This: Ono’s takeaway from Jacob Aagaard’s ‘Potional Play’ for finding a move: 1. What is my worse-placed piece? 2. Where are the weaknesses? 3. What is my opponent’s plan?
I got my set of questions also from Aagaard, thinking inside the box, with the added question of 'how can I lose'.
It is the start of the sequence of questions. If you're up in the game, be always aware of swindles. If it is even, what Will create an unfavorable imbalance? It helps me to think not only offensive but also defensive.
It starts with board vision. Everything else comes sooner or later. Even thinking system is drawn later.
Dan's book - Everyone's 2nd Chess book go through this Beginner to next level so thoroughly.
According to him the space between Beginner vs next level is not well researched and people jump directly into tactics, mate etc - without having board vision.
I had tested some of these myself long back when coaching. Eg Knight vision exercises.
Now when teaching to my kids, I following same techniques after researching.
All other books for beginners [plenty of books out there] and next level [move by move, basic tactics etc] comes later. For adults there may have been books like Rapid Chess improvement from Michael da la maza but they come later as well.
As I wrote to you on Twitter, Martin: I think up to 800-1000, it's "stop hanging pieces". From 1000 to 1400 it's tactics, tactics, tactics -- but at the lower end it's very simple tactics (allowing a pawn fork, or a knight fork on c2 -- or, conversely, on offense: missing that pawn or easy knight fork).
As to "how"? In OTB, some suggest (as a last resort, when "sanity checks don't work") writing the move down, and *then* looking one more time. (Sometimes not allowed)
In blitz (where I really stink) I hang pieces because I fail to see long diagonals. E.g., I'm focusing an attack against f7, and I fail to see that my opponent has a bishop sitting on a2.
I can't help but think that long diagonal captures and knight captures are the hardest to see.
I found that the four golden rules have helped, although I am not always disciplined enough to apply them every single move. 1. Can I checkmate? 2. Threats to my pieces. 3. Possible captures. 4. Is it safe to move?
Dan Heisman likes to phrase it as: what are *all* the things my opponent's move does, emphasis on "all". He gives the example: suppose I attack the queen with Nc3, now he moves his queen. The beginner thinks "ok, he moved his queen because I was attacking it". The next level up, however is, "what *else* does that move do".
Next to checks, threats and captures... I try to keep these 4 questions in mind. Does not work always...
1. How can I lose?
2. What are the weak squares/pawns in the position?
3. What is the opponent's plan?
4. What is my worst piece and why?
I haven’t heard that spin before (how can I lose). How/why not what is my opponent’s threat?
This: Ono’s takeaway from Jacob Aagaard’s ‘Potional Play’ for finding a move: 1. What is my worse-placed piece? 2. Where are the weaknesses? 3. What is my opponent’s plan?
I got my set of questions also from Aagaard, thinking inside the box, with the added question of 'how can I lose'.
I think I need to try out that question, really an interesting spin. Could see how you could avoid swindles
I wonder if Ono might have thought about that book then
It could well be in that book that Ono mentions by Aagaard as well, as one of his standard principles.
It is the start of the sequence of questions. If you're up in the game, be always aware of swindles. If it is even, what Will create an unfavorable imbalance? It helps me to think not only offensive but also defensive.
It starts with board vision. Everything else comes sooner or later. Even thinking system is drawn later.
Dan's book - Everyone's 2nd Chess book go through this Beginner to next level so thoroughly.
According to him the space between Beginner vs next level is not well researched and people jump directly into tactics, mate etc - without having board vision.
I had tested some of these myself long back when coaching. Eg Knight vision exercises.
Now when teaching to my kids, I following same techniques after researching.
All other books for beginners [plenty of books out there] and next level [move by move, basic tactics etc] comes later. For adults there may have been books like Rapid Chess improvement from Michael da la maza but they come later as well.
As I wrote to you on Twitter, Martin: I think up to 800-1000, it's "stop hanging pieces". From 1000 to 1400 it's tactics, tactics, tactics -- but at the lower end it's very simple tactics (allowing a pawn fork, or a knight fork on c2 -- or, conversely, on offense: missing that pawn or easy knight fork).
As to "how"? In OTB, some suggest (as a last resort, when "sanity checks don't work") writing the move down, and *then* looking one more time. (Sometimes not allowed)
In blitz (where I really stink) I hang pieces because I fail to see long diagonals. E.g., I'm focusing an attack against f7, and I fail to see that my opponent has a bishop sitting on a2.
I can't help but think that long diagonal captures and knight captures are the hardest to see.
I found that the four golden rules have helped, although I am not always disciplined enough to apply them every single move. 1. Can I checkmate? 2. Threats to my pieces. 3. Possible captures. 4. Is it safe to move?
Thanks, Lisa! That is definitely a good protocol to do
my coach told me to ask the following question before making a move: What can my opponent do to me after it?
Yes, that is very important to think about and not get carried away by impulses
What has helped me recently improve on this is focusing on hanging pieces tactics.
Good idea. Do you use Lichess or?
Lichess, chess com and chess tempo all have puzzle sets for hanging pieces. Have spent time with each.
Will also include a hanging piece chapter in the next tactics ladder book
The idea to study hanging pieces tactics came from a post by Nate Solon. Has made a big difference so far for me
When *is* your next tactics ladder book? (You have previously said it would be for FIDE 1000)
Been ages since I played or even knew how to play or think I knew to play...
I must still be an amateur ...
What do you mean? :)
I agree.. asking what does my opponent try to achieve with this move often gives you ideas and counter plans
Dan Heisman likes to phrase it as: what are *all* the things my opponent's move does, emphasis on "all". He gives the example: suppose I attack the queen with Nc3, now he moves his queen. The beginner thinks "ok, he moved his queen because I was attacking it". The next level up, however is, "what *else* does that move do".