Nobody argued people can't look 15 moves ahead. I can do it. Look at my exact words.
Opening Creation - Novelties + Analysis
Sort:
ChessisGood wrote:
Yereslov wrote:
ChessisGood wrote:
Yereslov wrote:
ChessisGood wrote:
@Yereslov: There is no point to your argument, as most moves are based on strategy, not calculation. While strong calculation is a good skill to have in tactical positions, strategy is much better in others. Just looking at the "best" line 20 moves ahead is pointless when there are no tactics in the position. Also, why are you arguing with an IM; do you think you are better than he?
Strategy is kind of useless without the ability to at least calculate ahead a few moves.
15 moves of calculation isn't that much to a GM.
Players like Petrosian did it with ease. Please don't try to dictate what players well above your intellect can do.
You aren't even on the same planet.
Interesting that you seem to ignore whichever questions you don't want to answer. Of course, I 100% agree that you can't get far in chess without some level of calculative skills. However, the evaluation of the end position is that of strategy, not calculation.
Strategy involves calculation. Chess is a moving game.
You have to at least know that some strategy will lead to an advantage.
Sometimes this involves thinking a few moves ahead.
It's unavoidable.
Yes, calculation is unavoidable in 99% of cases. Otherwise, how would you know if there was a tactic in the position? However, once you calculate the three to five moves required, then strategy is necessary. Computers can calculate all they want, but their moves are based on conditional evaluation, rather than pure strategy.
So if a computer finds the best move in a game through brute calculation and it ends up being a strategic gem, that doesn't count?
There are several games online where engines play one another and produce brilliant strategy.
That argument might have been valid ten years ago, but it's not valid in 2012.
Scottrf wrote:
Nobody argued people can't look 15 moves ahead. I can do it. Look at my exact words.
You can't look fifteen moves ahead.
Keep dreaming.
If that was the case you would be a 2700+.
Jul 5, 2012
0
#125
I never stated that no one can think fifteen moves ahead. However, the difference is that the computer looks at all plausible lines, while humans tend to choose two or three of the most promising options and work on those. Of course, most GMs can easily calculate 15 moves straight. A tree makes it much harder. Check out Kotov's books for an overview of this.
Jul 5, 2012
0
#126
Yereslov wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
Nobody argued people can't look 15 moves ahead. I can do it. Look at my exact words.
You can't look fifteen moves ahead.
Keep dreaming.
If that was the case you would be a 2700+.
Sorry Yereslov, but I too can look 15 moves ahead. The problem is trying to figure out strategically what that leaves the position at once I finish the calculation.
Of course I can, pawn races etc. It's not relevant anyway. Kasparov isn't doing it in middlegame positions with non forcing lines. Normally 3-5, as he says himself. And I knew anyway because I've watched him and his opponents talk over their games.
ChessisGood wrote:
I never stated that no one can think fifteen moves ahead. However, the difference is that the computer looks at all plausible lines, while humans tend to choose two or three of the most promising options and work on those. Of course, most GMs can easily calculate 15 moves straight. A tree makes it much harder. Check out Kotov's books for an overview of this.
It is claimed that Fischer could think 25 moves ahead in certain variations.
ChessisGood wrote:
Yereslov wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
Nobody argued people can't look 15 moves ahead. I can do it. Look at my exact words.
You can't look fifteen moves ahead.
Keep dreaming.
If that was the case you would be a 2700+.
Sorry Yereslov, but I too can look 15 moves ahead. The problem is trying to figure out strategically what that leaves the position at once I finish the calculation.
It shouldn't be that hard then. If you can think that far ahead, you have no excuses for making a mistake.
I doubt anyone here thinks that far ahead.
Who the hell is counting every move that they are analyzing in their head?
I'm sure it's more like eight or ten, which is not that difficult.
Jul 5, 2012
0
#131
Well, the difference between my calculation and that of grandmasters is that of clarity. I cannot see as clearly as they.
ChessisGood wrote:
Well, the difference between my calculation and that of grandmasters is that of clarity. I cannot see as clearly as they.
You can't claim to see 15 moves ahead if what you see is not clear.
I can see 35 moves ahead if that's not the case.
Jul 5, 2012
0
#133
Yereslov wrote:
ChessisGood wrote:
Well, the difference between my calculation and that of grandmasters is that of clarity. I cannot see as clearly as they.
