The depth of vision/calculation between players of different strengths, is a topic that comes up pretty regularly on RHP. Last time this week.
The thing that has become apparent (to me), is that the weaker players tend to say they look very deep (5-8 moves or even deeper), while the stronger ones look only a couple of moves deep (2-4). Obviously there are exceptions in both groups, but the tendency is quite clear. Clear enough to make me a bit suspicious when a strong player claims to look 5-7 moves deep on average.
It could be because weaker players only think they see that deep, when they actually crack 1-2 moves deep, and it's probably partly true. But the real reason, in my opinion, is that weaker players have the misconception that you need to calculate deep to be strong, which simply isn't true (excluding exceptions like forced variations & endgames). The better I've become, the less deeply I calculate (on average). Nowadays I almost never calculate deeper than 2 moves in CC, and I can remember only 1 single time when looking 5 moves deep (against a 2300) would've made a slight difference (he managed to equalize my slight advantage in the endgame).
The errors happen 1-2 move deep, and the overwhelmingly most common one is underestimating a move that you did look into. And by underestimating I mean direct consequences that are blindingly obvious once you see that move made, not consequences that lie deeper. "Oh hell, that pawn move blows my center to pieces" is what happens. -You correctly assessed that you won't lose material, fall into a tactic or a mate, but you missed the amount of trouble (which may or may not be survivable) the move caused.
Another thing which I think strengthens the misconception, is that weaker players absolutely uncritically love what engines tell them. They see engine evaluation as 'objective truth', which it's not. It's a subjective numeric approximation, which has only one strength: It's not susceptible to tactical errors. - An engine can't tell shit about a position without calculating, or at best things like: "A doubled pawn is -0.2", which may not be relevant at all. A strong human can tell enough to beat weak engines.
And because weaker players know this specific kind of 'objective truth' is reached by extremely deep calculation, they think aping that will magically give them greater understanding of the position, which it generally won't.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Perhaps we should partly blame Kotov, or at least typical interpretations of Kotov, as I discuss here (where I summarized GM advice on how deeply one should search).
indeed. people almost invariably focus on the mind-numbing 'tree of analysis' in the way a computer would treat a position, totally disregarding that it's seldom necessary. and as far as I know, even kotov didn't mean it to be the way you treat all positions, just the messy & dangerous ones. that is, the 'exceptions' I'm talking about. :)
the old quip: "I only look one move ahead, but it's always the right one" might be a bit of an oversimplification, but it still has a great deal of truth in it.
Here's what Kotov said in Chapter One of Think like a grandmaster:
When a position is closed and lacks direct contact between the opposing forces, then the choice of the best move is normally made based on positional factors and positional considerations predominante. Thinking will be based on general considerations without concrete analysis. When the opening leads to sharp hand-to-hand fighting then you analyze and analyze.
Looking back over the past months, it makes a lot of sense what you say. When I looked deeper than two moves, there was always a forced line involved. If not, I was just wasting my time. In a few cases I miscalculated a two-mover. Indeed by underestimating the effects.
Interesting post. An example of your ideas can be seen when I watch commentary on ICC. When the GM's and IM's are commenting on games, they are typically not going more than 3 or 4 moves deep in their analysis. Then at certain points in the game, they start to analyze deeply, but what they are searching for in these cases is a tactic at the end of that variation, or some truly strong resulting position. We'd do well to simply look around the corner for threats instead of trying to see into next week.
following ICC commentary was what originally got me thinking about it as well...
Capablanca was once asked how many moves he saw ahead, he replied that he only saw one move ahead but that he always saw the right move.
Mind numbing is the operative phrase. How many times have I've blown a game because I tried to look at too many lines with too many moves. I did that last night because at the end of my analysis I forgot that the opponent plays Kxd2, not Nxd2. Thus I end out losing 2 pices for the rook instead of winning the exchange. My comment after he took with the king was DUH!
In the book Improve Your Chess Now Tisdall attempts to "improve" Kotov's tree of analysis by cutting off the branches that are obviously flawed. He gives an interesting discussion of the topic. This is a great book for those who have completed Silman and are unsure of where to go next.
Basically I think that this topic is dependent on forcing moves or ideas. If there is a predominance of forcing moves or there is a forcing idea (Black cannot exchange this piece or else...) then it is quite possible to delve deeply into the position with brute force analysis. If there is not a forcing nature to the position, then we must find other ways to evaluate the position and ultimately choose the appropriate continuation.
very nice post. thank you.
i have tried VERY, very hard, to find the original quote, but thought it was by Nigel Davies but cannot find it there.... about seeing not three or four good moves ahead, but ONE.
maybe it was nigel short! i will keep looking.
ref to your post found through robert pearsons chess blog.
dk
full quote from below link:
"1. In the 1913 New York tournament, after ten victories in a row, Capablanca lost a game to Charles Jaffe.
