- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

When To Stop Thinking

#2

Taking the quote literally, you may stop after you looked and found a better move, since then you will see two good moves and not one.

Taking the quote literally, you may stop after you looked and found a better move, since then you will see two good moves and not one.
#3

When To Stop Thinking

When you play ultra bullet!

> When To Stop Thinking When you play ultra bullet!
#4

When you see a good move, find a better one. Repeat until time < 1 second

When you see a good move, find a better one. Repeat until time < 1 second
#5
<Comment deleted by user>
#6

@username_lc said in #2:

Taking the quote literally, you may stop after you looked and found a better move, since then you will see two good moves and not one.
good point.

@username_lc said in #2: > Taking the quote literally, you may stop after you looked and found a better move, since then you will see two good moves and not one. good point.
#7

Trigger 2 is imo wrong:

"Trigger 2: A reasonable amount of time has elapsed, given the position and the time situation."

This is the economic principle of sunk cost. If all the moves are bad (given the position you are already in), which you have calculated until now, look further.

Trigger 2 is imo wrong: "Trigger 2: A reasonable amount of time has elapsed, given the position and the time situation." This is the economic principle of sunk cost. If all the moves are bad (given the position you are already in), which you have calculated until now, look further.
#8

In my opinion, the author is interpreting a bit too much into the quote of Lasker.

Laskers intention was just to make sure that people do not overlook an obvious better move, due to the euphory caused by having found a good move at all. It goes in the same direction like "Sit on your fingers".

In my opinion, the author is interpreting a bit too much into the quote of Lasker. Laskers intention was just to make sure that people do not overlook an obvious better move, due to the euphory caused by having found a good move at all. It goes in the same direction like "Sit on your fingers".
#9

Of course, the question "How to know when it is time to make a decision?" comes up outside of chess as well, and you may be surprised to learn that the question has been analysed. It is called the stopping problem (or, sometimes, the secretary problem) and the optimal algorithm is known.

How do you know when it it time to stop interviewing for a job and accept a position? The best approach to turns out to be a two step sequential process. Step 1: interview during some time T*, rejecting all offers, but grading the desirability of positions which led to an offer. This is known as the research phase. Step 2: Accept the first offer that is superior to all the offers you received in step 1.
Under fairly general circumstances, the optimal time, T* is found to be 37% of the maximum time you've allowed yourself to make a choice.

You can read about this in the February 1960 edition of Scientific American's Mathematical Games column. By the way, I know of no one who follows this approach.

Of course, the question "How to know when it is time to make a decision?" comes up outside of chess as well, and you may be surprised to learn that the question has been analysed. It is called the stopping problem (or, sometimes, the secretary problem) and the optimal algorithm is known. How do you know when it it time to stop interviewing for a job and accept a position? The best approach to turns out to be a two step sequential process. Step 1: interview during some time T*, rejecting all offers, but grading the desirability of positions which led to an offer. This is known as the research phase. Step 2: Accept the first offer that is superior to all the offers you received in step 1. Under fairly general circumstances, the optimal time, T* is found to be 37% of the maximum time you've allowed yourself to make a choice. You can read about this in the February 1960 edition of Scientific American's Mathematical Games column. By the way, I know of no one who follows this approach.
#10

or let the opponent find the better move for you by showing you that your move had a counter you did not think was in the board store for you. Well it might suggest there could have been a better move.

so many factors go into what is a good or better move, having a board position independent behavior recursive motto like that is bound to need contingency plans...

like how confortable are you with given position... familiarity with it, or the opening moves that preceded.

Experienced player can trust their estimation of odds on many positions, not amateurs in learning mode. estimation of what is good or better is part of what is under evolution with experience (and other means of studying chess).

But likely it was an aphorism (as being pushed to limit the move might never be done, if acknowledging human limitations). And might apply to only certain levels.. or behaviors.. Say, people jumping on first good looking move should heed the saying.

Also, it seems that good but fast trumps slow but better.

or let the opponent find the better move for you by showing you that your move had a counter you did not think was in the board store for you. Well it might suggest there could have been a better move. so many factors go into what is a good or better move, having a board position independent behavior recursive motto like that is bound to need contingency plans... like how confortable are you with given position... familiarity with it, or the opening moves that preceded. Experienced player can trust their estimation of odds on many positions, not amateurs in learning mode. estimation of what is good or better is part of what is under evolution with experience (and other means of studying chess). But likely it was an aphorism (as being pushed to limit the move might never be done, if acknowledging human limitations). And might apply to only certain levels.. or behaviors.. Say, people jumping on first good looking move should heed the saying. Also, it seems that good but fast trumps slow but better.