The Road to 2200 Program

 Excelling at Chess Calculation - notes 

Ch. 1 - 3)

But the most important ability in chess is not seeing ten moves ahead, but seeing the position which is right in front of you. This kind of awareness has increased in the last ten years with the emergence of strong chess-playing programs, whose short-term vision is their greatest advantage over humans – because they are set up to examine everything. Thus, they show us our small tactical mistakes and encourage us to improve our calculating abilities. 

Calculate the most forcing move first. 

A learning process usually has four phases:

1. The first phase is called unconscious incompetence (UI),
2. the second conscious incompetence (CI),
3. the third conscious competence (CC), and
4. the fourth phase is called unconscious competence(UC).
   
   

"UI-CI-CC-UC"

Related to chess vision this can be translated into the following four phases. 

1. Chess pieces are pieces of wood. No knowledge of the rules at all - unconscious incompetence. 
2. Knowledge of the rules, but with a substantial number of possibilities that cannot truly be evaluated. This is the situation of the beginner. All legal moves are candidates - conscious incompetence.  
3. A greater knowledge of chess and of the evaluation of moves. The number of possibilities becomes reduced. This is the level of the club player and developing players - conscious competence.  
4. Chess positions immediately make sense and obvious moves appear in the subject's head. This is the situation of the extraordinarily strong chess player with a fully developed intuition - unconscious competence. 

•   

In his entertaining and philosophical book, Creative Chess, Amatzya Avni divides the development of the chess player's imagination into three stages:  

• Everything may be right; everything is possible. There are no principles, no guiding laws.  

• Everything that falls inside the frames is possible; the rest is wrong.  

• Everything that falls inside the frames is possible; the boundaries between the frames and their surroundings are not rigid. So, what is outside the frames can also be possible. 

 

Or to put it another way:  

• Any move is possible. 

• The number of possibilities is highly limited, and no other possibilities are considered.  

• A few moves are considered, but all options again become open. 

In chess, realizing that we cannot and do not see everything immediately is incredibly important for the development of our thinking abilities. Before we can say ‘select candidates,’ we need to talk about the ability to find moves. This is a kind of chess vision and is a methodology that will prove extremely helpful in practical games. Chess vision can be developed quite easily over time through the solving of different exercises; for example, exercises specifically designed to develop chess vision. A much more common type is solving simple combinations. Some people claim that you should not solve too easy combinations, which is true – if we add the word ‘exclusively.’ Exercises that can be solved simply by finding the right combinational motif are good for improving your chess vision. You can never do enough. Another way is by solving difficult studies. 

However, although training is training and should not be a competition, and although simulations of real playing situations are desirable at times, the main function of training is to isolate your abilities and improve them through specifically designed exercises. Studies can be good for expanding chess awareness and improving chess vision. 

Nevertheless, for most players studies are difficult, and one of the important aspects of training is to build confidence and motivation which is not achieved by trying to solve far too difficult exercises. Instead, you should solve exercises of medium difficulty. In this way there is a balance between pleasure (for training should be pleasurable or you will stop doing it before you reap any rewards) and the development of your abilities. By solving simple combinations your success rate should be high and the benefit in terms of developing chess vision should also be quite high. Let me add a final word in this chapter concerning methodology: When solving tactical exercises whose main idea is simply to find moves rather than to calculate accurately, you will learn naturally to look for moves. This is an important ability to take with you to the board, where you will be able to find additional possibilities repeatedly. In this book we shall return to this ability repeatedly, at various stages in the calculation process. The important thing to remember is that moves are not all visible by themselves, even after lengthy training in chess vision. Many moves will have to be found. Solving exercises with this theme, and a general awareness of the things we overlook, will help you to pay more attention to this phenomenon. 

 How to Calculate 

 Look, do not think 

One of the greatest dangers in chess is that our brain gets in the way. We might sometime have convinced ourselves that we are intelligent creatures, but really, we should not fall for it. We are not that smart. Often the only thing our brain does is to cloud our eyes and make it impossible for us to see what is really going on in the position in front of us. 

