Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

lichess.org
Donate

Science of Chess: Seeing moves with momentum over the board

<Comment deleted by user>

@jashwinchess said ^

@francisludwigii said

Chess and astronomy have two common similarities: math and science. From what I have read, you're saying that understanding key positions and finding possible sequences during a game is a fundamental part of chess itself. My question is: if prediction is key here, does it involve the person having to predict a sequence that makes him/her think outside the box? And does it involve trying to understand the playing style, strength, and unveiling the calculations of your opponent? If so, then how does one do it, especially in a lower ELO level for some, and could applying the rules of math be needed in a game? For example, 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 (Queen's Gambit Declined) 3. Nf6. Does this mean that White must predict his/her opponent's next three moves? The problem with novice but calculative players is that they only think of one line. If their opponent plays something completely different and/or familiar, they lose it all. For intermediate players, it isn't quite as problematic, but when calculating two or three possible lines that their opponent may play, they sometimes forget to plan how they can continue to his/her advantage. Even if they have a plan, it's usually mentally rushed and might fall apart later on. For advanced players, predicting an opponent's move will be quite easier. Different moves, different plans. But just like the novice and intermediate ones, some (or even most of them) get caught off guard by an unusual move that they didn't think of. Will this research help improve and maybe even solve this problem? That is all, thank you.

Think outside the box?I don't know how to even think outside the box!!

That's because thinking outside the box is impossible when you depend on something that's already there, and is logical. It's like training wheels you refused to take off without knowing you refused to take them off. Relying on book moves, relying on common theory, patterns, tactics, those are the training wheels. Look at Mikhail Tal. He played not with theory, but with creativity. That's what thinking outside the box means. It's thinking creatively to solve something. Because sometimes, even simple solutions can't solve it, but when you switch on your creative mind, then you'll see "outside" the walls of simple logic that's keeping you from seeing solutions where others haven't.

@jashwinchess said [^](/forum/redirect/post/53lGKt6d) > @francisludwigii said > > > > Chess and astronomy have two common similarities: math and science. From what I have read, you're saying that understanding key positions and finding possible sequences during a game is a fundamental part of chess itself. My question is: if prediction is key here, does it involve the person having to predict a sequence that makes him/her think outside the box? And does it involve trying to understand the playing style, strength, and unveiling the calculations of your opponent? If so, then how does one do it, especially in a lower ELO level for some, and could applying the rules of math be needed in a game? For example, 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 (Queen's Gambit Declined) 3. Nf6. Does this mean that White must predict his/her opponent's next three moves? The problem with novice but calculative players is that they only think of one line. If their opponent plays something completely different and/or familiar, they lose it all. For intermediate players, it isn't quite as problematic, but when calculating two or three possible lines that their opponent may play, they sometimes forget to plan *how* they can continue to his/her advantage. Even if they have a plan, it's usually mentally rushed and might fall apart later on. For advanced players, predicting an opponent's move will be quite easier. Different moves, different plans. But just like the novice and intermediate ones, some (or even most of them) get caught off guard by an unusual move that they didn't think of. Will this research help improve and maybe even solve this problem? That is all, thank you. > > Think outside the box?I don't know how to even think outside the box!! That's because thinking outside the box is *impossible* when you depend on something that's already there, and is logical. It's like training wheels you refused to take off without knowing you refused to take them off. Relying on book moves, relying on common theory, patterns, tactics, those are the training wheels. Look at Mikhail Tal. He played not with theory, but with *creativity*. That's what thinking outside the box means. It's thinking creatively to solve something. Because sometimes, even simple solutions can't solve it, but when you switch on your creative mind, then you'll see "outside" the walls of simple logic that's keeping you from seeing solutions where others haven't.

