Thinking and Chess

Hi folks,

I have a question for all of you regarding what is correct/useful chess thinking and what is not. I've been playing chess for about fifteen years and I've gradually improved in my chess thinking and chess playing. I've played many games in person against my friends and I've played a few chess games online (although never here on chess.com). But I'm a little confused concerning what is "right" chess thinking and what is "wrong" (or faulty) thinking when it comes to playing chess. Recently, I've adopted the strategy of always looking at the consequences of my chess moves and what my opponent will do in response. I've also developed the idea of always coming up with plans and/or adjusting my plans and move according to those plans to bring my enemy under checkmate. And I've also wondered about the idea of constantly attacking my opponent to force them to react to my moves while developing my pieces so that my opponent is unable to create/pursue his or her own plans and thus forcing them to "dance to my tune". I've been able to use these strategies to defeat *some* of my friends I've played with but there's a few other friends of mine who continue to beat me no matter which strategy I adopt although I must admit I've yet to really adopt the third strategy (where I attack a lot and force my opponent to react). Lately I've wondered if that's just because they're "better" at chess than me or if it's because my chess thinking is wrong and I need a new perspective/approach. I'm fairly intelligent and I'm fairly experienced in playing against people but I really need to know what I'm doing right/wrong so that I can apply my mind to right chess thinking and actually make progress in my quest to improve my approach. Any advice here would be wonderfully welcome. Thank you!

 

I'll elaborate a bit on my experience and my approaches. I tend to be more defensively-minded where I try to outmaneuver my opponent and break up their attack and *then* go on the offensive. However, against some of my friends, that doesn't work because their attack is too good and their thinking is too clear for me to outmaneuver them. I almost always start the game with pawn to K4 and then I try to move my Queen's pawn up so that I try to control the center. I try to develop my pieces but often times I get suckered into attacking instead of moving my other pawns forward and develop my Bishops and Knights and then Castle as early as possible. But most of the time, my friend Tyler is able to outmaneuver me and go on the offensive and frequently I don't have the forces (my pieces) mustered to defend against his moves. So I'm wondering what is "right" chess thinking and what is "wrong" chess thinking in the three ideas I presented above. 

 

There is no golden rule that applies to all circumstances in chess (perhaps with the exception of always checkmating your opponent when you get a chance), which means that the “right”, or best plan in position A may not be nearly as good in position B.

Determine the pros and cons for both sides. Check for details such as hanging/unprotected pieces. Figure out a plan for yourself (minority attack on the queenside, or doubling rooks on the e-file, for example). If you know certain patterns in this type of game, good. Calculate a few moves to see if it works. Try to find what your opponent’s intentions are and see if they do any harm. And finally, play what you think is the best move. That’s it. Repeat x40 and see what the outcome is.

You must have done some good thinking if you win, and bad thinking if you lose.

Thanks for your input - it's very helpful and I appreciate it!

My experience has been that general rules hold up until you hit that exception you never saw coming.

Since we cannot visualize or define exactly how we think it can’t be explained to someone how to think in chess. If it were possible someone would have to figure it out once and everyone else would think the same efficient way.

As is the optimal way to explain “how to think in chess” is through direct expression of concepts through language. I am not aware of some more efficient shortcuts.

Only couple things I can suggest that are not really advice “how to think”. First you should eliminate distractions during the time which you decided to use for chess studying (through a book). Turns the sound of the phone off, don’t listen to music, things like this.

Second thing I recommend that will be only available to some people is to read chess instruction materials in different languages if you speak and read more than one language. I noticed that ideas and concepts seem to be memorized in context of the language you learn them from. That means that the general knowledge you hold was learned either with use of one language or another and that would mean that the “path” to that block of knowledge will have either more neural connections intersecting with one language or the other. Since no one can really tell what which concepts they hold have what connections, trying to learn something separately using different languages can work.

When a strong player attacks, or defends, or goes for a slow maneuvering sequence, it's not because that's what they prefer, it's because they believe the position is asking them to do so.

In other words instead of trying to impose your will on the position through schemes you develop before the game even starts, you have to learn how to read a position to find the most important elements, and do what the position calls for.

If that sounds non-specific and like it would take a lot of experience, you're exactly right. Chess strength isn't about intelligence, it's about learning the game, playing a lot, making a lot of mistakes, and then learning from those mistakes. Think of it like learning a musical instrument, a sport, or any other skill. Humans don't become skilled though theorizing about the activity before the activity begins. It requires a lot of learning and a lot of experience. It's the same for chess.

There's a famous chess quote "tactics flow from a superior position" which basically means that good things can happen without you specifically planning for them. If your position is much better than your opponent's (which usually means your pieces are more active) then one way or another there will be a way for you to win material or checkmate.

When I beat a much lower rated player in very few moves with a big attack, 9 times out of 10 I had zero intention of attacking during the first part of the game. I was just going about my own business developing my pieces normally when suddenly I notice that they've fallen far behind. At that point I start looking for sacrifices and ways to attack.

Sure some players attempt attacking no matter what, but I wonder if your friend Tyler would play the same way if you were 1) establishing a pawn presence in the center 2) rushing to get all your knights and bishops off the back rank as fast as possible, and 3) castling to a side where the 3 friendly flank pawns have not moved.

 

I'm not sure which 3 you're talking about, but you did hit on some good ones. During a game a good question to ask yourself is "what's the most annoying / dangerous thing my opponent can do in reply to my intended move?"

After you decide what the most dangerous reply is (usually a check, capture, or threat), if you still like your intended move, then you can play it.

This is a very important habit to build (calculating short sequences of threats, captures, and checks to verify your intended move doesn't instantly lose). Practically everyone does it sometimes, but strong players are doing it nearly 100% of the moves in 100% of their games.

As for defense vs offense, that's not really an important distinction. What is important is activity vs inactivity.

A typical way to explain the value of the pieces to a beginner is by placing a piece at the center of an empty board and counting how many squares it controls. You'll notice queens control more than rooks which control more than bishops.

If there's a golden rule in chess it's piece activity. Defense is fine, but passivity is a dirty word. When you have options, choose the move that lets your pieces control more squares. Try not to block your pieces with friendly pieces. If your opponent makes a threat, look at the different ways you can defend against it. Choose the defense that gives the most improvement (like moving a piece off the back rank). More often than not this will be the best defensive move.

Thank you for the advice, Ghost_Horse0. It's very useful. Regarding the quote, "tactics flow from a superior position," and regarding developing one's pieces and *acquiring* a better position than your opponent, I think you're right. More often than not, in my games against my friend Tyler, I end up going for the easy early attacks instead of controlling the center and developing my pieces and castling and those easy early attacks actually worsen my position rather than improve it. If I just patiently acquire the best position I can and then ask myself how my opponent will respond with their most annoying/dangerous move, that'll put me on the right track. Easier said than done, of course, but it's a great approach and it makes sense. I think I just needed some guidance as to how I should be using my mind and which approaches I should take. Thanks again for your input!