  

The right thing, I believe, is to calculate candidate moves one at a time and come to conclusions as quickly as possible. Remember, we calculate not to indulge ourselves in variations, but to find the best move as quickly and as reliably as possible. Pseudo-thinking with concepts and ideas will bring you little satisfaction here. You need to be concrete and to find the relevant variations. 

 The main point here is that most moves can be found without calculating that deeply. All that is needed is:  

1. to compare a few variations, and  

2. disregard any garbage lines we see, and  

3. find a few strong moves at critical moments  

If you have no training in finding candidates then it will be difficult for you to find these moves, and the odds are that you will not be able to solve the problems in the position. 

The reason we need to train ourselves to look at the board is because we find most chess moves in the same way as we solve other problems in life. As a species we are gifted with several tools for decision making, one of which is pattern recognition. This means that we can make very quick decisions in all kinds of situations by comparing them with previous experiences, which gives us a qualified line of action for free. The problem is that, although this is very practical in most of life's situations, it is not necessarily the best way of finding the best move in a chess position. Chess analysis cannot be done fully without paying attention to the peculiarities of the position. You need to concentrate on seeing the situation of the game as it is. And how is this done? The answer is simple...  

The reason we need to train ourselves to look at the board is because we find most chess moves in the same way as we solve other problems in life. As a species we are gifted with several tools for decision making, one of which is pattern recognition. This means that we can make very quick decisions in all kinds of situations by comparing them with previous experiences, which gives us a qualified line of action for free. The problem is that, although this is very practical in most of life's situations, it is not necessarily the best way of finding the best move in a chess position. Chess analysis cannot be done fully without paying attention to the peculiarities of the position. You need to concentrate on seeing the situation of the game as it is. And how is this done? 

Calculate more slowly 

Once the maneuvering after the opening is completed, there comes a moment when one player is better prepared for a confrontation between the two armies and should therefore seek it without hesitation. At this moment calculation is an absolute necessity. Logic and general assumptions can only take you so far. This is what some theoreticians choose to call the critical moment. 

The point of Prophylaxis 

The point is to ensure that the opponent's every desirable operation comes at an inflated cost, and not necessarily prevent a maneuver. Start going through your shortlist of positional factors to check when in doubt about your future operations. One of these factors is weaknesses. 

This does not mean there are no basic concepts and ideas in chess, through which we can improve our understanding, and from which we can draw benefit in practical play. Here we are dealing with one such idea: the critical moment. The key idea is that there is only so much we can achieve through positional operations, and at some point, we will have to calculate at least a little to decide the game in our favor. This is often best done at the exact moment when you cannot improve your position as much as the opponent can improve his. 

It is important, in order to be able to organize our time in the best possible way, to develop our feeling for the critical moments in chess. This also answers one of the most common questions chess players ask: how much should I calculate? The right answer in my opinion is: not more than the position requires. The question of when and what we should calculate is very difficult to answer. Obviously personality issues are connected to this question, just as to everything else in chess. There can be many ways of finding the same moves and can anyone say which method is the best? I believe in Dr. John Nunn when he says: ‘Do not analyze unnecessary tactics!’. But when are tactics unnecessary and when are they necessary? There are positions where we can answer such questions without doubt, and there are positions where we can argue with good sense for any number of approaches. Thinking Techniques

(Ch 4)

In this chapter I will go into more detail on the different thinking techniques we can use when calculating. As I see it, there are two main ways of improving one's calculation. The first is simply to train it (see Chapter 8 on how to train calculation), and the second concerns approach and awareness. In the following I suggest different techniques that you can try to implement in your training. These are useful tools designed to enable us to look at the problems facing us in a different way, and quite often creating a different viewpoint will help us to solve them. Now we will discuss how to choose between the different moves we have at our disposal. The first thing we need to do is to become more concrete in our thinking.

Assumptions, blunders and other sins

Stupidity knows no age. – Esben Lund.