2. In the 1920s, Reti wrote these words which can be found on page 5 of his book, Modern Ideas in Chess:
Those chess lovers who ask me how many moves I usually calculate in advance, when making a combination, are always astonished when I reply, quite truthfully, "as a rule not a single one." ... the power of accurately calculating moves in advance has no greater place in chess than, perhaps, skilful calculation has in mathematics."
Notice that there is nothing about "the right" move.
3. At the 1924 New York tournament, Capablanca lost a game against Reti. According to the tournament book (page 53), "Reti took his hard-earned honors with becoming modesty."
4. Reti died in 1929.
5. Jaffe died in 1941.
6. In 1951, Horowitz and Reinfeld published the book, How to Think Ahead in Chess, with this passage on page xi:
"Many years ago, the mighty Capablanca engaged in a rough and tumble chess game with a New York expert. ... Capa lost! ... 'How far ahead do you think over the chessboard?' one of [the spectators] asked the Champion. And, as befitted the titleholder, the impressive reply came back: 'Ten moves!'
'How far do YOU think ahead?' the winner of this particular contest was asked. And he replied, ... 'I think one move ahead - but it is always the best move!'"
Notice that there is nothing about Reti who certainly was not a "New York expert".
7. In 1971, Horowitz published the book, All About Chess.
Page 9 refers to "Charlie Jaffee" as a "chess master and East Side idol". On pages 164 and 165, this story is told:
"How far ahead does the grand master see is the perennial query. ... The story of New York's East- side pride, who bested a world champion, is pertinent. Reporters ... were told that the mighty paladin sees ten moves ahead. But the winner boasted he could anticipate but one. ... 'it is always the best move.'"
8. In 1990, Boris Shashin's book, Attacking the Queenside, was published. On page 29, it says:
"Once, the remarkable Czech Grandmaster Richard Reti was asked: `How many moves ahead do you calculate variations?' ... Reti said `Only one!' and added: `But this move has to be good'"
Notice that Shashin says nothing to connect this with a victory over Capablanca or anyone else.
How to make sense out of all of this? My guess is that for years after his 1913 defeat of Capablanca, Jaffe probably told the story to anyone who would listen, eventually embellishing the account with the "best move" stuff after reading Reti's book. Perhaps, in the late 1930s, Jaffe may have told the yarn to Horowitz who went on to use it in his writings from time to time. The only problem with this idea is that
Capablanca was not the "titleholder" in 1913. Still this may only represent carelessness on the part of
Horowitz who may never have bothered to check the date of the Capablanca-Jaffe game. Alternatively,
Horowitz may have chosen to embellish the story himself, by depicting Capablanca as the titleholder at the time of the game. Shashin (who was just making a casual remark in a book that was not concerned with history) may simply have confused the Horowitz story with the passage in Reti's book.
It must be emphasized that that last paragraph is all speculation. There are other possibilities. Still, in my opinion, the best guess is that it was Charles
Jaffe who said something like what David Ames described..." as quoted here.
and, about thirty percent down the page, among this delightfull list of chess quotes:
"Those chess lovers who ask me how many moves I usually calculate in advance, when making a combination, are always astonished when I reply, quite truthfully, 'as a rule not a single one.' – Richard Reti"
and:
"What others could not see in a month's study, he saw at a glance. – Reuben Fine (on Capablanca)
I see only one move ahead, but it is always the correct one. – Jose R. Capablanca"
at Chessvilles chess quotes page which, btw, are quite extensive and most entertaining.
whether this quote is apocryphal is really more a matter for chess historian Edward Winter, as found here, at his famous "Chess Notes" , etc
Just revisiting this wonderful post which deserves to be read and re-read.
But let's see, when computer programs can dominate humans in othello nowadays, is calculation really not important for playing chess (with slightly higher log game tree complexity) ? Both othello and chess are based on clearly defined rules.
So how deep do I analyse? 4-5 moves. A kind of wonder is that most mathematicians or statisticians are not excellent chess players, despite the strong analytic foundation they have. There are many who excel in both pattern recognition and calculation, but can still failed to play confidently at some tricky positions, particularly in midgame. It is not particularly frustrating to carefully analyse 4-5 moves, in tactical position, for sure pattern recognition and calculation matters. For less-tactical moves, however, positional play still places a high value, as calculations in such positions only effective for at least 5-20 moves in chess. Depends on the position... often that can be subtle in midgame.
Post a Comment