Pattern Recognition vs. Calculation?

FM Nate Solon and GM Jacob Aagard had a long discussion together on how to do tactics. Solon then posted a suggestion on Twitter that “For most players, easy tactics (pattern recognition) > hard tactics (calculation).”

The explanation calls back to the thought that stronger players have an especially strong sense of what is important in a position. And if you don’t know that, then ‘calculating’ will have limited value.

Earlier in the day Solon had also pointed out the “huge trap” in Lichess or chess.com puzzles: “They tempt you into developing a terrible thought process.” Absolutely, the way the systems work, users have a tendency to play the most obvious move without much thought. It works for puzzles because players think along the same lines, and the puzzles where the obvious move is correct are thus lower in difficulty. As a higher-rated player you sometimes get stuck on easier puzzles because you spot a potential problem, and then the puzzle ends after the easy move and before the challenging moment.

This is a simple tactics example where everyone will jump at 1. …Rh1+, anticipating a follow-up …R8h2+. But the correct second move is 2. Kg2 Be4+!, and then 3. f3 R8h2#.

To be thorough, “What you actually need to do, when you see a promising first move, is to investigate your opponent’s possible replies and make sure you have a good answer to all of them. Only once you’ve done this should you make your first move,” says Solon.

Otherwise, there is great risk of a careless oversight in a real game. With that diligence, you build a sound process and also pattern recognition, which will lead to an increased value of calculating ability.