When the position is quiet that is there are no forced continuations then it is wise to think in strategic or positional way , eg if there is a hole in your position u should assume your opponent is going to try and maneuver a minor piece to that square, if there is an open file or a file likely to be opened he will try and occupy it with rooks , if he has a bad piece like a bad bishop he will plan to exchange it for one of your pieces and things like that, on the other hand if the position is tactical then u have to calculate accurately any forced combinations or sequences, always assuming your opponent will find the best possible reply or defence to the threat u r creating, well that's how i try to think, don't know about other peoples thinking process
When looking at alternative moves or continations, how do you guestimate how the opponent plays?
This is an excellent question which illustrates the problem of REASONABLY, HONESTLY, and CONSISTENTLY answering the analysis question of: "What would my Opponent do in response?".
I struggle with the same question and struggle with my answers, especially in meeting the three criteria stated above.
If I recall correctly, the popularly held belief is, that after White plays: 1. e4 ... ; Black has 20 total possible response moves at his disposal; of which of 10 are deemed worthy of reasonable consideration (?)...
From that point forward and as the game continues to progress, the calculus of the available options which the opponent might consider as a reasonable or likely response grows and diminishes exponentially and geometrically with each turn.
Ugh.
What we need is an easy-to-apply Rule-of-Thumb to qualify and disqualify the "most-likely" responses a player - and how do we qualify that theoretical player at various skill levels ?!? - might play in response to the best laid plans we set-up on the analysis board.
As I said: "Ugh."
I wish I had the answer; but, all I can do is define the problem.
A person far more learned than myself needs to chime in on this topic.
You have to calculate 3 or 4 possible moves by your opponent.
Thanks for the answers..
In one of my games, my opponent moved his queen to double attack my pawn, after calculating I realized the pawn can't really be taken for free, so I just played a waiting move. Then my opponent executed his plan of taking my pawn and then found himself in real trouble.
When your opponent makes a move, try to see the reason behind the move, in some case the moves may have more than one plan.
Put yourself in you opponent position, what will you play in such position, that's how you find or get into the head of your opponent. sometimes you will be right, sometimes you will be disappointed.
turn off the move suggestion and try to play what you feel is the right move in the position. That's how you guess opponent or human-like moves. However, most moves suggested by the computer are human-like and are the best move with strategies that humans can easily come up with.
and c) engines do not consider the player's plan in their calculation.
That is a very weird statement. Of course they do.
Because it is instinctive, when you play against yourself, your opponent always loses. So when you perform an analysis, it it easy to select moves that are skewed toward your own plan.
Is it?
It's been so long I guess I've forgotten... I guess that is how it happens when you're not experienced with analysis yet.
How do you calculate what your opponent will play back when the situation is neither forced nor part of a tactical exchange?
The point isn't that you try to predict their move. You try to find the moves that are the most annoying or scary to you... notice this doesn't always mean they will do something like threaten mate. Sometimes "annoying" means they completely ignore your move and play something unrelated. It's important to consider such a move to test whether your move was only good because you were relying on them to play a certain way.
Eventually you make a habit out of trying to make your intended move look as stupid as possible... after viewing it in the worst light, if you still find it attractive, then you can play it.
It's easy to just rely on the chess engine and just select their "better move"... but a) that's just lazy, b) oftentimes players do not play like the optimal way the Engine recommends, and c) engines do not consider the player's plan in their calculation.
The engine will mislead you all the time. Yesterday I was analyzing a position where the engine pointed out a move that was much better for me (putting my knight near their king). A beginner might think oh, this is good because it activates the knight, or is attacking the king, etc... but I knew this move looked dumb, and I had to continue the variation 5 moves deep to discover yeah, it is a dumb move unless you find this odd tactic that begins 5 moves deep. The move I actually played in the game was good no matter what (I didn't need to see any fancy tactics) so in a practical sense my move was much better than the engine's.
Anyway, so the answer of how to find moves when there are no tactics (and when ignoring the engine) is to study a book on strategy and ideally also a book on endgames.
My advice is a little advanced because... of course in the beginning you need to spend most of your energy to find reasons to like a move. A beginner might work and work and finally see, oh, I can threaten checkmate, so I will play this move. That is a perfectly fine way to play in the beginning.
As you get more experienced, you can find reasons to like moves very quickly, sometimes instantly. At that point you'll have to spend most of your energy on trying to discover reasons to dislike your move (based on the scary or annoying things you opponent can do as a response).
The engine will mislead you all the time. Yesterday I was analyzing a position where the engine pointed out a move that was much better for me (putting my knight near their king). A beginner might think oh, this is good because it activates the knight, or is attacking the king, etc... but I knew this move looked dumb, and I had to continue the variation 5 moves deep to discover yeah, it is a dumb move unless you find this odd tactic that begins 5 moves deep. The move I actually played in the game was good no matter what (I didn't need to see any fancy tactics) so in a practical sense my move was much better than the engine's.
