Nice article, Junta. I like the part you mention early on about how this aspect of the game is a bit neglected by most conventional training (being very calculation heavy).
On a personal note - I think that this quick & simple decision making is something that I've definitely gotten better at compared to when I was around maybe 16 yrs old (and embarassingly a bit higher rated then). Had to override a lot of overly concrete tendencies that I developed from being a very tactically lopsided player.
Also look forward to seeing you down at the Gold Coast in a couple days!
Thanks Sam. Great that you've felt improvement in this area—with my time trouble issues, I'm clearly still focusing too much on 'good' moves rather than 'good enough'! It's funny how chess works—you might 'know' so much more and consciously improve some areas, but you might not play well as your past, ignorant self.
Yeah, 9 rounds over 5 days, should be a bit more sane compared to an event like the NSW open. Also looking forward to seeing you there!
I agree. However, then comes the next question : how do you develop your sense for good moves - ie. underlying chess principles :-) I remember when I was young, I read an article by GM Spraggett saying that you need to go over master games to learn "what good chess looks like". I'm convinced this is a good approach.
Good point, perceptions of and being able to find 'good moves' and 'good enough moves' vary! Yes, I agree going over games by stronger players, not always just blitzing through them but also going through them slowly, trying to guess their moves, is useful, though going through a lot relatively quickly could also be good for some players due to the sheer quantity.
There's also differences between say
- much stronger players in the present day: depending on level etc., may not be so useful as their level is too high
- slightly stronger players in the present day: could be more useful for study as just one step ahead of you rather than too many so easier to understand
- classics: can be arguments for and against studying these (against: not as relevant now, different to today's chess), I think they are still great as they are more instructive in some senses compared to more contemporary games between top players because nowadays everything is more concrete, older games between top players you can see their ideas actually being achieved a bit more 'completely' in an instructive manner.
A whole topic in itself, this studying games to 'learn what good chess looks like' :-)
This is brilliant stuff. Real food for thought.
Nice article, Junta. I like the part you mention early on about how this aspect of the game is a bit neglected by most conventional training (being very calculation heavy).
On a personal note - I think that this quick & simple decision making is something that I've definitely gotten better at compared to when I was around maybe 16 yrs old (and embarassingly a bit higher rated then). Had to override a lot of overly concrete tendencies that I developed from being a very tactically lopsided player.
Also look forward to seeing you down at the Gold Coast in a couple days!
Thanks Sam. Great that you've felt improvement in this area—with my time trouble issues, I'm clearly still focusing too much on 'good' moves rather than 'good enough'! It's funny how chess works—you might 'know' so much more and consciously improve some areas, but you might not play well as your past, ignorant self.
Yeah, 9 rounds over 5 days, should be a bit more sane compared to an event like the NSW open. Also looking forward to seeing you there!
I agree. However, then comes the next question : how do you develop your sense for good moves - ie. underlying chess principles :-) I remember when I was young, I read an article by GM Spraggett saying that you need to go over master games to learn "what good chess looks like". I'm convinced this is a good approach.
Good point, perceptions of and being able to find 'good moves' and 'good enough moves' vary! Yes, I agree going over games by stronger players, not always just blitzing through them but also going through them slowly, trying to guess their moves, is useful, though going through a lot relatively quickly could also be good for some players due to the sheer quantity.
There's also differences between say
- much stronger players in the present day: depending on level etc., may not be so useful as their level is too high
- slightly stronger players in the present day: could be more useful for study as just one step ahead of you rather than too many so easier to understand
- classics: can be arguments for and against studying these (against: not as relevant now, different to today's chess), I think they are still great as they are more instructive in some senses compared to more contemporary games between top players because nowadays everything is more concrete, older games between top players you can see their ideas actually being achieved a bit more 'completely' in an instructive manner.
A whole topic in itself, this studying games to 'learn what good chess looks like' :-)