Assumptions

But there are also ways of thinking that create blunders, even when we are playing our best chess. They are called assumptions. This is why I say, first of all, calculate wide, not deep. The point is that whatever happens in the long run is not important, if you drop something here and now. First be sure that you know what is going on right in front of your nose, before you run away in long variations. This is best achieved by lowering the tempo at which we calculate.

The point is that you should never trust your opponent blindly. We win games because our opponents make mistakes, including mistakes in calculation. The lesson from this is: Force yourself to be more concrete. You cannot see a theme and then make assumptions about it. Chess is too complicated for us to guess our way through. It is no better to believe that the opponent is stupid than it is to trust him blindly.

When I talk about laziness in connection with decision making in chess, I see it as something not too different from physical sport. There comes a time when we meet some kind of resistance, where it requires an extra effort to rise to the occasion. In these instances it is easy to resort to assumptions as they use up little energy, but we need to force ourselves to concentrate and be concrete in our thinking. Over time our ability to be concrete will improve, just as our capability of producing oxygen increases when we take ourselves to the edge of comfort in physical training. The result is that the boundaries between our comfort and discomfort move, and we become able to concentrate for longer periods and keep our focus when needed in a tournament game. Therefore training in calculation is very important.

As I said above, this has a lot to do with the box within which we think. We need to expand our expectations of what is possible, and realize that there is nothing which is impossible. I have discussed this before in a chapter in Excelling at Chess.

Unforcing Thinking

One of the main defects in our thinking, which we have rid ourselves of so that chess positions can open themselves up to us in all their glory, is a forcing way of thinking. This is closely linked to assumptions and thus also to blundering. To think outside the box is basically what unforcing thinking is all about. It is to solve the problems in a concrete fashion instead of just following your first impulses. It is never knowing for sure that you have found the best move before you have gone really deeply into a position. The most common form of unforcing thinking is in-between moves or zwischenzugs.

To think out of the box simply means that you remain open to every move in a position, that you try to take the position as it is, rather than how you might want it to be. You leave your assumptions at the door, realizing that they are often nothing more than a representation of your own plan, and not that of the opponent.

One way to learn to think out of the box is to solve endgame studies. Although very beneficial in the development of chess imagination, solving endgame studies is not a full training program in itself. Analyzing your own games in detail with a strong chess-playing computer program can also free us from fixed ways of understanding and help us to see the game as it really is. When defending it is especially important to step out from the most obvious variations, as these are usually the justification for the attacker's aggression. Of course these lines should be checked and mistakes in them exploited, but often we need to think out of the box.

A recurrent themes of outside the box of thinking is:

Desperados

A desperado is a move that achieves a position in which more than one capture is possible, and valuable pieces will try to sell their skin as dearly as possible.

Domination

An important facet of chess understanding is the feeling for domination, for when the pieces are able to dominate each other. A lot of calculation is unforcing because it relies on the domination of the opponent's pieces. Many studies have been devoted to the theme of domination. This is not due solely to its aesthetic qualities, but because it is also an important aspect of the endgame.

Domination is a part of chess thinking unappreciated by many players. Often when I have analysed with players who know much more about chess than me, I have sensed little awareness of this part of the game which has given me many extra points over the years.

The Reversal of Moves

At the beginning of a tournament in Budapest, Esben Lund and I talked about the reversal of moves in different tactical variations as a possible important thinking tool. During the tournament situations arose again and again that confirmed our attention to this idea. Later it was easy to see the importance this idea could have for practical play and for deciding upon a move.

Comparison

Often we have two (or more) possibilities at our disposal and, because of a shortage of time, or our own limitations, we are unable to calculate them all the way to the end. In such cases, if they happen to be variations upon the same theme, it can be really useful to compare the possibilities with each other in order to make a more informed decision.

Studies

I find that studies often show different themes in a very clear form, but they hold the danger that the student comes to believe that the themes and methods are unreal, and only arise in the fantastic universe of chess studies, where the pieces seem to move differently. This is, however, untrue. Studies relate to chess, just as novels and movies relate to life. They are constructed situations focusing on the more intense aspects of our existence.

