4 ms·

> It's really not possible (or practical) to plot 20 moves ahead in a chess game. 20 'best' moves ahead, according to the observer/player/chess-engine; assumin

by pavs 17y ago

> It's really not possible (or practical) to plot 20 moves ahead in a chess game. 20 'best' moves ahead, according to the observer/player/chess-engine; assuming opponent played the best moves (according to the observer) in reply. Remembering a game played 6 years ago or being able to "think" 20 moves ahead may seem an amazing feat to regular chess players. But for professional players of GM or IM status - I don't think it is something amazing. Professional chess players memorize 100s (if not 1000s) of chess opening moves and their variations for many years. Remembering a chess game is not very impressive in that context.

robryan 17y ago
I'd imagine at the top level being able to see say the 20 best moves ahead would regularly occur similarly as predicted by the player and if things deviate it could be there there advantage anyway.
- iron_ball 17y ago
  Yes, and in fact that's how openings work. Each opening is a sequence in which both players are making an optimal response to the previous move. If a player deviates from the opening, then by definition he just made a suboptimal move.
  - KC8ZKF 17y ago
    Openings aren't demonstrably optimal. (Or there would be only one.) Players make improvements on openings all the time.
    - swombat 17y ago
      There are a relatively small number of equally optimal moves (compared to the total number of possible moves) for a given opening, after white has opened in a certain way. The vast majority of moves other than the ones covered in the opening and/or its known variations are indeed sub-optimal, and quite often if someone deviates from one of the great many standard openings, this can be exploited by the opponent.
      - nanijoe 17y ago
        The truth of the matter is that chess players seldom play out a single opening..Since most openings are pretty well known (along with their optimal moves), the beginning part of a chess game is usually spent trying to maneuver your opponent into an opening of your liking (or trick them into thinking you are playing one thing, then switching on them). What starts out looking like the Slav , may end up Queens Indian (as an example), and this makes the 20 moves ahead claim even more ludicrous. There are whole books on (slaying) the dragon variation of the Sicilian defense and the Sicilian is just one option that can result from the first move being e4..of course your opponent can also transpose to a different formation as the game progresses. In the end game where there are relatively few pieces on the board you may be able to plan ahead with more precision, but other than that trying to think 20 moves ahead is not just impractical, it may well be dumb.
      - iron_ball 17y ago
        This is what I meant. Openings aren't traps, and openings can branch as players choose different variations, but to stray from the opening book entirely is seldom a wise move. (That's one reason I never got too far into chess; I realized that competitive play would require a lot of opening knowledge.)
fh 17y ago
nanijoe is still pretty much technically correct (the best kind of correct). It's just that when chess players talk about plotting "n moves ahead", they mean something different than a programmer talking about a program computing "n moves ahead". Top chess players evaluate a handful of possible lines of play very very deeply. But it's impossible for the human mind to evaluate every response and counter-response to any reasonable depth, which is why computer players dominate so much in tricky tactical positions.

by pavs 17y ago

robryan 17y ago

I'd imagine at the top level being able to see say the 20 best moves ahead would regularly occur similarly as predicted by the player and if things deviate it could be there there advantage anyway.

iron_ball 17y ago
Yes, and in fact that's how openings work. Each opening is a sequence in which both players are making an optimal response to the previous move. If a player deviates from the opening, then by definition he just made a suboptimal move.
- KC8ZKF 17y ago
  Openings aren't demonstrably optimal. (Or there would be only one.) Players make improvements on openings all the time.
  - swombat 17y ago
    There are a relatively small number of equally optimal moves (compared to the total number of possible moves) for a given opening, after white has opened in a certain way. The vast majority of moves other than the ones covered in the opening and/or its known variations are indeed sub-optimal, and quite often if someone deviates from one of the great many standard openings, this can be exploited by the opponent.
    - nanijoe 17y ago
      The truth of the matter is that chess players seldom play out a single opening..Since most openings are pretty well known (along with their optimal moves), the beginning part of a chess game is usually spent trying to maneuver your opponent into an opening of your liking (or trick them into thinking you are playing one thing, then switching on them). What starts out looking like the Slav , may end up Queens Indian (as an example), and this makes the 20 moves ahead claim even more ludicrous. There are whole books on (slaying) the dragon variation of the Sicilian defense and the Sicilian is just one option that can result from the first move being e4..of course your opponent can also transpose to a different formation as the game progresses. In the end game where there are relatively few pieces on the board you may be able to plan ahead with more precision, but other than that trying to think 20 moves ahead is not just impractical, it may well be dumb.
    - iron_ball 17y ago
      This is what I meant. Openings aren't traps, and openings can branch as players choose different variations, but to stray from the opening book entirely is seldom a wise move. (That's one reason I never got too far into chess; I realized that competitive play would require a lot of opening knowledge.)

fh 17y ago

nanijoe is still pretty much technically correct (the best kind of correct). It's just that when chess players talk about plotting "n moves ahead", they mean something different than a programmer talking about a program computing "n moves ahead". Top chess players evaluate a handful of possible lines of play very very deeply. But it's impossible for the human mind to evaluate every response and counter-response to any reasonable depth, which is why computer players dominate so much in tricky tactical positions.