Thinking multiple moves ahead of time... - Page 2 - Chess and Board Game Strategy

In the vast majority of chess positions the number of possible moves is so large to make calculating everything impossible.

The difference between players is not in how many moves they calculate ahead, it is in the ability to rapidly reduce the number of variations considered to only the most promising ones. An illustration of this is that oftentimes when analyzing chess positions, stronger players will describe some move as "the only move," where a weaker player might consider other possibilities. While weaker players will often play moves that a stronger player would dismiss immediately as not even worthy of consideration.

That's why a GM with 5 minutes on the clock plays better than a 2000 player with 2 hours. The GM will, due to his chess experience and knowledge, "automatically" consider mostly good moves, while calculating only a few moves ahead at a time. Meanwhile, the 2000 player has the time to calculate many moves ahead if he wants, but it won't matter because he will mostly be thinking about the wrong moves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John_Douglas

the reason humans are able to compete with computers at all is their ability to think more efficiently by reducing the number of moves considered.

True, but also humans are much better in positional play and endgames. Actually, computers can't think and they don't understand chess, they just calculate every move possible.

Quote

04-11-2010 , 05:09 AM

#27

Shandrax

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 4,818

The reason why humans can compete with computers is because humans think in a different way.

Every human immediately knows that this is position is a draw, despite having the worst bishop in history. Rybka rates it as +7 for white.

If you look at the word "Sfbawrzabrfoawiawsdhasghe" you immediately know that you have never seen it before*. A computer would have to check the whole database....which could take hours....to come to the same conclusion.

Computers are very good at adding 1+1, but that's about it.

* You even know that you will probably never see it again - crystal ball?

Quote

04-11-2010 , 03:40 PM

#28

buymeariver9

grinder

Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 654

just another thought provoking question. Would an autistic-savant have a big edge in chess, all other things being equal...?

Quote

04-11-2010 , 07:05 PM

#29

lament

centurion

Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 121

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shandrax

If you look at the word "Sfbawrzabrfoawiawsdhasghe" you immediately know that you have never seen it before*. A computer would have to check the whole database....which could take hours....to come to the same conclusion.

I was born in Sfbawrzabrfoawiawsdhasghe and I'm offended by your choice of example.

Quote

04-11-2010 , 07:18 PM

#30

ganstaman

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 10,852

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shandrax

If you look at the word "Sfbawrzabrfoawiawsdhasghe" ...*

* You even know that you will probably never see it again - crystal ball?

Quote:

Originally Posted by lament

I was born in Sfbawrzabrfoawiawsdhasghe and I'm offended by your choice of example.

*What if what I know turns out to be wrong?

Quote

04-11-2010 , 11:45 PM

#31

swingdoc

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 3,531

Quote:

Originally Posted by buymeariver9

just another thought provoking question. Would an autistic-savant have a big edge in chess, all other things being equal...?

Depends on what his savant skills are and what you mean by "all other things being equal". If you're asking if someone who has a photographic memory or ridiculous natural ability to visualize would have an advantage, the answer is obviously yes.

Quote

Page 2 of 2

First

1 2

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 2 of 2

First

1 2

Last