This is a fantastic read and well written post. Thanks for sharing. I like the ideas presented here on thought process. I had been struggling with this myself as well. I will be incorporating a combination of the aforementioned above and look forward to finding out what works and what doesn't. Often I have found myself wandering and drifting. Time for a change.
Hi, @Nick Vasquez MD; I really appreciate your writing. You bring to all of your pieces a lovely combination of insightfulness and self-reflection. I also struggle with in-game thought process, and this article is a nice overview of some of the solutions that others have offered.
One comment about the "What was that?" approach. We need to be extra wary of categorizing a move too quickly. For example, I push a pawn and attack my opponent's Queen. He retreats the Queen. Obviously, a defensive move, right? Not necessarily. That Queen may pose some new threats from the square it landed on. In short, a single move can belong to multiple categories, and should be treated accordingly.
Thank you. That is perhaps the kindest comment I’ve gotten so far. Agree the “What was that” approach is the most simplistic of them all, but it’s at least a start for getting people to examine their opponents move. Thanks for reading!
It's really useful to have these options listed. I'll certainly try one of them, not yet sure which.
As a beginner, there's one thing I'd like to clarify: If I printed out a list and put it by the side of my computer (or on the wall of the room where I play) while playing an online game, I believe that would count as cheating. Am I correct? (But presumably it would be fine when playing something like chess.com's Daily Chess?) Can I assume that the checklist is something we store in our brain (at least when playing) rather than a physical thing that we can actually have with us?
That being said, I listed the "One question" version as a way to start building the habit. You try to consistently evaluate your opponent's move for what it changes. It's good enough for us improvers to just get used to that for a while, then it becomes automatic.
Your list omits the single most important book on the subject: "Thought and Choice in Chess" by Adriaan de Groot. This work is the basis for "Move First. Think Later" by Willy Hendriks. These books refute the principles espoused by the books in your list.
This is one of the best posts I’ve read covering an important aspect of chess. Very thorough and offers some great ideas to consider. Thanks for taking the time to put it together and share with us
I haven’t heard of the what was that-question. I am often discussing with my chess students how they can me aware of what their opponents are planning. And such a simple question is perhaps too simplifying, but in the stress of playing a whole game, the more elaborate check lists are often dropped or forgotten.
I would change the end a little to “...and is it a mistake?”
This is a fantastic read and well written post. Thanks for sharing. I like the ideas presented here on thought process. I had been struggling with this myself as well. I will be incorporating a combination of the aforementioned above and look forward to finding out what works and what doesn't. Often I have found myself wandering and drifting. Time for a change.
Thanks Nick! Please share if you want to others you might think would benefit
Already done. Shared in all my areas of social media and discord.
Thank you.
Hi, @Nick Vasquez MD; I really appreciate your writing. You bring to all of your pieces a lovely combination of insightfulness and self-reflection. I also struggle with in-game thought process, and this article is a nice overview of some of the solutions that others have offered.
One comment about the "What was that?" approach. We need to be extra wary of categorizing a move too quickly. For example, I push a pawn and attack my opponent's Queen. He retreats the Queen. Obviously, a defensive move, right? Not necessarily. That Queen may pose some new threats from the square it landed on. In short, a single move can belong to multiple categories, and should be treated accordingly.
Please keep up the great work!
Thank you. That is perhaps the kindest comment I’ve gotten so far. Agree the “What was that” approach is the most simplistic of them all, but it’s at least a start for getting people to examine their opponents move. Thanks for reading!
It's really useful to have these options listed. I'll certainly try one of them, not yet sure which.
As a beginner, there's one thing I'd like to clarify: If I printed out a list and put it by the side of my computer (or on the wall of the room where I play) while playing an online game, I believe that would count as cheating. Am I correct? (But presumably it would be fine when playing something like chess.com's Daily Chess?) Can I assume that the checklist is something we store in our brain (at least when playing) rather than a physical thing that we can actually have with us?
Yes, chess (especially online) is an honor system. Lichess (https://lichess.org/page/fair-play) explicitly lists any external assistance as against their Fair Play. Chess.com is less specific (https://www.chess.com/legal/fair-play) but I still think it's a good habit to get into.
That being said, I listed the "One question" version as a way to start building the habit. You try to consistently evaluate your opponent's move for what it changes. It's good enough for us improvers to just get used to that for a while, then it becomes automatic.
Your list omits the single most important book on the subject: "Thought and Choice in Chess" by Adriaan de Groot. This work is the basis for "Move First. Think Later" by Willy Hendriks. These books refute the principles espoused by the books in your list.
-ilan
Fair.
This is one of the best posts I’ve read covering an important aspect of chess. Very thorough and offers some great ideas to consider. Thanks for taking the time to put it together and share with us
Thanks!! Please share with anyone you think would enjoy it!
I haven’t heard of the what was that-question. I am often discussing with my chess students how they can me aware of what their opponents are planning. And such a simple question is perhaps too simplifying, but in the stress of playing a whole game, the more elaborate check lists are often dropped or forgotten.
I would change the end a little to “...and is it a mistake?”
That works! Thanks for reading!