Answers.Body: <p>I would try breaking your games down by sub-goals and examine the moves leading up to achieving that sub-goal which gives you an easy metric on how well the set of moves performed.  Of course, the harder part is to assess your sub-goals.  Did you have the right overall plan?  Did your sub-goals improve your position?  I'm not sure if breaking your evaluation down to the "set of moves" level will ultimately be useful.</p>
  
  <p>For instance, you can set a sub-goal of controlling the c-file so the set of moves that contribute to doubling the rooks on the c-file evaluate as "good".  However, if your opponent is invested in an attack on the king-side, your sub-goal might be faulty.</p>
  
  <p>Take a look at some middlegame books, games collections, and/or tournament books.  Try something like IM Jeremy Silman's "<a href="http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1890085138" rel="nofollow">How To Reassess Your Chess</a>" and/or GM Bronstein's annotations of the <a href="http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0486238008" rel="nofollow">Zurich 1953</a> tournament.</p>
  
  <p>The former will give you some ways to approach thinking about your position and formulating goals while the latter will delve into the thought process behind the moves of real games of grandmasters.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2012-05-02T17:07:38.547Z
Answers.Text: +1 Thanks. I see the key to the analysis to as the "sub-goals", though believe looking at the relationships between chains of moves would be more likely to produce results than an attempt to infer meaning on them, or for that matter there intent; besides in a real game, you would not have access to this information. [Binoj Antony](http://chess.stackexchange.com/users/105/binoj-antony)'s question is an even more simpliy version of this question, that being "[When does middle-game end and end-game begin?](http://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/106/when-does-middle-game-end-and-end-game-begin)"
Answers.UserDisplayName: blunders
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2012-05-02T17:14:48.430Z
Answers.Text: I don't think I see the difference between "relationships" and "meaning" between the chains of moves.  Presumably, you are making chains of moves because you have a plan to which they contribute (i.e., a sub-goal).  Formulating the relationship between sub-goals and the overall plan is something that you do in the game. As to Binoj's question, there isn't a clear transition.  Additionally, how does knowing which phase of the game that you are in help you in evaluating the current position?
Answers.UserDisplayName: dmah
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2012-05-02T17:22:50.603Z
Answers.Text: The opening, middle, and end in theory would be major segments of the game. Opening clearly have themes, and once those themes have covered 80% of the themes played 80% of the time, the opening is over in my opinion. As for the end game, once 80% of the goals are covered by 80% of the moves, I would venture to say the game was in the end game. The middle-game would logically be any game play that was not covered by the opening or end game moves. Again, not an expert, though do believe there is an answer. That said, I do not have a way to segment the chains of moves, hence the question.
Answers.UserDisplayName: blunders
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2012-05-02T17:39:31.790Z
Answers.Text: IMHO, the way that you should be segmenting the chains of moves is by sub-goal if you want to look at that granular of a level.  You cannot remove the reasoning as to why you are making the move and still gain anything from the analysis.  Or can you give a concrete example of a segment of moves that you can divorce from its intent?
Answers.UserDisplayName: dmah
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2012-05-02T19:40:01.873Z
Answers.Text: To be clear, I'm not saying that would not be of benefit, but that intent does not equal execution, nor is it possible to observe. On the other hand, all real moves are execution, and observable. In the opening, themes are much more predictable, and in the end game, intent is much more clear.
Answers.UserDisplayName: blunders
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2012-05-02T19:40:54.510Z
Answers.Text: Also, in retrospect, unless the players documented there intent during the game willingly, which is unlikely, since it might be used against them in the future, intent would not be absolute truth; though for analysis of the one's own it would. Okay, I'm fine with the assumption of awareness of ones own intent, and if that allows you to produce an answer of use, then I'll take it as an answer. Thanks!
Answers.UserDisplayName: blunders
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2012-05-02T19:50:06.620Z
Answers.Text: Okay, stupid question, have you read any books on the middlegame?  Or any games collections by grandmasters?  Those are attempts at documenting their intent and why they are making certain sets of moves.  Many of the best teaching IMs or GMs will break down the reasoning behind moves from real games.
Answers.UserDisplayName: dmah
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2012-05-02T19:51:28.613Z
Answers.Text: +1 @dmah: It's not a stupid question, and no, I have not.
Answers.UserDisplayName: blunders
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2012-05-02T20:01:38.510Z
Answers.Text: Okay, I've updated my answer to include a couple book suggestions.  I'd suggest browsing them over which might help you out.
Answers.UserDisplayName: dmah
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2012-05-02T16:58:46.403Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2012-05-02T19:59:43.330Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2012-05-02T19:59:43.330Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: dmah
Body: <p>Most chess literature offer sets of moves based on themes, but do not offer a method of accessing your performance in composing sets of moves relative to the flow of the game itself. </p>
  
