I like the way that Aagaard (and then Axel Smith) describe it: you must try to falsify your line. In order to verify it's correct, you give your absolute utmost to find your opponent's moves that would prove the line "false." Calculate, then falsify.
Falsification is extremely applicable / useful across domains As a secondary level math & sciences teacher, and scholastic chess advisor, I introduced it to all my students. It's so counterintuitive that most students resisted the concept in favor of confirmation. This is a powerful and necessary video lesson. Thank you from a chico viejo in the U.S.
Your best lesson thus far, really spoke to me. We have to invalidate every route possible, and we have to think of best play for the opponent. It is a laziness and arrogance like if a person grows up with the ability to brow beat their peers with superficial arguments with the expectation that this tactic will always works and they will never meet more sophisticated people.
It's hard to overcome your own bias about how good a move or an idea is, because if it doesn't work you just wasted time calculating, but on the other hand the more you look into the lines, the less you'll have to think later because you've already played it out in your head
Brilliant. The idea of falsification (attempting to show how/why a hypothesis doesn't work) is such a scientific idea, and so hard to apply in chess, and yet! So useful 😃 thank you for more insights Andras!
Incredible video. It had an immediate impact on my thought process and I went straight from this to one of my best ever solving sessions. Proper calculation and consideration of opponent's threats has always been my biggest weakness - no matter how often I reminded myself it was always a huge struggle and I could never make it stick. I really feel like something clicked for the first time after this video. Perhaps it was the falsification idea/comparison to Science and Maths. I'm sure it will take lots of work before it becomes second nature but this has been a real moment of chess clarity for me. All Andras' videos have been useful and entertaining, many have been fantastically insightful... ut this one takes it to a new level.
I never understood how my opponents used to use so much time compared to me but last weekend I played my first tournament in a long time. I tried to refute every one of my lines in the middlegame and easily understood...it's very frustrating to go through lines that almost work but just fall to one best move the opponent has. But it's also very satisfying if you find a different correct continuation and your opponent then plays all the moves you see.
13:58 timeless advice. 2 years later and still such great knowledge. BTW, I think playing full games against yourself legitimately trying to win both sides is a good way to break through this mental barrier of trying to find good moves for your opponent. Taking breaks between moves to reset your thought process. It forces you to train your brain to find good moves for your opponent because you're already used to being your own opponent.
Great video as always! As a novice chess player Yusupov's exercise books are among my favorites for many of the themes you discussed in the video. Most exercises are 3-6 moves, often quite forcing lines, which are challenging but also doable for beginners. He also awards points based on how deep or how many important variations you saw. Really got me into the habit of trying to calculate!
YES!! You nailed the issue. This is constantly a problem with us club players being excessively trained at solving offensive tactics--we totally forget that the opponent is also playing a game. I noticed this problem the first time I tried to solve defensive tactics. I literally thought, "How am I supposed to know what the opponent is doing??" I was contemptuous. 🤣 Then I realized ... But still. The mystery--what is the requisite training/untraining--remains. I.e., what do we do (every day) to train us to learn a better move-selection-method with emphasis on the opponent's game? Perhaps more defensive tactics. Maybe Kramnik's Chessable course. idk.
My understanding is that this isn’t intended specifically for intermediate and above, but that it is equally aimed at beginners like me. IM Toth doesn’t say we need to calculate all lines completely accurately and be able to keep all the previously calculated lines in our head and then unerringly play the best move; he just says that we should be aware that the opponent may not be cooperative and that we have to adjust our mindset to one that attempts to refute the move we want to play by finding the opponent’s best response and follow the lines that we would prefer not to occur. As a beginner, I’m going to mess up more times than not, but I think that learning to calculate well is a separate topic; anyone who’s sufficiently motivated can attempt this mindset shift, whatever their level.
@@rickstermandude I wasn’t talking about this specific video, I’m saying in general I always learn from this channel where as I can’t tell the same about other more popular ones
Another important line to look at in the first example is the a pawn. Really easy to discount, but after 1...f3 gf g3 a5 g2 a6 g1=Q a7, white is one square away from promoting and a8 is protected by the knight but seeing that Qa1+ wins the pawn because of the check. If that check isnt there you could run into drawing or losing positions really easily and it needs to be verified.
