More Thoughts on Thought Process
I continue to review my thought process, because I think it continues to need refinement. I wish to pen here my thoughts on how I should spend my time each move:
1. Determine what type of move is needed:
a) Book move - make next book move
b) Other move - proceed to step two
2. Assess the position on the board
a) Tactics present, proceed to step 3
b) No tactics present, make strategic move
3. Determine if I need to attack or defend
a) If attack, look at lines with least complications first
b) If defend, look at lines creating most complications first
Ok, so that's nice and all, but I need to be more detailed (one of my major failings). Here we go:
On tactical moves:
a) Attempt to recall any relevant useful patterns
a1) If I can recall some, then generate a list of candidate moves that appear to "solve the puzzle." Calculate to determine the correct move.
a2) If none are recalled, then I must try to understand the position better. Generate a list of any candidates that appear to solve the puzzle. Calculate to see if any of my candidates DO actually solve the puzzle. If not, then find a move that maintains the current evaluation of the position.
On strategic moves:
a) Identify the strategic landmarks of the position
b) Develop a plan based on those landmarks
c) Identify candidate moves that appear to validate the plan
d) Calculate variations to see if the plan can be successfully implemented
d1) If not, then go back to b) and come up with a new plan and continue until a workable plan is identified
d2) If so, then make the correct move
1. Determine what type of move is needed:
a) Book move - make next book move
b) Other move - proceed to step two
2. Assess the position on the board
a) Tactics present, proceed to step 3
b) No tactics present, make strategic move
3. Determine if I need to attack or defend
a) If attack, look at lines with least complications first
b) If defend, look at lines creating most complications first
Ok, so that's nice and all, but I need to be more detailed (one of my major failings). Here we go:
On tactical moves:
a) Attempt to recall any relevant useful patterns
a1) If I can recall some, then generate a list of candidate moves that appear to "solve the puzzle." Calculate to determine the correct move.
a2) If none are recalled, then I must try to understand the position better. Generate a list of any candidates that appear to solve the puzzle. Calculate to see if any of my candidates DO actually solve the puzzle. If not, then find a move that maintains the current evaluation of the position.
On strategic moves:
a) Identify the strategic landmarks of the position
b) Develop a plan based on those landmarks
c) Identify candidate moves that appear to validate the plan
d) Calculate variations to see if the plan can be successfully implemented
d1) If not, then go back to b) and come up with a new plan and continue until a workable plan is identified
d2) If so, then make the correct move
posted by CelticDeath at 9:59 AM
7 Comments:
d3. Shake hands because your flag has fallen in better position?:)
Why look at less complications first when attacking, and more when defending?
It's something I picked up from Tisdall's Improve Your Chess Now. The way I understand it is to leverage the time control. It's in the attacker's best interests to win as easily as possible. It's in the defender's best interests to make the task of winning as difficult (and time-consuming) for the attacker.
Awe c'mon Tempo give my boy CD some slack. It wouldn't take long to go through this thought process. It just takes long to read it ;) My process is starting to formulate a little, and it is more centered around tactics. The ultimate difficulty is applying it EVERY move. As we all know, you can do everything right for ninety five percent of the game, but it's that one slip that costs you. For me, this is always on a tactical front rather than a strategical one.
logis, I would still classify counterattack as a form of defense. The basic question would be "are my opponent's threats more dangerous than my own?" If so, then I would need to explore the best way to defend against those threats. Counterattack would be one of the possibilities for defense.
Interesting, I like it.
It's the current state of my thought process, but even now I'm finding tweaks I need to make to it. For instance, I might want to stress that in purely tactical positions the Kotov Tree will generally be narrow and tall, whereas in purely strategic positions, the tree will generally be fat and squat.
Post a Comment
<< Home