A follow-up to a previous post.
Now I am starting to see that I want/need to see more things over the board. One advantage of analyzing quickly is that you can move on to look at, investigate, yet more ideas.
I’m becoming more convinced that the lot of us are not “bad” chessplayers, but that we need to move on to investigate more ideas at the board. This has started to become more apparent in some of my games, either because I did it or didn’t do it.
People focus so much on quality difference between us and the GMs and all that. I’m starting to think quantitative is more useful. Now, in practical results, quality is usually all one needs because when you are already more high-rated than the other guy, all you really need to do is keep playing and eventually you will find a hole in that person’s knowledge which is not a hole for you, and you win easily enough. A dead give-away is when someone spends too much time on a move, which indicates confusion. If you are more experienced, chances are the position will be less confusing to you, if not decisive.
But to get better, I think we have more quality oftentimes than we realize, yet not enough quantity. It’s quantity which allows better follow-through of ideas before committing to them. Quality is “This looks like my optimal move or idea.” Quantity is “It looks like this square is my optimal point of attack, but looking further ahead, this plan has holes in it that I don’t want to spend resources addressing.”