Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

lichess.org
Donate

What even is calculation?

The "overthinking" example is a typical (and funny) one!

However, it is hard to resist to keep calculating and search for all candidate moves. Especially because until RxNc4 the forcing sequence is easy. As soon as I start calculating ...Nb6xc4, I just cant stop calculating until RxNc4, and as routine I would likely look out if there is now something for black: ...Be6!

And by this time, 99% of all players would then start thinking for a while. It is really disrupting one's thoughts to now stop looking further after ...Be6.

In handsight it had been better to look for all candidate moves, but this is so hard to do, I wonder if I could even change this way of thinking. I guess, the stronger you are, the more likely you fall into this kind of overthinking.

The "overthinking" example is a typical (and funny) one! However, it is hard to resist to keep calculating and search for all candidate moves. Especially because until RxNc4 the forcing sequence is easy. As soon as I start calculating ...Nb6xc4, I just cant stop calculating until RxNc4, and as routine I would likely look out if there is now something for black: ...Be6! And by this time, 99% of all players would then start thinking for a while. It is really disrupting one's thoughts to now stop looking further after ...Be6. In handsight it had been better to look for all candidate moves, but this is so hard to do, I wonder if I could even change this way of thinking. I guess, the stronger you are, the more likely you fall into this kind of overthinking.

@Munich said in #2:

The "overthinking" example is a typical (and funny) one!

However, it is hard to resist to keep calculating and search for all candidate moves. Especially because until RxNc4 the forcing sequence is easy. As soon as I start calculating ...Nb6xc4, I just cant stop calculating until RxNc4, and as routine I would likely look out if there is now something for black: ...Be6!

And by this time, 99% of all players would then start thinking for a while. It is really disrupting one's thoughts to now stop looking further after ...Be6.

In handsight it had been better to look for all candidate moves, but this is so hard to do, I wonder if I could even change this way of thinking. I guess, the stronger you are, the more likely you fall into this kind of overthinking.

Yes, it is definitely not easy and often requires discipline. If I had snapped out of the tunnel vision and found the other candidate in Bg7, I wouldn't have even needed to calculate the long sequence, saving me a bunch of time which I could have potentially used to not make the Rd1 mistake a moves later. My opponent likely saw both candidate moves in advance and thought something along the lines of "if I have to, I will calculate Nc4, but in the worst case scenario Bg7 is clearly good enough".

@Munich said in #2: > The "overthinking" example is a typical (and funny) one! > > However, it is hard to resist to keep calculating and search for all candidate moves. Especially because until RxNc4 the forcing sequence is easy. As soon as I start calculating ...Nb6xc4, I just cant stop calculating until RxNc4, and as routine I would likely look out if there is now something for black: ...Be6! > > And by this time, 99% of all players would then start thinking for a while. It is really disrupting one's thoughts to now stop looking further after ...Be6. > > In handsight it had been better to look for all candidate moves, but this is so hard to do, I wonder if I could even change this way of thinking. I guess, the stronger you are, the more likely you fall into this kind of overthinking. Yes, it is definitely not easy and often requires discipline. If I had snapped out of the tunnel vision and found the other candidate in Bg7, I wouldn't have even needed to calculate the long sequence, saving me a bunch of time which I could have potentially used to not make the Rd1 mistake a moves later. My opponent likely saw both candidate moves in advance and thought something along the lines of "if I have to, I will calculate Nc4, but in the worst case scenario Bg7 is clearly good enough".
<Comment deleted by user>
<Comment deleted by user>

Thanks to you @benkonian, I’m going to implement this rule into my games: If I notice I’ve spent more than 3 minutes on a move (though I might not realize until 5-7 minutes in), I stop, go back to the start, and review all candidate moves. Often, within a minute, I’ll spot another serious move I missed earlier (like ...Bg7 in your example). Yes, I’ve already spent (or “wasted”) some time, but wasting 3-7 minutes is acceptable in an OTB tournament game.

I already follow a 10-minute rule: If I’ve spent over 10 minutes on a move (even if I only notice at minute 15), I tell myself: ‘This is clearly complicated, and I can’t decide for sure.’ At that point, I look for the safest move - one that stabilizes the position without risking much. I spend one final minute reviewing it, then play it. Surprisingly, safe moves are almost always available, and this rule has saved me from countless time scrambles. Afterward, I make a conscious effort to speed up my play.

This system has been a game-changer, helping me avoid the time trouble addiction I used to have. I also pay attention to my opponent’s time usage - while I’m not playing for time, I aim to avoid giving them a huge time advantage.

