really very good idea....its one of the best way improve game....real is real....virtual is virtual....i will definitely try that....thanks for sharing this good advice....very less do that.........
Using a physical board when analysing?
Sort:
This use of an additional board was recommended by Bronstein, nothing less.
have you worked on it ? ? ?
twighead wrote:
really
OLDTimers
My brain is a pentium 4 baby
I would argue that the inherent difficulty makes it more beneficial. When I use a computer, I just quickly arrow key through the moves, checking the occasional sideline, using computer engine to elucidate why certain ideas weren't tried, and the whole process is done in a few minutes. Ask me about the game afterwards and I can give you some vague explanations, but nothing concrete.
Using a board, it's true that you have to reset the position, often starting over from the beginning ... but that's a good thing. Do you want to truly learn a particular opening? You don't study it once and forget. You do it over and over. Using a board helps do this. Also, because it takes longer, you are spending more time. You are literally studying more. Can you replay the first 5 moves from memory before using the book to check? Okay, what about 10, 15, 20? You never train your memory with a database, not in any real way, but it is constantly tested with the physical board.
There are no shortcuts. Have a question about a particular position? You start analyzing. You start thinking for yourself. There is no engine to spoonfeed analysis you'll forget 30sec from now. You do it yourself, and if you still can't figure it out, you go to an engine later, you recreate the position and by that point you never forget it.
In fact, that's perhaps the main point. You never forget, or at least, you forget less. If I play through a game with a book and board, it can take 5x as long as using the computer, depending on length, sidelines, annotations, etc. I've spent over an hour on games, and afterwards, I can frequently play most or all of it by memory, even several hours later. And that makes sense, because spending hours studying a game, even if it just setting up positions over and over again, is better than spending just a few minutes.
I don't mean to say computers are useless or anything of that sort, but there is a real benefit to using a board to learn the game, especially in the beginner / intermediate stages, and the computer simply cannot match it.
SmithyQ wrote:
its the only truth to improve chess...
I would argue that the inherent difficulty makes it more beneficial. When I use a computer, I just quickly arrow key through the moves, checking the occasional sideline, using computer engine to elucidate why certain ideas weren't tried, and the whole process is done in a few minutes. Ask me about the game afterwards and I can give you some vague explanations, but nothing concrete.
Using a board, it's true that you have to reset the position, often starting over from the beginning ... but that's a good thing. Do you want to truly learn a particular opening? You don't study it once and forget. You do it over and over. Using a board helps do this. Also, because it takes longer, you are spending more time. You are literally studying more. Can you replay the first 5 moves from memory before using the book to check? Okay, what about 10, 15, 20? You never train your memory with a database, not in any real way, but it is constantly tested with the physical board.
There are no shortcuts. Have a question about a particular position? You start analyzing. You start thinking for yourself. There is no engine to spoonfeed analysis you'll forget 30sec from now. You do it yourself, and if you still can't figure it out, you go to an engine later, you recreate the position and by that point you never forget it.
In fact, that's perhaps the main point. You never forget, or at least, you forget less. If I play through a game with a book and board, it can take 5x as long as using the computer, depending on length, sidelines, annotations, etc. I've spent over an hour on games, and afterwards, I can frequently play most or all of it by memory, even several hours later. And that makes sense, because spending hours studying a game, even if it just setting up positions over and over again, is better than spending just a few minutes.
I don't mean to say computers are useless or anything of that sort, but there is a real benefit to using a board to learn the game, especially in the beginner / intermediate stages, and the computer simply cannot match it.
SmithyQ wrote:
and if a friend joins us....it would get more beneficial i think.......
I would argue that the inherent difficulty makes it more beneficial. When I use a computer, I just quickly arrow key through the moves, checking the occasional sideline, using computer engine to elucidate why certain ideas weren't tried, and the whole process is done in a few minutes. Ask me about the game afterwards and I can give you some vague explanations, but nothing concrete.
Using a board, it's true that you have to reset the position, often starting over from the beginning ... but that's a good thing. Do you want to truly learn a particular opening? You don't study it once and forget. You do it over and over. Using a board helps do this. Also, because it takes longer, you are spending more time. You are literally studying more. Can you replay the first 5 moves from memory before using the book to check? Okay, what about 10, 15, 20? You never train your memory with a database, not in any real way, but it is constantly tested with the physical board.
There are no shortcuts. Have a question about a particular position? You start analyzing. You start thinking for yourself. There is no engine to spoonfeed analysis you'll forget 30sec from now. You do it yourself, and if you still can't figure it out, you go to an engine later, you recreate the position and by that point you never forget it.
In fact, that's perhaps the main point. You never forget, or at least, you forget less. If I play through a game with a book and board, it can take 5x as long as using the computer, depending on length, sidelines, annotations, etc. I've spent over an hour on games, and afterwards, I can frequently play most or all of it by memory, even several hours later. And that makes sense, because spending hours studying a game, even if it just setting up positions over and over again, is better than spending just a few minutes.
I don't mean to say computers are useless or anything of that sort, but there is a real benefit to using a board to learn the game, especially in the beginner / intermediate stages, and the computer simply cannot match it.
0
#9
I am always astonished to see that most of my regular chess opponents OTB are not interested in analyse games or in play games from a chess book. It doesn't come to a surprise that I usually crush them. :-)
I often use two small boards for analysis. Also, for shorter lines I strive to work them out in my head. It takes me a long time to get through a chess book. I do it this way because I enjoy it.
0
#11
I usually have one official board (to get used to the size) and or a small physical board or my iPad for the sub-variations. As you said: I also do because I enjoy it. I usually take the board to a restaurant, where some players from a chess club sporadically also go. Because am reading / analysing almost every day there, people think that I am a GM or something. Well, if they would know...
0
#12
FishEyedFools wrote:
In regards to this question. I have another related to this...
I use an analysis board that sits next to my laptop. Is the analysis board adequate? Or should i be using a regualr size tournament board?
The main problem with an official size is that the board takes almost the whole place on a small table. If I use a laptop I have to take a much smaller board. Not a problem for me, as I am chess collector and have hundreds of boards and sets 
Please Sign Up to comment.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
Are you the kind of player who like to use a physical board to analyse a game? This is by far not the most efficient way to analyse concerning the time spent to set up the figures over and over again. I read once in an interview athat Wassyl Iwantschuk always use a physical board to prepare / analyse, even an official board. Probably there are not many people doing so among GMs, or did you know something about it?
My problem is that I need at least one additional board for the analysis, as I have really problems to come back to the main line after analysing even few moves in a side-line. It would be of course a great exercise in visualisation and calculation to use a single board and calculate as deep as possible without moving the figures before coming to an evaluation, but this seems to difficult for me.