Sadly it is hard to force yourself to calculate so deeply because a)in most online time formats there is just no time, b) in online tactics puzzles there is always only one solution so you can often just guess that it's the most promising line and c) in real games studylike tactics seldom appear and noone tells you when to stop calculating. But I'll keep trying :)
tienes que buscar libros especializados, ramesh sacó un libro de cálculo, agard ..yusupov..dvorestsky...todos tienes problemas donde no calcularás una sola línea....seguramente lo que estás usando son libros donde vienen patrones, eso es diferente. Encontrar patrones es una parte del proceso de análisis para tu jugada, si no encuentras patrones entonces tendrás que empezar a calcular variantes... puedes buscar un video de chessbase india y ana muzychuck calculando y verás la diferencia. saludos
I think it's really important to note that 'find the best move for your opponent' only applies when you think you know what the correct line is. In your initial explorations of a complex position it's often better to look for simplifying/ equalising moves for your opponent, so that you can say 'this move can't have a better eval than x' with minimal calculation. In other words imagine that your opponent just wants a simple way to defuse your idea and equalise, rather than playing for the maximum. Then having established an upper limit to how good that move can be, you can look at other moves, just to get a rough idea of the potential of different moves at the outset. When you find that a move doesn't have a simple refutation, then you are justified in looking in more detail. The problem with always looking for your opponent's best move is you will burn a ton of time
This actually goes to areas more general than chess. For example, it is not uncommon for students in school to be mischaracterized as "lazy" for not making sufficient effort in their work, especially in subjects like maths. They rather lack confidence in their abilities, and so attempt to save themselves the grief of "wasted" effort (resulting in a wrong answer) by not investing too much sweat at the beginning; i.e. by simply giving up too quickly. I have found in some cases that one way forward is to "baby step it" with simpler problems to build confidence, and gradually work up to the real stuff with full effort. One might argue that this should not be necessary for a motivated student, and indeed it may not be; but in some cases, it frankly works. And it's hard to argue with what works. (Obviously, similar considerations may apply to other endeavors, and the ability to self-tutor by making up suitable "stepping stone" examples may be helpful.)
I was characterised as lazy at school, because I didn't do my homework and because I didn't show as much working as teachers expected. But also they didn't understand my autism, and probably not my high IQ.
I have found that the best type of problems for this conscientious approach are non-practical puzzles, I mean problems with scenarios that would never arise on the board, that often have a very aesthetic and artificial appeal.
Great video! I think most players who avoid this do so because falsifying is time consuming (most of them are blitz maniacs) and psychologically daunting. It's easy to get overwhelmed with what your opponent might try, and sometimes we become afraid of ghosts. So there's not only the practice of falsifying, but also making sure you don't have an additional resource to a line you think your opponent has. How many players know this weakness of theirs but are happy enough to play moves that look and feel clever? Even if their idea turns out to be wrong, they just have a chuckle and sometimes don't even bother to improve upon their thought processes. I've certainly been there, but I've switched to playing a lot more longer games. This allows me a fair chance to say I tried calculating several lines. More importantly, I'm more composed and so I remember clearly what went through my head during a certain critical moment. This helps tremendously when analyzing the game afterwards. This is the gold for improvement: It's really about learning how we think, our blind spots and biases, and slowly expanding our mind to think creatively when we'd rather play the autopilot move.
I now try to play multiple different time controls. I play the shorter time controls to improve the speed of my board vision, candidate moves for both sides and calculate forcing lines. And to learn when to just move to avoid time loss. I play longer time controls to learn the discipline of knowing when to calculate multiple lines deeply and how to use calculation to make better strategic or non-forcing moves.
As far as what you said about "the opponent's time ticking is concerned, my problem is the opposite. I think hard in that time, only to realise what I missed in the previous move. Sometimes i play a move and the best move comes to me only when I'm pressing the clock. What do I do? Demand strict orders from you, so that it punches in the face and I never forget it afterwards.
Adras, this is great. I lost a tournament game recently because i found a beautiful sacrifice that shoud have been 2 pieces for a piece and three pawns. I missed my opponents best response which he found. I played on but inevitability i lost. If I had tried harder to to falsify i would have seen the quiet pawn push that disconnected my pieces. Instead I only calculated takes takes and he took the full point
I struggled with both examples. In the second example, I knew black must have a trick becasuse of the theme of the video e.g. I looked as far as 1. Bh7+ Kh8 2. exf8=Q and then STILL went "yep, 2...Kh7, queen will fall, up a ton of material, I win". I STILL cut my line too short. I didn't even see the position after 3. Rxe7 and notice the pin on the f7-bishop and the king is out of moves! Without visualising the position, I could never find the stalemate trap. Dan Heisman called this a "quiescence error" and I'm guity of it in nearly every game I play. I think it's also a symptom of playing too much with short time controls so not giving myself the time needed to calculate all of my opponent's best possibilites.
This is truly an amazing video. I have always struggled with calculation and pushing myself to calculate and making sure my moves were working. Especially in puzzles I would always rush and end up getting many incorrect. Keep up the amazing content
Thanks, man. I just started the video but calculation, accurate calculation, is one of my biggest problems. I'm 2100s in blitz, I only play rapid a couple of games per week and in the 2000s. I feel like this is something holding me back from staying in the 2200s instead of just peaking and going back down. I already know it's gonna be a good video, know that it's appreciated.
