18 Comments
User's avatar
Nick Vasquez, MD's avatar

I asked AI to summarize this post and this is what it gave me... much more succinct!

"Chess is a simple game of problem-solving, but difficult due to human tendency to rely on intuition and emotional decision-making. To improve, players should focus on “learning to see” all possible moves through consistent practice of simple tactics, rather than relying on modern engines for analysis. Analyzing games to understand weaknesses, opponent’s plans, and worst-placed pieces helps develop better decision-making skills."

Expand full comment
Nick Vasquez, MD's avatar

I’ll edit it to include the reference to Daniel Khanemans work on the two systems of though. Basically System 1 is intuition, System2 is analysis and calculated thought.

Expand full comment
Lindsay Edwards's avatar

Hey Nick, great piece (and thank you :)). I would recommend digging into the literature a bit regarding different cognitive systems. Kahneman's book is great, but it's having the effect of ossifying something that's actually a pretty active research topic. A different framing (but one that seems very relevant to chess) is model-free vs model-based reasoning, review here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982220309039

Expand full comment
Nick Vasquez, MD's avatar

Thanks!! I’ll check it out

Expand full comment
Jacob@qualitychess.co.uk's avatar

There are a few more points to "simple tactics" training.

It is the type of decisions you will make most of, thus you should be able to make them with confidence. Learning is knowing what to do and repeat it a lot.

Simple tactics played on the board may not be too common, but they are relevant on almost every move consideration. The faster we are at navigating them, the better our general thinking will be.

Pattern recognition. To have a strong active pattern recognition of small tactics, we need continuous practice. It is just about seeing them; they don't need to be worked out. Thus, quantity is also important.

Essentially, simple tactics and calculation are two different things to practice.

Yes, I am long winded at times. I am a writer. I prefer the medium where I can edit myself before passing on what I am saying :-). To me System 2 is "concentration".

Expand full comment
Nick Vasquez, MD's avatar

Thank you for taking the time to read and respond. I appreciate it very much.

I think I understand your point about training “simple tactics” as being good for both pattern recognition and decision making.

I’m curious about calculation. Is that different or is it the habit of seeing “all the moves for all the pieces”?

Expand full comment
Jacob@qualitychess.co.uk's avatar

That would be a far longer discussion. "Seeing" is a tool you use in calculation.

Good luck.

Expand full comment
Nick Vasquez, MD's avatar

Fair enough. Thanks again

Expand full comment
Rick's avatar

"To do this he recommends doing “basic, simple tactics” and writing down every single move you see."

Does this literally mean all the possible moves, including ones that are we can see are irrelevant to the puzzle? If a lot of pieces are on the board, that could take a lot of time for each puzzle.

Expand full comment
Southernrun's avatar

Another incredible post and references to some great finds to watch involving Jacob. It’s very refreshing to read and hear of his recommendation for the basic tactics and seeing these in order to progress. What a nice boost to motivate this ongoing process of improvement while having fun with the game. Thanks for the post

Expand full comment
Gus's avatar

always great material from you Dr. Vasquez... and I agree GM. Aagaard is one of the best if not the best chess logician/ pedagogues. I have almost all his books.. all I need to do is read them..:)

Expand full comment
Nick Vasquez, MD's avatar

I think just the relevant lines. He (I believe) just wants to make sure you’ve seen all the possible moves before you decide on a line. I often miss pawn breaks that change the pawn structure or clear a line for example

Expand full comment
John F. Foley's avatar

Thanks for synthesizing Jacob's thoughts! I had time to watch only one of his interviews, so your summary is very helpful.

Expand full comment
LHOOQ's avatar

"One source of the simple tactics is Lichess Puzzles but on easy mode. Turn off the rated button and select “Easy (-300)” level and just drill these puzzles repeatedly until you master seeing all the moves for all the pieces"

He said to do that once a week iirc. Not something you should do a lot of.

Expand full comment
Nick Vasquez, MD's avatar

Please see his comment below - he recommends doing this training repeatedly. “Mass repetition” or in his words “quantity matters”

Expand full comment
LHOOQ's avatar

Right, now go back and watch the segment of the video it came from. He specifically says it's something you should do "once a week" with the -300 setting.

You may be conflating what he is calling easy tactics with the -300 thing practice, because he calls things intermediate players solve easy. Example, I'm solving from a book for 1600 FIDE rated players, and I've seen Aagaard refer to that sort of stuff as easy.

Expand full comment
Nick Vasquez, MD's avatar

I’ll let Aagaard himself answer it.

“ There are a few more points to "simple tactics" training.

It is the type of decisions you will make most of, thus you should be able to make them with confidence. Learning is knowing what to do and repeat it a lot.

Simple tactics played on the board may not be too common, but they are relevant on almost every move consideration. The faster we are at navigating them, the better our general thinking will be.

Pattern recognition. To have a strong active pattern recognition of small tactics, we need continuous practice. It is just about seeing them; they don't need to be worked out. Thus, quantity is also important.”

Expand full comment
Audie's avatar

In a couple of places in this piece, you refer to "System 1" thinking, but I don't see where you have said what that is....

Expand full comment