This is such an important skill, but one I have had trouble developing.
So I wonder how many moves can you see ahead? Also, how much time do you spend analyzing the board before you move? And do you use a board to analyze or do it all in your head? And why?
Could you please post some background about your chess experience along with your comments?
Thanks
My play has been improving as I have slowed down.
But I think I am relying too much upon using a separate board. On the one hand I think this is helping me to develop better vision, because I wind up seeing lines and patterns that I wouldn't have seen otherwise. On the other hand, I think it gets in the way, because I am not practicing doing it all in my head. So now I am trying to do my analysis in my head first, and then use a board.
I can a pretty reliably see 2 half-moves ahead. Sometimes 3 or 4 along certain lines. Rarely can I see past that without using a board.
My chess experience: I have played maybe a 1,000 blitz games, and about 100 games here. I rarely play blitz anymore.
Rating: ~1400
Time spent considering each move: 1-5 minutes, sometimes up to 15 if it is a complicated position and I think one of us has strong attacking chances.
Originally posted by zucchiniOK, let's try. First of all, OTB is very different from correspondence. OTB, I would usually eliminate most moves immediately and have a deeper look into a few good (as I see it then, based on the position) candidates. In correspondence, I usually look at more moves, and the real candidates are analysed more deeply. But that doesn't mean a lot. The next move is similar to this one, so that means that in reality, I analyse only a few 'lines', i.e. sequences of moves. But these lines can go very deep if there is combinatorial stuff involved.
This is such an important skill, but one I have had trouble developing.
So I wonder how many moves can you see ahead? Also, how much time do you spend analyzing the board before you move? And do you use a board to analyze or do it all in your head? And why?
Could you please post some background about your chess experience along with your comments?
Thanks
I spend between a few seconds and many hours on a move (sometimes spread over different days, to let it sink in - something that you cannot do OTB). When the position is complicated, or just important, I will use a sideboard, and let the position stand there, looking at me (the house is crowded with chessboards, there must be more than 15). I make most moves in my head, but will try them out on the board before moving, and have a good look at the position AFTER my move. I cannot emphasise that enough, and I often make the mistake of not doing that thoroughly enough. In endgames or combinations, I will use the sideboard effectively to make the series of moves.
My background. Played chess at home before I could read/write (say 3 - 4 years). That means several thousands of games (most of them terrible, I reckon). Studied chess seriously for about 10 years (mid 60-ies to mid 70-ies) and played seriously (for my level that is) OTB competition for another 10 years. Quit chess for business end 80-ies (except for the correspondence via mail that I played all the time) and started playing online correspondence here on RHP. My level OTB was just below Master (2100 - 2200), and I can compete with Masters in correspondence with varying success.
On thing that must be considered is the position...really the typ of position...on the board. Sometimes (not only in the opening) a position needs no calculation at all and the position can be played by general principals. Then again there are positions that require concrete variations to be calculated. When a plan is required calculating variations can and usually does lead one down a road they don't want to be on. Conversely, planning in a tactical fight where concrete variations are called for will lead one into the midst of trouble extremely quickly against decent competition (or Bennett). As far as how deep calculations go depends on the particulars of the position. If the line is forced, calculations can go to the end (talking about correspondence play) In an complicated endgame for example, calculating anything other than as far as possible (and then reaching farther) is often foolhardy. In a tense middlegame position one must watch out for the problem of ending calculations one move (half-move) too early.
Feivel
i can think mayb 6-7 half moves ahead, and bout 3 or 4 attacks/defences (with branches). obv i think less far ahead if things arnt being forced. on rhp i use the analyse board rather than a table, less hassle. iv been playing pretty much my whole life, bt havent studied the theory so iv learnt pretty much thru playing, and being taught the basics by my dad (control the centre, dnt get checkmated etc. me and my friends play quite a lot OTB, so we learn from each other (the ones on rhp are alienorsteph, piston broke, mmnnggghhh)
hope that was mayb helpful slightly in some way
Believe it or not, I think, maybe one move ahead. That is I ask myself if I do that, what can my opponent do to me next. If I don't see anything for him I go ahead with my move. It's good enough to get me around 1600 here. I find it interesting that Mephisto2 calls himself a "generalist." By that, I believe he means he relies on general principles to discard all but a few moves, then he looks way ahead on those few. That method has got him to around master strength. I've noticed, however, that the players on the very top. I'm talking about Tal, Kasparov, Fischer, etc. sometimes play unexpected moves. That is, moves which one would normally discard on general principles. I recall in the Fischer Spassky first match the commentaters, all masters, laughing when an amateur suggested 11. ...Nh5 in the third game, bringing up the adage: a knight on the rim is dim and doubled pawns are weak, etc. When Fischer made the move, they were astounded because they had dismissed the move on general principles. Paradoxically, the GP theory has its weaknesses and strengths, it seems.
I think I posted in another thread that in complicated middlegame situations I was only trying to look ahead one move. Since then I have put in a little more time, maybe as much as five minutes at the analysis board, and tried to look a little deeper. Even then, I find that well over half of the time my opponent's response to my move is not the one I thought most likely. And in several cases my opponents have made moves that I did not even consider at all as responses to my move. In simpler positions near the end of the game I might try to look three or four moves into the future.
