Generic Thought Process vs. SCAN Method
Still mulling over my thought process in an effort to make sure I'm on the right track today, I did a small experiment. What I did was to compare my current thought process, which runs along the lines of Dan Heisman's Generic Thought Process, and Russell Black's SCAN Method of Analysis. What I did was to apply both methods to problems from Convekta's Strategy 2.0 software and compared the results.
First, I started with the SCAN method. I won't go in to the details of either method, as the interested reader can get those from the links provided above. In summary, though, the SCAN method looks at a typical position in steps. First, it looks at king safety. Next comes central control. Then follows analysis of pawn weaknesses, control of lines, and is followed by a comprehensive look at all moves. Finally, it considers pawn structure and piece placement to determine what type of move should be chosen (whether it should be a simple developing-type move or something that is more dynamic). I worked a few puzzles with this method and discovered that 1) it took a lot of time to implement (around 10 minutes or longer which is too long for my typical OTB games) and, more importantly, 2) I didn't arrive at the correct answer.
Then, I tried Dan Heisman's generic method. The basic idea of this method is to consider all forcing moves first (checks, captures, other threats). These are then analyzed and if nothing promising results from the analysis a developing or position-improving move is made. I used this method on another few positions and discovered here that Dan's method 1)took less time (around 5 minutes or so) and 2)I was able to select the first move with 100% accuracy (I did have some trouble working out the entire variation tree, but this is probably due to my lack of relative chess strength).
So, in conclusion, Dan Heisman's method seems to work best, at least for me.
First, I started with the SCAN method. I won't go in to the details of either method, as the interested reader can get those from the links provided above. In summary, though, the SCAN method looks at a typical position in steps. First, it looks at king safety. Next comes central control. Then follows analysis of pawn weaknesses, control of lines, and is followed by a comprehensive look at all moves. Finally, it considers pawn structure and piece placement to determine what type of move should be chosen (whether it should be a simple developing-type move or something that is more dynamic). I worked a few puzzles with this method and discovered that 1) it took a lot of time to implement (around 10 minutes or longer which is too long for my typical OTB games) and, more importantly, 2) I didn't arrive at the correct answer.
Then, I tried Dan Heisman's generic method. The basic idea of this method is to consider all forcing moves first (checks, captures, other threats). These are then analyzed and if nothing promising results from the analysis a developing or position-improving move is made. I used this method on another few positions and discovered here that Dan's method 1)took less time (around 5 minutes or so) and 2)I was able to select the first move with 100% accuracy (I did have some trouble working out the entire variation tree, but this is probably due to my lack of relative chess strength).
So, in conclusion, Dan Heisman's method seems to work best, at least for me.
posted by CelticDeath at 1:02 PM
7 Comments:
Interesting results, thanks for sharing. Have you considered Silman's technique? If I remember it correctly it seems similar to Dan's. I know I've got a copy laying around here somewhere if you're interested.
In the words of the immortal LaughIn "Veeeeery interesting." I also like Pandolfini's suggestions of:
1. Looking for your opponent's threats
2. Looking at your threats
3. Consider candidate moves
4. Look for anything you missed
Of course you wouldn't necessarily use it for doing drills but it helps with my OTB. You can find it in his Q&A Way articles.
PS
BTW, I hope you decide to join our team for the U1600 section! I think we are still looking for a name too if you have any ideas.
PS
fatboy, is the Silman technique the same thing as what's in Reassess Your Chess? I have read Reassess, although I want to re-read it as soon as I finish my De La Maza 7 Circles program. As I recall, he focuses on identifying imbalances. I think I need to do a refresher, but I won't be able to fit it in until the Circles are done.
pawn sensei, it looks like Pandolfini's suggestions are very similar to Dan's, but maybe watered down a bit. My FICS rating is 1708 right now, and I feel more comfortable at U1800 or higher for competition purposes. That's the category I'm in in Chessville's OCL and it seems to be just about right for me. So, unfortunately, I'll have to pass on the U1600, but if anyone wants to form an U1800 team I'll gladly take part.
An interesting posting. Thanks
Hey
I was just wondering how you found the SCAN process on the internet. I have tried to use a few times and found it a little to cumbersome, although there are useful concepts inside the process.
generalkaia
I had come across several months ago when I was looking for Internet resources on chess analysis. I just used Google.
Post a Comment
<< Home