  <p>What would be the best way to segment sets of moves, and then assess the effectiveness of their composition relative to the board's state?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2012-05-02T13:07:34.123Z
Comments.Text: I'm finding this question difficult to understand.  'Composition' in the chess world means a chess position designed to be a puzzle, usually requiring a clever solution to be found.
Comments.UserDisplayName: PeskyGnat
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2012-05-02T13:13:49.593Z
Comments.Text: +1 @PeskyGnat: By composition, I mean the composition of sets of moves, not of the board. In the question, 'the board's state' refers to the use of 'composition' at you point out. Please feel free to edit the question if you believe you understand it's intent, and believe you would be able to make that intent more clear. Thanks for the feedback, and if have more questions, just let me know!
Comments.UserDisplayName: blunders
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2012-05-02T13:21:50.957Z
Comments.Text: Are you asking about how to assess your position?
Comments.UserDisplayName: Soufiane Hassou
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2012-05-02T13:30:25.690Z
Comments.Text: @Soufiane Hassou: No. I am asking after a game is over, how to cluster sets of moves, and then access how those sets where serially executed (set composition) relative to the board's state (board composition). Assessing position would be part of the process, but not the goal of the assessment. The goal is to analysis how sets of moves are performing as sets relative to other sets.
Comments.UserDisplayName: blunders
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2012-05-02T14:35:27.667Z
Comments.Text: @blunders provide us with some examples of the themes that you are trying to break a game down into.  If you mean pins, skewers, forks, I'm not sure that I see the value of breaking it down that far.  Do you mean strategic themes like mating nets, minor attacks, creating isolated pawns, attacking the pawn chain, etc.?
Comments.UserDisplayName: dmah
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2012-05-02T15:40:49.340Z
Comments.Text: @dmah: To be clear, I'm not an expert. As for examples, take opening moves, since that in my opinion is the most easy to segment. Each possible opening moves is followed by another move. At some point a set of moves either becomes a set/chain of moves, or it becomes a non-set move. The question is about when assessing the performance of sets that are combined in close chronological order; meaning it's more than likely that a non-set move must take place between a two-sets, or the two-sets would just be one set.
Comments.UserDisplayName: blunders
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2012-05-02T16:34:52.573Z
Comments.Text: RELATED-QUESTION: [When does middle-game end and end-game begin?](http://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/106/when-does-middle-game-end-and-end-game-begin)
Comments.UserDisplayName: blunders
Tags: <analysis>
Title: How to assess chess game composition?
ThreadText: # How to assess chess game composition?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2012-05-02)
  
  Most chess literature offer sets of moves based on themes, but do not offer a method of accessing your performance in composing sets of moves relative to the flow of the game itself.
  
  What would be the best way to segment sets of moves, and then assess the effectiveness of their composition relative to the board's state?
  
  **Tags:** analysis
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: I'm finding this question difficult to understand.  'Composition' in the chess world means a chess position designed to be a puzzle, usually requiring a clever solution to be found.  
  > **username_0**: +1 @username_1: By composition, I mean the composition of sets of moves, not of the board. In the question, 'the board's state' refers to the use of 'composition' at you point out. Please feel free to edit the question if you believe you understand it's intent, and believe you would be able to make that intent more clear. Thanks for the feedback, and if have more questions, just let me know!  
  > **username_2**: Are you asking about how to assess your position?  
  > **username_0**: @username_2: No. I am asking after a game is over, how to cluster sets of moves, and then access how those sets where serially executed (set composition) relative to the board's state (board composition). Assessing position would be part of the process, but not the goal of the assessment. The goal is to analysis how sets of moves are performing as sets relative to other sets.  
  > **username_3**: @username_0 provide us with some examples of the themes that you are trying to break a game down into.  If you mean pins, skewers, forks, I'm not sure that I see the value of breaking it down that far.  Do you mean strategic themes like mating nets, minor attacks, creating isolated pawns, attacking the pawn chain, etc.?  
  > **username_0**: @username_3: To be clear, I'm not an expert. As for examples, take opening moves, since that in my opinion is the most easy to segment. Each possible opening moves is followed by another move. At some point a set of moves either becomes a set/chain of moves, or it becomes a non-set move. The question is about when assessing the performance of sets that are combined in close chronological order; meaning it's more than likely that a non-set move must take place between a two-sets, or the two-sets would just be one set.  
  > **username_0**: RELATED-QUESTION: [When does middle-game end and end-game begin?](http://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/106/when-does-middle-game-end-and-end-game-begin)  
  