Anyway, so the answer of how to find moves when there are no tactics (and when ignoring the engine) is to study a book on strategy and ideally also a book on endgames.
The engine is not misleading. you can say you do not understand the idea behind some of the moves suggested by the engine. However, this does not mean the move is dump. If you pay some attention to the follow up move you may find the idea behind the engine move very interesting.
If you think the engine is dumb, try playing stockfish 15, even Magnus will lose 20 out of 20 games playing.
The engine will mislead you all the time. Yesterday I was analyzing a position where the engine pointed out a move that was much better for me (putting my knight near their king). A beginner might think oh, this is good because it activates the knight, or is attacking the king, etc... but I knew this move looked dumb, and I had to continue the variation 5 moves deep to discover yeah, it is a dumb move unless you find this odd tactic that begins 5 moves deep. The move I actually played in the game was good no matter what (I didn't need to see any fancy tactics) so in a practical sense my move was much better than the engine's.
Anyway, so the answer of how to find moves when there are no tactics (and when ignoring the engine) is to study a book on strategy and ideally also a book on endgames.
The engine is not misleading. you can say you do not understand the idea behind some of the moves suggested by the engine. However, this does not mean the move is dump. If you pay some attention to the follow up move you may find the idea behind the engine move very interesting.
If you think the engine is dumb, try playing stockfish 15, even Magnus will lose 20 out of 20 games playing.
It's dumb in the sense that it's impractical.
Would you rather play a move that works 9 out of 10 times, or 1 out of 10 times? The engine will go for the 1 out of 10 as long as it's just one centipawn higher. Engines have no concept of practical play.
Everyone looks at an engine move to try to see what might be learned. The difference is beginners assume there is a useful lesson, while GMs know sometimes the engine is an idiot... not in an objective sense, but in a practical sense.
How do you explain the engine playing impractical moves and winning games easily?
Would you rather play a move that works 9 out of 10 times, or 1 out of 10 times?
I have a very hard time understanding this question. Why would the engine recommend a move that works only 1 out of 10 times? If engines worked like that, they wouldn't beat anyone.
It's strange to me that multiple people don't understand something that seems to basic to me.
I guess let me try it this way... when Carlsen was preparing for his match with Nepo, he had a team of 5 or so GMs. He (and others who do similar) talk about how their team comes up with ideas for them.
Why do you think top players use humans to come up with ideas?
It's strange to me that multiple people don't understand something that seems to basic to me.
I guess let me try it this way... when Carlsen was preparing for his match with Nepo, he had a team of 5 or so GMs. He (and others who do similar) talk about how their team comes up with ideas for them.
Why do you think top players use humans to come up with ideas?
I guess you probably wrote this comment in the wrong topic, it makes no sense here.
It's strange to me that multiple people don't understand something that seems to basic to me.
I guess let me try it this way... when Carlsen was preparing for his match with Nepo, he had a team of 5 or so GMs. He (and others who do similar) talk about how their team comes up with ideas for them.
Why do you think top players use humans to come up with ideas?
Because you will be playing with another human and not an engine.
That doesn't in any way mean the engine is dump and not useful for preparation. A lot of opening novelty are explored with the engine.
It's strange to me that multiple people don't understand something that seems to basic to me.
I guess let me try it this way... when Carlsen was preparing for his match with Nepo, he had a team of 5 or so GMs. He (and others who do similar) talk about how their team comes up with ideas for them.
Why do you think top players use humans to come up with ideas?
I guess you probably wrote this comment in the wrong topic, it makes no sense here.
And this is why strong players rarely comment on chess topics in the forums...
It's strange to me that multiple people don't understand something that seems to basic to me.
I guess let me try it this way... when Carlsen was preparing for his match with Nepo, he had a team of 5 or so GMs. He (and others who do similar) talk about how their team comes up with ideas for them.
Why do you think top players use humans to come up with ideas?
Because you will be playing with another human and not an engine.
That doesn't in any way mean the engine is dump and not useful for preparation. A lot of opening novelty are explored with the engine.
My claim in #8 and your challenge in #10 had nothing to do with opening preparation.
But on that topic, Caruana said he purposefully chooses lines the engine says are not very good, and even borderline losing... why do you think that is?
You people don't understand engines at all. You're not going to learn much just looking at engine moves if you don't even know the basics, that's my point to the OP.
Hello,
When I perform my chess analysis and look at possible candidate moves or better moves, one of my main stumbling blocks is... finding what my opponent would play after.
If I play this, instead of that, how can I calculate how my opponent play back in way that is not skewed or biased in my favour? Why would he or she play this, or that? Because it is instinctive, when you play against yourself, your opponent always loses. So when you perform an analysis, it it easy to select moves that are skewed toward your own plan.
How do you calculate what your opponent will play back when the situation is neither forced nor part of a tactical exchange?
It's easy to just rely on the chess engine and just select their "better move"... but a) that's just lazy, b) oftentimes players do not play like the optimal way the Engine recommends, and c) engines do not consider the player's plan in their calculation.
Thank you in advance for your inputs!