I read Hendriks' book, which has more entertainment value than (the claimed) scientifical value. It's an entertaining read, but not too valuable when it comes to this subject.
But I think every top player uses some sort of a candidate move system, albeit in a more unconscious manner. The checklist you're referring to, is deeply embedded into their thinking pattern.
But everyone is different and has it's own approach. There can't really be a perfect way of doing things. So the best way is to try and figure out how players of different levels approach this and apply what works best for you.
But it's silly to say that GMs don't use candidate moves in their decision-making process.
@TricksOnlyNL I don't think anyone is saying GMs don't use candidate moves, and of course I can't speak for GMs. I just think there are different avenues to arrive at those candidate moves.
@BeepBeepImAJeep what is your mental checklist if I may ask? Is it conscious or subconscious?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5mg8uOjENg&t=17m1sHere is what Kramnik and Giri have to say bout this .. :)
@hubabuba1234 very interesting clip, thanks for sharing! I wish more commentators would ask deeper questions like this.
Thank you, I enjoy the video very much. Think one can hear my laughter in every part of the world.
I've read Hendriks "move first, think later": maybe he exaggerates a bit at some points, but his main claim "our chess brains in first instance work pattern based" feels right to me. I think there is a lot of evidence it is true.
So what happens when pondering? A lot of patterns kick in, at different levels (some related to single pieces, typical moves in a position type or particular variation, tactical motifs, whole-board-ideas like exchange pieces when ahead in material or keep pieces to remain pressure on the cramped counterpart, ...). The patterns suggest moves, which you try. Maybe you detect a highly wanted move not working yet, which leads you to searching for "helping", preparing moves....other thinking/search techniques like comparison method are used to falsify/checking...so we end up with a mix of "pattern suggestions", "logical reasoning" and sometimes, yes, also some kind of checklist.
But i don't believe masters have "hard lists" with x todo's they tick off at every move. Such a list would be huge and e.g. surely contain "can i checkmate him?", but in so many positions one simply knows it's impossible (no attack at all, not enough material, ...) - it would be an absurd waste of time to tick off this point (and many others, move for move!).
Masters of course have the idea "can i checkmate" in mind, but they also feel/know automatically when it's worth trying.
It's like a toolbox; the more patterns and methods are known the higher the strength (beside practical issues like time trouble). But what applies or should be tried comes largely intuitive.
Other evidence, to contrast: blunders could never happen if all would be checked by a list...or, think about what may happen when an amateur suggests a stupid plan: no master says "oh, good that you at least tried this, it's always a point of my todo list"; he'll maybe surprised, saying "oh no, weird, that can't work", showing: he understands the intended idea, which he didn't consider before at all. There was no pattern to "activate" it.
I think in the elite circles nowadays Kotov's method is considered mostly outdated. I've read "Think like a grandmaster" and there's definitely value to be found in that book, but I personally believe that the way you think about your moves is something that's highly dependent on your style of chess and also which school of chess thought you were mostly influenced by.
For example, a couple of decades ago, every soviet chess school taught it's students to think by Kotov's methods, because it was considered the most correct way at the time. And at the opposite extreme, you have a player like Michael Adams (or even the World Champion, to some extent) who calculates only when absolutely required and is usually guided almost exclusively by his instinct.
I'm more of an intuitive player myself. Sometimes, in slower games, I'll even have internal dialogues with myself, kind of like discussing the position with someone. That said, of course I calculate to make sure that my intuition isn't going to betray me, and I think that kind of middle ground is the safest way for most people.
@hubabuba1234 Thanks for video.
It makes me think. what about subconscious learning.
If I were to watch enough games without commentary, would I be able to recognise patterns and positions without thinking.
@phlegm: indeed, that works! And even more - understanding will follow!
You'll see patterns/motifs for the first time, maybe no particular effect...later again...and after some repetitions it just becomes familiar. Sometimes (esp. in games of players with bigger rating difference) you will see bad reactions against a try: often this will reveal the danger behind an idea in a pure form.
I believe it's a perfect way to develop positional intuition. Sooner or later you unavoidable get a feeling what to try in a particular position. The next step is then to build a more conscious understanding of what's going on. Start with games of "your" openings to gather patterns which apply in your games.
Basically, it's similar to learning a language. You start with single words, then phrases, then sentences....and some day you speak fluent, using complicate structures without effort. It just became familiar somehow...
@gurkenzug Thanks for that intelligent answer. I'm going to spend some of my chess time watching high rated games and see how I progress. :-D