We all want to play the absolute best moves, and if you find them quickly, play them! But is a +0.2 difference really worth burning a huge chunk of your time? Often, practicality and time management matter more.

@benkonian said in #3:

"if I have to, I will calculate Nc4, but in the worst case scenario Bg7 is clearly good enough"

Ye, good point: "good enough" is part of the key.

Your article made a change for good in my games. Hopefully for others, too. Time management matter (I wish I could tell Anna Cramling, it hurts to watch her time management).

Thanks to you @benkonian, I’m going to implement this rule into my games: If I notice I’ve spent more than 3 minutes on a move (though I might not realize until 5-7 minutes in), I stop, go back to the start, and review all candidate moves. Often, within a minute, I’ll spot another serious move I missed earlier (like ...Bg7 in your example). Yes, I’ve already spent (or “wasted”) some time, but wasting 3-7 minutes is acceptable in an OTB tournament game. I already follow a 10-minute rule: If I’ve spent over 10 minutes on a move (even if I only notice at minute 15), I tell myself: ‘This is clearly complicated, and I can’t decide for sure.’ At that point, I look for the safest move - one that stabilizes the position without risking much. I spend one final minute reviewing it, then play it. Surprisingly, safe moves are almost always available, and this rule has saved me from countless time scrambles. Afterward, I make a conscious effort to speed up my play. This system has been a game-changer, helping me avoid the time trouble addiction I used to have. I also pay attention to my opponent’s time usage - while I’m not playing for time, I aim to avoid giving them a huge time advantage. We all want to play the absolute best moves, and if you find them quickly, play them! But is a +0.2 difference really worth burning a huge chunk of your time? Often, practicality and time management matter more. @benkonian said in #3: > "if I have to, I will calculate Nc4, but in the worst case scenario Bg7 is clearly good enough" Ye, good point: "good enough" is part of the key. Your article made a change for good in my games. Hopefully for others, too. Time management matter (I wish I could tell Anna Cramling, it hurts to watch her time management).
  1. Qh5 (threatening mate) Rf8 (only move).

The rook is already on f8 no? should be Re8?

> 3. Qh5 (threatening mate) Rf8 (only move). The rook is already on f8 no? should be Re8?

@wmcmillian said in #7:

The rook is already on f8 no? should be Re8?

You're right, I'll change it, thanks

@wmcmillian said in #7: > The rook is already on f8 no? should be Re8? You're right, I'll change it, thanks

"If you play a weaker opponent, say for example an IM, and discuss the game afterwards it is shocking how little they have looked at!" - GM Simen Agdestein.

I think this is true further down also. The tree is too small. The amount of calculation that me, an others at club level, do is very limited. Most of the time is spent recalculating the same few lines that our intiution gave us to make sure we don't make mistakes and trying to decide between two or three equalish positions at the end of a couple of branches.

I want to calculate more, but it quickly gets very foggy and i have to repeat. It is maybe the most frustrating thing about chess.

"If you play a weaker opponent, say for example an IM, and discuss the game afterwards it is _shocking_ how little they have looked at!" - GM Simen Agdestein. I think this is true further down also. The tree is too small. The amount of calculation that me, an others at club level, do is very limited. Most of the time is spent recalculating the same few lines that our intiution gave us to make sure we don't make mistakes and trying to decide between two or three equalish positions at the end of a couple of branches. I want to calculate more, but it quickly gets very foggy and i have to repeat. It is maybe the most frustrating thing about chess.

When I was 27 years old, I stopped at 1812 rating.
9 years later I came back to chess, and was frustrated that 1500s can beat me. I started learning it again - and thouroughly. What works - and what doesnt.
4 years later I had a performance of 2200++, and stoped at 2143 rating (ecf, but that is about same fide elo).

I am meanwhile 52, and became worse again. Age, and forgetting what I learned is the likely reason.

But one thing I found out about "calculating" - yes, we do calculate the same lines again and again.
And then, suddenly - a line we looked at like 5 times previously - low and behold! we find a cunning inbetween move.

What happened,why did we see it at all, why did we improve after looking at the same line again?
It has to do with our working memory (short term memory): we can hold about 7 informations at most in our short term (working) memory. (example: memorizing a 7 digit telephone number is just about doable, but not 8 digits).