Elimination

All through this book I talk about elimination as an important feature and it is indeed a key thinking technique – and one of the most difficult to acquire.

At times we should be able to go back to the beginning, when we sense that we have not found the best move in the position, and look again. This can happen for many reasons. Perhaps we are not happy with the moves we have analysed, or see a way to improve them immediately. Another idea can be to reverse the move order or to exploit ideas found during the analysis of our first chosen candidates. Kotov was unfairly quoted as trying to make people think like machines. I, too, have made this mistake. Actually the quote is a half-joke: ‘Botvinnik is working hard at trying to make a computer play chess as well as a human being, so let me teach human beings to analyse with the accuracy of a machine' (my italics). Nevertheless Kotov did have a tendency to think in a very mechanistic fashion. He wanted us to remember a lot of candidate moves in our heads, while we were looking for candidates against other candidates. This sounds confusing, and it should. No one can manage this satisfactorily.

However, Kotov does have a very important point. We do need to organise our thoughts so that we do not repeat the same piece of calculation over and over again. I have seen this as a common trait among weaker players (that is people like myself and below in the world ranking list). We tend to repeat the beginning of a four-move variation again and again before we begin to analyse. There are probably a lot of reasons for this, but it is a really bad habit, and will be dealt with in Chapter 5 on Visualisation and Stepping-Stones, a subject so important that I have singled it out for an independent chapter.

Trying to understand what your opponent is up to

An important idea in chess, which we should never forget to refer to, is the idea of the opponent's intentions. As we are not playing computers, our opponent's will think like we do, and play moves with ideas. Usually when we think our opponents are playing bad moves, but we cannot pick up on their ideas, it is because we ourselves are left in the dark.

Prophylaxis 

An important aspect of understanding what the opponent is up to is figuring out what to do about it, the way to interweave this with our own plans and desires. The works of Mark Dvoretsky (which I continue referring to, even though many will find his books too difficult) are filled with prophylaxis. His training of players like Yusupov – from an ordinary talent to being second only to Kasparov and Karpov – includes heavy emphasis on prophylaxis. Though a difficult word to spell correctly, it is not a concept that difficult is to understand. It simply means paying attention to the opponent's ideas and incorporating them into our decision making. It does not mean that we have to use all our energy preventing the opponent's ideas. Sometimes we do, sometimes we can ignore them; and quite often we can make life more difficult for him, while we continue with our own plans.

Knowing what your opponent is up to is indeed useful information. Chess is played by two people, and often the player who shows the best understanding of what is really going on at the board, will be the one to walk from the board with a full point. 

Visualisation and Stepping Stones

CHAPTER 5

The greatest difference between the amateur and the grandmaster, when it comes to calculation, is that the amateur recalculates the same lines over and over again. This is quite common among amateurs and, of course, is a very ineffective way of calculating. Jonathan Tisdall, in his thought-provoking book Improve your Chess Now!, introduced a training method that, in some form, should help anyone struggling with exactly this problem. He called this method stepping-stones. I will not go deeply into Tisdall's method here – those interested in his ideas should get the book. (It comes highly recommended.) Instead I want to use and abuse the idea in my own way, as I think it makes the most sense: that is to eliminate ineffective calculation, not just as a training technique. The way I use stepping-stones in my own thinking is to avoid continually returning to the beginning to recheck variations. This does not mean that I never go back to recheck the lines, but there is a time and a place for everything, which is not all the time.

Stepping-stones have a lot to do with focusing and visualisation. You could argue that you need to improve your visualisation ability before you can use stepping-stones. But actually I see it as a chicken and egg question: who cares which was first when you can get fried chicken?

An important part of using stepping-stones is to look for candidates at the end of a variation in the same way as at the beginning. This way you will realise that some variations in no way stops here, but goes on for a few moves further.