  ---
  
  ## 1 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2012-05-02. Score: 4 | Accepted answer
  
  I would try breaking your games down by sub-goals and examine the moves leading up to achieving that sub-goal which gives you an easy metric on how well the set of moves performed. Of course, the harder part is to assess your sub-goals. Did you have the right overall plan? Did your sub-goals improve your position? I'm not sure if breaking your evaluation down to the "set of moves" level will ultimately be useful.
  
  For instance, you can set a sub-goal of controlling the c-file so the set of moves that contribute to doubling the rooks on the c-file evaluate as "good". However, if your opponent is invested in an attack on the king-side, your sub-goal might be faulty.
  
  Take a look at some middlegame books, games collections, and/or tournament books. Try something like IM Jeremy Silman's "[How To Reassess Your Chess](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1890085138)" and/or GM Bronstein's annotations of the [Zurich 1953](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0486238008) tournament.
  
  The former will give you some ways to approach thinking about your position and formulating goals while the latter will delve into the thought process behind the moves of real games of grandmasters.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: +1 Thanks. I see the key to the analysis to as the "sub-goals", though believe looking at the relationships between chains of moves would be more likely to produce results than an attempt to infer meaning on them, or for that matter there intent; besides in a real game, you would not have access to this information. [Binoj Antony](http://chess.stackexchange.com/users/105/binoj-antony)'s question is an even more simpliy version of this question, that being "[When does middle-game end and end-game begin?](http://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/106/when-does-middle-game-end-and-end-game-begin)"  
  > **username_3**: I don't think I see the difference between "relationships" and "meaning" between the chains of moves.  Presumably, you are making chains of moves because you have a plan to which they contribute (i.e., a sub-goal).  Formulating the relationship between sub-goals and the overall plan is something that you do in the game. As to Binoj's question, there isn't a clear transition.  Additionally, how does knowing which phase of the game that you are in help you in evaluating the current position?  
  > **username_0**: The opening, middle, and end in theory would be major segments of the game. Opening clearly have themes, and once those themes have covered 80% of the themes played 80% of the time, the opening is over in my opinion. As for the end game, once 80% of the goals are covered by 80% of the moves, I would venture to say the game was in the end game. The middle-game would logically be any game play that was not covered by the opening or end game moves. Again, not an expert, though do believe there is an answer. That said, I do not have a way to segment the chains of moves, hence the question.  
  > **username_3**: IMHO, the way that you should be segmenting the chains of moves is by sub-goal if you want to look at that granular of a level.  You cannot remove the reasoning as to why you are making the move and still gain anything from the analysis.  Or can you give a concrete example of a segment of moves that you can divorce from its intent?  
  > **username_0**: To be clear, I'm not saying that would not be of benefit, but that intent does not equal execution, nor is it possible to observe. On the other hand, all real moves are execution, and observable. In the opening, themes are much more predictable, and in the end game, intent is much more clear.  
  > **username_0**: Also, in retrospect, unless the players documented there intent during the game willingly, which is unlikely, since it might be used against them in the future, intent would not be absolute truth; though for analysis of the one's own it would. Okay, I'm fine with the assumption of awareness of ones own intent, and if that allows you to produce an answer of use, then I'll take it as an answer. Thanks!  
  > **username_3**: Okay, stupid question, have you read any books on the middlegame?  Or any games collections by grandmasters?  Those are attempts at documenting their intent and why they are making certain sets of moves.  Many of the best teaching IMs or GMs will break down the reasoning behind moves from real games.  
  > **username_0**: +1 @username_3: It's not a stupid question, and no, I have not.  
  > **username_3**: Okay, I've updated my answer to include a couple book suggestions.  I'd suggest browsing them over which might help you out.  
  
  ---
  
  