And when looking again and again at the same line, we can visualise it better, because we "understand" the position better, which is because we start to "zip" (winrar) information together, enabling us to start looking deeper/ seeing more. (for telephone number digit example: break the 8 digits down into 4x 2-digit pairs that reminds of something)

That's half of it.

The other half is: when we are at the end of our tree, we conclude after 5 seconds:
1.) looking 5 seconds long "nothing - I try something else"
2.) arriving again, looking 5 sec: "nothing - I try something else"
3.) "nothing - I try something else"
4.) "nothing - I try something else"
5.) "nothing - I try something else"
6.) "Hey, I can move this bishop check in between"

The thing is, that if the final position was presented as a puzzle, we would need 10 sec to solve it. But if we only look at the final tree branch for 5 sec, we only have a chance if we go over and over the same again.

But if you solve a tactic puzzle in less than 10 (ideally less than 5 sec, but you need to click and move the solution moves, so lets make it 10 sec solving time), if you solve it that fast, it is likely a "pattern recognition".

So for this reason, I made sure I train with tag-sorted easy puzzles at chesstempo.com - I created puzzles sets in the Blitz rating range 1100-1200, tagged as "fork", and learned these few hundred puzzles with spaced repetition. Then "discovery", "check mate in 2" , "in 3", "deflection", "pin", "skewer"...

And suddenly I saw these patterns in my games. They were not right there, but "emerging", I saw the influence my pieces do.

Well, that was about calculation. There is so much more, rules/guidlines/boardvision... but then this post gets too long. PM me if interested. I know only 1 person who followed my ways and did improve. But many have asked how to do it. So maybe more people have improved, they just never told me. My advise is free, dont be shy, pm me. I guess, even if you are stronger than me, some tips would help even GMs, Im sure. (Edit: and I am sure I dont even get a "thumbs up", never mind anyone would pm me and gain in short time some noticeable elo gains, no matter what level)

When I was 27 years old, I stopped at 1812 rating. 9 years later I came back to chess, and was frustrated that 1500s can beat me. I started learning it again - and thouroughly. What works - and what doesnt. 4 years later I had a performance of 2200++, and stoped at 2143 rating (ecf, but that is about same fide elo). I am meanwhile 52, and became worse again. Age, and forgetting what I learned is the likely reason. But one thing I found out about "calculating" - yes, we do calculate the same lines again and again. And then, suddenly - a line we looked at like 5 times previously - low and behold! we find a cunning inbetween move. What happened,why did we see it at all, why did we improve after looking at the same line again? It has to do with our working memory (short term memory): we can hold about 7 informations at most in our short term (working) memory. (example: memorizing a 7 digit telephone number is just about doable, but not 8 digits). And when looking again and again at the same line, we can visualise it better, because we "understand" the position better, which is because we start to "zip" (winrar) information together, enabling us to start looking deeper/ seeing more. (for telephone number digit example: break the 8 digits down into 4x 2-digit pairs that reminds of something) That's half of it. The other half is: when we are at the end of our tree, we conclude after 5 seconds: 1.) looking 5 seconds long "nothing - I try something else" 2.) arriving again, looking 5 sec: "nothing - I try something else" 3.) "nothing - I try something else" 4.) "nothing - I try something else" 5.) "nothing - I try something else" 6.) "Hey, I can move this bishop check in between" The thing is, that if the final position was presented as a puzzle, we would need 10 sec to solve it. But if we only look at the final tree branch for 5 sec, we only have a chance if we go over and over the same again. But if you solve a tactic puzzle in less than 10 (ideally less than 5 sec, but you need to click and move the solution moves, so lets make it 10 sec solving time), if you solve it that fast, it is likely a "pattern recognition". So for this reason, I made sure I train with tag-sorted easy puzzles at chesstempo.com - I created puzzles sets in the Blitz rating range 1100-1200, tagged as "fork", and learned these few hundred puzzles with spaced repetition. Then "discovery", "check mate in 2" , "in 3", "deflection", "pin", "skewer"... And suddenly I saw these patterns in my games. They were not right there, but "emerging", I saw the influence my pieces do. Well, that was about calculation. There is so much more, rules/guidlines/boardvision... but then this post gets too long. PM me if interested. I know only 1 person who followed my ways and did improve. But many have asked how to do it. So maybe more people have improved, they just never told me. My advise is free, dont be shy, pm me. I guess, even if you are stronger than me, some tips would help even GMs, Im sure. (Edit: and I am sure I dont even get a "thumbs up", never mind anyone would pm me and gain in short time some noticeable elo gains, no matter what level)