You can't claim to see 15 moves ahead if what you see is not clear.
I can see 35 moves ahead if that's not the case.
Yes, but you must realize, we are referring to the Accelerated Snake Benoni. There is no great reason to calculate 15-20 moves, so strategy takes the upper-hand.
ChessisGood wrote:
Yereslov wrote:
ChessisGood wrote:
Well, the difference between my calculation and that of grandmasters is that of clarity. I cannot see as clearly as they.
You can't claim to see 15 moves ahead if what you see is not clear.
I can see 35 moves ahead if that's not the case.
Yes, but you must realize, we are referring to the Accelerated Snake Benoni. There is no great reason to calculate 15-20 moves, so strategy takes the upper-hand.
It seems calculation is far better.
Computers could find the best move simply through analyzing as many moves as possible.
Kasparov could barely defeat X3D Fritz.
Jul 10, 2012
0
#135
Yes, but in what case is this applicable? As humans, we cannot see so far into the future. However, our strong points appear in things such as opening preparation, where humans are much stronger than computers.
ChessisGood wrote:
Yes, but in what case is this applicable? As humans, we cannot see so far into the future. However, our strong points appear in things such as opening preparation, where humans are much stronger than computers.
How can our opening preparation be superior if it gains no advantage?
Jul 12, 2012
0
#137
I think we have already determined that the playing styles of computers and humans are quite different, correct? Computers calculate long variations while humans base their ideas on strategy, so consider this. Why let a computer create the openings for a human, when the human will have to play them once the opening is over?
Humans can't memorize chess unendingly, so it only makes since that at some point, they will be forced to rely on strategy. It is impossible for humans to calculate non-forced variations like computers, because the multitude of possible lines is too great.
Thus, we must understand that at some point, a human will have to take over the position of a computer. However, this will lead to sure doom as you cannot possibly memorize how best to reply to every second- and third-best move. Humans should play human positions; it is their nature.
A human playing a computer-generated opening without understanding the ideas involved will surely go down in flames. For example, many computer programs without a book opening database (Created by humans) will play 1.Nc3. Now, many players would already be uncomfortable here, as the move 1...d5 makes it very hard to get a good game as White.
However, the computer, who bases it's moves on calculation, would believe that equalizing was Ok, and thus give away White's thematic advantage which appears in most human v. human games.
ChessisGood wrote:
I think we have already determined that the playing styles of computers and humans are quite different, correct? Computers calculate long variations while humans base their ideas on strategy, so consider this. Why let a computer create the openings for a human, when the human will have to play them once the opening is over?
Humans can't memorize chess unendingly, so it only makes since that at some point, they will be forced to rely on strategy. It is impossible for humans to calculate non-forced variations like computers, because the multitude of possible lines is too great.
Thus, we must understand that at some point, a human will have to take over the position of a computer. However, this will lead to sure doom as you cannot possibly memorize how best to reply to every second- and third-best move. Humans should play human positions; it is their nature.
A human playing a computer-generated opening without understanding the ideas involved will surely go down in flames. For example, many computer programs without a book opening database (Created by humans) will play 1.Nc3. Now, many players would already be uncomfortable here, as the move 1...d5 makes it very hard to get a good game as White.
However, the computer, who bases it's moves on calculation, would believe that equalizing was Ok, and thus give away White's thematic advantage which appears in most human v. human games.
It is really undeniable that if an engine has a score of at least 55-75 (negative) for a player that player is toast.
Do you honestly think that modern opening theoiry is based on human knowledge?
Hundreds of opening ideas were discarded once the chess engines improved. They are just that good.
Asked how many moves ahead he can think, Kasparov replied that it depended on the positions of the pieces. "Normally, I would calculate three to five moves," he said. "You don't need more.... But I can go much deeper if it is required." For example, in a position involving forced moves, it's possible to look ahead as many as 12 or 14 moves, he noted.
http://www.maa.org/mathland/mathland1.html
Can you all shut up now? I'd hate to make you seem more retarded than you actually are.
Wow, I think that says it all. Yereslov, did you notice how he just said "Normally, I would calculate three to five moves...you don't need more"? I think that shows that in most cases, 20-ply calculation is not of utmost importance. Instead, GMs rely on the strategy behind the position to dictate their moves.
The argument was that no one can think 15 moves ahead.
Obviously they can and they happen to be World Champions.
Bobby Fischer was also famous for thinking far ahead.