Analysis

My memory is pretty bad so every single move from about the 3rd onwards I have to use the analyze window & I probably only look to about 4 or 5 moves deep at the moment!!
How deep is considered 'normal' & what, given time should I aim to achieve?
Also how many stock openings should you know & again how many moves are considered an opening?

Originally posted by JayDoherty
My memory is pretty bad so every single move from about the 3rd onwards I have to use the analyze window & I probably only look to about 4 or 5 moves deep at the moment!!
How deep is considered 'normal' & what, given time should I aim to achieve?
Also how many stock openings should you know & again how many moves are considered an opening?

first of all you shouldn't worry about how many moves deep you look. With time you will understand when you must look deeply into variations and when you can just play the first move that comes to your mind, so to say. Generally one can say that you have to look as many moves deep as necessary to reach a position were you can decide if you like it or not. In the opening this is, of course, hardly possible, but apart from that it is correct to assume that you just have to look as many moves deep as to understand if it suits your intentions, or suits your plan. Many times this is clear after 1,2,3 moves, sometimes, especially in endgames, you have too look many more moves. But this whole question is not important and should not trouble you in any way. More important is to consider various moves in every position: when you have to move, first select the candidate moves, 2 or 3 is many times enough but it depends on the complexity of the position. And analyse them all before you decide what to play. Sometimes one move is quiet unexpectedly the best, and if it isn't at least you have a better understanding of the position. If after analysing your selected alternatives none of them suit you, try considering other moves as crazy as they may seem. The most important thing is not to play a move you are not satisfied with. You don't have to move imidiatly, just do so when you feel confident you have found the best move in the position. With time this whole process will become intuitive for you.

As for opening it is enough to know the general principles, and try not to play to many different openings, they all difer in style, so choose the one that suits you best. For me the opening stage ends when one completes his development. But i'm not the best indicated man to talk about openings.

I go almost as far as I reasonably can, even sometimes 14, 16, or even 18 moves, but not only to find the best move, but to look for potential and dangerous positional moves that could show up later and cause you great grief, if not your demise. For example, one can find eventual danger to you King and Queen; threatening advancing pawns; lurking pieces on diagonals, ranks, and files; undevelped pieces, unprotected ones, chance for checkmate or being checkmated down the line, and so on. Granted that looking for the best candidate move, would discover such things -- but going beyond the usual depth and into the even very long and deep penetration, one can discover a lot more positionally than initially discovered.

I have read more than one Grandmaster who said that they rarely looked more than 3 or 4 moves ahead unless the particular position required a detailed, exact calculation, and that sometimes they did not even calculate at all. GM John Nunn is one of the people who made that statement, which surprised me, as I always thought of him as a maestro of calculation.

I also read Botvinnik somewhere where he was talking about the Zurich 1953 tournament, and he remarked that Reshevsky was so strong because he was "the master of the two move combination", and that was why he was so strong in time pressure.

I know this is anecdotal, but I think there is much wisdom in what they say.

Paul

Originally posted by Vince123
I go almost as far as I reasonably can, even sometimes 14, 16, or even 18 moves, but not only to find the best move, but to look for potential and dangerous positional moves that could show up later and cause you great grief, if not your demise. For example, one can find eventual danger to you King and Queen; threatening advancing pawns; lurking pieces o ...[text shortened]... y long and deep penetration, one can discover a lot more positionally than initially discovered.

you are, of course, right when you say you will get more precise understanding f the position the more moves you look ahead, but there is a problem with that, see not everyone can spend an hour on each move. Even in correspondance chess hardly anyone does that. It is not worth your time. Why look at the position for 1 hour if you can understand it in 30 minutes? Apart from that, looking that deep into the position will probably only tire you, and you will make mistakes. If you make a mistake on the 7th move for example, the outcome of the 17th will be completely different. So I say that not only it is fruitless to look so far ahead, as I hardly can see how you can evaluate a move by what is happening 27 moves later. There are so many alternatives for each move. Say you have 2 alternatives by each half-move, after 4 moves you will have 16 different lines to evaluate. It is not worth you time, as the diference in results will be very tiny. But it gets worse still: see how farther ahead you look, how less precise your moves are, as by every move there is a chence for error, and as a consequence, the less precise your acessment of the position is going to be.

So let me recap: it is not worth your time as it isn't fruitfull enough, less precise, tiring and messy, besides if you are going to play OTB you are hardly ever going to have time to make such detailed analysis. Of course I'm not saying that you only have to look 2 moves ahead, it all depends on the position, as I have already stated, there are times when you must look 5, 6 7 moves ahead, and times when 1 or 2 or even none is enough.

So I have said.

Originally posted by JayDoherty
My memory is pretty bad so every single move from about the 3rd onwards I have to use the analyze window & I probably only look to about 4 or 5 moves deep at the moment!!
How deep is considered 'normal' & what, given time should I aim to achieve?
Also how many stock openings should you know & again how many moves are considered an opening?

Re; The opening Question.

How many stock openings should you know?

