The ultimate mindset

What would you say is the utmost optimal way to think during a chess game?

There is a limit to our exact knowledge at any point in the game - even the strongest computers of today cannot overcome the obstacle that is the full depth of chess! However, I'm not asking about how much can a player know - I'm asking about the best possible human attitude towards the game, presented as completely as possible in as few thoughts as possible, for maximum efficiency and clarity.

Think of it as the holy grail of chess thought, capable of integrating any amount of additional exact knowledge (which will be limited according to our brain power, but oh well) without compromising. It is, in fact, "the method" that Emmanuel Lasker proposed should exist, only with all of the underlying psychology also taken into consideration.

So, what would you say it is? Here are some ideas:

1) Smirnov suggests that the main principle in all of chess is piece activity, as checkmate itself is the most extreme advantage in piece activity one could have.

2) Silman proposes that every position can be broken down into its imbalances, and also states that a dream position (i. e. an ideal placement of all of your pieces) is a useful technique for determining what to strive towards,

3) Capablanca states that it's basically enough to see one correct move ahead, while Anand adds that intuition can be defined as the first move to come to one's mind.

4) Alekhine, finally, says that during a chess game a player should be a combination of a beast of prey and a monk.

The ultimate question is, how to think and feel during a game, what associations and sentences should be presiding over one's mindset in order for one to play moves that are as good as possible? I know that there are extremes in which it gets really hard boiling it down even to just a few sentences, but even without any exact knowledge other than the rules of chess themselves, there should be a way to make perception and action as simple as possible, right?

I personally struggle with the lack of objectivity, and also a lack of understanding, a lack of emotional stability, and a lack of vision. I play rapid games, and as soon as I'm left without exact knowledge in a position that triggers my positional fears (e. g. for White: a Black Bishop or pawn on f5, a Black Knight on e4, some pawn storms etc.), I'm left unable to think straight. Even worse, when I think straight but set too lofty a goal for my position (usually in the form of trying to overprophylactise), then I see I either miscalculated, or there's no way of dislodging that Knight at all, or whatever, and I fall apart.

Any help would be much appreciated.

I think the story usually goes that an opponent of Capablanca said something of this sort after winning.

calculate one move ahead@advantage

I don't know, I mean, Kasparov quoted it and attributed it to Capa in one of his books, and while there's a possibility that he was wrong to do so, it's still an interesting notion.

KermitPresents, I think you missed the point big time. I'm looking to establish the best "most important things to always keep in mind" checklist that could be realistically applied to any and all traditional chess games, except maybe for the shortest of the shortest time controls (i. e. bullet and hyperbullet). It's essential not to waste time on useless considerations, and even the critical positions should take as little time as possible to be recognised and dealt with adequately. Too often in my games have I started calculating a direct attack that wasn't strong enough, only to lose on time even if I got a winning position through my thorough thought.

Also, is there a certain playstyle that brings better results in rapid and blitz time controls? According to GM Serper, the best way to beat stronger players is to keep the position complicated and attack relentlessly, and while I agree with this even from my own personal experience, I'm also looking for a way to calculate and attack quickly and accurately, and that's not something I know how to achieve.

"From pages 429-430 of 1000 Best Short Games of Chess by Irving Chernev (New York, 1955):

‘Chess masters are wont to answer flippantly to the layman’s question, “How far ahead do you calculate, when making a combination?” They either say, like Réti, “As a rule, not a single move”. Or, like Jaffe, “I think one move ahead – but it is always the best move!”

The records show that the great master does see many moves ahead – and accurately, as otherwise his whole combination would fail.’"

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/movesahead.html

Hey, that's neat to know! Thanks!

deaf_blue_bottles, that's a very interesting experiment! Still, at least such alignment with the sight of the ball is, conceptually speaking, pretty easy to understand. Other than that, you said everything yet conveyed nothing, and the same can be said about percyhepworth's comment. Perhaps I was unclear after all.
I'm not looking for a concept like "time + systematic work" or "find counterplay" or "concentration" (seriously?), I'm looking for a MIND MAP. Of course it won't be able to cover everything, but it should at the very least cover the most important stuff which doesn't just depend on rote knowledge, like how to avoid making blunders. I vaguely remember there being a book of the same name, but until I can use my own experience to formulate something like a sequence of keywords at every stage of the game, I won't be satisfied.

For example, if I play a certain opening, I could think like "DEVELOP KNIGHTS OUTWARDLY, LET HIM TRADE THEM IF HE WANTS, JUST DEVELOP QUICKLY", then in a middlegame I could think like "MAKE THIS PAWN FORMATION AND PROTECT IT AT ALL COSTS, THESE SQUARES ARE KEY, DON'T GRAB PAWNS", then in the endgame I could think like "THE ROOK MUST BE BEHIND THE PAWN, IF I GET MY KING TO THIS ZONE I CANNOT LOSE, THIS IS WON EXCLUSIVELY BY WINNING THE PAWN RACE"... such things. How do I recognise when these mnemonics are in effect, as opposed to when they're not?

I generally agree, and I'd also expand on the matter by saying that piece activity is not only about the immediate piece activity, but also about planning your eventual piece activity.

I remember a position Dzindzichashvili showed once in a course of his, and he said that White wins said position (or at least has an advantage) thanks to his active Bishop. The catch? At that moment, said Bishop was on c1, shut in by his own d3-pawn, without a possibility to fianchetto... but it turns out that it breaks free on the c1-h6 diagonal with a proper pawn break very soon.

Seeing that this transformation is inevitable is what makes a strong player, I guess. Knowing that, at a given point, a checkmate is ultimately guaranteed to you if you play the right moves from there on out, even if it doesn't look any close to that... how about it.

I've also noticed there's such a thing as a direct game (i. e. trying to win by checkmating with level or inferior material) and an indirect game (i. e. trying to win by checkmating with superior material which is ultimately strategically obtained by pawn promotion). Of course, transitions from the former to the latter (and vice versa) are commonplace, but I'm much more confident about conducting the former than the latter.

Seems that the person who actually replied to me the most in this thread... deleted their account? A shame, really, some very good points had been brought up.