a natural move is a very simple move. you don't need to thinks about it.
Doru-Alexandru
natural moves
Sort:
I think natural moves are ones you dont have to make concsious decisions about sorta like walking, your talking accent, the way you talk to yourself, etc. Translating that level of play to the chess board is extremly diffuclt thing to do. How many "naturals" are there? I think Alekhine was one because he spent his whole life playing chess, probably literally! The upside to not being a natural, you can defiantly skip being "natural" by learning with understanding. Something has to be initially known before the game even starts! Endgames, middlegames, openings, tactics, combos, patterns, themes, classification, and knowing the where, when, why and hows by understanding you can learn from the feedback from using these ideas. It has to active! Static knowledge will be wasted! I have tons to mule over I keep sending them to you write in my blog!
Apr 14, 2011
0
#4
A natural move has nothing to do with natural talent. After 1.e4 e5, 2. Nf3 is a pretty natural move, whereas 2. a3 seems unnatural. I think it becomes more clear the more you play, and the more you see good moves being made. They become unconsciously accepted as natural moves. If I gave you a position and said "this is what I played here," if it was a natural move, you'd say "ok, go on" but if it was unnatural you'd be taken aback, "wait, what? Really?"
Some openings take advantage of this idea. Fried liver is a good example that everyone knows. If black just plays natural moves without a good idea what's happening, he gets into trouble quickly. (1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Nxd5?! 6. Nxf7 Kxf7) Black plays naturally up through 5...Nxd5, and then has an unpleasant defense to play. Note that it's generally thought by masters that the Fried Liver is unsound for white, but is so difficult to defend that it's still probably not a good idea to go into as black, as there are better options.
I dont understand what your talking about at all! Lol. Once learning the moves any begginer would play anything just to prove they can play! When you/I say unconscious play, i know anything can happen: good, bad, awful, tremdous, spirtual, slow, fast. But you say natural moves have to be good. When our past experiences make false truths it hinders everything. Short story. Fish wants to go on land. Fish can't.Fish asks frog to go for him. Frog goes on land. Frog comes back tells fish of people, birds, trees, dogs, cats, etc. Fish thanks frog. Fish imagines people, birds, trees, dogs, cats,etc. as fish with legs, fish with wings, fish with fur. If fish went on land himself, the fish would probably search for the fish people just like the frog said, or believe all the fish people died. Its un natural only when your surprised/taken aback? Seems like you dont understand with learning. We cant let anything be "natural" if we want to win, how would anyone tell the difference? If your saying natural is what everyone is doing then how can everyone be right? Rhetorical question. Rimshot. "Natural" is magic in translation. Id also like to know the difference between your natural talent and your natural moves. I dont want to sound mean but when you expained natural you used it in your definition. I think natural moves are out of date. Know they are. I also know im contradicting myself saying Alekhine was natural but from your feedback I believe there is no "naturals" nor natural moves.
Apr 14, 2011
0
#6
How about "the first candidate move an average chess player tends to look at without any analysis"?
http://www.chess.com/chessopedia/view/natural-move
Average can mean anything, it all depends on what everyone already knows. When those computers analyze millions of variations in a second, those scientists make sure those precise seconds arent wasted. Every variation builds upon the last. Computers have a huge advantage of not having "Fish syndrome", so they easily patch up their previous knowledge "instantly". I must stress that computers arent doing variations for no reason. Every idea, concept must be known before it is used. When that idea/concept is smack daddyed and sent to the locker room, we have to learn with our understanding. Usually, this rather simple or hard way of life determines the men from the boys. Or the informed to the un informed.
That all being said, I still cant figure out what the average player looks at before doing any analysis! lol. Nor would I want to know. How many players are there? Thousands, millions, every person can be average in their field of work/study/game and the limit of moves they make can depend on an infinite amount of moves/actions/plays etc.
The best answer anyone can give you is that there is only understanding with learning. If you dont understand, you'll do anything which you can only do in that state of mindset. If you understand with learning you'll try your ideas and they'll flourish forever or constantly be beaten down until you either give up or they bear fruit.
Usually learning with understanding can be very addictive!
To have meaningful questions, you have to have an answer beforehand. The best I can do, but not nearly enough to tell you everything i know. I can coach anyone, if they arent afraid!
Apr 14, 2011
0
#8
Longday, I think you've misinterpreted what I was saying, or I misstated it. In a given position, the natural-looking moves are not always good, no. The natural moves are the ones that you look at quickly because your subconscious directed you to them, and they look 'right', based on pattern recognition and tactical ideas you've learned. They look like they make sense in the position. Sometimes they are tactical blunders, but a natural move is rarely a positional blunder, assuming you're good enough to understand the position.
There is no such thing as "learning without understanding"--that's called memorization, and that's not what I'm talking about. I also did not say that natural is what everyone is doing, I said that things become more clear as you play, and as you see good moves, that is, you begin to develop an intuition about what is a natural move because you see how positions tend to evolve.
