Originally posted by techsouthhow about this definition: looking x moves ahead means analysing that many moves ahead when considering any single variation.
Well I wasn't precluding correspondence chess in which an auxillary chess board is allowed, although technically I might trace 20 valid moves without it given a trivial setup or a trivial line of play.
But if you believe a claim to be able to do a single line for 20 moves means one could solve a mate in 20, then you either didn't read or misunderstood m ...[text shortened]... on, exactly what is meant one someone boast of a great player who looks "X moves ahead"?
successfully looking ahead that many moves would include finding opponents best play for those moves. however variations that clearly are not best play for your opponent need not be considered (exhaustive search).
Originally posted by aginismy point exactly. in a GM verse GM game it is easier to see ahead because you assume they will make one of the best moves possible. however, in a game with two people who merely know the rules, it is nearly impossible to predict their moves. so if a GM played a 5 year old kid who only knew the rules, would he go for fools mate? or would he spend the first moves setting up a solid position?
how about this definition: looking x moves ahead means analysing that many moves ahead when considering any single variation.
successfully looking ahead that many moves would include finding opponents best play for those moves. however variations that clearly are not best play for your opponent need not be considered (exhaustive search).
Originally posted by gaychessplayersubstitute "20" for "5" then in the original post. would a GM have trouble looking ahead in a game against a sub par player?
I'm rated 1804 USCF and I can assure you that I have never, EVER had a position in which I could see even ten moves ahead! Not even if every move was forced!
Originally posted by rugby propI'm not sure why the quality of oppositon would affect the number of moves necessary to look ahead. I don't know why a GM could look twenty moves ahead against me, but only five moves ahead against a fellow GM. I just don't get it.🙁
substitute "20" for "5" then in the original post. would a GM have trouble looking ahead in a game against a sub par player?
in the original post substitute "5" for "20". i am saying that a GM can see FIVE moves ahead to avoid the debate on how many moves a GM can see ahead. my point is that when a GM plays a bad player or even a weaker one, they will not respond with the best move or an alternative. so a GM playing another GM will be like if i make this move, they would play this because it is obviously the best move. however, when a GM plays a novice, they cannot assume that the novice will make the best move. so unless forced, a GM can not look ahead in a game verse a novice. so it is kind of a paradox that the better the opponent the further in the game you can see.
Originally posted by aginisWell if this the commonly understood definition, thanks for providing it. Nevertheless, it shows that any claim to be looking X moves ahead is either deeply flawed or maybe even meaningless.
how about this definition: looking x moves ahead means analysing that many moves ahead when considering any single variation.
successfully looking ahead that many moves would include finding opponents best play for those moves. however variations that clearly are not best play for your opponent need not be considered (exhaustive search).
A GM may take 3 minutes to think of a move, supposedly looking 5 moves ahead. Presumably he is deciding between at least two possible moves while he thinks for this 3 minutes. But if he must know the best response of his opponent at each point, and his opponent is making an equal effort, then for each of his possible moves he must take a full 3 minutes to know how his oppenent will respond. If it is possible to know the best move response after the 4th move in a a line without a full 3 minutes thinking on just that, then why doesn't he also know the best move at the current move without so much thought?
Likewise, if he has found the best move to a depth of 5, why not make the remaining 4 moves instantly after his opponent replies?
Originally posted by techsouthYou might as well use the 2 hours. There is always room for error and a brilliant move might pop into your head.
Well if this the commonly understood definition, thanks for providing it. Nevertheless, it shows that any claim to be looking X moves ahead is either deeply flawed or maybe even meaningless.
A GM may take 3 minutes to think of a move, supposedly looking 5 moves ahead. Presumably he is deciding between at least two possible moves while he thinks for t ...[text shortened]... move to a depth of 5, why not make the remaining 4 moves instantly after his opponent replies?
Originally posted by rugby propThis doesn't make sense.
when a GM plays a novice, they cannot assume that the novice will make the best move. so unless forced, a GM can not look ahead in a game verse a novice.
A GM will look ahead regardless of whom he is playing. He will assume that his opponent will play the best moves because they are the moves that will most likely influence the outcome of the game. If his opponent then plays a bad move, he won't think "oh no, I didn't calculate that", he'll think "that's a bad move, how do I take advantage of it".
Originally posted by techsouthWhen calculating ahead, and say visualising 5 moves deep, you have to make the best judgement about the "deep" position. However, judging a position "from a distance" is never as reliable as having that position on the board... there are other lines to distract you, plus you have to visualise the position rather than see it on a real board.
if he has found the best move to a depth of 5, why not make the remaining 4 moves instantly after his opponent replies?
So, if and when the visualised position actually happens, it is usually a good idea to review your initial judgement as you may have second thoughts.
Originally posted by VarenkaHm, perhaps. But this doesn't explain how during simuls against lower rated players GMs tend to take seconds to look at a board and make a move, and they still end up winning most of their games. If they studied the board as long as they do during championship match, a simul would last days instead of hours.
This doesn't make sense.
A GM will look ahead regardless of whom he is playing. He will assume that his opponent will play the best moves because they are the moves that will most likely influence the outcome of the game. If his opponent then plays a bad move, he won't think "oh no, I didn't calculate that", he'll think "that's a bad move, how do I take advantage of it".
And by lower rated I don't mean beginners or novices. GMs have breezed through simuls against entire club players who average about 1800.
Originally posted by UndeadNightOrcIn this case we're talking about two separate things.
But this doesn't explain how during simuls against lower rated players GMs tend to take seconds to look at a board and make a move
When a GM plays a simul he plays fast because of the large number of moves he has to play within a given session. He doesn't play fast just because of weaker opposition. However, it may also be that weaker opposition allows a GM to quickly obtain a winning position from which he requires little thought to convert to a win and hence can play quicker.
Originally posted by UndeadNightOrcthe following is approximately true for most positions (judging by my own experience although i'm no GM)
Hm, perhaps. But this doesn't explain how during simuls against lower rated players GMs tend to take seconds to look at a board and make a move, and they still end up winning most of their games. If they studied the board as long as they do during championship match, a simul would last days instead of hours.
And by lower rated I don't mean beginner ...[text shortened]... r novices. GMs have breezed through simuls against entire club players who average about 1800.
it takes a GM 30-60 seconds to calculate 3 moves ahead,
1-2 minutes to calculate 4-5 moves ahead
3-5 min to calculate 6-7 moves ahead
5-10 min for 8-9 moves
20+ min for 10+ moves ahead
obviously this not a perfect approximation i basicly took how long it takes me and cut it in half.
the main difference between me and a GM is that around 6 moves i start to miss things.
In a simul against 1800s a GM can get by with analysing only 3 moves ahead + experience and theoretical knowledge+ the 3 moves he planned out last time he saw the board,
against a fellow GM he might need more time to look deeper.
Originally posted by aginisI also have heard that GMs are very good at pattern recognition and can quickly say that this is the correct move with little thought. So in a simul they see the board and can quickly say that the best way to improve my position and weaken theres is to move the piece here. Same goes for blitz chess. The top rated blitz chess players are very good at recognizing patterns.
the following is approximately true for most positions (judging by my own experience although i'm no GM)
it takes a GM 30-60 seconds to calculate 3 moves ahead,
1-2 minutes to calculate 4-5 moves ahead
3-5 min to calculate 6-7 moves ahead
5-10 min for 8-9 moves
20+ min for 10+ moves ahead
obviously this not a perfect approximation i basicly took h ...[text shortened]... ed out last time he saw the board,
against a fellow GM he might need more time to look deeper.