Move First, Think Later by willy Hendriks

There is this book you may have heard of it. Called Move First, Think Later by dutch master Willy Hendriks. In this book he says that most of the instructional material in chess is all bunk. One never thinks in this way. One thinks of concrete moves and only then later comes up with verbal explanations to back up their move. He says that the only way to improve your chess is to force feed yourself tons of chess theory and then when you are at the board you will remember something from what you learned.It made a lost of sense to me when I was reading it. Is anyone else aware of it and what are your opinions.

I haven't read the book, I'll just talk about the concept.

Sure a lot of verbal explanations are inexact, and it would be terribly cumbersome to play always talking to yourself, never just analyzing, but I think the point of verbal instruction is to plant seeds that later sprout as you play and analyze quietly.

Even so, some verbal explanations are the best way. For example a GM might say he moved a pawn because _____ square was critical or because it prepares for the endgame in _______ important way. If the point is a dozen moves deep you may never notice it, so it's great when someone points it out to you.

Then sure, in your games if you try to copy that idea you'll probably fail to apply it correctly a few times (as is common) but the seed eventually bears fruit so to speak.

I agree with that. What willy hendriks is trying to say is that we first notice a move and then we explain it  saying that it was due to the weakness of g6 or because of the overprotected so and so point. So he encourages us to absorb as much chess theory as possible so that we built up a pattern library which helps us in our games.

During a real game I don't try to justify random moves in an ad hoc fashion. I notice weaknesses, piece activity, king safety, etc.

Then I do a little calculation.

Then I notice more weaknesses, piece activity, king safety, etc

Then I do a little more calculation.

and on and on.

Also, it's a chicken and egg problem to ask if I calculate first of notice learned patterns (like a weak pawn) first.

Plus your knowledge informs your calculation in real time. You accept or reject lines, even subconsciously, based on things like weak squares you've noticed. Maybe that's his point? To emphasize this subconscious knowledge?

I have read some passages from the Hendriks book. My guess is that I have been helped to reach 1500 by some of the sort of writing that he has criticized. Perhaps I would have been helped more by Hendriks-approved writing, but it is also possible that Hendriks-approved writing would have required more work than I was willing to do. If there is interest, I can post links to reactions that have been written by IM John Watson and IM Jeremy Silman.

Sure, I'm lazy, post their reviews so it's convenient for me .

https://theweekinchess.com/john-watson-reviews/john-watson-book-review-103-challenging-conventional-wisdom

http://www.jeremysilman.com/shop/pc/Move-First-Think-Later-77p3741.htm

IM Watson suggested looking here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7CWvB5pz79k

He also gave a link for a sample from the book:

http://www.newinchess.com/Shop/Images/Pdfs/966.pdf

I could also post some links to various points of view on the Chernev book, Logical Chess. It seems to me to be a somewhat similar sort of issue.

I read Silman's review from start to finish. Brilliant. It appears that Silman too urges us to look at 10,000 games or so of masters.

"... without patterns, you won’t get far, and without looking at tons of games, you won’t absorb enough patterns.

... Mr. Hendriks picks me out as the high priest of idiotic teaching, ...

... my idea of imbalances ... was created as a shortcut to pattern recognition. Since most students were not willing to do it the old fashioned way, I decided that imbalances would give them a full diet of patterns. …" - IM Jeremy Silman (~2012)

Blunder first, regret immediately.

I really don't like this book. My review can be found here.

I'm enjoying the book.  

He says, in reality, we often need to try out moves before deciding what is important in a position.  Additionally, we should not be too frustrated when we failed to find the best move and later discover that it is part of a specific idea, pattern, or motif we have not yet mastered.

Hendriks suggests that we should rely on knowledge that we gain; and we should study more and more specific positions, ideas, patterns, motifs, etc.

I completed the book--attempted every puzzle and read every word--and I think it was worth it. I agreed with many of his opinions, but not every one.

• I think he goes a tad too far on his nature v nurture argument (too far towards nature, that is).
• I believe you can train and direct your subconscious, and we do it all the time. For example, when you're in the market for a new car you begin seeing that car everywhere. But they were there all the time. Our new intensity, desire, & focus trained the subconscious to let that car pass through our filters and into our conscience awareness.
• His anti-protocol (i.e., anti move-selection search-protocols) view should have many exceptions. For example, while it may be that we have trouble applying rigid protocols on every move during an actual game, I still found that it helps to practice an ideal search protocol. Similar to the example of seeing your future car everywhere (even though they were always there), you start seeing checks and undefended pieces (even though they were always there), when you train to see them. Perhaps I misunderstood that part of his opinions...

In any event, I would recommend it because, even if you disagree with his opinions and evidence, the puzzles serve to increase chess knowledge; and he has great suggestions for training.