- Joined
- 20 Jan 07
- Moves
- 24970
2 edits
Originally posted by lauseyI disagree. the better the player the deeper you are able to calculate.
No, Engines and humans play chess differently. You can't play like an engine by looking at lots and lots of engine moves.
A human cannot possibly brute force moves the same way a computer can. The way a human would think would be looking at the position and come up with a good move strategically based on imbalances etc. A computer can be programmed to do t ht improve your tactical ability, but would not be good for improving your overall strategy.
master strength players can see much further ahead than they would have us believe. when necessary they are easily able to calculate up to a dozen moves deep with great clarity. It's what seperates them from the rest of us.
The gumpf we read about support points, open files, weak squares etc is just a way of trying to put in to words what goes on in a masters head. unfortunately thinking a couple of moves ahead using basic positional principles will never have any great impact on your game, i should know, i've been trying long enough.
deep tactical vision and an underatnding of the correlation of the pieces is what it's all about. I only i could master it!
I've recently been reading thgrough Alekhines games collection. Some of his notes are unbilievable and just underline that you have to think in terms of variations not words.
In the notes to one of his blindfold exhibition games he states " THE BEGINNING OF A 10 MOVE COMBINATION FORCING THE WIN OF A PIECE" the game itself isn't important but 10 moves deep! Blindfold!
i think a lot of the brainwashing we're exposed to by the chess market would have us all believe that we can be master players without this ability. we return again and again to buy the latest release by silman or whoever, hoping for the key to Nirvana.
Unfortuantaely unless we can learn to calculate deeply and accuartely just as the masters and computers do we are all destined for a life of chess mediocraty.
Originally posted by Talismanyou're confusing the ability to calculate deep with the need to calculate deep. I seldom look deeper than 2-3 plies, but I can when I need to. it's just not necessary very often.
I disagree. the better the player the deeper you are able to calculate.
master strength players can see much further ahead than they would have us believe. when necessary they are easily able to calculate up to a dozen moves deep with great clarity. It's what seperates them from the rest of us.
The gumpf we read about support points, open files, weak s ...[text shortened]... just as the masters and computers do we are all destined for a life of chess mediocraty.
and a lot of the really deep calculations are such that you only need to know if you can reach a couple of crucial squares in time.
Originally posted by wormwoodI agree I have amazing calculation abilities but by his logic I should be a master or above at chess and look at me I am rated 1503 on a CC website. The key to chess is to be able to find "key" moves wether they be tactical or positional.
you're confusing the ability to calculate deep with the need to calculate deep. I seldom look deeper than 2-3 plies, but I can when I need to. it's just not necessary very often.
and a lot of the really deep calculations are such that you only need to know if you can reach a couple of crucial squares in time.
Originally posted by wormwoodYou are actually off on this assumption as well. My OTB rating years ago was 2219...and up till I was about 1900 it was all tactics and opening as well as endgame knowledge. After you hit 1900 it breaks down to calculation. I basically had to relearn how to play cause i was like you and only going 2-3 moves deep and was not beating the higher rated players.
you're confusing the ability to calculate deep with the need to calculate deep. I seldom look deeper than 2-3 plies, but I can when I need to. it's just not necessary very often.
and a lot of the really deep calculations are such that you only need to know if you can reach a couple of crucial squares in time.
This is why the two most important books that you can always keep going through are Nimzovich's "My System" and Kotov's "Think Like a Grandmaster".
My calculation skills have relied heavily on these books...and well the use of all my Informants don't hurt.
But I have played people here back in the day when i was on top and you just know when you are playing someone who is using a program...cause a 1300 player after you break from book does not find the BEST move everytime...if they do...well something is up.
But if you understand a computer program it is nothing more than a small brain witha huge datatbase of games to search through. If you play correct program can be beaten. I even had one person admit to throwing Chessmaster on me to see if i was really that good and I after I got a draw I realized I am.
Although I must admit I am rusty now so really relying on my books for awhile.
Dave
4 edits
Seems like many people does not understand - ability to calculate is not only ability of good chess player. Good chess player is good also in strategy, understanding of position (ability which engines have less than humans) & he have intuition (ability which engine does not have at all). On the other side engine have very good calculation which (in connection with opening databases) compensates strategic drawbacks ans lack of intuition.
It means that engines will have different "inhuman" style.
This is at least one of the reasons why strong human players does not play like engines.
Originally posted by KorchI agree because like I said earlier I am great at calculating but finding the first move to start calculating from is my problem.(i.e I can't find positional, strategic, and a lot of tactical moves but if I do find them I can usually find the moves that come after when it is tactical)
Seems like many people does not understand - [b]ability to calculate is not only ability of good chess player. Good chess player is good also in strategy, understanding of position (ability which engines have less than humans) & he have intuition (ability which engine does not have at all).
This is at least one of the reasons why strong human players does not play like engines.[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by nmdavidbmaybe you're right there, and I do realize I'm not anywhere near where I could be considering calculation. but as of yet, I don't see that as my real problem though. I've only just begun to work on my openings, my tactics are far behind what they could be, and my endgame is all but nonexistent. I also have great difficulties in realizing how pawn breaks will end up, and it's probably my biggest weakness right now. and of course there's always room for improvement in becoming more diciplined.
You are actually off on this assumption as well. My OTB rating years ago was 2219...and up till I was about 1900 it was all tactics and opening as well as endgame knowledge. After you hit 1900 it breaks down to calculation. I basically had to relearn how to play cause i was like you and only going 2-3 moves deep and was not beating the higher rated players.
still, the things I'm learning/internalizing now are almost purely simple, solid 2-move stuff. and they're really improving my game. maybe when I exhaust those, I'll get more into calculation, but I don't really see that happening very soon.
with any luck, maybe we'll see how it turns out in the next few years, and you get to say "I told you so". 🙂