"Technique for Chess Analysis" Survey

Originally posted by Bedlam
The way iv adopted tends to look at the position in general terms and finding a general idea before finding the moves to suit that idea. Example if im given a position where a knight is being attacked by a pawn and has to move, I wont look at the first knight move but first look for the best square for the knight on the board and plot the path back from that to my knight to see where the knight move move.....It tends to help.

Re the last poster what you are asking I believe is the same as my own belief that the difference between strong and weak players is the
undersanding of the nature of the chess advantage and what constitutes it.How many times have I read through GM analysis and seen adv to white or 'white is better' and you look at the board and say
how's that-material is even,looks OK for both sides until you realise that the position is better because of say there's a threat of a gain of tempo or a threat to take over a file (two moves away) or there's a doubled pawn that's hard to defend etc etc

Originally posted by yelob
the difference between strong and weak players is the
undersanding of the nature of the chess advantage and what constitutes it.How many times have I read through GM analysis and seen adv to white or 'white is better' and you look at the board and say how's that

#1. I mostly analyze post-game OTB games, not regular internet games. Communication is much better and only hearing the way a stronger player explains something teaches you a lot. If I use an engine, I only use it to verify something.. I always look to understand something first before I consult an engine. I might use an engine to discover reasonable moves in a position I was unsure of, during the game.

#2. In OTB play, mis-calculation/tactical errors usually comes from lack of concentration. Other errors come from my lack of understanding of the game. It might not even be errors, but moves I didn't find that the position called for. I also do not believe in "blunders" - it's not an acceptable excuse IMHO. If I blunder, there is something wrong with my vision.

#3. I play at least 5-6 hours every week. The time controls vary, I suppose a better mix could help me. I do believe long games helps most. I also believe playing games helps more than analysing games, because when you play you have the "knife on your throat" and you must demonstrate what you really understood. In post-analysis it's easy to be clever.. I am not sure where my improvement comes from, but I did read a lot of books and I do play quite often.

#4. I read about all phases of the game and I always play out the board. I don't think we can learn quicker, there are no shortcuts. On the contrary, a huge time investment is required. I personally find dissecting positions for a long period of time to be quite rewarding. To analyse one position for maybe two hours is of course tough, but it gives a lot back. After giving a position my assessment, I try playing out some lines and then I usually have to correct my assessment. Eventually, I get a full understanding of a very concrete position. The whole point is not to learn positions by heart - it is about learning about how the different properties affect the position. It is one thing to read about it, and another to see it in practice.. So my recommendation is to do just that, analysing for long.. and pick many diverse kind of situations.


EDIT: Just a comment.. I also believe evaluation is cruical. Since it is impossible to calculate the game to the end positions, one must at some point stop calculating and "assign a score" - evaluating positions. This evaluation dictates if you even got the right plan/ideas. Another part of it, is to come up with moves - "fantasy", based on intuition and evaluation. The third part is actually calculating the variations. Of course, there are positions where evaluation plays no part because there are only forced variations or so, but those moments are just "work" anyway. I would say you need four things: tactical vision, knowledge/evaluation ability, memory&calculation, mentals (concentration/attitude). The first and second are "easiest" to improve..

Thanks Yuga,pity you weren't my English teacher when I needed good marks😉

The other thing which I'm beginning to see is that the advantage to white as having the first move is TINY BUT strong players go to a lot of trouble to hang onto it and will constantly reevaluate and try different moves from well known positions in an effort to hang on to that tiny plus but one weak move (even at GM level) and that edge is gone like the morning mist.And Yuga you are very right the concepts behind the chess advantage are known in a universal sense probably by even weak players but its actual manifestation and more importantly transformation into winning a game is position specific
and requires apart from chess intuition (an underrated concept imo) the ability to analyse and evaluate the entire position,which is the skill I'm working most on at the moment as its almost entirely lacking in my play!

btw a thing I'm asking myself when I look at openings (I'm going through some of the Khalifman books at the moment) is a concept I once heard from the acting/screenwriting profession and its this-'What do I want to do in this opening and why can't I' if the answer to that is well I can actually do what I want then you have an advantage,if the answer is well I can't really do what I really want then your opponent is playing well!-as a concrete example in the Petroff which I'm studying at the moment the question of what whote wants to do is to get rid of that pesky knight on e4-if you can do that without any detriment to yourself then you have an edge,but then of course the real mastery is transforming the edge into a win isn't it and that may in fact be almost the definition of the chess struggle.Fascinating stuff.........

Just an anecdote regarding GM’s and their ability to evaluate a position. Once at an Int’l tmt (back in the old days..not a Swiss…but a 16 player RR), I was in the analysis room listening to a local master explaining why black was busted in a given position if White played a certain move. One of the participating GM’s, on the way to the coffee machine, casually glanced at the position for a few seconds. On his way back with his coffee, the master was sitting there saying, “What can black do? He’s lost!” Now, this GM, who most would label as a “weak” GM (with a 2550 rating), said, “Your move loses.” He then pointed out the refutation and walked away. I watched a master and two experts sit there scratching their heads trying to figure out how they missed it. When GM’s visualize a position, they seem not to “see” pieces and Pawns, but something more abstract like geometric lines of force and “auras” of the pieces.

Originally posted by Yuga
Please elaborate on what you mean by a "prove everything wrong attitude" versus a "prove everything right" attitude.

Originally posted by Bedlam
Weaker players tend to ask themselves what is right about this move and what they like about playing it...almost talking themselves into the moves at times...this move does that and this and that etc. Stronger players tend to look at the negitive side of moves a more scientific approach...trying to prove the move wrong, ie if I cant find anything wrong with ...[text shortened]... maybe if they changed the way they think about chess the blunders would disappear quite quickly.

Originally posted by cmsMaster
Wow, that's an extremely interesting point. I've never even thought about that. Your GM teacher tell you that? I'm going to have to test out that thought process and see if it affects my game.