Most people stop calculating after f3 gxf g3 because all the other moves have been disproven. Because that must be the start of the puzzle, you make those moves to start, then keep calculating after f4+. That's actually a better practice for a real game because you want to use your opponents clock time.
Thank you for the wonderful content. I need to watch this at least once a week as a reminder. The default is certainly just to be lazy and get the high and confirmation bias every time you just happened to be correct and your opponent didn't have a refutation. It's hard work and discipline to do this. And if I had a nickel for every time I had a cold shower response that I didn't take the time to calculate...
Be sure to also get into the habit of calculating using coordinates so it's easier to have a "bookmark" and not lose your place, even for simple lines. Do this in puzzles, studies as well as games as often as possible and it'll get easier.
The only way I can do this for every move is if I have 2 hours on the clock. :) Maybe the next video can teach us about calculating and visualizing faster.
7:25 wow. This got me thinking. Often, I make improving moves ("how wrong can it be") without calculating lines when the opponent has many options. I should really start a new habit: always calculate in chess!
Greetings...Chico, me like your knowledge. You Chico...good man! Serious just for a time...we are lucky to have you in Australia. There's something good and unique about you Chico/Coach/Andras. Thank you Chess Coach of the Chico/Chicka's. Check you Chico...somehow I don't think I would Check(mate) you in Chess? A brilliant channel, a shining light!!!
Thx for the excellent Video! Great message! I think you should also speak about WHEN to calculate. In the first example, black is basically lost if f3, gxf g3 doesn't work. So I only have to think about my king movement when I get f4 check.
I'm a Fanboy of Andras! He is incredibly instructive and high energy! Fun, enjoyable and competent coach! In the second position I wish he would have calculated Rg1+, still not winning, but another line to consider...love his short videos as well!!!
In the first position, would it be worth looking at the line where white tries to race pawns and attempt to use the knight to cover his own promotion square? Black still wins but requires using checks to the white king as a means to fork the pawn on a7. Feel that should be another line to exhaustively visualize before concluding that we are done
and then the rabbit hole goes deeper, when you refute your line you need to go on and refute the refutation! the other day OTB I spent 12 minutes calculating a sacrifice, looking at all the defenses of the opponent, and reaching the conclusion it didn't work. and I was right that the main line I looked at didn't work, but in one of the sidelines I needed to look deeper and see I can get a second pawn for my sacrifice and ruin his structure, which wouldn't be winning but would be an advantage. so much calculation to do, and I already get into time trouble every time as it is, sheesh...
The issue I have with the first problem is that f3 just seems so forced. Even if you didn’t see how to respond to f4+, or that white had that move in the first place, f3 is the only move to play to have a chance. If it were a game, I’m not sure I would even calculate past f3 xf3 g3, because if that doesn’t work, nothing will. Meanwhile, if you were presented with the position after f4+, you would be more likely to find the necessary continuation. And this is the problem I have in my calculations. It’s not that I don’t want to put the work in to disprove my hypothesis, it’s that we are usually presented with multiple potential resources, especially when we find ourselves in better or winning positions.
Great lesson. Personally, this kind of "falsification thinking" comes pretty naturally to me given my interest in/study of philosophy and science, but I think my problem with it in chess is that it's practically impossible to run through every possible line in most cases. This is where experience comes in, because masters are able to intuitively and immediately eliminate certain candidate moves (or sequences of moves) because they understand a given position: the goals of each side, the weaknesses, fundamental concepts--for one example, in that first puzzle they would instantly understand the concepts behind a pawn VS knight endgame and the various ways to promote. However, for us amateurs who don't have that intuition built from experience, all we can do is either try to calculate every possible line, or just calculate shallowly and hope for the best. Most people opt for the second route, but I find myself opting more for the first, which gets me into time trouble, and still doesn't prevent me from missing things. Like, I have a 2400 rating in puzzles, but my ELO is only 1400. Why? Because in puzzles I have unlimited time to calculate a millions different lines until I find what works, while in a game after a while--even with 45/45 or 60 minute time controls--I simply have to make a move and pray I haven't overlooked something. I don't think there's a solution to this, other than simply play much more and get the experience necessary to be able to intuitively rule out certain candidate moves instantly and focus on the critical lines.
