Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

lichess.org
Donate

Science of Chess - Candidate Moves, David Marr, and why it's so hard to be good.

@Tuck_Fheory for sure, the kids have some advantage. Even speed demon Nakamura already concedes this to the kids. I try to hold my own though, hehe. But age is catching up.

On a side note, on kids, the current crop is great. Even their classical games are fighting games, as seen in Prague masters.

@Tuck_Fheory for sure, the kids have some advantage. Even speed demon Nakamura already concedes this to the kids. I try to hold my own though, hehe. But age is catching up. On a side note, on kids, the current crop is great. Even their classical games are fighting games, as seen in Prague masters.

@GnocchiPup The next generation/s are going to raise hell! Chess is now accessible Worldwide & increasing in popularity, so the standard is getting stronger & stronger.
'The kids' are only messing with the top engine lines, so they don't even have to study the entire chess lexicon like most traditional players.
We are doomed lol

@GnocchiPup The next generation/s are going to raise hell! Chess is now accessible Worldwide & increasing in popularity, so the standard is getting stronger & stronger. 'The kids' are only messing with the top engine lines, so they don't even have to study the entire chess lexicon like most traditional players. We are doomed lol

@GnocchiPup said in #34:

@Graque

yes - but with some modifications ondoing puzzles.

So do puzzles on easiest difficulty, but click "flip board" before doing each one? Is the idea that you get used to looking for tactics from your opponent's point of view?

BTW, a couple days ago I did some puzzles on Easiest. I lost 280 points, because I would get +1 for a correct one, and -80 for a missed one! I already do tactics on on Easy usually, but when I tried Easiest the temptation to go fast was really strong for me.

@GnocchiPup said in #34: > @Graque > > yes - but with some modifications ondoing puzzles. So do puzzles on easiest difficulty, but click "flip board" before doing each one? Is the idea that you get used to looking for tactics from your opponent's point of view? BTW, a couple days ago I did some puzzles on Easiest. I lost 280 points, because I would get +1 for a correct one, and -80 for a missed one! I already do tactics on on Easy usually, but when I tried Easiest the temptation to go fast was really strong for me.

@graque
Yep flip board and move one ply back, pretend the move wasn't played yet. You're correct, the objective is to avoid blunders. Since it's on easiest, if this was a real game your opponent will most likely see it if you made the blunder. So the simple training is to see these things quicker. I used to do this 3x a week. I've stopped recently and my horrible blunders are back.
Around 2 to 3 perfect lines per session, or 20 to 36 puzzles.

The easiest non flipped version is for pattern recognition and good habits. Particularly the part where you need to get it perfect. As long as you can't do 2 to 3 lines straight perfect, you have bad habits you need to overcome. The points penalty somehow helps in making this more effective. I used to do this 2x a week but I've skipped a few weeks now. Similarly, I've been missing a lot of simple things in-game lately.

To summarize
1.easiest mode, since we're not doing calculation exercises, this is for pattern recognition.
2.Normal and flipped so we get used to it for us and for opponents (avoid blunders).
3 perfect requirement, for good habits development.

@graque Yep flip board and move one ply back, pretend the move wasn't played yet. You're correct, the objective is to avoid blunders. Since it's on easiest, if this was a real game your opponent will most likely see it if you made the blunder. So the simple training is to see these things quicker. I used to do this 3x a week. I've stopped recently and my horrible blunders are back. Around 2 to 3 perfect lines per session, or 20 to 36 puzzles. The easiest non flipped version is for pattern recognition and good habits. Particularly the part where you need to get it perfect. As long as you can't do 2 to 3 lines straight perfect, you have bad habits you need to overcome. The points penalty somehow helps in making this more effective. I used to do this 2x a week but I've skipped a few weeks now. Similarly, I've been missing a lot of simple things in-game lately. To summarize 1.easiest mode, since we're not doing calculation exercises, this is for pattern recognition. 2.Normal and flipped so we get used to it for us and for opponents (avoid blunders). 3 perfect requirement, for good habits development.

@GnocchiPup said in #44:

To summarize
1.easiest mode, since we're not doing calculation exercises, this is for pattern recognition.
2.Normal and flipped so we get used to it for us and for opponents (avoid blunders).
3 perfect requirement, for good habits development.

