Greetings,
Stigma wrote on 01/19/09 at 08:11:23:
analyzethat wrote on 01/16/09 at 07:02:39:
I read somewhere though that amateurs calculate just as far as masters, just that they calculate the wrong things.
Someone critisised Kotov's method for being too unpractical and I agree with him. Sure, all of the above positions could have been solved if you had calculated all relevant moves but then how do you explain the fact that masters are equally good at blitz. They "just see" and there is nothing in Kotov's book that explains this... Someone said that Tal never calculated, he just saw the combinations in whole units.
I'm sure I am incorrect though, if I knew the answer my rating would be much higher...
IM / Psychologist Fernand Gobet has been one of the main proponents of this view that differences in playing strength are not much related to how far you calculate. But then he conducted a study where a GM and an IM calculated much better in a complicated position than lower-level players, ironically by referring to and consciously trying to follow Kotov's "tree of analysis" method! The new view seems to be: Even though stronger chess players usually don't calculate more (because they tend to find the relevant ideas quickly and concentrate on them) they
can calculate deeper and better when the position really demands it. In older experiments the problems were often not hard enough to discover this. See
http://www.estudiodepsicologia.com.ar/articles/5.pdf (note that "search" is used there as a technical term meaning calculation).
I actually agree that what you can recognize/see in a position is more important than calculation skills, and besides increasing one's store of patterns leads to better, more efficient calculation. Kotov does not acknowledge this enough, though there are some hints that he realized it in his other book "Play like a Grandmaster" if you read carefully.
Btw. the Kotov method that has been criticized as unpractical is his "tree of analysis" ideal for calculating variations,
not the idea of taking lots of time trying to solve complicated positions, which is still recommended by most good trainers. These two sides of his method are logically independent.
Of course talent sets a limit, but that's not an argument against hard work, which is necessary to reach your potential whatever your level of "natural talent".
When Alekhine beat Capablanca the latter probably relied too much on his talent to see him through, while Alekhine worked a lot harder preparing for the match and analyzing his opponent. Note also this qoute:
"Reshevsky is the most talented player in the world. But it doesn't matter, because I worked so much harder." - Mikhail Botvinnik.
In conclusion I think building one's store of patterns is essential to improvement for most players, but direct calculation training is pretty useful too. It's a bit like debating which is the "right" training method for football; running OR weightlifting
@kylemeister:
That calculation/EEG study sounds very interesting, do you have any reference for it? Where did Heisman mention it?
That's it in a nutshell.
Capablanca was considered to be "lazy", in terms of working at all aspects of his game - granted, he did study late-middle-/endgames.
Like anyone who finds things easy, he wasn't really challenged and, as a result, didn't feel the need to study.
Were he alive today, he'd have been like Karpov - he'd have undoubtedly played in as many tournaments; but he'd have
had to study to be at or near the top.
As regards the general concept of talent and how much of a role it plays in chess (or any field)...
The brain has been described as a "self-organizing pattern-recognition system".
A baby is, generally, considered to be born with most - if not all - of the brain connected. It needs to be born "ready", as survival depends on it.
As the baby/child grows, only those connections which are augmented by experience remain connected (in other words, proven relevant to survival) - the rest gradually lose connection: "Use it or lose it".
Taking Capablanca as a example, he first was exposed to chess through watching his father playing a neighbour - at the age of four. Simply by watching them playing over a period of time he deduced the legal moves of the pieces to the point where, on one occasion, after the neighbour had left, Capablanca told his father that the neighbour had made an illegal move. His father didn't believe that his four-year old son would know such a thing - however Capablanca proved it by not only playing his father in a game, but beating him - again and again.
That was just a recap for anyone unfamiliar with Capablanca's story.
It's clear that, his "talent" comprised certain things that were mentioned earlier:
1) Early exposure to the game;
2) His interest in watching;
2) His intelligence in deducing the rules of chess, as regards their legal moves AND where pieces should go based purely on observing the games between his father and the neighbour(!)
It is this latter ability that is the key - in this case - to his talent.
This intuitive positional grasp was further improved by playing other opponents through his early career.
But the main "damage" was done in those few months at the age of four.
@ analyzethat
I think that, from what you're saying, you may be having problems getting past a certain level because you're hazy about certain simpler tactical elements.
For example, it's difficult to progress to more advanced mathematics if your grasp of more basic mathematics is poor
You may need to go through Nunn's book to (re)learn/review tactical elements and basic motifs - it's possible that there's a "hole" somewhere in your tactical grasp.
I know that I have problems with knight forks - as a result, I've looked for positions with tactics involving forks on which to practice.
Then you can return to tactical puzzles in their various forms, as have been suggested by others.
Kindest regards,
Dragan Glas
Pages: [1] 
Question about tactics (Read 21643 times)