Great comment, and very relatable. I will say that though I totally agree with Andras on the importance of calculation, I do think players can comfortably reach 1500-1700 through more intuitive tactics training, a basic opening repertoire, and a strong understanding of chess principles and middle game ideas. It's worked for me to get to 1600 in 2-3 years. That's not to say I don't calculate. What I mean by intuitive tactics training is the ability to do a triage like an emergency room doctor: Choosing candidate moves with the most promise before moving on to "every move", like you said. It's usually the closest check (that limits the most squares), a capture, or an attack, etc. But I also have hierarchies below that: Which pieces are undefended, pinned or staring at each other through an x ray? Which pieces are low on squares? All the way down to: What's an improving move here? Oftentimes, the most obvious moves really are the ones that work, and that's saved you a boatload of time. Another time saver that puzzles don't imitate is the mental checklist you can build about the position as the game builds. I take note of key pawn breaks, and duties of every piece. Then, on my turn, I can ask myself "What's changed here?" PS, when I do puzzles, I do enforce some time controls on certain days. I do 3 minutes per puzzle, 2 min, 1 min, 30 seconds, and back up the ladder. I think it helps me stay a bit agile, and ensures my puzzle rating is somewhat more accurate (It's now dropped to 2100).
I highly recommend Jacob Aagaard’s “Excelling at Chess” book series [Everyman Chess] (they are actually 5), as well as Aagaard’s “Calculation” book, from the Grandmaster Preparation series [Quality Chess]. The other super useful calculation books are by Romain Edouard, “Calculation Training” three books.
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
Oops. I also was looking at Kf5 but missed Nb5. I was thinking e4+ Kxe4 Ne6 though which i think also stops the pawn. But then i realized you must keep the 2 pawns there so the knight is blocked
In the position c6 is the only hope for White. If White can’t play c6 he might as Well give up. So you don’t need all the calculations to play the move. Two moves later you can start calculating.
Hello Coach! I'm not sure if you'd reply to this but if you do I'd be very grateful... I do want to have this kind of mentality but it kinda drains time so I'm forced to mostly do it without trying to prove myself wrong, and when I do this I actually get into the habit of not even trying to prove myself wrong... What should I do?
YOu need to do this anyway, and the goal is to get better (faster) at it, so it drains less time. This is one of the best ways you can spend time in chess so dont skip it!
I saw it up to white having to sacrifice back with Qg7+ (to avoid stalemate) then Rxd7, and the h5 pawn still existing, but did not know this is a draw !! Rook and h-pawn versus Bishop is a draw! I cannot believe this! The last puzzle is ridiculous at 09:27
So this all makes a lot of sense. I do this often in a game but I find my self running out of time playing 10 min rapid games ... Which appear to be the slowest time people play these days with decent queue times. How would you recommend identifying the best times to calculate at this depth vs playing "common sense" moves?
![[UNCUT] เก็บ "สจ.โต้ง" เอี่ยวมาเฟีย รู้ตัวคนบงการ ก่อนสั่งลั่นไก I คนดังนั่งเคลียร์ I 13 ธ.ค.67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/o-J_p62D40w/mqdefault.jpg)
I like the way that Aagaard (and then Axel Smith) describe it: you must try to falsify your line. In order to verify it's correct, you give your absolute utmost to find your opponent's moves that would prove the line "false." Calculate, then falsify.
Falsification is extremely applicable / useful across domains As a secondary level math & sciences teacher, and scholastic chess advisor, I introduced it to all my students. It's so counterintuitive that most students resisted the concept in favor of confirmation.
This is a powerful and necessary video lesson. Thank you from a chico viejo in the U.S.
thats when your coming up with a big theory!!!!
It's like you read my mind every time and pinpointed exactly where i stopped calculating. Great lesson andras
Your best lesson thus far, really spoke to me. We have to invalidate every route possible, and we have to think of best play for the opponent. It is a laziness and arrogance like if a person grows up with the ability to brow beat their peers with superficial arguments with the expectation that this tactic will always works and they will never meet more sophisticated people.
It's hard to overcome your own bias about how good a move or an idea is, because if it doesn't work you just wasted time calculating, but on the other hand the more you look into the lines, the less you'll have to think later because you've already played it out in your head
A lot of times I realize it was a bad move once I played it
my goal is to calculate 10 moves ahead
It is not a waste of time to calculate when you "learn" that something doesn't work. ;P
Brilliant. The idea of falsification (attempting to show how/why a hypothesis doesn't work) is such a scientific idea, and so hard to apply in chess, and yet! So useful 😃 thank you for more insights Andras!
Incredible video. It had an immediate impact on my thought process and I went straight from this to one of my best ever solving sessions. Proper calculation and consideration of opponent's threats has always been my biggest weakness - no matter how often I reminded myself it was always a huge struggle and I could never make it stick.
I really feel like something clicked for the first time after this video. Perhaps it was the falsification idea/comparison to Science and Maths. I'm sure it will take lots of work before it becomes second nature but this has been a real moment of chess clarity for me. All Andras' videos have been useful and entertaining, many have been fantastically insightful... ut this one takes it to a new level.
Thanks Chris, glad you enjoyed it!