Calculating long lines 

When we calculate long lines, as we sometimes have to do, there are a few techniques that can help us improve our accuracy. One technique already mentioned is stepping-stones. Another is the important notion that we need to look for candidates at the end of forced lines, just as we do at the beginning. A third is that we need to calculate forced lines absolutely to the end. Positions in which a lot of things are happening tactically cannot be evaluated, they need to be calculated.

Organising the Calculation of long lines 

One of the most difficult questions in the theory of calculation is what to calculate first. If you go to Mark Dvoretsky he does not really offer any answers which are valid for more than the position at hand – although he does say that if you have a very tempting option, it makes sense to examine it before looking at alternatives, if for no better reason than to satisfy your curiosity. But gone is the advice of Kotov about listing the candidate moves and analysing them all one by one, while in the process finding candidate moves against each of our candidate moves. Of course this kind of mechanical thinking is awful and not suitable for humans, though it can be useful in analysis.

Personally I do not think that any real advice can be given. An experienced player will know what things are natural to calculate and what make little sense. Often we will analyse the most relevant first and the less relevant later. What we should remember is not to analyse for the sake of it, but only analyse what is relevant in order to make a decision. Always, when moves seem to be too obvious, we should pause. Sometimes it is necessary to calculate longer variations in order to make simple moves.

Do not over-calculate 

One of the dangers when you improve your calculating ability is to go with the flow and fall in love with complicated variations.

Defence and calculation 

Most examples in this book, as well as in most other books on tactical play, have their basis in positions where either a win or a draw can be acquired by means of accurate continuation, or at least an advantageous position. I would like to finish this chapter on longer lines with some observations on defence of difficult positions. First of all, try to avoid forced lines when they are no good for you. 

When defending difficult positions, one of the main tools we have to apply is concrete analysis. There are often many ways for our opponent to put extra pressure on our position, but only few or one move for us to defend. We need to be very concrete and ready to think outside the box when given the chance. 

Imagination in Chess by Paata Gaprindashvili, is a brilliant collection of candidate moves exercises, published just as this book was being completed.

Looking for new ideas when your first idea is parried 

I have seen this more times than I care to remember. A student of mine has an idea (or I have an idea) and then sees a defence to it. This makes him scrap the variation, overlooking that, against the opponent's defensive idea, he has another – often decisive – idea of his own. It is often the case, when calculating a line, that you see a defence against your primary idea and then abandon it. But we should not do so since, quite often, the defence against one line is far from being the conclusion. It is similar to boxing when fending off one punch often opens up for another. The same happens in chess: every move will leave at least one square less well protected than it was before. Therefore we should always look to see if new openings appear in our opponent's defences. Just because you cannot play a particular move at one moment, does not mean that you should not consider it again on the next. When we involve ourselves in concrete tactics, we should do so with a truly open mind. 

CHAPTER SIX  

When it is time to Calculate

As has been described in the previous chapters, one of the most important features of calculating is to do it slowly and accurately. Of course this is also true in more complicated positions, where long and sophisticated calculation is required. The advantage of not overlooking an option cannot be underestimated, and the time thus saved can be measured in half and full points. To calculate a long line without the use of candidate moves can be compared to racing up a long ladder without first checking whether it is stood against the right wall. Obviously we can still get to the right place, and sometimes more quickly. But if we have no method to the madness we will waste valuable time in the long run, and this will severely diminish our playing strength and frustrate us, as we know that we are not displaying our full potential. However... If we see a tempting line it would be foolish not to calculate it immediately. The reason for this is that we should not try to make our brains work in a mechanical way. We are not machines, nor computers. We have a certain psychology and it is important to use it to our advantage, whenever possible, and to diminish the disadvantages it can cause us. And as Oscar Wilde said, we can resist anything but temptation. When an option in a position is deeply tempting, it is hard to ignore it completely. So what we should do first is to calculate it briefly, to see if it really is as promising as we think. We may then find that it is not so clear after all, and that we need to examine the variations more deeply and accurately than we could do at first glance. Then it is time to start looking for possibilities, slowly and thoroughly. Actually we need to look for options even if our first impulse seems to be a killer. First of all we need to check our line once again, slowly, looking for surprises. A good question to ask ourselves is why our opponent would allow this tempting possibility. One of the most stupid things in chess is to assume that our opponents are stupid. Why? Because we cannot assume anything. The graveyard where all the failed brilliancies are buried could rightly be called Assumption Dump. So if we think our opponents is stupid, we need to prove that they are by accurate calculation! In this way: Calculating long lines is just like calculating short lines, only it takes more time. I have noticed that if you start playing real moves quickly (not calculating recaptures or already worked-out moves) you can suddenly find yourself moving too fast in positions where you had a definite choice and, afterwards, would have preferred to spend some time.