Delete know, insert be familiar with and understand.

I really don't know to be honest. It depends on the individual.

Some players use the same openings all their career. eg.
Catalan as White, as Black Caro Kann v1.e4 and Nimzo v 1.d4.
This is the rep of a strong player I know who has had a fair amount of
success with it for over 25 years.

Others vary, chop and change. It's up to you.

Re: thinking ahead.

Experiance will tells you when you need to jump into 'think tank' and
when to play on. This comes with playing and looking at tactical
positions. certain key structures (patterns) start to suggest ideas.

Mastering the two move trick is easy. The hard bit is to evaluate
the position after the trick has been played.

Usually you have played a normal game and put your pieces on
the squares you wanted them to go on.

The you see the trick. You play the trick.

And two moves later your pieces are all over the place and you
fall for a counter trick. (and then there is the counter-counter trick).

Alekhine was the supreme master of this 'sting in the tail' combination.
He always managed to see that one move further.

How far do Masters see ahead.

"One move - the best move": Capablanca.

In combinations 4-5 exact moves max should suffice.
If you cannot see the end and it's unclear - PLAY IT.
Nothing worse than losing a game because you never played a combo
you felt was there but could not see it all.

As the combo unfolds you will see more.

Visulisation is different from seeing ahead. In some endings it is
possble to see the final position 30 odd moves in advance.

This again comes with experiance and knowledge gained.

"30 odd moves ahead?" I hear you say.

E. Znosko-Borovsky vs. J. Seitz, 1931.



This is a Black win - take off the White f-pawn and it's a draw.

Seitz did this at the board by knowing the idea and the final pattern.

So from the above diagram to this. 34 moves later.



If you want to see the whole game, plus a great game by me,
a slightly better one by Capablanca (with a promotion trick worth knowing),
some tricky problems, a black pawn running around a house,
a joke about Fritz and picture of me wearing a top I knitted.

Then go here:

http://www.chessedinburgh.co.uk/chandlerarticle.php?ChandID=99

Originally posted by JayDoherty
My memory is pretty bad so every single move from about the 3rd onwards I have to use the analyze window & I probably only look to about 4 or 5 moves deep at the moment!!

I hardly ever look more than 2-3 moves deep. at that depth I 'evaluate' the position in quite a fuzzy subjective way, meaning I either like it or don't (experience/intuition/familiarity). but when necessary, you of course need to go as deep as it takes.

Originally posted by Vince123
I go almost as far as I reasonably can, even sometimes 14, 16, or even 18 moves, but not only to find the best move, but to look for potential and dangerous positional moves that could show up later and cause you great grief, if not your demise. For example, one can find eventual danger to you King and Queen; threatening advancing pawns; lurking pieces o ...[text shortened]... y long and deep penetration, one can discover a lot more positionally than initially discovered.

either you're a lair or you're completely wasting your time. there are soooooo many moves that your opponent can make that any more than thinking 3 or 4 moves ahead is just plain silly. even 4 is a bit much i would say.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Re; The opening Question.

.

"One move - the best move": Capablanca.

I don't know why people always get this wrong. CAPA NEVER SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It was the guy that played Capa and won that said that. Capa actually said he sees 10 moves.

It's an old quote and is all over the place.

But you are correct it was by one Peter Ballard - who he?

If you google Peter Ballard you get the Archdeacon of Lancaster.

Better to misquote Capa - it sounds better and it annoys you.

And anyway Capa might have said it.

"Pawns are the Soul of Chess " - Reti.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
It's an old quote and is all over the place.

But you are correct it was by one Peter Ballard - who he?

If you google Peter Ballard you get the Archdeacon of Lancaster.

Better to misquote Capa - it sounds better and it annoys you.

And anyway Capa might have said it.

"Pawns are the Soul of Chess " - Reti.

In Gary Lane's book, his name is given as Charles Jaffe, a New Yorker http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Jaffe http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1272772,



''Chess is 99% tactics'' - Petrosian.

The Exeter Site has this:

According to Horowitz + Reinfield's "How to think ahead in Chess"
(published in the 1940's I believe), it is attributed to someone who
BEAT Capa. - Peter Ballard

So it's Peter Ballard 😉

1.e4 "Best by Test." Fred Reinfeld.

But there are no records of a chess player called Peter Ballard while there's lots of info about C. Jaffe. The game link, I provided in my previous post should settle matters. Capablanca didn't get beat very often so you'd think there'd be at least a score of his game with ''Peter Ballard''. The Exeter Club have their facts wrong, sorry.

''The passed pawn is a criminal, who should be kept under lock and key. Mild measures, such as police surveillance, are not sufficient - Siegbert Tarrasch.

I know - Ballard was the guy who sent in the information.

But it's laid out on the site like he said it.

Capa only lost 34 games (I think that's right) so finding the lad
won't be too difficult.

But you are right it's everywhere as Capa.

"When you see a good move, sit on your hands and look for a better one."

Winston Churchill.

probably most strong players have said something similar when asked how many moves they look at.