Think first or think later? - part 1

This is a different kind of review. It's not just a review of one book, but two (actually three). Therefore, it's written in two parts, and this is part 1. I have chosen the book Move first, think later by Willy Hendriks and Understanding before moving by Herman Grooten (which is actually a series, with two books so far). The main reason I chose these books is that the titles indicate completely opposite views of how to approach chess: Think before you move or just move and think later. So how should a patzer like me make sense of this?

I read the book on Forward Chess, which was a new experience for me. The service is available for various operative systems. I used the app on my iPad. One advantage is that it allows you to click through the variations instead of just visualizing them in your head. You can of course skip this, if you want to train your visualization skills. Another good thing is that you can try out various moves that are not in the book and switch on an engine to get a computer evaluation. Very handy if you come across a tricky tactic that is over your head. That being said, the reading experience is different on a screen, and it is probably not for everyone. I wouldn't recommend it for a "talky" book like this.

What can you expect from this book?

Move first, think later has received a lot of praise, and even an award! Hendriks indicates that he aims to provoke and challenge conventional wisdom. I am sure that he will succeed in provoking just about any reader. As the title indicates, Hendriks proposes a quite "loose" approach to learning chess, based on developing your intuition. However, for a patzer like me, Hendriks' advice is meaningless. I cannot trust my intuition, because it is often wrong! And how am I supposed to improve my intuition unless I have something to hold on to?

Jeremy Silman wrote a quite critical review of this book. This is probably no surprise, as the two gentlemen have quite opposite views of how to teach and learn chess. (Edit: Silman has written another post, in which he expresses both praise and critique of Hendriks’ book) Silman is a strong proponent of a systematic approach to chess based on analyses of imbalances (see my review of The Amateur's Mind for a short summary). Hendriks takes on just about every chess author who is even remotely suggesting a such a systematic approach, and seems to think that this is pure nonsense and a complete waste of time. Instead, you should trust your instincts and just play good moves. This is illustrated by the quote below.

The narrative in middlegame manuals is not of great importance – putting your hope in them and skipping the actual chess is a sure way of learning nothing. (...) Put some trust in the chess knowledge you bring to the board.

I am not even sure what Hendriks means by "skipping the actual chess". He seems to be of the opinion that chess itself and how we think about it is too complex to describe in a clear and systematic way, so every attempt to do so is futile.

To questions like: ʻHow do I create a weakness?’ and ʻHow do I counter my opponent’s initiative?’ no answers are possible except one: play good moves!

This quote reminds me of this one time, at the chess club... A strong player at my club looked at one of my games, and he complained that I insisted on making bad moves all the time. Although this is obviously true, it is an absolutely useless comment. How do you improve? Just play better chess! Gee, thanks, that's really good advice! #sarcasm

Of course, Hendriks does have a point; every attempt to create a "protocol" for playing chess will need to be a simplification and therefore, by definition, not entirely correct. I often say that "every model is incorrect" (since it is a simplification of reality), but that doesn't keep it from being useful. This point is also made in another critical review by John Watson. A "protocol" or "checklist" from a middle game book is like a safety net; if you are already a strong player, you don't need it. But for weaker players, it can prevent a lot of pain.

I have to admit that the book is entertaining at times, and there are actually a few interesting puzzles. However, although I would like to, I cannot recommend this book. First of all, it seems more like a draft than a finished book. Furthermore, the text is a mix of anecdotes and general rants with the occasional reference to prominent researchers and philosophers. The chess seems to be inserted in a rather random fashion, and has only a marginal connection to the overall text. The book's main message can be summarized in one simple exhortation: Just play better moves!

Who should read this book?

It is very difficult to identify the target audience for Move first, think later. Since it is a book on chess improvement, one should think it is for improvers (i.e. patzers). However, the suggestions in the the book are probably only valid for strong players, which reduces the value for the rest of us. My conclusion is that this is a book to read if you want a light read and tend to enjoy philosophical discussions and random anecdotes about chess. It is a book about chess improvement (sort of), but if you are looking for advice on how to improve your chess, you should look elsewhere.

About this book

Author:	Willy Hendriks
Title:	Move first, think later
Type of book:	Chess improvement
Level:	Intermediate/Advanced