I never understood how my opponents used to use so much time compared to me but last weekend I played my first tournament in a long time. I tried to refute every one of my lines in the middlegame and easily understood...it's very frustrating to go through lines that almost work but just fall to one best move the opponent has. But it's also very satisfying if you find a different correct continuation and your opponent then plays all the moves you see.
Exactly. It feels like you are in a safe zone when nothing catches you by surprise.
13:58 timeless advice. 2 years later and still such great knowledge. BTW, I think playing full games against yourself legitimately trying to win both sides is a good way to break through this mental barrier of trying to find good moves for your opponent. Taking breaks between moves to reset your thought process. It forces you to train your brain to find good moves for your opponent because you're already used to being your own opponent.
this is exactly what i needed to see.. just excellent and exactly right.... thanks Andras.
Best chess channel for me (Elo about 1950) Andras!! Super clear. Always interesting subjects. Thnx
Great video as always! As a novice chess player Yusupov's exercise books are among my favorites for many of the themes you discussed in the video. Most exercises are 3-6 moves, often quite forcing lines, which are challenging but also doable for beginners. He also awards points based on how deep or how many important variations you saw. Really got me into the habit of trying to calculate!
Andras is not a chess coach, he's a chess doctor. Best coach I have seen.
Thanks so much!
Really helping my chess. Thanks Andras!
11:00 got me 😂 . Btw this was really helpful thank you so much ❤
YES!! You nailed the issue. This is constantly a problem with us club players being excessively trained at solving offensive tactics--we totally forget that the opponent is also playing a game.
I noticed this problem the first time I tried to solve defensive tactics. I literally thought, "How am I supposed to know what the opponent is doing??" I was contemptuous. 🤣 Then I realized ... But still. The mystery--what is the requisite training/untraining--remains. I.e., what do we do (every day) to train us to learn a better move-selection-method with emphasis on the opponent's game? Perhaps more defensive tactics. Maybe Kramnik's Chessable course. idk.
This video needs to reach a million views! Very instructive!
I wish....
When in doubt push the knight to the post.
You are so good at teaching, dude!
Thank you coach!
The only channel where I always feel like I learn something 👍👍 keep making these intermediate/advanced videos!
My understanding is that this isn’t intended specifically for intermediate and above, but that it is equally aimed at beginners like me. IM Toth doesn’t say we need to calculate all lines completely accurately and be able to keep all the previously calculated lines in our head and then unerringly play the best move; he just says that we should be aware that the opponent may not be cooperative and that we have to adjust our mindset to one that attempts to refute the move we want to play by finding the opponent’s best response and follow the lines that we would prefer not to occur. As a beginner, I’m going to mess up more times than not, but I think that learning to calculate well is a separate topic; anyone who’s sufficiently motivated can attempt this mindset shift, whatever their level.
@@rickstermandude I wasn’t talking about this specific video, I’m saying in general I always learn from this channel where as I can’t tell the same about other more popular ones
Another important line to look at in the first example is the a pawn. Really easy to discount, but after 1...f3 gf g3 a5 g2 a6 g1=Q a7, white is one square away from promoting and a8 is protected by the knight but seeing that Qa1+ wins the pawn because of the check.
If that check isnt there you could run into drawing or losing positions really easily and it needs to be verified.
It is strange that when I get to this stage, I move too fast and don't think it through.
Sadly it is hard to force yourself to calculate so deeply because a)in most online time formats there is just no time, b) in online tactics puzzles there is always only one solution so you can often just guess that it's the most promising line and c) in real games studylike tactics seldom appear and noone tells you when to stop calculating. But I'll keep trying :)
tienes que buscar libros especializados, ramesh sacó un libro de cálculo, agard ..yusupov..dvorestsky...todos tienes problemas donde no calcularás una sola línea....seguramente lo que estás usando son libros donde vienen patrones, eso es diferente. Encontrar patrones es una parte del proceso de análisis para tu jugada, si no encuentras patrones entonces tendrás que empezar a calcular variantes... puedes buscar un video de chessbase india y ana muzychuck calculando y verás la diferencia. saludos
Super good point Andras! Thanks for the lesson🙋🏻♂️
The mathematics analogy is a good one. This is what you need to do when you prove a mathematical theorem.
I think it's really important to note that 'find the best move for your opponent' only applies when you think you know what the correct line is. In your initial explorations of a complex position it's often better to look for simplifying/ equalising moves for your opponent, so that you can say 'this move can't have a better eval than x' with minimal calculation. In other words imagine that your opponent just wants a simple way to defuse your idea and equalise, rather than playing for the maximum. Then having established an upper limit to how good that move can be, you can look at other moves, just to get a rough idea of the potential of different moves at the outset. When you find that a move doesn't have a simple refutation, then you are justified in looking in more detail. The problem with always looking for your opponent's best move is you will burn a ton of time
Great video andras!
This really changed my approach towards calculation and why concrete play is crucial for a better chess.