I learned the rules from a fellow grade-school student. I played against him maybe ten times, and neither of us had any idea about strategy. We were probably doing good if we played legally-permitted moves!
In high school I read some library books on chess, being most impressed by some of Larry Evans's. I played against two classmates during school hours. One of them consistently beat me, and one of them consistently lost to me. I went so far as to record the moves of some of those games on paper. I don't know if I still have the lists of moves, though. I went decades without playing again, until finding Red Hot Pawn.
For opening moves, I can usually hold the moves in my head as the ideas behind the opening aren't that hard (get out and advance!)
I'll use a board to negotiate my moves always as I like to think awhile ahead. Sometimes I'll play a particular series over in on the board awhile just to make sure I've got it.
Originally posted by buddy2Just to clarify: you mean two half moves, right? (your move, all/most of yourr opponent's possible replies).
Believe it or not, I think, maybe one move ahead.
Originally posted by Paul Dirac
I was only trying to look ahead one move...
I remember reading that Capablanca(?) answered this question the same way. After all, you can only make one move at a time.
So I have a question for you: How do you explain your play strength?
I think you must look farther ahead than just one move pair, because I think I do too, and I am no 1600 player. Perhaps it can be explained by you having a better knowledge of common patterns and principles than I do (more experience). Also, when I play a computer on 2-ply look ahead (**), I win pretty consistently, but I still drop a few. 3-ply is still very hard for me.
**I play Arasan because it uses a large opening book, and it looks farther ahead in the end-game and at forced moves, so it doesn't seem as dumb as straight 2-ply.
By the way, about a year ago, I tried to read Andy Soltis' "Inner Chess." (It's supposed to help you build calculation skills. It is so difficult I couldn't read it.) I recall him saying that calculation is the most important chess skill. I've also read that calculation is the soul of chess.
I dont entirely agree that calculating many moves ahead is that important of a skill. Dont get me wrong, sometimes it is handy. But i notice when OTB I am calculating variations that i know will not occur in my wildest of dreams.
So instead I go through a procedure in my head:
1.Why did my opponent play the move he did?
2.What are the obvious threats?
3.Any tactical enterprises(from either party)?
4.Who's postion do I favor and why?
5.If the postition is a subtle one, where there are several moves that could be considered a good on, I follow Silman's breaking down the position advice.
From those questions I come up with about 3 candidate moves (sometimes more, sometimes less).
Then I start a new procedure
1.Any reason I shouldnt play this move?
2.I'm not smoking crack, and leaving anything en prise, am I?
3.Does this move improve my position?**most important question to ask yourself, in my opinion, on every move**
Finally I calculate. Usually I dont calculate more than 4 moves ahead.
From these procedures, I usually dont blunder a piece away (usually, there is sometimes something I miss) to anyone rated less than 1700. and the whole process seldom takes more then 5 minutes. The most time I ever spent on a single move is 45 minutes.
Originally posted by KarldoggTry it at least once: take a position that is complicated. Think about the move for 45 mins (your maximum as you stated), write it down. Then put the position on a sideboard, and look at it from time to time. Spend a few hours over a couple of days playing with the pieces (always put them back!). Not guaranteed, but there is a good chance that you find a better move. And in any case, you will have gained a deeper insight in that position which will also help you in the next moves.
I dont entirely agree that calculating many moves ahead is that important of a skill. Dont get me wrong, sometimes it is handy. But i notice when OTB I am calculating variations that i know will not occur in my wildest of dreams.
So i ...[text shortened]... inutes. The most time I ever spent on a single move is 45 minutes.
Originally posted by zucchiniWhen I am lazy in a compex situation, I consider a few moves I could make, and for each of those, I consider a few moves my opponent could make, and that is what I meant by "one move."
Just to clarify: you mean two half moves, right? (your move, all/most of yourr opponent's possible replies)... How do you explain your play strength?
The question about playing strength was probably meant just for buddy2, since I am still a provisional newbie. 🙂
Yea, Paul. The thing is i don't consider myself a particularly strong player. I've been wiped out by 1800 players on this site, so no matter how good you think you are, there's always someone else...well, you know how it goes. I remember as a kid being overwhelmed by the number of possibilities in the game. Experience teaches you to whittle down the possibilities to two, maybe three possible moves, depending on the situation. Experience or pattern recognition has a lot to do with that. As you play, you're telling yourself, "Don't get your pawns on the same color as your bishop, stupid" or "this is a Pirc but it looks like a Dragon and you've had success shoving that h pawn in dragon, so let's try the same," which incidentally I learned from a famous Fischer-Larsen game (p. 18 My 60 Memorable Games). As for looking one move ahead (actually two ply) when there's a possibilty of winning a piece or giving mate I might look at most to four or five halfmoves. It's just like, I move here and he moves here and I move there, etc. Nothing magic about it, just seeing all the possiblities. Because the one you miss is always the killer. Hope this helps.
I finally checked a bunch of my won games as Black through the Blunder Check function of Fritz (for my moves only). The results surprised me.
Out of 30 games, all but 5 were marked by Fritz as having tactical errors. Of these 5, 3 still had mistakes that cost the equivalent of a pawn. In half of the games with tactical errors, the evaluation graph* reversed direction by 3 points 3 or more times!
I will be playing through these games for a while, but I think that in most cases, the mistakes require looking ahead 2-4 moves.
* The evaluation graph shows the point score throughout the game.