play chess online against computer

Play Chess Online Against Computer

Vote and you will unmask!
Quirky name, real interests
[ Sign up | Log in | Guest ] (beta)
bellepheron 65 ( +1 | -1 )
Intiution vs Calculation I was wondering, how often people of different skill levels make a move, simply because it 'feels right'.

Often I make a move this way (after first checking that it is not an obvious blunder).

I do so sometimes because I don't have time to calculate every possibility. Other times I do it because I don't 'know' what move is right, but feel like I have an intuitive grasp on how the game will progress from there.

Sometimes it works, sometimes it bites me.

So I guess the question is: should I strive to remove intuitive impulses from my game, and calculate more, or should I develop and trust my instincts?
bluebabygirl 59 ( +1 | -1 )
re- first I must calculate to see if an intuitive move is a blunder, then seeing that its not an outright blunder, i calculate again to see what positive results I may get from it (such win a piece, cramp opponents game or mating attack, etc. ) having then come to a conclusion that it will be a positive move i go for it . so i say calculation is more important because even intuitive moves MUST be calculated to some degree. So my answer is use your intuition but but back it up by some degree of calculation . I think many a brilliancy was made based on primarily intuition. yours bluebabygirl
indiana-jay 102 ( +1 | -1 )

I agree very much with Bluebabygirl. But in my case, I'm developing my intuition and calculating skill. I will try the hardest variation and when my intuition tells me that I have a chance, I will do that. It's not important for me if the calculation or intuition is then happened to be wrong (or there is a simple good or winning move, like in a game where I had a chance to fork opponent's Queen). I believe that this way my instinc will get better. At least in the future I will know if there is something right or something wrong in an intuition, not just "blind" because I never worked it out.

When I was a kid, I was too afraid to do the long castling, or to attack opponent's King with pawns. Here I always try to find the possibility to attack with pawns, ignoring my own King safety. I know that there are situations or positions where such attack is justified, and I know that many opponents don't expect such attack.
tyekanyk 42 ( +1 | -1 )
itiution rules there is a famous butade that says that the first move you think of right after your oponent mkes his move is the best.
To have a good intiution one must have good chess knowledge and a considerable amount of experience. The only exception I know of is Capablanca. He played extremly well ever since he was a small boy. But how many of us can compare themselves to the great "Capa" ?
brobishkin 78 ( +1 | -1 )
Intuition vs Calculation... Man does not live by calculation alone, and there is other food for thought... All of the discipline of calculation can stifle your creative muse... It's not enough just to calculate...

As Capablanca once said... In chess, as played by a good player, logic and imagination must go hand in hand, compensating each other...

But playing by intuition is just as dangerous as playing soley on calculation... Playing by emotion almost always leads you down the road to distruction... You should not play one move at a time... And never start out by calculating what your opponent will do in responce to a planned move... Set out your goals on your advantages and the imbalances on the board, find ways to achieve them, and then find variations which lead to that goal...

Bro...

drgandalf 13 ( +1 | -1 )
At my level of play I haven't the faintest idea to what degree calculation and inspiration play in my chess. I do know that both are weak.
rajuncajun 45 ( +1 | -1 )
i trust my instincs I trust my instincs in real life they help me get through the days i mean if u dont trust your instincs then how do u live cause all ur choices live off of instincs. I mean when u think of a possible solution to a question that is an instinc so when you come up with more then they are made off of the instinc so every one is usin instics. U cant make a calculation with out an instinc so that is what i say.
peppe_l 10 ( +1 | -1 )
IMO Intuition is mostly pattern recognition, but of course calling it simply intuition sounds better :-)
anaxagoras 52 ( +1 | -1 )
Ugh, can I say the word? To a very great degree what we call chess intuition is "unconscious" calculation, and it is necessary to make that hypothesis in order to explain the frequent soundness of "intuitive" moves (yes, we also check for blunders). To explicitly spell-out all of the calcuations your brain makes during a chess game would make your head explode! ;-) Which throws some light on Reti's answer to the question of how many moves ahead he calculated to decide on a move: he replied, arrogantly, "two!"
kingofpawns 28 ( +1 | -1 )
peppe_1 I believe you are correct. What people call intution in
chess is pattern recognition. More experience and training
in chess leads to better pattern recognition and
discrimination. Strong players will also be better at
recognizing, which variations must be calculated.
lukulus 13 ( +1 | -1 )
Intuition is very important for pläyers who prefer positional style. But calculation must go hand-in-hand with intuition.
peppe_l 15 ( +1 | -1 )
Anaxagoras Chess players have improved since the times of Reti, when Kramnik was asked the same question his reply was "one, the best move" :-)
atrifix 57 ( +1 | -1 )
Reti replied "one move", not two. Two just...isn't the same.