I tried it yesterday and this is a great idea! It's similar to a Dan Heisman Is Your Move Safe book https://www.amazon.com/Your-Move-Safe-Dan-Heisman/dp/1936277719 which I had on my reading list for someday. As Heisman points out, since a good opponent will rarely allow an immediate tactical combination, in a game, most searching for tactics will be making sure that candidate moves don't allow your opponent a combination. The flipped way of playing puzzles is more similar to playing a game than the regular way.

So anyway, I plan to add this to my daily routine. Thanks!

Unfortunately, I need to calculate even on easiest difficulty, so I'm not sure the calculation vs pattern recognition aspect works for me. Perhaps something is wrong with my pattern recognition. If I did it on rated, I would just continue to lose points forever, and wouldn't be able to access normal puzzles. For instance, today during a puzzle storm I spent 50 sec trying to solve a 1000-level puzzle before giving up, and the answer was just a simple knight fork, with nothing tricky about it. Easiest mode is like +1 per success / -80 for failure right? So you need to be able to do about 6-7 lines correct in a row on average, and I just don't think I would be able to do that, no matter what the difficulty of the puzzle.

@GnocchiPup said in #44: > To summarize > 1.easiest mode, since we're not doing calculation exercises, this is for pattern recognition. > 2.Normal and flipped so we get used to it for us and for opponents (avoid blunders). > 3 perfect requirement, for good habits development. I tried it yesterday and this is a great idea! It's similar to a Dan Heisman _Is Your Move Safe_ book https://www.amazon.com/Your-Move-Safe-Dan-Heisman/dp/1936277719 which I had on my reading list for someday. As Heisman points out, since a good opponent will rarely allow an immediate tactical combination, in a game, most searching for tactics will be making sure that candidate moves don't allow your opponent a combination. The flipped way of playing puzzles is more similar to playing a game than the regular way. So anyway, I plan to add this to my daily routine. Thanks! Unfortunately, I need to calculate even on easiest difficulty, so I'm not sure the calculation vs pattern recognition aspect works for me. Perhaps something is wrong with my pattern recognition. If I did it on rated, I would just continue to lose points forever, and wouldn't be able to access normal puzzles. For instance, today during a puzzle storm I spent 50 sec trying to solve a 1000-level puzzle before giving up, and the answer was just a simple knight fork, with nothing tricky about it. Easiest mode is like +1 per success / -80 for failure right? So you need to be able to do about 6-7 lines correct in a row on average, and I just don't think I would be able to do that, no matter what the difficulty of the puzzle.

@Graque
Dan is the man!
The best thing I learned from him is skills vs knowledge. Like most everyone, I wanted to do knowledge work. He set me on the right path with his is your move safe videos. And other thought process videos.

From him I realized my skills were just terrible.

I was in the same boat, I couldn't figure out why I had a lot of blind spots.

@Graque Dan is the man! The best thing I learned from him is skills vs knowledge. Like most everyone, I wanted to do knowledge work. He set me on the right path with his is your move safe videos. And other thought process videos. From him I realized my skills were just terrible. I was in the same boat, I couldn't figure out why I had a lot of blind spots.

@GnocchiPup said in #46:

I was in the same boat, I couldn't figure out why I had a lot of blind spots.

So how did you get rid of (most of) your blindspots? Did you just do a ton of puzzles (including the exercise you just described), and your blindspots slowly went away?

@GnocchiPup said in #46: > I was in the same boat, I couldn't figure out why I had a lot of blind spots. So how did you get rid of (most of) your blindspots? Did you just do a ton of puzzles (including the exercise you just described), and your blindspots slowly went away?

@Graque
I traced the root cause of my blind spot. The main one is that I'm just not looking. What usually happens because I played so many online fast games is that my brain tried to do thought process shortcuts. The worst of which is the first thing I do when it's my move or for puzzles is I immediately look into a good looking move without looking at all my available moves first. And then I watched a couple of YouTube videos of a guy playing chess with an eye tracker and Nakamura also doing the same. Watching the guy was painful. You might want to look for it. The best part was when he was so focused on h4 h5 spot, his eyes just wasn't moving around the board. And then I thought, lol, that's also how I play.

So I thought of an exercise which would force me to look at all my moves first. What else, but legal move counting? I have to admit to myself I needed to go back to square one, as if I don't know how to play chess.