Natural talent in my eyes indicates that a person will understand things about the game without having them explained to them, and perhaps even without much thought. They can play the game at a higher level than normal without as much time investment because "comes naturally" to them. "We can't let anything be natural if we want to win." "I think natural moves are out of date. Know they are."
Like many things, it's difficult to define a 'natural move' in unambiguous terms.
Lux, in my first post i told you what we have to do to learn with understanding. Being a natural leaves everything to the gods. Your born with it. What if we took someone from the 1800's and brought them to our world. Nothing would ever be natural to them. From your reply I know your not understading what Im saying at all either. Learning with understanding is the only way we can learn anything. Is this knowledge natural? No. I just figured it out like a month ago. Id spend hours on chess and not "improve". After learning with understanding came along I spent one session studying an Alekhine game and now believe I understand everything that happened and can reproduce his exact positional dominance in other games. I even understand Kasparov's amazing 2005 game where he "sac-ed" his rook for a knight. He won easily, I cant reproduce his game because it was so exact that it can only be from his game. Caro-Kann. Same position was won by Karpov but opposite color aganist Kramnik! I understand why Karpov won and why Kasparov won. Both in the same position but different colors! Almost same, Karpov sac a pawn, Kasparov sac exchange. I didnt naturally learn this because I spent hours on. Which I did, but it wasnt hoping that the two names would give a jaw dropping IQ. Every move they made something had to known initially before-hand. I'd defiantly like to talk to you instead of this week by week correspondence. lol!
Oh yeah memorization can be millions upon millions upon millions of data but amateurs fall on this point because they dont stack them up with "big ideas", core concepts. Anything thats not active will be wasted. Memorization with no point. I can memorize anything, but learning with understanding is where you understand anything. Then you test it out in the harsh truth of reality,learnin, if it flops you can pin point where you went wrong! ha ha! This is enjoy able to talk with you, usually no one asks me anything about learning with understanding. What exactly did I say to you that made you want to crush my idea? Id defiantly like to bottle it and sell it! Lux i hope you have a wonderful day!
Ah Lux, as i continue to re read your comment I constantly come up with re butals, I hope your not seeing this as mean but, only as my two cents. Your explanation once again seems to fall upon it self. Your way of "memorization" is not natural moves but you need memorization to be "intuitive" meaning anyone can get this amazing ability without memorization? "Intuitive" i think that you would have to known the position before, conscious or unconscious but what if a computer is playing? Natural moves are out of date. Not just in chess but in life as well. People tend to think that we are different from computers but we're really the same. Without learning with understanding their ability to calculate millions upon millions of variations could in fact drive them insane if they couldnt learn the ideas from the last variation they did. Or one variation into the game they'd have to do everything over again. And how many variations are there in a game? Ha! Pretty funny, I still dont understand anything your saying. if you'd give specific examples I suspose. Or first generalize then give an example, instead of the Fried Liver. Something besides chess. I know its a tough one, but i want to know what your thinking! Because most the people i meet, my self once included, say what you say without as much passion to their cause.
isnt the best application of the term "natural move" when it comes to attacking or defending? if my goal was to attack the king, my first instinct would look for the best check or if none are alavaiable try to open up the king. if my piece gets captuerd, my first instinct is to recapture. if someone sacks their queen, my first instinct is probably to take it, even if its a mistake. like lux said their not always right but their you first instinct based on how you play and what youve learned. if a player is more agressive then most of the moves that come naturally to them will be based around formulating an attack. its as simple as instinct, but because people play diffrently and thus instict is relative, people can have diffrent opinions on what move is 'natural' in any given position, or even variences in what people generally define as a 'natural move'.
ha ha Num, that sounds alright but Lux is talking about perfect moves coming from humans,... naturally. Obviously yo get get better with tme, but past experiences can hamper just as well as improve your overall strength. No matter how good a person is, they could memorize a whole game while the opponet plays the position for the first time both equal strength yet the guy who memorized it wins. Nothing natural about those moves. So how do you tell the bs from actual strength and natural moves? Its too vague and you can flip the swtich on the meaning. Like you said the first emotinal reaction is natural for humans but not in chess. I dont want to get it into it since nobody seems to care what I say about "learning with understanding". Lol. its a pain but our brain matter needs to connect and make pathways that can be used again and again or we dont understand and we're like animals trial and error until we get one answer. Unfortunatly, chess is very general then very specfic very fast so natural moves are kinda stupid looking for them. Natural to who? Me? The guy who just learned chess or the guy who spent his life time studying the game? The computers? Ha ha. This little bit does not do justice to what we as humans are really capable of. We can do anything, but without previous exercie of the mind its not natural like muscle movement or stomach digestion. I think things are natural with our bodies but not our minds. Logical and illogical processes of the mind fight each other to find the "best" moves but how do you know what you know now is not better after you try something new? Technique limits our growth and if we break the mind barrier that what we know is best we learn new ideas, experiences, etc.
They are always telling us to make "Natural Moves." But what, exactly, is a natural move? How do you know if a move is natural or not? How do you make such a move?
frank124c