The time we use in calculation should be reasonable according to where we think the game is going. We need to be able to spend a lot of time at the critical moments. 

Remember: The most natural move to calculate first in a critical moment is the most forcing move.

When the difference between two moves are minimal, it makes no sense to use a lot of time on deciding between them. But in every game there are critical moments where it is necessary to calculate. It is for those we store time, and when we face them we should not be afraid of using the time necessary to make a sound decision.

    

CHAPTER SEVEN

Creativity and Combinational Vision

Although this is not a book on combinations (I already have written such a book, Excelling at Combinational Play, and I am actually quite happy with the result), I still want to discuss the issue of combinations, specifically in relation to creativity. In games between players of different strength many are decided because one player has a superior tactical vision and imagination. This is not necessarily because the combinations they play are correct, but because they understand the nature of combinations much better, and are therefore more open to the opportunities which arise after changing the nature of the game in brutal and tactical fashion. I would like to give below some examples of how innocent-looking positions can suddenly turn into tactical nightmares for one of the players who, being unprepared for the rapidly changing character of the game, can do nothing but watch his opponent demonstrate excellence.

Sasikiran-Skytte
Copenhagen 2003
Dutch Defence

Creativity is not just a gift for geniuses. Some players are predisposed to creative tactics to an extent that others are not, but it is still something that can and should be trained. There are various ways to do this. One of the most common is to be made more aware of tactics by analysing with a computer engine. I cannot repeat this often enough: Awareness to tactics is the most important prerequisite for creativity. Surprises cannot be found if we are not looking for them. 

Another way (already mentioned above) is to solve studies – and lots of them! I have included some studies in the exercise-section of this book, as well as in the chapter How to train calculation. A third way is by solving combinations. Top grandmasters know all typical combinations and are pretty good at finding non-standard combinations as well. Basically, you can never solve too many combinations. Unfortunately there are few really good books of exercises on the market. The old books are to a great extent filled with incorrect combinations and analysis. One of the main reasons for this is the absence of strong chess playing program in previous times. Another is the laziness of authors and editors. The right thing to do is to use the combination books that do exist and then specialise in finding the mistakes as well! Though I do not like to advertise my own books, I think my hard work paid off and Excelling at Combinational Play proved to be a really good collection of exercises. Obviously not all exercises will be to everybody's taste, but by checking everything with Fritz I have managed to create a clear picture of what is right and what is wrong – though even the computer cannot spot all tactical mistakes. 

Creativity to change the course of the game 

The creativity in Sasikiran's game was highly affected by the desire to obtain positional goals (the weakening of black kingside by advancing the h-pawn) without wasting time. Only Black's desire to test White's idea brought about the wild complications.

Creative awareness 

Creativity is not just a method for throwing the opponent off balance. Sometimes creative awareness simply means that you can exploit the chances granted to you by the un-awareness of your opponent. In the following game a 2600-GM lost almost right after leaving the opening, because he did not pay enough respect to his opponent's creative opportunity. Mark Dvoretsky devotes a lot of time in his books and his lectures to talking about awareness of the opponent's counter-chances.

Creativity forced by circumstances 

Sometimes we can end up in a difficult situation where normal play will not help us to escape from our troubles. 

