Looking for the best chess analysis strategy
Every chess player figures out an analysis strategy as they play. Some are comfortable with tracking pieces in their head, some colour the squares in their head as 'mine' and 'theirs' colours, some, crazy enough, use beeps and sounds like that to mark safe and unsafe squares. Even the professionals have their own ways of looking at pieces, planning and analysing. But all these are just ways of doing the actual analysis, the real looking and planning. That is what strategy refers to. Should you look at every piece and analyse their every possible position until you ind the best move or plan? Obviously not, but then how should you prevent yourself from missing the best move. Kasparov's famous square-capturing analysis comes into mind, but is that the best chess strategy? Or is there something better, easier and more relevant?
The first thing that comes into mind is computers. Computers play far better than most chess players, arguably all chess players, something that was considered impossible thirty years ago. A lot of people think computers are way faster than humans, so they are programmed to analyse every move and position to a certain number of moves, and then pick the best one. This looks like the optimum strategy for computers, but even they struggle to keep up with it's immense size. I mean, if a computer analysed every possible position till the next 10 turns, (considering there are 13 possible moves in each turn) it would have to look at around 19 sextillion different positions, mark them as an advantage or a disadvantage, and pile them up for comparison, something way beyond what computers now can do in a reasonable amount of time. And they don't. They don't always analyse furthur from a position that is a disadvantage, (that by the way cuts a huge chunk off that number), and they only analyse from the best move at every turn from 3 or 4 turns. And coders code in what counts as an advantage, like a piece advantage, or capture more squares, or diagonaly lined up pawns, or a position from where an advantage like the previous are possible in the next move.
But if the daily puzzles in the home page have taught us something, it is that a disadvantageous position, like a major-piece sacrifice, actualy leads to victory in many cases, and, even though most computers are programmed to solve it till this level, there may be positions from where a piece sacrifice leads to victory after 10 or 20 moves. I hear you, 'King's gambit', but that still is just an assumption, a thing that may get you to victory, but not necessarily to the best move. But for now, computers are reasonably successful, although not perfect.
So can we analyse like this, the way computers became so successful? I believe we can, but obviously not in the normal slow ways we track pieces and all, but with some strategy, we may be able to. Colouring squares in our head, obviously is a different, more complex way, might show some promises. I am not a very good chess player, but I think this is a good place to start. I shall show what I shall keep finding and refining in furthur blog posts as I look for the ultimate chess strategy.