I left a comment here about a puzzle I did this with. Now I did one with the game Timman-Hulak.
This exercise has improved my depth, accuracy and efficiency. At faster than G/90 time-controls, it may not make so much of a difference if the opponent is not letting you think on their time (the death of chess, fast games). At G/2 or longer, it should help a lot.
So far, this exercise has gotten me from looking three moves deep to five moves deep, but that is not good enough because there are some where seven moves deep is needed, and I think that is a healthy goal, seven moves.
I haven’t been using paper and notes, since one can’t use those at the board and must visualize. One can take notes mentally/verbally to ones self, however, and so this is how I am accomplishing that.
This is not “fad” stuff IMHO. The MDLM is really “study your tactics!”, just as much as this is about “analyze deep enough to where you truly reach a quiescent position!”
Incidentally, none of this is new. I am sure the concept existed before Dan H. was even born. hehe. I first head about this in the mid-90’s by an A player who said that a Master had told him that the secret to improving is not to go over a lot of books, but rather to take one position and study it for a couple hours – and I am sure that was an old quote even then. So no, the “Whoever said it on the internet first must have said it first” thinking is not correct (must be a “Gen Y” thing – whoever tweets it first wins!)
Think about it, back in Botvinnik’s day there was no Fritz, they HAD to do this. It’s easy to say “Oh, Botvinnik was a genius! (and therefore I can be lazy)”, but closer to the truth is that Botvinnik probably worked his butt off to acquire those skills the old-fashioned, time-honored way. He didn’t become World Champion by reading “Chess Life” articles, learning a new “trick” here and there, but rather by hard work at the board. And like they say, “you play how you practice.”