Misunderstood creativity 

The danger of being creative is that we can get carried away and in the process violate the rules of chess. When we are creative we often try to find more unusual ways to approach the truths of a position (most positions have more than one truth, which is where style comes into the picture). Players like Morozevich, Speelman and Shirov often try to bend the laws of chess and take the game into less known territories, where an exact evaluation of the position is impossible to perform. 

Creativity as a way of life 

The division between being creative and being in conflict with the basic laws of chess is really a thin red line. Some players like to go there from time to time. Others live there, thinking that if they can create something truly inventive and different, they will be better prepared for it than their opponents.

Combinational vision One of the most important skills for a chess player is to be able to spot combinations when they appear on the board. As I said before, this awareness is best developed by solving lots of combinations. It is a good idea to have a book of simpler combinations for travelling on the bus or train, for the waiting room at the doctor or the dentist, or for solving in the bathtub.

But let us return for a moment to simpler combinations. Books like Pongo's two books on combinations, Informator's two books on combinations, John Nunn's Chess Puzzle Book, Lein and Archangelsky's Sharpen Your Tactics, and many others are excellent for this. The only problem with a lot of these books are that some of the combinations are incorrect as they have not been checked with a computer (the books are too old), while a lot of examples are simply copied from other combination books. Still, in 90% of the cases you do not recognise exercises even if you have solved them before, nor find mistakes in the solutions, so things are not as bad as they seems. I have tried myself to make a ‘clean’ book on combinations, Excelling at Combinational Play, and I must say that I understand why there aren't more really good books on combinations, because it does take a lot of work to collect, check, annotate and organise such a book. Anyway... Combinatorial vision is enormously useful for the practical player.

I know that this rather long chapter has been shallow in some respects, having done little else but emphasise the importance of paying attention to tactical ideas. But actually this is a very important part of chess and I would not hesitate to write a whole book on this single topic... if I thought it would help just one player come up with something as divine as some of these examples, then that is a good thing.

CHAPTER EIGHT

How to Train Calculation

There are many ways to train our calculation and our decision making. In this chapter I will try to give a few suggestions on to how to do this most effectively. Besides ordering Train Your Decision Making in Chess by Aagaard & Lund, I can recommend solving exercises, both difficult and more easy. 

On the pages following this chapter you will find 100 exercises of different types. The first of these is candidate moves or candidates. Until very recently there were no books on this subject, but while finishing the current book I laid my hands on Paata Gaprindashvili’s Imagination in Chess (Batsford 2004), which works (in part) with very difficult versions of candidate move exercises and is highly recommended.

The second is combinations. I have mentioned them enough already on the previous pages and so will abstain from saying more about them here. 

Thirdly, we have pawn endgames. Pawn endings are superb for training calculation, and though principally simple with few pieces on the board, they still contain high levels of complexity. 

The fourth way to improve your decision making is by solving studies. These will help you to improve your calculation because there is supposed to be only one route to the goal; they will also help you to improve in thinking outside the box. I have presented a lot of studies in this book so far and do not feel that I need to present you with more to prove my point.

The fifth and last way of training your calculation is by analysing complicated positions. The method suggested by Kotov was to go through a game in a game collection by a strong player (which in these days could include Informator) and when the position seems to become complicated, start to calculate. Though Kotov’s method is obviously beneficial, I would prefer it if there were more specific collections of this type of exercise. Mark Dvoretsky’s books have quite a lot, and there is also Analyse to Win by Byron Jacobs, which I like quite a bit. But besides these there is not really anything on the market.

There are of course other ways to train your calculation. The most important is probably to analyse your own games and those of others – not just to read other people’s conclusions, but to analyse the games yourself. This book contains numerous games, some of my own and some by other players, which I have analysed myself. My recent upward progression in rating and acquisition of a GM norm is certainly not due to great talent, but because of hard work at the analysis board. This is the method of Botvinnik, who analysed almost everything and taught Kasparov to do the same. Their superiority in their own time is probably due to this method of constant work. For while you can only calculate the ideas you see, you will find it easier to see ideas if you know and understand a lot of chess. And the easiest way to acquire this knowledge and understanding is to analyse something yourself.