The art of doing nothing

Comments on https://lichess.org/@/schadenfreude__gut/blog/the-art-of-doing-nothing/S3kDTqDF

This Lichess study includes all the game analysis in the blog:

The late Michael Basman had a win over Ulf Andersson where he sat and waited wasting tempo in the middle game. Was incredible that he won.

Great article about an important topic, with good example positions!

Perhaps, it is about learning from doing nothing that doing nothing might accomplish something?

In other words, we might want to try not doing what we do without thinking about it anymore, which felt like the things we were doing. And had to be done, or we learned to consider it doing, in our experience set up to the time this curiosity fell on the desk of our chess trajectory.

And I definitely prefer the more interactive version of anything chessy coming my way.... I can ask myself and interfere with the narrative at my own pace and in directions that won't prevent me getting the content because the narrator would keep going despite my parsing method, about the chess (generally not responsive to my attempts to ask questions which I tried, and indeed, it is as if it was prerecorded and then propagated through the internet).

I appreciate the awareness of multiple learning or perceiving brain wiring. Putting this on my list of things to look at later. I appreciate the small games sizes. The arrows. I have not yet paid visual attention (somehow verbal and board thinking fight each other, I have to nibble the text when really thinking about chess, might be eye gaze thing, or verbal being intensive recruitment task.. I wish I could chew verbal and walk the board at the same time, so here I just fast read and flew by the blog boards, not even really thinking chess. but looking at blog plan, through its header choices. Just sharing my data point as learner, who find a lot of difficulty with chess sharing offers, and available tools to share them. Lichess having been a revelation to me with its interactive studies. But cramped annottion text, so the blogs might serve as a structuring ambient "space" of verbal sharing.

I think that while this seems to be about fast chess (where emerging strategies of slow chess might easily be made moot, like drill move sequences, but not being able to find our own way, if the otherside did not do the same (Idk, I imagine). I remember someone commenting about a game in bullet by Carlsen, where white kept cycling its knight for very many moves, and there was that theory (commenting, might have been a blog here), that it could be an actually board advantage as the other side might keep on its one sided plan etc.. So that some commitment imbalance might allow some thing .. I could not follow, just noticed it was argued as almost a viable plan, for it being in bullet. Me I am trying in correspondance, to make uninterprising pawn moves, to see if backrank defition of development is really development (kind of kidding but about that notion of avoiding tactical distractions too early).

One rank is not enough if the opponent keeps pusing with knights is my current patzer theory of losing, that way.

at move 31 in K-K match Rg3 and draw costs title due to game point behind

I prefer not to look at this guy's dirty feet.

The psychological effect of appearing to do nothing by shuffling or repeating can be very powerful against opponents who are in a worse position. This can also be summarised as "being patient", or even "maintaining the tension".

First it gives you more information on how your opponent is feeling about their position and secondly, it gives you more time to find an improved placement of your pieces to maintain the time and positional pressure against your opponent, while also reducing the risk of blundering away the advantage or win.

A third reason, related to the previous two reasons is that an opponent will also not be likely to understand your plan due to the ever slight shifts in the position. While you will know how close you are to a clear plan, but your opponent won't know that, and might even start feeling more confusion and nervousness as to how to proceed.

It also doesn't need to be from a winning position. Being slow and patient in defence during a critical moment can quite often allow for opportunities to find counter-play a few moves later.

@lollycopter said in #9:
Plenty agreeing with you.

full foresight chess problem is also my cursory (contact me if that resonate some, why would I say that, e.g.).
I am not aware of many people that consider this worthy of discussion or much thought.

but I have been wanting to not play like I have done for too long (nothing real chess ever, but still the usual few first moves and no other for long time.. and then tryhing other known still playable first four plies with some name.

I am cursious about the full foresifht chess problem from the very first initial condition, ooops standard position.

The existing knokweldge that keeps invading reall chess (social OTB events, lichess rated real time controls, or tournaments, all closed books, i.e. knowledge imbalance can certainly be a tempting game theory mixture strategy component, synergizing with time managment components). So, beside that sprawling noise in the real chess evolution.

Assume both players known the same amount of opening theory. to make a sane reason based discussion.

What about time control parament across all the categories of them. And your propositions/points/arugment that such battle of board commitment to reduced foresight difficulty, for both players, actually, if we drop the more difficult question of intent information uncertainty, and I suspect it is based on how chess has evovled in all its increasing exploration and accumulated discoveries, as hindsight theory wheel. Experience based learning, has a tendency to do that I think. (not sure).

But the way chess knowledge is exponentially being accumulated, has been predominently deep mainline variations at a time.

But ok. one can also make such arguments. I just like simpler alreayd difficult problems, and headaches are no fun.

Time control effect on your arguments or mine? Do you accept or only thing it is the cognnitive duress conditions of fast chess, where such strategy migth be significant explanation or even plan ideas about game trajectory until termination outcomes?

I now wonder if bullet and ultrabullet is not better than best games as chess mind food. They tend to make clearer questions more visible. Although, it might be it own complex problem to be selective about such games. Where things that would not work elsewhere can be actual seeing on the board a lot more loud than the non-visible implied sub-games of expert games.

more information in more exagerated board signals. They might even illustrate by contrasting explicit deliberate discussions, with expert willing to play with with us at that level, being their titles, not touting their titles to not participate in the explicit discussion. Those people exist, and we need to be nice to them, without dropping the stance that chess ought not to be accessible to reasoning with some common verifiable communication method.

In short. low level chess theory? Or fast chess theory? or is there some mind food for all paces of chessboard exploration and competition..

Sorry if I still don'T make sense. maybe 6th iteration. all intent on just asking you about time control parameter sensitivity of your points. All finding it needs my sauce before (I have limited control over what I think and write, i get surprised often about what comes out, often disappointed, but I do want to share my enthousiasm about all the possible questinos that are still open in chess, beyond win ratios, priority ambitions. I am too adult now to fool myself into aiming at such knowledge surfing (given how low level I am, I would be competing with such thing, and I find plenty of more open problems more intersting to chew on. Do you agree with the blog author statement that doing such shuffle is limite time control case (if i understood).

I guess the safe stance would be to say, that it depends on how long the delay toward putting some pressure away from backrank, and I guess that also means on center or extended center vertical pahts (files in inert words).