I have tried to find out how grandmasters and masters analyzed chess games before the advent of chess programs, but have not been able to find a conclusive answer. The primary reason why I am interested is to find a reliable non-computerized method of analyzing my and others’ games. Does anyone know how chess players analyzed before the 1980s for example?
I’m not sure what kind of answer you expect here. Did you think there was some magical book from the 1970s which explains how club players can produce Master level analysis of their games? There isn’t. If you want Master level analysis of your games without recourse to computers, there are only two options: (1) get a Master to analyze the games for you or (2) become a Master yourself.
Of course there were some key books and periodicals back then, which could be of use to club players. The first English translation of Kotov’s Think Like a Grandmaster was published in 1971 and became highly influential as a guide for OTB analytical methodology. For the openings, all the strong players (and those who wanted to become strong) bought the Chess Informants every 6 months. Back then, I and many other players I knew got the latest Informant, turned to a section on an opening we wanted to study and just started playing through the games, one after another. I used to do that for hours every day back then. This was a method for learning the typical patterns and plans of a given opening, all the way through the middlegame to the ending. All of this may have helped me to produce better notes to my own games - but only in the sense that I was becoming a better player. I made written notes to many of my games from that period; looking at them now I can see that those notes were only as good as I was at the time.
If you have ten years to spare, you can still do it this way I suppose. I really recommend though that you find a way to use one of the current database or playing programs. All the information I spent hours gathering from books and magazines can be displayed by ChessBase in about 30 seconds. Of course you still have to do the work of understanding what you see but much of the tedium is removed from the process.
– NM Hal Terrie
In the “old days” players would analyze their games in post mortem. If they still do, I don’t imagine their methods and procedures have changed any. I remember John Curdo saying to an opponent, “I didn’t see any of this stuff.” Point being, this is a way (not necessarily the only way) to improve your OTB ability.
Then again Kotov also strongly recommended writing down your move first, before making it. Why should anyone listen to him?!
Cause it is against the rules?
Moderator Mode: Off
The times, they are a changin’.
When Kotov wrote that book the idea of electronic score keeping, let alone computers that could beat a Grandmaster, weren’t even a glimmer in Botvinnik’s eye.
Time controls were also much slower in Kotov’s time as well.
Chess, the game, has changed quite a bit since then. I believe there have also been a number of other rule changes as well.
So Steve, are you still using analog clocks with no delay or increment in all the tournaments you run at your club in New York?
Its the same difference as if you were analysing a game of a weaker opponent. But in the case of a grandmaster, they actually know enough about the game to review the games of thier peers.
I’d say the best way to get a feel for what I mean is to analyse a game that was played by 2 people much lower in strength than youself.
On the contrary, the Marshall Chess Club (which is its own entity and has its own Board of Governors, I certainly don’t own it) has a good supply of the blue Saiteks and a few Excaliburs, as well as a few BHBs from years back in case all the Saiteks are being used, so most of the games there have used delay clocks for quite some time. There are also some blitz chronos, but a few of them have walked away from time to time, so they are usually reserved for more important events. Many players do bring their own delay clocks (hardly anyone brings an analog to the club). But occasionally there is still a game using a BHB. The tournaments I direct where I see more analogs (but still a small percentage) are the larger events with slower time controls to which I travel. In the Atlantic Open in DC at the end of August I think I couinted about a half dozen (out of about 60 or so games) in the first round of the 3-day schedule.
Moderator Mode: Off
Thank you, my point is made. I bet if Kotov were with us today, he would come out with a new edition of the book saying something to the effect that since the rules now state the move must be made before writing it, the player should simply make a mental note of the move he intends to make, then do the sanity check, then make the move.
But using a time dealy clock or using an analog clock is not relevant to whether or not Kotov would still recommend that you write down your move before making it.
Moderator Mode: Off
I didn’t say the time delay was directly relevant to whether or not Kotov would recommend anything.
I said that the fact that the Marshall Chess Club is staying current with the rule changes by using delay or increment is an indication that players have and will change their playing behavior to reflect the rule changes. That was the point you helped me make.
I also said that I bet if Kotov were alive today, he would come out with a new edition of his book saying something to the effect that since the rules now state that the move must be made before writing it down, he suggests the player alter his behavior by making a mental note instead of writing the move down before making it.
Note that FIDE does not allow the writing of the move before it is made at anytime. There also are a large number of GMs, IMs and FMs playing FIDE games and not writing the move before making it. It appears that their analysis over the board has not suffered from this minor change.
While computers with strong playing engines and chess databases have changed how players analyze games after they are played, technology also has changed the game play itself. This has been done primarily with the delay and increment time changes and shorter time controls in general, along with pre-game preparation.
To argue that higher rated players used to write their move before making it, therefore this should be allowed again is weak in light of the fact that the current higher rated players no longer do this and apparently do not need to either.
Now, if you were simply making that statement to be snarky or something, then that seems pretty worthless in this discussion where no one else is being sarcastic at all.
It also does not really give a good argument to GM analysis either pre, post or during the game.
I was just responding to the snarky or sarcastic question:
Moderator Mode: Off
Huh?!? Making a point that modern, higher rated chess players are staying current with technology and rule changes is snarky and/or sarcastic?!?
Please take a moment to explain the true need to allow players to write their moves before making them. And please explain to us how this really matters in Grandmaster Analysis, per the topic of the thread.
But that’s not what you said. What you actually said to me was:
Behave, boys, or you’ll be sent to your room.