Excellent lesson
Brilliant, Andras! Thank you for the awesome video!
This actually goes to areas more general than chess. For example, it is not uncommon for students in school to be mischaracterized as "lazy" for not making sufficient effort in their work, especially in subjects like maths. They rather lack confidence in their abilities, and so attempt to save themselves the grief of "wasted" effort (resulting in a wrong answer) by not investing too much sweat at the beginning; i.e. by simply giving up too quickly.
I have found in some cases that one way forward is to "baby step it" with simpler problems to build confidence, and gradually work up to the real stuff with full effort. One might argue that this should not be necessary for a motivated student, and indeed it may not be; but in some cases, it frankly works. And it's hard to argue with what works. (Obviously, similar considerations may apply to other endeavors, and the ability to self-tutor by making up suitable "stepping stone" examples may be helpful.)
I was characterised as lazy at school, because I didn't do my homework and because I didn't show as much working as teachers expected. But also they didn't understand my autism, and probably not my high IQ.
Jep proof me wrong concept is difficult on a mental level
I have found that the best type of problems for this conscientious approach are non-practical puzzles, I mean problems with scenarios that would never arise on the board, that often have a very aesthetic and artificial appeal.
Well explained- thanks!
you just opened my mind.. such an amazing teaching skills u have sir
Thanks, Glad you liked the video!
This is why i love your chess & channel.Your a genius andras,its a pleasure to listen to you.
Incredible video, sharing with my adult chess improvers!
Thanks! Hope they will like it too!
Great video! I think most players who avoid this do so because falsifying is time consuming (most of them are blitz maniacs) and psychologically daunting. It's easy to get overwhelmed with what your opponent might try, and sometimes we become afraid of ghosts. So there's not only the practice of falsifying, but also making sure you don't have an additional resource to a line you think your opponent has.
How many players know this weakness of theirs but are happy enough to play moves that look and feel clever? Even if their idea turns out to be wrong, they just have a chuckle and sometimes don't even bother to improve upon their thought processes. I've certainly been there, but I've switched to playing a lot more longer games. This allows me a fair chance to say I tried calculating several lines. More importantly, I'm more composed and so I remember clearly what went through my head during a certain critical moment. This helps tremendously when analyzing the game afterwards. This is the gold for improvement: It's really about learning how we think, our blind spots and biases, and slowly expanding our mind to think creatively when we'd rather play the autopilot move.
When you stop to think, I stop to think. Excellent!
I think about this in terms of chess vision, making sure a see all potential responses from my opponent, not just the ones I might consider
I now try to play multiple different time controls. I play the shorter time controls to improve the speed of my board vision, candidate moves for both sides and calculate forcing lines. And to learn when to just move to avoid time loss. I play longer time controls to learn the discipline of knowing when to calculate multiple lines deeply and how to use calculation to make better strategic or non-forcing moves.
Under promotion to a bishop, wow that is a super rare move as the only correct move.
As far as what you said about "the opponent's time ticking is concerned, my problem is the opposite. I think hard in that time, only to realise what I missed in the previous move. Sometimes i play a move and the best move comes to me only when I'm pressing the clock. What do I do? Demand strict orders from you, so that it punches in the face and I never forget it afterwards.
Adras, this is great. I lost a tournament game recently because i found a beautiful sacrifice that shoud have been 2 pieces for a piece and three pawns. I missed my opponents best response which he found. I played on but inevitability i lost. If I had tried harder to to falsify i would have seen the quiet pawn push that disconnected my pieces. Instead I only calculated takes takes and he took the full point
I struggled with both examples. In the second example, I knew black must have a trick becasuse of the theme of the video e.g. I looked as far as 1. Bh7+ Kh8 2. exf8=Q and then STILL went "yep, 2...Kh7, queen will fall, up a ton of material, I win". I STILL cut my line too short. I didn't even see the position after 3. Rxe7 and notice the pin on the f7-bishop and the king is out of moves! Without visualising the position, I could never find the stalemate trap.
Dan Heisman called this a "quiescence error" and I'm guity of it in nearly every game I play. I think it's also a symptom of playing too much with short time controls so not giving myself the time needed to calculate all of my opponent's best possibilites.
This is truly an amazing video. I have always struggled with calculation and pushing myself to calculate and making sure my moves were working. Especially in puzzles I would always rush and end up getting many incorrect. Keep up the amazing content
6:27 maybe you missed that one of the moves was a zwischenzug and that it came with check? I found the knight pattern but didn't see the check either.
Thanks, man. I just started the video but calculation, accurate calculation, is one of my biggest problems. I'm 2100s in blitz, I only play rapid a couple of games per week and in the 2000s. I feel like this is something holding me back from staying in the 2200s instead of just peaking and going back down. I already know it's gonna be a good video, know that it's appreciated.
wonderful vid!
