How many moves a GM can think?

Instead of talking about how many moves a GM can see ahead, Isnt it more appropiate to ask how many positions are in a GM's head? I dont think human mental strength lies so much in calculation as in association. Memory of positions is important as it seems that only very advanced players can also play blindfold chess.

here's some interesting links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Binet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adriaan_de_Groot

Some estimates put the number of position patterns recognized by a grandmaster at 50,000.

quote from: http://www.mybrainfacts.com/geniusinchess.html

me makes mistakes all the time, tiresomebug - you can check me games for that - but me still has a laugh about 'em

a common question :) but I don't know how many . Lol

I agree with marvel. I mean even for strong players who come up with good plans positional mistakes, (usually small, sometimes big, but that doesn't mean they didn't understand the position, maybe they just missed a strategic idea) are not uncommon, especially in an entire game with 30+ moves. I do think it's those gaps in their game that need to be straightened out, and of course they don't have the skill to help with new moves in opening theory like Kasparov did.

I think we all have different weaknesses. I can't prove it of course, but I feel that I have the positional understanding in the 2000s (this doesn't mean I can necessarily play positonal chess as well as a 2000 rather I have a similar amount of knowledge about it, but probably different execution) but when there are immense complications I might get squashed. My tactics are solid but much weaker, and they can crack in really sharp positions.

I think one of the most underrated things people talk about that strong players should be good at is the term "analysis". By that I mean not only evaluating positions (it comes after!), but the process of choosing candidate moves and calculating them as well as necessary. This is based both on tactics and the correct plan for both side, just like when playing a real game. Many dynamic imbalanced positions call for both at the same time, and it's useful to train yourself in that. You ask yourself "what is the best move to execute my plan", and for the next ply "what is the best way for my opponent to counter this idea?" and then make sure you're not blundering or missing a combination. Evaluating the position is general, but when it's your move, you'll have to be more concrete and see which ideas really work the best, and I think this concrete execution is another big chunk of strength

if you look at 10 moves, and every move has 10 deviations and you look 10 moves into each you have to see 1000 moves to see 10 moves ahead while in some cases every move are forcing and the 10 moves are simply 10 moves. it makes it hard to say a number:)

That's pretty unrealistic. Only in a position with no tactics would that be true (at which point there would be no point in calculating too far). If you're making concrete threats, chances are they only have a few defensive options if not even just one that works.

you didnt got my point did you. you know this is the thread about how far a gm can think?:)

if a position has little tactics it may be endgame and then its expecially important to calculate long enough because the smallest inaccuracy may turn the game over

For you to think one move ahead and for that to be the best move you would still have to think what your opponent's best move will be and so on and on which means that it is impossible to play the best move without thinking about at least some moves ahead. You are not playing by yourself so I think the statement above is stupid. I think GMs think many moves ahead and are always checking their position, that's why they are GMs.

Capablanca is a good story teller.  

enough moves!

I think 1 ply ahead

Yes, I agree... but the other main position with little tactics that is the quiet middlegame, where each side has to make a long term plan. Also, although endgames feature long calculation, at the same time there are some endings that have a very positional feel (particularly when some minor pieces are still on the board but not too many pieces, perhaps a rook for each side) with instead of any calculation just a grand plan, but of course eventually if one is trying to win that position it will eventually become a little messy.

Yes, I know what the thread is about, no I still didn't get your point. I'm just saying thinking of it that way isn't realisitc, GM's don't ever consider as many as 1000 moves (unless in some absolutely rare, insane endgame that would probably only exist in a puzzle) when they're making just one move. They can however calculate over 10 moves at times, and in endgames even more. They of course only calculate that much when necessary.

You're right, Elubias. I was in the final round of a Swiss tournament in London one time - playing for 1st place (and prize money) against a guy whom I knew well (he an IM now) when we were both 5/5 : I was in trouble, but spotted a seemingly innocuous move that led to a forced win (including a mate) for myself in all variations up to the eighth move ahead. The only way to prevent it was a far from obvious pawn move. I spent 30 mins figuring this out - my oppo, who, as I said, knew me of old, then spent 45 mins thinking while I went to the bar to relax a bit. Bloody man found the pawn move !!! Result - he won the game, an' the bloody money !! - for time-frame reference, it were the same day that Jetski Lady won the Oaks

You didn't see the pawn move at the time right, smileative? You can't count on seeing something an IM doesn't! Still, if you couldn't find a refutation to your seemingly strong idea, then challenging your opponent to prove him wrong was the right thing to do. It's plausible to figure that even very strong players are going to miss certain ideas, and just maybe they find them too late, so don't just assume your move must be wrong because you're facing a master level player.

Elubias, you're missing the point, I saw the pawn move all right, but I was hoping HE wouldn't !! it was over the board - there was a fair chance he'd miss it - unfortunately he didn't on this particular occasion. An' also he weren't an IM at the time, an' that don't make no difference, I has beaten plenty of IMs an' GMs in my time when money was at stake

the guy wants to know how far a gm can think. im giving an example that shows that its impossible to conclude how far a gm can think or not think because there are so many variables to each position. if there is not a position where 10x10 moves are calculated that is irrelevant to the topic because its just an example:).

my example is still valid and shows that it is impossible to answer this thread. many people think that is someone say they calculated lets say 15 moves ahead in a position that means they could calculate 15 moves in every position possible. i wanted to clear out this basic misunterstanding

No, I think we can estimate about how much a GM could calculate if he had to. I think he could sift through many alternative moves.

how?:)

Well, guess? We can tell from GM games that at times even in positions with many alternatives they looked over 10 moves ahead. So we can base it on many examples.