Life In 19x19

RBerenguel wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:

John Fairbairn wrote:Just posted on ChessVibes where there is a link to a long interview with ex-World Championship challenger Boris Gelfand:

Kerans asked Gelfand about the technique of calculating variations, mentions Alexander Kotov's Think Like A Grandmaster, a book that is now somewhat controversial because e.g. Valery Beim and Vladimir Kramnik have stated that they don't think in “branches of trees” at all.


Gelfand concurred and added: “My search for moves is also chaotic."

Wasn't there some research done years ago that indicated that in terms of the calculation of variations, chess pros and experienced amateurs were about equal. The main difference was that the pros explored different variations.

Yup, I've read this "recently" (last year or so.) It either appears (as a reference) in Coyle's The Talent Code or Greene's Mastery.

Adding to that, pros skipped variations that were "clearly" (for them, well stoked in chunks already) useless, whereas amateurs had to analyse them. So, in terms of width both (may) explore the same, but the pro does it much faster (better pruning AND probably better speed of forecasting moves) and accurately (practice, practice, practice.)

John Fairbairn wrote:Just posted on ChessVibes where there is a link to a long interview with ex-World Championship challenger Boris Gelfand:

Kerans asked Gelfand about the technique of calculating variations, mentions Alexander Kotov's Think Like A Grandmaster, a book that is now somewhat controversial because e.g. Valery Beim and Vladimir Kramnik have stated that they don't think in “branches of trees” at all.


Gelfand concurred and added: “My search for moves is also chaotic."

This is interesting and - while disconcerting for those among us who advocate the analytical approach - surprisingly little surprising. I've been writing down my thought processes in my journal and I've acknowledged that even those times when I play a decent thinking game, I don't analyze at every move. That goes to tell me something: it's one thing to cure automatic or random play, but analyzing every move is just not natural and, by the (chess) pros not even desirable.

This leaves me with the question: even if the pros have a chaotic move search, should we necessarily have one as well, while in our learning stages? Or should we force ourselves into a more analytical mode first, to forget about the metrics later and allow the acquired knowledge to be approached by a faster regime in our brain?

John Fairbairn wrote:Just posted on ChessVibes where there is a link to a long interview with ex-World Championship challenger Boris Gelfand:

Kerans asked Gelfand about the technique of calculating variations, mentions Alexander Kotov's Think Like A Grandmaster, a book that is now somewhat controversial because e.g. Valery Beim and Vladimir Kramnik have stated that they don't think in “branches of trees” at all.


Gelfand concurred and added: “My search for moves is also chaotic."

This is interesting and - while disconcerting for those among us who advocate the analytical approach - surprisingly little surprising. I've been writing down my thought processes in my journal and I've acknowledged that even those times when I play a decent thinking game, I don't analyze at every move. That goes to tell me something: it's one thing to cure automatic or random play, but analyzing every move is just not natural and, by the (chess) pros not even desirable.

This leaves me with the question: even if the pros have a chaotic move search, should we necessarily have one as well, while in our learning stages? Or should we force ourselves into a more analytical mode first, to forget about the metrics later and allow the acquired knowledge to be approached by a faster regime in our brain?

Knotwilg wrote:This leaves me with the question: even if the pros have a chaotic move search, should we necessarily have one as well, while in our learning stages? Or should we force ourselves into a more analytical mode first, to forget about the metrics later and allow the acquired knowledge to be approached by a faster regime in our brain?

Well the statement is that pros know how to weed out useless plays because of their experience. That seems to presuppose that analytical thinking as a beginner is necessary, so as to gain that experience that can be later relied upon.

I do think there comes a point, though, where analysis turns into overanalysis. Analysis is good if a player is trying to learn or apply a proverb ("Should I hane at the head of two stones in this circumstance?"), or read out a life and death scenario, but beyond that I think it starts to become counterproductive. A player has to learn to gain confidence in their experience and intuition somehow.