At this point my lichess is 1900 and chesscom puzzle rush is 32. Then I did 100 positions of legal move counting. Discovered I had a lot of various blind spots. Moves that my brain automatically blocked, I literally thought the moves didn't exist.

After doing this, that's when I made my breakthroughs. 33 to 34 puzzle rush. Getting to 30+ puzzle rush also became normal. Current record is 42. That's also when I got to 2k lichess for all time controls.

But when I did all 4 exercises regularly, I improved a bit more. Rapid 2100.

So yes, it's legal move counting. And I made a pdf for myself with positions and solutions at the end. Which I can give if you're interested.

@Graque I traced the root cause of my blind spot. The main one is that I'm just not looking. What usually happens because I played so many online fast games is that my brain tried to do thought process shortcuts. The worst of which is the first thing I do when it's my move or for puzzles is I immediately look into a good looking move without looking at all my available moves first. And then I watched a couple of YouTube videos of a guy playing chess with an eye tracker and Nakamura also doing the same. Watching the guy was painful. You might want to look for it. The best part was when he was so focused on h4 h5 spot, his eyes just wasn't moving around the board. And then I thought, lol, that's also how I play. So I thought of an exercise which would force me to look at all my moves first. What else, but legal move counting? I have to admit to myself I needed to go back to square one, as if I don't know how to play chess. At this point my lichess is 1900 and chesscom puzzle rush is 32. Then I did 100 positions of legal move counting. Discovered I had a lot of various blind spots. Moves that my brain automatically blocked, I literally thought the moves didn't exist. After doing this, that's when I made my breakthroughs. 33 to 34 puzzle rush. Getting to 30+ puzzle rush also became normal. Current record is 42. That's also when I got to 2k lichess for all time controls. But when I did all 4 exercises regularly, I improved a bit more. Rapid 2100. So yes, it's legal move counting. And I made a pdf for myself with positions and solutions at the end. Which I can give if you're interested.

@GnocchiPup said in #48:

@Graque
The worst of which is the first thing I do when it's my move or for puzzles is I immediately look into a good looking move without looking at all my available moves first. ...

So I thought of an exercise which would force me to look at all my moves first. What else, but legal move counting? I have to admit to myself I needed to go back to square one, as if I don't know how to play chess.

I must have the same issue! Somehow I still don't know how the knight moves despite tens of thousands of puzzles; my queen may only move in 6 directions instead of the full 8; my bishops peter out after 3-4 moves along a diagonal.

Could it work to pull up an "easiest" puzzle, and before you solve it, go through each piece and just count how many legal moves each piece has? I wonder if it's that important to verify whether the number is right (as we're not trying to practice arithmetic here), or if just the practice of noting each square is sufficient.

Another idea could be to note the possible squares of a piece, then click the piece and check whether all the squares you noted are highlighted.

@GnocchiPup said in #48: > @Graque > The worst of which is the first thing I do when it's my move or for puzzles is I immediately look into a good looking move without looking at all my available moves first. ... > > So I thought of an exercise which would force me to look at all my moves first. What else, but legal move counting? I have to admit to myself I needed to go back to square one, as if I don't know how to play chess. I must have the same issue! Somehow I still don't know how the knight moves despite tens of thousands of puzzles; my queen may only move in 6 directions instead of the full 8; my bishops peter out after 3-4 moves along a diagonal. Could it work to pull up an "easiest" puzzle, and before you solve it, go through each piece and just count how many legal moves each piece has? I wonder if it's that important to verify whether the number is right (as we're not trying to practice arithmetic here), or if just the practice of noting each square is sufficient. Another idea could be to note the possible squares of a piece, then click the piece and check whether all the squares you noted are highlighted.

@GnocchiPup said in #48:
@Graque said in #49:

The discussion thread above by Graque and Gnocchipup is brilliant and indeed critical for adult chess improvers.

The distinction made above between knowledge and skills is fundamental. As adults, we are used to having the mentally embedded and internally automated skills (procedural fluency) needed for our work. We take our current basic and advanced skills for granted (for example our proficiency in literacy and numeracy developed from grade1 to university) and we seek to increase our knowledge in our work spheres. Then we try to learn chess as adults and think it is all about chess knowledge when really for us it first is (and should be) about acquiring the basic "fluency" skills to a very reliable level first.

I am interested in the basic exercises I should do. There are some great ideas above.

