How People Think

.
I play chess and I've been recently considering ways to think better to get the best results. It may be a joke to think there's a way to think better. Scientists tell us they don't actually know how a person thinks. So, keeping that in mind...

I've accumulated a lot of knowledge over the years and I want to know how best to use it without getting bogged-down in a labyrinthine approach which is too slow. Chess players also love to play very fast games which challenge our ability to tackle impossible problems in seconds. It's amazing how much can be done in a few seconds. But, without an efficient approach it's clearly impossible to play fast games.

It's really fascinating to listen-in on my opponents when we play team games at the club. That's where two or more players work together as a team against another team. Each player discusses what they want (and feels comfortable saying aloud) so the team can make a well-informed decision what to play. I must say I'm amazed some of them can ever reach a move of any kind or one that's good, but they do.

I have noticed a bit of a pattern (or style) of thinking and can see that from the weaker players to the stronger players there is some consistency.

The weaker players meander around with little discernible logic in what they say. Some will suddenly jump from that to a move which seems entirely different, and perhaps good. I think this exploration of the problem space and consideration of various possibilities isn't bad, but inefficient and prone to error. Unfortunately I have to say I have sometimes been accused (and clearly guilty) of doing the opposite and being so focused I miss a good move.

Another player a bit stronger may be a bit more efficient, but still has trouble when his positions fall apart when attacked. Apart from using logic to find a move it has to be of good quality.

So, the next strongest, you might guess, is one who thinks more about the overall position's security. Naturally they begin to be drawn to moves which ensure that security in their positions. There is even a thing called "blunder checking" which requires you to find a move and then reconsider it with fresh eyes to ask if it's a blunder. I have found that maintaining that position security over the course of a game can be quite challenging -- particularly when you want to do something aggressive to try to win. I told kids in my local library chess club (where I taught for a few months) that one way to get the advantage is simply to wait until their opponent ruins things. It's true and I've done it myself. No chess player is entirely immune from these problems. In 1971 I had the opportunity to play a world-class player who gave an exhibition playing something like 50 players simultaneously. He would walk from board to board and make his move. I managed to maintain my coordination and security a very long time and only when the position was very difficult AND I was distracted did I blunder and lose. This was something of a miracle considering my general strength at that time. But, it shows some basic level of security-maintenance is very valuable.

Everyone wants to win and tries to find any path to victory that they can. Some look for short-forcing sequences (tactics) which bring gain and some look for methods which may take time and some consider heavy-duty strategies. Once a player can maintain their security they are generally more free to consider the more effective methods & strategies. Having stability in one's life gives a degree of freedom to do productive gainful things. So it is in a chess game.

At my local club the players who understand and can do this are clearly superior to the others. They ensure against losses much better and give themselves more time to perhaps win.

What differentiates these players?

Once a player recognizes the value of a safe position and can aim for that they become much better. Their ability to maintain that safety over time and when under attack distinguishes between weak and stronger. Many years ago there was a player from Armenia (I think) who was known as "Iron Tigran" because he rarely lost. He didn't win very often, but in a match he was formidable and he held the world championship for a short time. He often went a year with only one or two losses. To beat him Bobby Fischer had to be amazing. Their match was billed as the "Irresistible Force against the Immovable Force". At first it was close, but after one grueling fight which Fischer won the Iron man broke down and lost four games in a row. It's tough to just defend. It's psychologically and technically difficult. Yet, top masters say one of their aims is to maintain a position which is safe and easy to play. Computer programs show that isn't close to what is required to win, just to survive. Why just survive? To give one's opponent time to ruin their position and to give yourself time to find some path (previously unknown) to victory.

So, we come to chess among stronger tournament players: what to do when one attacks the other and neither side's position falls apart very easily.

In chess as in war big beats small. Thus, you may wish to break apart your opponent's position and then focus on a small unit to overwhelm it and its defenders. You can also swarm an area of the board which previously seemed safe to achieve much the same goal. Big beats small. More beats less.

So, at my club the very strongest players not only seek positions which are safe, but which allow them to threaten the opponent's position to break it apart or to overwhelm it. Achieving this level of play on a consistent basis is a great achievement.

Among those players there are winners and losers. What happens to cause a failure?

Sometimes a player simply won't be in gear or will be tired, sleepy, in need of food, distracted by outside events or off for no discernible reason. These problems manifest themselves in play which is meandering, inconsistent, weak or simply not good in any of the many areas necessary for good play to result.

Imagine learning to ride a bike. At first training wheels are helpful and an example of someone else riding shows us what to aim for. I sometimes provide that training wheel for the other members of my club. In team games I lead them, when I can, to an efficient logical analysis of the situation and to moves which may be of use and to comparison of those moves to try and find the best. Take away the training wheel and immediately the rider feels something missing and my club mates (probably) notice the method I've provided is missing. Without the skill of feeling the balance of the moving bike you seek balance and can't find it. Having to pedal while doing this is insanely difficult until you "get it" and then it's a breeze. In chess some players 'get it' and some don't seem to want the help and would rather continue in their own way to enjoy their personal journey to a method. Some will suggest they want your help, but then ignore that and go on their own way. That's fine. Everybody enjoys the game, or bike riding, for their own reasons.

Back to square one: what do we absolutely need to do to get the best results?

We must recognize what a safe position is and how to get there.

To try and win from there we should know what is not only safe, but offers potential to win in some way against our opponent's position (or sometimes against the person themselves).

To try to win very consistently and against stronger opposition you have to be able to do these things and have effective  precise consistent play in any kind of position and with little time to think against opponents who are on their own turf and who have studied their situation for a long time at home and in other games with other opponents. That is difficult.

How do we get there?

In a recent conversation a friend said he studied a lot of tutorials online to learn patterns. I think it's not so important to learn patterns someone else has used, but to see how a pattern (static or dynamic) works is a building block to creating your own patterns in your own games. A pattern would be a formation where pawns and pieces fit together to be secure and/or offensive. A dynamic pattern would be something which maintains its security while moving over a course of time to achieve some goal. Being able to create in your own games has to be very important. We aren't always replaying positions which are known. Chess isn't about turning the wheel around one more time to see if it's different somehow.

This leads me, I think, to how we construct such patterns in our games and ensuring they're sufficient for use against anyone. Naturally, we test ourselves against opponents to see where we're strong or weak. If we consistently do badly in one thing we must work on that 'muscle' to build it up.

The thought process (which I started saying I want to improve)?

Well, I've read the top masters never lose sight of the 'big picture' or 'what the position is about' and it could be this relates to their concept of what kind of position they must have in both defensive and offensive terms. With some big picture concept they have a meta-picture of the game which leads them to evolving their position as the game moves along in order to maintain maximum security and offensive capability and in the places on the board which will be most effective.

It sounds a bit like building a new gun to shoot an ever moving and changing target and then changing that gun over time to hit the new target. It's challenging.

Enough rambling for now.