Chess, first of all, is art, according to Tal. We were given the creativity to think not only outside of the box, but to pivot something, deeper into things that most people who are stuck on simple logic, common sense, only supported by mere fact, have overlooked. They didn't even take the effort to realize and switched to "auto-pilot". "You must take your opponent into a deep dark forest where 2+2=5, and the path leading out is only wide enough for one." Taking initiative, merging simplicity (and a bit of chaos), and even feeling curious about something that was thought to be nothing. It forms us uniquely, a uniqueness that will not only let us discover something out of pure imagination and creativity, but also the fact that you've made memories with it that will never be forgotten. That's why chess is unique. Even Fischer invented the Fischer Random to get out of logical theory. It forces the player to think creatively. And I would think the same, too, out of boredom, of course. So when you play a game (like, right now), and you're stuck in a losing position, try to think creatively, like Tal, who turned so many losing positions into crushing wins. Find something that can turn the tables. If you can't, slam the tables, resign, and storm out like Magnus. At least you played like him XD. So yes, that's just my little philosophy.

Chess, first of all, is art, according to Tal. We were given the creativity to think not only outside of the box, but to pivot something, deeper into things that most people who are stuck on simple logic, common sense, only supported by mere fact, have overlooked. They didn't even take the effort to realize and switched to "auto-pilot". "You must take your opponent into a deep dark forest where 2+2=5, and the path leading out is only wide enough for one." Taking initiative, merging simplicity (and a bit of chaos), and even feeling curious about something that was thought to be nothing. It forms us uniquely, a uniqueness that will not only let us discover something out of pure imagination and creativity, but also the fact that you've made memories with it that will never be forgotten. That's why chess is unique. Even Fischer invented the Fischer Random to get out of logical theory. It forces the player to think creatively. And I would think the same, too, out of boredom, of course. So when you play a game (like, right now), and you're stuck in a losing position, try to think creatively, like Tal, who turned *so* many losing positions into crushing wins. Find something that can turn the tables. If you can't, slam the tables, resign, and storm out like Magnus. At least you played like him XD. So yes, that's just my little philosophy.

What drives me crazy esp. in speed chess is when I am playing a weaker player and they beat me with stupid moves. The reason isn’t because they are skilled or understand the game soo well rather it’s because I don’t even see the move that they made. I don’t see it because the move is soo dumb that it is played beneath my visual anticipatory radar. Like a stealth idiocy missile that passes right through all my exotic skilled expert defenses which blind me to the obvious. Lol

What drives me crazy esp. in speed chess is when I am playing a weaker player and they beat me with stupid moves. The reason isn’t because they are skilled or understand the game soo well rather it’s because I don’t even see the move that they made. I don’t see it because the move is soo dumb that it is played beneath my visual anticipatory radar. Like a stealth idiocy missile that passes right through all my exotic skilled expert defenses which blind me to the obvious. Lol

@francisludwigii said ^

Comments on https://adjva4.dpdns.org/@/ndpatzer/blog/science-of-chess-seeing-moves-with-momentum-over-the-board/Dxw72cRP

Chess and astronomy have two common similarities: math and science. From what I have read, you're saying that understanding key positions and finding possible sequences during a game is a fundamental part of chess itself. My question is: if prediction is key here, does it involve the person having to predict a sequence that makes him/her think outside the box? And does it involve trying to understand the playing style, strength, and unveiling the calculations of your opponent? If so, then how does one do it, especially in a lower ELO level for some, and could applying the rules of math be needed in a game? For example, 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 (Queen's Gambit Declined) 3. Nf6. Does this mean that White must predict his/her opponent's next three moves? The problem with novice but calculative players is that they only think of one line. If their opponent plays something completely different and/or familiar, they lose it all. For intermediate players, it isn't quite as problematic, but when calculating two or three possible lines that their opponent may play, they sometimes forget to plan how they can continue to his/her advantage. Even if they have a plan, it's usually mentally rushed and might fall apart later on. For advanced players, predicting an opponent's move will be quite easier. Different moves, different plans. But just like the novice and intermediate ones, some (or even most of them) get caught off guard by an unusual move that they didn't think of. Will this research help improve and maybe even solve this problem? That is all, thank you.

