One of my readers suggested that I make videos of me playing games with my thoughts along the way. The idea is to learn my thinking process.
Thanks for the compliment and the great idea!
However … you really should not be copying my thinking process.
At least not yet.
But I do have some thoughts on the subject that I think might help many players. Or at least stimulate thought about an important subject.
To think or not to think
There are two ways of looking at this problem. One could look for tactics at every move. Or one could look for tactics only if certain suggestive features are present.
The latter approach is taken by many Masters and Grandmasters who teach chess. For example, the great Jeremy Silman (whose book “How to Reassess Your Chess” is one of the great modern classics) says this in the third edition:
Do we look for a possible combination on every move? Of course not. All we have to do is keep our eyes open for one or more of the given rules of combination. If you see these items in a given position, then and only then will you look for a possible combination!
How to Reassess Your Chess, 3rd ed., p. 47.
The emphasis in that quote is Silman’s! He feels strongly about this.
On the other hand, we have the advice of the brilliant teacher Dan Heisman, who recommends looking for tactics all the time!
Heisman defines “Real Chess” this way:
You select candidate moves and, for each, you anticipate and evaluate all your opponent’s main candidate moves (especially all checks, captures, and threats).
“The Secrets to “Real” Chess. http://www.chesscafe.com/text/real.pdf
Now Heisman is not so explicit as I have been. He doesn’t say, “Look for tactics all the time.” But implicit in his thinking technique is the need to be constantly looking for and evaluating threats both for yourself and your opponent.
Thus, as a practical matter, you will be always thinking about tactics. If you’re looking for checks, captures, and threats, you’re looking for tactics.
One reason that very strong players (say players rated 2000 and higher) can ignore tactics for much of the time, and only think about them when they see certain “signposts,” is because they have a very strong tactical sense. They have, either through training or natural intuition — and likely both — a strong tactical sense. They can more or less “feel” or “just see” when tactics might be present. For most amateurs, that sense is just not present.
But I believe it can be developed.
Many years ago, I had the pleasure of spending an evening with a very strong master — you might know his name if I mentioned it — (who was, and remains, my chess hero) in a social context. We played chess, checkers (I got two draws!), Go (I got completely clobbered), played over his victories against Grandmasters, and generally had a very good time just enjoying games and talk about games — especially chess.
At one point I asked him his opinion about the possibility of a person of average intelligence becoming a chess master. He said something to the effect that any person of average intelligence can become a chess master.
I choose to believe he is correct. If that assumption is correct, then that means that if you have the interest and intelligence to read this column, you probably are intelligent enough to become a chess master. And to become a chess master, you must first master tactics. If you do not have a strong tactical sense, you can develop it.
Tactics are important
The great chess teacher, author, and publisher, Ken Smith, wrote, “Until you are at least a high Class C player [1500 – 1600 USCF rating], your first name is “Tactics”, your middle name is “Tactics”, and your last name is “Tactics.” You can overcome a weak opening and be so far ahead in material that the endgame is mopping up.”
Great advice for beginning players!
GM Andy Soltis says this about the importance of tactical sight for the average player:
When two 1700 players meet over the board, one will typically self-destruct. … Many players reach 1900 by not blundering.
Quoted by WIM Dr. Alexey Root, WIM, in Chess Life, August, 2012, p. 10.
How to see tactics
I have two main points about tactics and the amateur mind: first, the beginning and intermediate chess player just does not have a firm enough grasp of tactics. In order to master chess, one must first master tactics.
And second, since the typical amateur has not mastered tactics, he won’t have that tactical intuition that serves the master so well.
And now two bits of advice: number one, mastering tactics requires a lot of work.
The amateur chess player’s primary work ought to be (As Ken Smith suggested) tactics. Learn tactics. Practice tactics. Make tactics your first, middle, and last name. Become steeped in tactics to such an extent that you get to the point that you “just see” them. Without a lot of calculation or effort.
I recently saw some good advice on this subject in the Preface to my daughter’s math textbook:
The research of Dr. Benjamin Bloom has shown that long-term practice beyond mastery can lead to a state that he calls “automaticity.” When automaticity is attained at one conceptual level, the student is freed from the constraints of the mechanics of problem solving at that level and can consider the problems at a higher conceptual level. * * * The use of every concept previously introduced is required in every problem set thereafter. This permits students to work on attaining speed and accuracy at every conceptual level. Students often resist this practice because they feel that if they have already mastered a concept, no further practice is required. They do not realize that being able to work the problem slowly is not sufficient. They need to be reminded that mathematics is like other disciplines. For example, playing a musical instrument well requires long-term practice of the fundamentals. Playing football, golf, tennis, or any other sport well requires long-term practice and automation of fundamentals.
John Saxon, Algebra 1/2: An Incremental Development, Second Edition, p. ix.
Needless to say, what Saxon has said about the need for speed in mathematics certainly applies to chess. The faster you can see and solve tactical problems over the chess board, the better you will play. Remember that in a chess game you are in a competition with an opponent who is working very hard to beat you. It is somewhat of a race. Who can solve the problems faster? Going beyond mastery of tactics is necessary to compete at higher levels — against stronger opponents.
My second bit of advice is this: since the amateur does not have the master’s tactical sense … that inbred or trained over-the-board intuition that solves tactical problems rapidly … the amateur chess player must work at tactics at every move.
Or nearly every move. If you are really, really, really sure that there aren’t any tactics in the position at hand, you can think about other things. (Perhaps you can think about how you might introduce tactics to the position!) But if you aren’t sure, assume there are tactics there and think about them.
A really good rule is to use Dan Heisman’s advice, and look at all the possible checks, threats, and captures, both of you and your opponent, at every move.
At least until you get to the point of “automaticity.” Some might call it “mastery.”
For more on thought processes, I highly recommend Silman’s book, though it is generally considered to be far too advanced material for beginners, or even intermediate players. I tend to agree. But if you’re up for it, it is well worth reading.
For the rest of us, I highly recommend Dan Heisman’s articles. Check out this link, and look for the section labeled “Thought Process.”