The fact is that on average, any player usually calculates one to two moves ahead. That means you can usually beat GMs with simple two-move combinations. But what generally separates GMs from patzers is the ability to appraise positions correctly, which usually leads to faster, more accurate, and more efficient calculation. It's also been said that something like 90% of calculation is subconscious. Call it what you will, but I think it's difficult to separate the idea of intuition from calculation.
chesstickle 64 ( +1 | -1 )
i agree with atrifix and peppe_l .

de Groot a dutch psychologist conducted an experiment showing chess positions to players of varying strengths including nigel short. They were allowed 5 second to study the position and had to recall the position. Beginners could place 4-5 pieces, experienced players 70-80% of the pieces, and the grandmasters reproduced the position but also noted the combination. Clearly pattern recognition but not methodical calculation.

sample position

W - Ra1, Rf1, Kg1, Bg2, Qb5, Nd5, a2,b2,e4,f2,g3,h2

B - Rb8, Rh8, Kf8, Bb7, Nf6, Qg5, a7,c7,e5,f7,g7,h7.

in this case white to play and mate in 5.
kremator 4 ( +1 | -1 )
chesstickle 5 seconds did you mean minutes or seconds?
bluebabygirl 110 ( +1 | -1 )
i disagree about it being simple pattern recognition in my case because ive only been playing just over 3 years and most times i make moves based on intuition there definately is nothing in that position thats even remotely familiar to me . when there is something familiar i make my move based on my memory of what was before . and chesstickle that degroot experiment only shows memory performance based on experience hence the grandmasters scoring best . All it did was to prove that their pattern recognition was better . it actually proved NOTHING on INTUITION . when i made strong moves based on intuition in my first few games and won against much stronger players my dad asked me how i knew that they were correct i didnt know i just felt it . however he being very strong player saw immediately that they were right moves ,. at that time i had no patterns to recall!! Also i mostly get my intuition in games that have new unfamiliar positions . yours bluebabygirl
kremator 35 ( +1 | -1 )
Patterns are everywhere The truth is you did recall patterns. Humans do many amazing things every day and never even notice it. Most players could easily see what to do when there's a castled king with your bishop on e6 and your queen on h5. It's all pattern recognition but you never have to think about it if you've been playing long enough.
chesstickle 2 ( +1 | -1 )
seconds 5 seconds. not minutes.
kremator 8 ( +1 | -1 )
5 SECONDS!!!! Omg I couldn't even turn my brain on in that little ammount of time!
bluebabygirl 3 ( +1 | -1 )
to kremator Well i certainly believe you !!!!! BBG
bellepheron 85 ( +1 | -1 )
Pattern recognition I don't think it is pattern recognition when I just 'feel' like having a bishop on a certain square is right - even when I can't calculate a specific reason why.

It helps that I understand certain basic priciples (for example - that a bishop whose influence extends to many other squares is powerful). However, that does not explain an intuitive certainty about one square over another that seems equal or better, particularly if I cannot calculate a specific advantage from the square i have chosen.

Were Tal's intuitive sacrifices pattern reconition? It seems odd to consider them so, since many were shown to be unsound after deep analysis. However his intuition led him to the right move considering the total context of his situation, since even if the sac was 'unsound', it mostly led to a victory OTB!
bluebabygirl 50 ( +1 | -1 )
to bellepheron i agree totally with that. same with me . i play intuitive moves quite often and majority of the times they bear fruit. funny thing is they never involve a defensive move they are always attacking moves . can not explain that unless maybe attacking is my passion . or else maybe when i get to a position where my attack has been stopped maybe my intuition kicks in to supply that which my consious thoughts can not . yours BBG
mdorothy 57 ( +1 | -1 )
Capablanca a.k.a. Mr. Intuition I read on another site's forums about Capablanca playing mostly on intuition later on in life. It talked about two Capablanca's. The first one (who faced Marshall's attack in 1918 and became WC in 1921) calculated deep and concrete variants. The second one (later, during reign) played almost completely on intuition. People would work hard on opening traps/variants that make the natural move wrong. But Capablanca would play the natural move and prove that it works anyway, just like its supposed to.