One position, twenty minutes and three candidate moves

Choose a position with a real question

Use a position from a game you have already reviewed, stopping before a decision that felt difficult. Avoid positions whose answer you can still recite. Set up the board carefully, check the side to move and keep the pieces still during the first attempt. Writing down the material balance is a useful way to notice that a piece has been placed on the wrong square.

State the immediate question in plain language. Can the centre be opened? Is the loose piece a threat or a distraction? Should an exchange happen before a pawn advances? A specific question gives the exercise a direction without telling you the answer. It also makes the final review less vague than simply deciding whether the selected move was good.

Make a short list before entering a line

Spend the opening minutes looking at forcing possibilities and the opponent's threats. Then write three candidates, or fewer if only two deserve serious attention. Include a quiet defensive move when the position calls for one. A list made entirely of checks may be tidy, but it can miss the move that keeps the rest of the position together.

Beside each candidate, write the reason it belongs on the list. This takes only a few words and makes it harder to drift between variations without remembering what they were meant to achieve. If a new candidate appears later, add it explicitly. Do not quietly substitute it for an earlier move and lose the record of how the choice changed.

• Confirm the side to move.
• Write a concrete question.
• Attach a reason to each candidate.

Calculate until you can compare, then stop

Follow the most forcing reply first, but leave room for the opponent to choose a different plan. When a line reaches a stable position, pause and describe it rather than extending it automatically. Material, king safety, activity and the next useful move provide a workable comparison. The point is to distinguish the candidates, not to fill a predetermined number of half-moves.

Mark uncertainty where it occurs. A question mark beside a defensive resource is better than inventing a convenient reply and building the rest of the analysis upon it. If two candidates remain close, say why. At the end of the timed attempt, choose one move and write the strongest argument against it. That final objection often reveals what the calculation has avoided.

Review the process as carefully as the answer

Move the pieces through your written lines only after the timed attempt. Check whether a piece was imagined on the wrong square or a captured defender accidentally remained in the picture. Then compare with a reliable analysis source or an engine. Separate errors of board vision from errors in judging the position; they call for different kinds of practice.

Save the original sheet and repeat the exercise later without looking at the conclusion. Improvement may appear as a shorter candidate list, a better defensive reply or a clearer explanation rather than a longer calculation. Keep the session limited enough to repeat on another evening. A sustainable notebook is built from small pieces of careful work, each with an identifiable question and an honest result.