Yesterday I lost my game from a 1980 opponent. The way how is for me the proof that I'm on the right track when I say that lack of calculation ability in complex positions is my main weakness. If I was asked, I would guess that from the 800 points my rating differs from that of a grandmaster, 500-600 points are caused by lack of this skill. But nobody asks.
This was the position where I did find the losing move:
Black to move and lose.
Untill now black is slightly better. But with the move Nxg3 (instead of dxe4) I manage to give the game away. I was simply unable to calculate all the intricacies of the the position. So in fact Nxg3 was a gamble. Because the clock was ticking, and I had to make a move anyhow. For me the position was quite unclear. When I talked with my opponent afterwards, he said that he immediately knew that move can't be good. That remembered me at the comment of anonymous on my previous post, who asked me why is 1.Bxe4 not good in the position that I repeat here for your convenience:
Black to move.
I reacted in the same way, that move can't be good.
Now we reach the contradicting point:
I try to improve my calculating skills by constructing narratives. I hope that that will improve my intuition in the end. But above I have two examples of chess intuition, and nor my opponent nor I was able to translate our intuition into a convincing narrative when asked.
This seems to indicate that we have obtained this intuition in the past without ever being able to formulate a narrative. But if that is truly the case then the question is raised how did we then acquire this intuition?
The only argument I can find to solve this is to assume that we have forgotten the corresponding narrative. But is that really the case? Or did we use another method without knowing how?
You can find the game here.
The Curious Case of Analysis and Style
1 hour ago