Playing by Intuition: What I've Learned

The Past

When I was a senior in high school, I spent many days playing numerous chess games (and losing) with a very close friend. He was rated about 1850 at the time, and I had not yet reached 1000.

Having tried everything else, I decided to tap into my own "spiritual energy*" and play chess "purely from intuition" - what this meant for me at the time was that I was not thinking logically about my moves, and playing from only a gut feeling.

I lost in twelve moves or so. My friend pointed out that my plan had not worked. I noted that I was well aware.

In a few games after that, I approached my new plan: 1.d4, then do everything I can to support and keep that square. In essence, I happened upon the Colle System, and while I still didn't win, I felt more capable in that match than I ever had, before. I also decided that, when it came to chess, intuition... was bunk.

The Present

I just finished reading a blog today by GM Noël Studer**, and in it he mentions "Follow your intuition" as a primary tip for playing to beat a stronger player. I found this particularly amusing, knowing from personal experience that that simply doesn't work.

Just kidding! I agree 100% with GM Studer's take. In recent games, I have been speculating this very concept, so to read about it has spurred me to write my first-ever blog. I'll find myself in situations where I feel a move intuitively, and how I've chosen to respond to these feelings has been a matter of personal experimentation.

At first, I found myself scared of the move. "It's the first move I saw," I'd think, "so it's probably not good." After all, how many times have we made the first move we saw, only to then realize it was a massive piece-losing blunder? So, I'd keep thinking, and I'd find some other move, which would turn out to be a blunder. Post-game Stockfish analysis would reveal that my intuition would have served me well.

The logical next step, then, is to play those moves. To always play the first move I see? No.

What's the difference?

When a move like that comes to me, I look at it. Why am I considering this move - does it do something to strengthen my side of the board, or to weaken my opponent's side? Does it blunder a piece, or some other significant advantage? Have I seen a position like this one, before? How does this position differ from other similar ones I have seen?

I want to provide an example for that last question:

In this position, we see Black facing a difficult situation - perhaps you yourself have seen a similar position, before. White's knight and Bishop are teaming up on the King's weak f7 square, forcing Black to make responses to prevent losing the Rook (or worse) which ultimately compromises Black's ability to develop early and build a stable position for the rest of the game to flourish upon.

In game 2, Black has learned their lesson, but White is still floating on cloud nine over their clever opening trap, and has gone for it, once again. They have failed to see that the passively active Queen is more than capable of taking that early piece, and now White has an early disadvantage which will prove very difficult to recover from.

I admit it's a relatively simple example, but it does prove my point in an archetypal way: moves which worked in one similar position, don't necessarily work as well, in others. Intuitively-derived moves should still go through the rigor of your regular move checks. To quote Ron Curry from his book Win at Chess! A Comprehensive Guide to Winning Chess for the Intermediate Player: 1. What is the Threat? 2. What has Changed? 3. Does this move Improve My Position? 4. Is this move Safe? (This is an excellent book that I highly recommend for any beginner or intermediate chess players looking to build a stable foundation to grow from, granted you can find a copy for an affordable price. Curry, Ronald H. Win at Chess: A Comprehensive Guide to Winning Chess for the Intermediate Player. Thinkers Press, 1999.)

To Conclude:

It can be scary to make moves that feel exciting, or new, or intuitive. My current operandum is that I double-check, but if unsure, I'll err on the side of making the move. (After all, the worst-case scenario is that I lose!) In chess, I'm not just learning how positions work - I'm learning how my brain works, too. It can be just as valuable to learn that a move which my intuition pointed out was a bad idea, as it can be to deepen my analytical understanding of a position. If I give my intuition the credit to make the move for me, and we lose because of it, perhaps my intuition will also learn to take chess analysis more seriously.

So, why didn't it work while I was losing twenty-three games per day to my best friend? Intuition occurs from a web of understanding. I didn't have nearly as much experience in chess at that point as he did. Perhaps if I'd been playing another chess rookie, my intuitive moves would have seemed astute and crisp.

If I may leave you with a few final points, which are relevant but also somewhat non sequitur: Play stronger opponents, to learn their tricks. Learn to play the strategies which are used to beat you. When you lose, learn how you lost: when you win, learn what you did right, and what your opponent did to lose. There's a lot of emphasis on using losses to win, but if you let yourself learn from your victories, as well, then you are going to learn twice as quickly as you would, otherwise.

And, finally: Play the position, not the player.

Footnotes

((*To clarify, this isn't meant to dis on the concept of spiritual energy: simply that there's a time and a place for such things, and that it may not be the chess board.))

**https://nextlevelchess.blog/beat-higher-rated/