There are a number of books on how to analyze a position. Kotov is okay, but the emphasis on analytical trees can be daunting and unlike how we really approach a position. As one GM said, “Who thinks like a tree?” The old book, “The Middle Game in Chess,” by Znosko-Borovsky does explain a process or methodology to break down a position and make decisions. But that book is hard to find. Modern books that are interesting are: “The Inner Game of Chess,” by Andy Soltis and “How to Calculate Chess Tactics,” by Valeri Beim. Soltis is always readable, providing examples and advice. Beim is a noted trainer. He is a little dry at times, like Dvoretsky, but his examples are pretty good for the amateur player to understand. I also like one other book, “Attack with Mikhail Tal.” It has some interesting ideas concerning how to think in chess.
Much of the GM analysis in books and magazines is a jumble of variations with little explanation. It is very Kotov-like. Occasionally, you can find analysis in New in Chess magazine where the player says what he was really thinking about, what he saw, and what he missed. Much analysis occurs on a subconscious level, a matter of feel for what the pieces can do, an emotional sense of threat and opportunity, and fantasy about ideal positions. Conscious thinking patterns are more disciplined (maybe) and linked to specific concrete analysis. That means “tree thinking” predominates over general assessment.
The Beim book is indeed excellent.
Jacob Aagaard’s Excelling at Chess is a modern classic. Human GMs are still far ahead of computers in “knowing where the pieces go” (Aagaard). But chess is such a tactical game that alpha-beta pruning generally trumps understanding in human-computer games. In human-human games, on the other hand, “it’s a matter of chess culture” (Kasparov). Having a computer tell you that 27.Ncb5! would have won immediately does you no good at all if you don’t develop a human way of coping with similar positions in the future that helps you find similar moves.
For a human, there is no “way” to analyze position. There are different positions and different ways for humans to cope with them.
Humans are better at pattern recognition & intuitive decision making than at alpha-beta pruning. “Spidey sense” is as useful as “computer eyes.” E.g., Keres-Smyslov, Zürich 1953: doesn’t Kotov talk about intuition being part of Smyslov’s decision-making process on move 19? Smyslov thought for an hour and did not see 19…gxh5 20.Qxh5 Re8 21.a4!, but declined the sacrifice anyway.
[Event “Zurich ct”]
[Site “Zurich”]
[Date “1953.10.13”]
[EventDate “?”]
[Round “24”]
[Result “0-1”]
[White “Paul Keres”]
[Black “Vasily Smyslov”]
[ECO “A17”]
[WhiteElo “?”]
[BlackElo “?”]
[PlyCount “56”]
1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e6 3.Nf3 c5 4.e3 Be7 5.b3 O-O 6.Bb2 b6 7.d4
cxd4 8.exd4 d5 9.Bd3 Nc6 10.O-O Bb7 11.Rc1 Rc8 12.Re1 Nb4
13.Bf1 Ne4 14.a3 Nxc3 15.Rxc3 Nc6 16.Ne5 Nxe5 17.Rxe5 Bf6
18.Rh5 g6 19.Rch3 dxc4 20.Rxh7 c3 21.Qc1 Qxd4 22.Qh6 Rfd8
23.Bc1 Bg7 24.Qg5 Qf6 25.Qg4 c2 26.Be2 Rd4 27.f4 Rd1+ 28.Bxd1
Qd4+ 0-1
Moderator Mode: Off
Thank you Tom. That was very informative. I actually bought the older book as an e-book on Amazon for $7.99.
Steve, my question was not meant to be sarcastic but more rhetorical to prove a good point.
Really, does writing the move before making it really improve one’s play? I personally don’t see that as being true.
When a grandmaster advises (or advised) an amateur to write the move before playing it, he probably intended it as advice for amateurs, not for stronger players.
Every so often a weaker player will say something like, “I had a great game, but I blew it when I got a couple of moves interchanged, and played a different move than the one I intended.”
The grandmaster, after rolling his eyes to the ceiling and thinking, “What’s the matter with you that you can’t simply play the move you intended?”, may then decide to be a bit more diplomatic and suggest that the player write the move before playing it.
It’s advice that no strong player (and by that I mean even 1800+) should ever need.
Bill Smythe
Kotov’s point (one I would do well to follow) is to fix the intended move in your mind, then do a blundercheck to make sure you’re not missing anything. How many times have we made a move, then IMMEDIATELY (well before the opponent’s response) seen the refutation?
I’ve done it more times than I care to admit, and I’m still doing it.
Children often have a problem with impulse control. They play the first thing that pops into their heads. That would be okay if one were a mature GM, with hundreds of tournaments and thousands of games that help to form one’s “intuition.” Since kids don’t have that experience, you have to slow them down. Making them write down the move first and then do a last look around, what Kotov calls the “Blumenfeld rule” after the chess psychologist who came up with the idea of a blunder check, is one way to get them to control their impulse to move.
As I related on another thread one time, the reason I write the move first is because older players told me it was the right thing to do. They said that world champions Lasker, Capablanca, and Alekhine wrote their move first. If it was good enough for them… BTW, the older guys gave a special reason to write your move down first. After you make your move and press the clock, if you are writing down your move you do not see the expression and other visual cues of how your move affects the other player. That information on an opponent’s mood is priceless. Poker players are very cognizant of “tells.” Fischer and Tal are reputed to have been very close students of their opponents’ facial expressions.