Most people stop calculating after f3 gxf g3 because all the other moves have been disproven. Because that must be the start of the puzzle, you make those moves to start, then keep calculating after f4+. That's actually a better practice for a real game because you want to use your opponents clock time.
Thank you for the wonderful content. I need to watch this at least once a week as a reminder. The default is certainly just to be lazy and get the high and confirmation bias every time you just happened to be correct and your opponent didn't have a refutation. It's hard work and discipline to do this. And if I had a nickel for every time I had a cold shower response that I didn't take the time to calculate...
Glad you find this useful!
Be sure to also get into the habit of calculating using coordinates so it's easier to have a "bookmark" and not lose your place, even for simple lines. Do this in puzzles, studies as well as games as often as possible and it'll get easier.
AS always amazing content!
10:20 "Tactics solver mindset" is what I would call it. Done! Next. Is what is on the mind.
The only way I can do this for every move is if I have 2 hours on the clock. :) Maybe the next video can teach us about calculating and visualizing faster.
7:25 wow. This got me thinking. Often, I make improving moves ("how wrong can it be") without calculating lines when the opponent has many options. I should really start a new habit: always calculate in chess!
Liked and subscribed....but we need at least one more vid on this subject.
Happy to add!:)
I second this request!
Greetings...Chico, me like your knowledge. You Chico...good man! Serious just for a time...we are lucky to have you in Australia. There's something good and unique about you Chico/Coach/Andras. Thank you Chess Coach of the Chico/Chicka's. Check you Chico...somehow I don't think I would Check(mate) you in Chess? A brilliant channel, a shining light!!!
Thanks NOrman!
Plz make video on chandra series
Thx for the excellent Video! Great message!
I think you should also speak about WHEN to calculate. In the first example, black is basically lost if f3, gxf g3 doesn't work. So I only have to think about my king movement when I get f4 check.
I'm a Fanboy of Andras! He is incredibly instructive and high energy! Fun, enjoyable and competent coach! In the second position I wish he would have calculated Rg1+, still not winning, but another line to consider...love his short videos as well!!!
Thanks mate, appreciate the love!!
Great video. I am guilty of doing this - being lazy. Thank you for posting this!
Fascinating way to calculate
Thanks Michael, for the most part, it is the only way to do it!:)
Great video! Helped me a lot, thanks
You're welcome!
great stuff man !
In the first position, would it be worth looking at the line where white tries to race pawns and attempt to use the knight to cover his own promotion square? Black still wins but requires using checks to the white king as a means to fork the pawn on a7. Feel that should be another line to exhaustively visualize before concluding that we are done
Thx Andras. I follow you on chessable and really like what you teach and how understandable it is .. as a beginner here
Thank for this important lesson! Please many more on this topic.
HOWWWWWW is there only 21k subscribers? This is really killer content!
This is deep and really helpful
Cheers mate , glad you liked it!
It's like you look deep into my soul and point out my flaws,lol. I am not sure I have done enough practice to get to that level yet though.
Glad you like the content sire! i am sure you will get there!
Awesome!!! Especially the last puzzle
Thanks
Hey, conpletely unrelated questiob, but what's the proper Hungarian pronunciation of Richard Rapport?
Will try to remember and say it in the next vid😉
This is gold! Thanks for the great content!
and then the rabbit hole goes deeper, when you refute your line you need to go on and refute the refutation! the other day OTB I spent 12 minutes calculating a sacrifice, looking at all the defenses of the opponent, and reaching the conclusion it didn't work. and I was right that the main line I looked at didn't work, but in one of the sidelines I needed to look deeper and see I can get a second pawn for my sacrifice and ruin his structure, which wouldn't be winning but would be an advantage. so much calculation to do, and I already get into time trouble every time as it is, sheesh...
The issue I have with the first problem is that f3 just seems so forced. Even if you didn’t see how to respond to f4+, or that white had that move in the first place, f3 is the only move to play to have a chance. If it were a game, I’m not sure I would even calculate past f3 xf3 g3, because if that doesn’t work, nothing will.
Meanwhile, if you were presented with the position after f4+, you would be more likely to find the necessary continuation.
And this is the problem I have in my calculations. It’s not that I don’t want to put the work in to disprove my hypothesis, it’s that we are usually presented with multiple potential resources, especially when we find ourselves in better or winning positions.
Does anyone have a recommendation for a book or website that deals with studies that are not extremely difficult? Like for a 1500-1600 level player?
Thank you, great vid!
