can come from own games, grandmaster games, ...
Beginners have 1000 chunks, experts 10k, GMs 50k, MC 100k.
They enable you to calculate more effective and efficient, yet energy-saving. Often you can „Move First Think Later“.
If you don’t like the terminus technicus „chunk“ call it experience, patterns, whatever.
PS: book recommendation, MFTL. About 15 assorted topics, mainly how our brain works.
what means MFTL?
We would to say 'pattern recognition' = 'synthesis'?
There is a chess book named „Move First Think Later“. I guess that's what means MFTL.
I suggest synthesis is the final result of analysis or systematic examination. Our final conclusion of the position.
In Russian there is the word приём instead of pattern. It can be translated as method or approach. In the end this means each and every method of playing you learn. For example that in the beginning we fight for the center and develop pieces. So just by this приём you can evaluate a beginners play as bad, when he plays 1.h4 2.Nh3. Bringing Rook to the 7th rank in an endgame is a приём. Or creating a pawn weakness and then putting pressure on it. The same for tactics, a simple knight fork is a приём. With time it's becoming more and more subtle, there are so many ideas and counter ideas to handle a position.
So analyzing a position means putting together all the приёмs that you have in store for this position. Calculating concretely if they work out well here or not.
Thank you TPR and the later replies. Very helpful.
I tend to use the word "evaluate" when talking about the current status of a chess position. A chess position might be better for one side or equal.
"Analysis" is retrospective. This is deciding after a game is complete which move was worthy and where the text might be improved -> based on evaluation.
Calculation - the process of creating a chain or several chains of moves that have not yet been played. The moves in the chain are evaluated in real time at the players current understanding of evaluation - and a move is chosen.
The idea of accurate evaluation is a critical building block to playing high level chess. Analysis improves our evaluation skills in the moment. Calculation shows us our current ability to evaluate unplayed moves.
In the book 'Elements of Positional Evaluation', Dan Heisman, we find some scientific ideas about which elements we need consider when judging a position.
This book is interesting because the author considers some features such as Space and Development to be pseudo-elements.
The elements considered concrete are:
Flexibility, Mobility, Vulnerability, Center Control, Piece Coordination, Time and Speed.
Howrever, this scientific approach is more suitable for engines than for humans.
About 'move first, think after', I read a few pages of this book. He showed me the importance of the practical side in chess.
In a tactical problem the author makes the following comment: my students solve this problem without even realizing that White was one piece down. When I look the position my surprise was "wow, that is true!".
We try solve concrete problems. Anyone when watch Nakamura lives can see now he think. Naka make evaluations based in concrete ideas (pointing with arrows). They dont care if white or black is better, he just play against opponent resources and make use of own resources. They also exclam sometimes: "what? or, I dont believe it, I dont believe it" because he dont know exactilly if that attack works, but bet it no. He also is extremally prophylactic and make mention on which squares his pieces protect against opponent invasions...
Weak players cant point all resources available... For me, for example, it is hard find what to do until the position are more concrete where I know exactilly what I need avoid or try. In long games I can find the resources, but it's an analysis I consider 'brute force'.
Yes.. but concrete is not flexible. Just pointing that out for the other readers. Thx will :D
Calculation = Estimating by counting. (Tempos to reach objective)
Analysis= Logical decision by examining alternate lines. (Variants)
Evaluation = Judgment call to play a position. (Rules of thumb, Principles)
Synthesis = Combination of ideas. (Tactical combinations, Patterns)
Mobility is the key to capturing material.
Active is doing something for an advantage.
Skim for mobility; Scan for activity; Pinpoint most useful place for pieces; Resign with finesse.