  1. Legal Move Counting.

What is the most practical way of doing this exercise? Clearly the counting is a metric to check that I missed nothing. The intention is to get oneself able to see every possible move as rapidly as possible. We need to meet the metric AND the intention or goal. The goal is to embed rapid, accurate perception/awareness of all legal moves in the position. Embedding rapid perception of all legal moves properly would actually highlight standardly legal but illegal or inadvisable moves in the position (absolute and relative pins, hanging pieces) at the same time.

2 Easiest puzzles.

Should I do these from my side or from opponent's side or both? Whose move should it be in each case? I don't quite understand this and I did not quite understand what was happening in the demo video.

On further thought, it seems to me you are advocating:

(a) set up on easiest puzzles (obvious enough)
(b) flip the board and back track one move so your opponents move is highlighted but not made
(c) figure out your whole sequence from that side, make the opponent's last move by forward arrow and then make all your predetermined moves rapidly on a sort of honour system. Don't pause to think again. Have the sequence all in your mind and move, move, move quickly as necessary depending on the revealed length of the puzzle.

Is this the method you have in mind? It feels weird but I can imagine it might help. Not sure why it would help though. I have a weird perception problem with the flipping of puzzles anyway. Sometimes when the colour I have in a puzzle changes with the next puzzle, I can forget which way each colour's pawns are going. I can even start thinking some opposite colour pieces are mine and vice versa. Weird right? So I fear this training method might totally confuse me, though I can understand the need to be able to see your opponent's game and moves from his side. Another question, are we allowed to flip sides in a game to see opponent's game from his side?

  1. The other two types of exercises - what were these? I will double check all posts but a quick heads-up would help too.

In conclusion, these exercises may well help. I would certainly like to try them. I think these discussions could help our researcher too. They may suggest various things like new perception tests to find what people are noticing or not noticing, especially amid clutter or "noise".

@GnocchiPup said in #48: @Graque said in #49: The discussion thread above by Graque and Gnocchipup is brilliant and indeed critical for adult chess improvers. The distinction made above between knowledge and skills is fundamental. As adults, we are used to having the mentally embedded and internally automated skills (procedural fluency) needed for our work. We take our current basic and advanced skills for granted (for example our proficiency in literacy and numeracy developed from grade1 to university) and we seek to increase our knowledge in our work spheres. Then we try to learn chess as adults and think it is all about chess knowledge when really for us it first is (and should be) about acquiring the basic "fluency" skills to a very reliable level first. I am interested in the basic exercises I should do. There are some great ideas above. 1. Legal Move Counting. What is the most practical way of doing this exercise? Clearly the counting is a metric to check that I missed nothing. The intention is to get oneself able to see every possible move as rapidly as possible. We need to meet the metric AND the intention or goal. The goal is to embed rapid, accurate perception/awareness of all legal moves in the position. Embedding rapid perception of all legal moves properly would actually highlight standardly legal but illegal or inadvisable moves in the position (absolute and relative pins, hanging pieces) at the same time. 2 Easiest puzzles. Should I do these from my side or from opponent's side or both? Whose move should it be in each case? I don't quite understand this and I did not quite understand what was happening in the demo video. On further thought, it seems to me you are advocating: (a) set up on easiest puzzles (obvious enough) (b) flip the board and back track one move so your opponents move is highlighted but not made (c) figure out your whole sequence from that side, make the opponent's last move by forward arrow and then make all your predetermined moves rapidly on a sort of honour system. Don't pause to think again. Have the sequence all in your mind and move, move, move quickly as necessary depending on the revealed length of the puzzle. Is this the method you have in mind? It feels weird but I can imagine it might help. Not sure why it would help though. I have a weird perception problem with the flipping of puzzles anyway. Sometimes when the colour I have in a puzzle changes with the next puzzle, I can forget which way each colour's pawns are going. I can even start thinking some opposite colour pieces are mine and vice versa. Weird right? So I fear this training method might totally confuse me, though I can understand the need to be able to see your opponent's game and moves from his side. Another question, are we allowed to flip sides in a game to see opponent's game from his side? 3. The other two types of exercises - what were these? I will double check all posts but a quick heads-up would help too. In conclusion, these exercises may well help. I would certainly like to try them. I think these discussions could help our researcher too. They may suggest various things like new perception tests to find what people are noticing or not noticing, especially amid clutter or "noise".