Think outside the box? I don't even know how to think outside the box (rewrited) and sorry @francisludwigii

@francisludwigii said [^](/forum/redirect/post/91cR4BPZ) > > Comments on https://adjva4.dpdns.org/@/ndpatzer/blog/science-of-chess-seeing-moves-with-momentum-over-the-board/Dxw72cRP > > Chess and astronomy have two common similarities: math and science. From what I have read, you're saying that understanding key positions and finding possible sequences during a game is a fundamental part of chess itself. My question is: if prediction is key here, does it involve the person having to predict a sequence that makes him/her think outside the box? And does it involve trying to understand the playing style, strength, and unveiling the calculations of your opponent? If so, then how does one do it, especially in a lower ELO level for some, and could applying the rules of math be needed in a game? For example, 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 (Queen's Gambit Declined) 3. Nf6. Does this mean that White must predict his/her opponent's next three moves? The problem with novice but calculative players is that they only think of one line. If their opponent plays something completely different and/or familiar, they lose it all. For intermediate players, it isn't quite as problematic, but when calculating two or three possible lines that their opponent may play, they sometimes forget to plan *how* they can continue to his/her advantage. Even if they have a plan, it's usually mentally rushed and might fall apart later on. For advanced players, predicting an opponent's move will be quite easier. Different moves, different plans. But just like the novice and intermediate ones, some (or even most of them) get caught off guard by an unusual move that they didn't think of. Will this research help improve and maybe even solve this problem? That is all, thank you. Think outside the box? I don't even know how to think outside the box (rewrited) and sorry @francisludwigii

That's because thinking outside the box is impossible when you depend on something that's already there, and is logical. It's like training wheels you refused to take off without knowing you refused to take them off. Relying on book moves, relying on common theory, patterns, tactics, those are the training wheels. Look at Mikhail Tal. He played not with theory, but with creativity. That's what thinking outside the box means. It's thinking creatively to solve something. Because sometimes, even simple solutions can't solve it, but when you switch on your creative mind, then you'll see "outside" the walls of simple logic that's keeping you from seeing solutions where others haven't

@francisludwigii said ^

Chess, first of all, is art, according to Tal. We were given the creativity to think not only outside of the box, but to pivot something, deeper into things that most people who are stuck on simple logic, common sense, only supported by mere fact, have overlooked. They didn't even take the effort to realize and switched to "auto-pilot". "You must take your opponent into a deep dark forest where 2+2=5, and the path leading out is only wide enough for one." Taking initiative, merging simplicity (and a bit of chaos), and even feeling curious about something that was thought to be nothing. It forms us uniquely, a uniqueness that will not only let us discover something out of pure imagination and creativity, but also the fact that you've made memories with it that will never be forgotten. That's why chess is unique. Even Fischer invented the Fischer Random to get out of logical theory. It forces the player to think creatively. And I would think the same, too, out of boredom, of course. So when you play a game (like, right now), and you're stuck in a losing position, try to think creatively, like Tal, who turned so many losing positions into crushing wins. Find something that can turn the tables. If you can't, slam the tables, resign, and storm out like Magnus. At least you played like him XD. So yes, that's just my little philosophy.

aka slam the table

> That's because thinking outside the box is *impossible* when you depend on something that's already there, and is logical. It's like training wheels you refused to take off without knowing you refused to take them off. Relying on book moves, relying on common theory, patterns, tactics, those are the training wheels. Look at Mikhail Tal. He played not with theory, but with *creativity*. That's what thinking outside the box means. It's thinking creatively to solve something. Because sometimes, even simple solutions can't solve it, but when you switch on your creative mind, then you'll see "outside" the walls of simple logic that's keeping you from seeing solutions where others haven't @francisludwigii said [^](/forum/redirect/post/cL2iVG1I) > Chess, first of all, is art, according to Tal. We were given the creativity to think not only outside of the box, but to pivot something, deeper into things that most people who are stuck on simple logic, common sense, only supported by mere fact, have overlooked. They didn't even take the effort to realize and switched to "auto-pilot". "You must take your opponent into a deep dark forest where 2+2=5, and the path leading out is only wide enough for one." Taking initiative, merging simplicity (and a bit of chaos), and even feeling curious about something that was thought to be nothing. It forms us uniquely, a uniqueness that will not only let us discover something out of pure imagination and creativity, but also the fact that you've made memories with it that will never be forgotten. That's why chess is unique. Even Fischer invented the Fischer Random to get out of logical theory. It forces the player to think creatively. And I would think the same, too, out of boredom, of course. So when you play a game (like, right now), and you're stuck in a losing position, try to think creatively, like Tal, who turned *so* many losing positions into crushing wins. Find something that can turn the tables. If you can't, slam the tables, resign, and storm out like Magnus. At least you played like him XD. So yes, that's just my little philosophy. aka slam the table