Great lesson. Personally, this kind of "falsification thinking" comes pretty naturally to me given my interest in/study of philosophy and science, but I think my problem with it in chess is that it's practically impossible to run through every possible line in most cases. This is where experience comes in, because masters are able to intuitively and immediately eliminate certain candidate moves (or sequences of moves) because they understand a given position: the goals of each side, the weaknesses, fundamental concepts--for one example, in that first puzzle they would instantly understand the concepts behind a pawn VS knight endgame and the various ways to promote. However, for us amateurs who don't have that intuition built from experience, all we can do is either try to calculate every possible line, or just calculate shallowly and hope for the best. Most people opt for the second route, but I find myself opting more for the first, which gets me into time trouble, and still doesn't prevent me from missing things. Like, I have a 2400 rating in puzzles, but my ELO is only 1400. Why? Because in puzzles I have unlimited time to calculate a millions different lines until I find what works, while in a game after a while--even with 45/45 or 60 minute time controls--I simply have to make a move and pray I haven't overlooked something. I don't think there's a solution to this, other than simply play much more and get the experience necessary to be able to intuitively rule out certain candidate moves instantly and focus on the critical lines.
I agree with pretty much everything you said!
Great comment, and very relatable. I will say that though I totally agree with Andras on the importance of calculation, I do think players can comfortably reach 1500-1700 through more intuitive tactics training, a basic opening repertoire, and a strong understanding of chess principles and middle game ideas. It's worked for me to get to 1600 in 2-3 years. That's not to say I don't calculate.
What I mean by intuitive tactics training is the ability to do a triage like an emergency room doctor: Choosing candidate moves with the most promise before moving on to "every move", like you said. It's usually the closest check (that limits the most squares), a capture, or an attack, etc. But I also have hierarchies below that: Which pieces are undefended, pinned or staring at each other through an x ray? Which pieces are low on squares? All the way down to: What's an improving move here? Oftentimes, the most obvious moves really are the ones that work, and that's saved you a boatload of time. Another time saver that puzzles don't imitate is the mental checklist you can build about the position as the game builds. I take note of key pawn breaks, and duties of every piece. Then, on my turn, I can ask myself "What's changed here?"
PS, when I do puzzles, I do enforce some time controls on certain days. I do 3 minutes per puzzle, 2 min, 1 min, 30 seconds, and back up the ladder. I think it helps me stay a bit agile, and ensures my puzzle rating is somewhat more accurate (It's now dropped to 2100).
Dvoretsky "nunca olvides que tienes un rival enfrente",
I highly recommend Jacob Aagaard’s “Excelling at Chess” book series [Everyman Chess] (they are actually 5), as well as Aagaard’s “Calculation” book, from the Grandmaster Preparation series [Quality Chess]. The other super useful calculation books are by Romain Edouard, “Calculation Training” three books.
I would recommend for those under 2000 ELO all the books by Valeri Beim which deal profusely with calculation techniques.
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
Oops. I also was looking at Kf5 but missed Nb5. I was thinking e4+ Kxe4 Ne6 though which i think also stops the pawn. But then i realized you must keep the 2 pawns there so the knight is blocked
It's also very useful for learning defense
In the 2nd example, what about:
Rook g1, King h8, exf8 -> Q+, Bishop g8, Qxg8 mate?
At what point during this process should we start to calculate Rg1 ?
In the second puzzle? Looks winning, but after 1. Rg1, Bg6 the f7 square becomes available to the black king. What is your play then?
Perfect
In the position c6 is the only hope for White. If White can’t play c6 he might as Well give up. So you don’t need all the calculations to play the move. Two moves later you can start calculating.
This lesson speaks for itself…
Awesome content!
Hello Coach! I'm not sure if you'd reply to this but if you do I'd be very grateful... I do want to have this kind of mentality but it kinda drains time so I'm forced to mostly do it without trying to prove myself wrong, and when I do this I actually get into the habit of not even trying to prove myself wrong... What should I do?
YOu need to do this anyway, and the goal is to get better (faster) at it, so it drains less time. This is one of the best ways you can spend time in chess so dont skip it!
@@ChessCoachAndras Thanks for giving me tips Coach! I really appreciate it and I'll do my best to support the channel.
Very good , this very useful, thank you
Excellent
how do you make arrows in different colors?
I saw it up to white having to sacrifice back with Qg7+ (to avoid stalemate) then Rxd7, and the h5 pawn still existing, but did not know this is a draw !!
Rook and h-pawn versus Bishop is a draw! I cannot believe this!
The last puzzle is ridiculous at 09:27
So this all makes a lot of sense. I do this often in a game but I find my self running out of time playing 10 min rapid games ... Which appear to be the slowest time people play these days with decent queue times.
How would you recommend identifying the best times to calculate at this depth vs playing "common sense" moves?
You're the best.. ❤️✨
Thanks mate, appreciate your kind comment!
@@ChessCoachAndras ❤️❤️❤️
Why not play bishop h7, then wait for your opponent to move before calculating 3 lines?
because it could be wrong move
For the last puzzle, what about Rg1?