@jashwinchess said ^

Comments on https://adjva4.dpdns.org/@/ndpatzer/blog/science-of-chess-seeing-moves-with-momentum-over-the-board/Dxw72cRP

Chess and astronomy have two common similarities: math and science. From what I have read, you're saying that understanding key positions and finding possible sequences during a game is a fundamental part of chess itself. My question is: if prediction is key here, does it involve the person having to predict a sequence that makes him/her think outside the box? And does it involve trying to understand the playing style, strength, and unveiling the calculations of your opponent? If so, then how does one do it, especially in a lower ELO level for some, and could applying the rules of math be needed in a game? For example, 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 (Queen's Gambit Declined) 3. Nf6. Does this mean that White must predict his/her opponent's next three moves? The problem with novice but calculative players is that they only think of one line. If their opponent plays something completely different and/or familiar, they lose it all. For intermediate players, it isn't quite as problematic, but when calculating two or three possible lines that their opponent may play, they sometimes forget to plan how they can continue to his/her advantage. Even if they have a plan, it's usually mentally rushed and might fall apart later on. For advanced players, predicting an opponent's move will be quite easier. Different moves, different plans. But just like the novice and intermediate ones, some (or even most of them) get caught off guard by an unusual move that they didn't think of. Will this research help improve and maybe even solve this problem? That is all, thank you.

Think outside the box? I don't even know how to think outside the box (rewrited) and sorry @francisludwigii

For what? You did nothing. You don't need to make yourself guilty, it's alright ദ്ദി

@jashwinchess said [^](/forum/redirect/post/gdLPmu6y) > > > Comments on https://adjva4.dpdns.org/@/ndpatzer/blog/science-of-chess-seeing-moves-with-momentum-over-the-board/Dxw72cRP > > > > Chess and astronomy have two common similarities: math and science. From what I have read, you're saying that understanding key positions and finding possible sequences during a game is a fundamental part of chess itself. My question is: if prediction is key here, does it involve the person having to predict a sequence that makes him/her think outside the box? And does it involve trying to understand the playing style, strength, and unveiling the calculations of your opponent? If so, then how does one do it, especially in a lower ELO level for some, and could applying the rules of math be needed in a game? For example, 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 (Queen's Gambit Declined) 3. Nf6. Does this mean that White must predict his/her opponent's next three moves? The problem with novice but calculative players is that they only think of one line. If their opponent plays something completely different and/or familiar, they lose it all. For intermediate players, it isn't quite as problematic, but when calculating two or three possible lines that their opponent may play, they sometimes forget to plan *how* they can continue to his/her advantage. Even if they have a plan, it's usually mentally rushed and might fall apart later on. For advanced players, predicting an opponent's move will be quite easier. Different moves, different plans. But just like the novice and intermediate ones, some (or even most of them) get caught off guard by an unusual move that they didn't think of. Will this research help improve and maybe even solve this problem? That is all, thank you. > > Think outside the box? I don't even know how to think outside the box (rewrited) and sorry @francisludwigii For what? You did nothing. You don't need to make yourself guilty, it's alright ദ്ദി

sorry for what? I said sorry because i thought you would be annoyed cause i wrote it two times

sorry for what? I said sorry because i thought you would be annoyed cause i wrote it two times

A lot of words not a lot of explanation

A lot of words not a lot of explanation

@RematchMe said ^

A lot of words not a lot of explanation

It isn't for everyone. Clearly, someone has a map that wasn't updated. Enjoy reading what you call "excessive", but I think it's a scientific masterpiece.

@RematchMe said [^](/forum/redirect/post/7blZ9wRA) > A lot of words not a lot of explanation It isn't for everyone. Clearly, someone has a map that wasn't updated. Enjoy reading what you call "excessive", but I think it's a scientific masterpiece.