As you become proficient at any skill, a "chunking" the components occurs. A sequence of moves becomes one. While I may have to consider (parse) the individual moves in a given opening, those more proficient can deal with it as a single unit. Obviously, this doesn't just apply to openings but any sequence of moves.
It also applies to everything from video games to martial arts to telephone numbers.
Just a thought.
How do you know that they would be annoyed, have you asked one? Maybe you could ask Topolv, " hey, Topolov, how many moves can you see in advance?" And, for all you know, Topolv would say, "I can see 19 moves in advance. Or, more accurately, 37 ply. I can also may rooks appear out of my ass at will. You choose the color, although they all look kind of brownish." Of course, this would all be said in Bulgarian.
I think the reason most any player is annoyed with this question--not just GMs- is because it is an ignorant question, and clearing up the misconception entails a mini-lesson. Such fun.
The more relevant question, at least in my mind, is whether a GM has actually gotten mad and went all Bjork on someone for asking it.
Because it trivializes all the hard work and studying they have done. The question reflects someone who doesn't understand the intricacies of the game trying to define "greatness" by measuring a single, largely irrelivent point of data.
That's like saying Neil Armstrong wasn't a great astronaut because he's only been to the moon once.
I 100% agree with your first paragraph. But while GMs worked hard to get to where they are usually alone--Neil Armstrong's success is due to the thousands of aerospace, electrical, and even chemical engineers plus the rocket scientists that got him to the moon. Neil Armstrong is respected not because he's a great astronaut, but because he is a hero. He risked his life and trusted the very experimental devices that got him there. But still, I get your point, which is a good one.
Fair enough.
Because it trivializes all the hard work and studying they have done. The question reflects someone who doesn't understand the intricacies of the game trying to define "greatness" by measuring a single, largely irrelivent point of data.
That's like saying Neil Armstrong wasn't a great astronaut because he's only been to the moon once.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
But I would just ask it because I wonder about the "max" number of moves GM's can see. Non chess players on the other hand perhaps think that's the only important thing in chess.
I think the reason most any player is annoyed with this question--not just GMs- is because it is an ignorant question, and clearing up the misconception entails a mini-lesson. Such fun.
How can you win if your opponent just mimicks all of your moves?
Who's winning?
You'd think there would be some move in chess that just wins right away right?
If you do that he can take you!
Because it trivializes all the hard work and studying they have done. The question reflects someone who doesn't understand the intricacies of the game trying to define "greatness" by measuring a single, largely irrelivent point of data.
That's like saying Neil Armstrong wasn't a great astronaut because he's only been to the moon once.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
But I would just ask it because I wonder about the "max" number of moves GM's can see. Non chess players on the other hand perhaps think that's the only important thing in chess.
It's not the only thing in chess, but it's probably one of the most important things in chess. Being able to visualize long lines of moves (ie: playing blindfolded) makes a tremendous difference when it comes to Chess playing ability. It's probably the main difference between a 1500 player and a 1900 player.
I think the reason most any player is annoyed with this question--not just GMs- is because it is an ignorant question, and clearing up the misconception entails a mini-lesson. Such fun.
How can you win if your opponent just mimicks all of your moves?
Who's winning?
You'd think there would be some move in chess that just wins right away right?
If you do that he can take you!
no
Because it trivializes all the hard work and studying they have done. The question reflects someone who doesn't understand the intricacies of the game trying to define "greatness" by measuring a single, largely irrelivent point of data.
That's like saying Neil Armstrong wasn't a great astronaut because he's only been to the moon once.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
But I would just ask it because I wonder about the "max" number of moves GM's can see. Non chess players on the other hand perhaps think that's the only important thing in chess.
It's not the only thing in chess, but it's probably one of the most important things in chess. Being able to visualize long lines of moves (ie: playing blindfolded) makes a tremendous difference when it comes to Chess playing ability. It's probably the main difference between a 1500 player and a 1900 player.
Well obviously it's a great thing to have, but you can get to quite a strong level even if you can't calculate 8 moves ahead all the time. Being able to evaluate a position, come up with a plan along with calculation is just as important for becoming better.
A question like that is completely pointless. The fact is that even if the amatuer learns to see 25+ moves into the future, he/she will still be seeing 25+ moves of crappy amatuer analysis. Having clear visualization will come with time, and hard work. Clear analysis is what separates the champs from the chumps. A lot of people don't understand that, which is why a lot of people annoy GM's with stupid trivial questions.
I think it was Reti who once wrote than when he was asked how many moves ahead he calculated he would reply "usually, one."
You need to check moves for tactical errors, make sure that they don't allow the opponent to win material, etc, but you can only calculate deeply when there is forced reply, or a small number of forced replies. By forced I mean that there is only a few moves that are not extremely bad in reply. In these situations you can calculate deeply. But if you are just putting your rook on the open file you make a quick check that its not a tactical blunder and play the move. The other side has too many possible moves for deep calculations of all the lines.
Well sometimes wins are quite certain but if one (presumably a very weak player) doesn't resign will take a long time for mate to actually be forced.
The fact is that even if the amatuer learns to see 25+ moves into the future, he/she will still be seeing 25+ moves of crappy amatuer analysis.
I remember once going through an annotated game by Kasparov. I canr remember the game now, but what struck me was that he made a weird looking move at about 15, and at about 30 his comment was something like: "this is the position I envisaged on move 15".
Now, as an amateur, I look at this position, and have no idea why he would even aim to get here. But he does, and he also knows why it would have been worse for his opponent to deviate anywhere along the path.
I can just stand back and admire.
tonydal-" "Where do you come up with all those crazy ideas?" but that would be a good question for Stephen King though
I think the reason most any player is annoyed with this question--not just GMs- is because it is an ignorant question, and clearing up the misconception entails a mini-lesson. Such fun.
How can you win if your opponent just mimicks all of your moves?
Who's winning?
You'd think there would be some move in chess that just wins right away right?
If you do that he can take you!
Are you a master?
Are you better than that guy?
Have you ever played Bobby Fischer?
Can a bear beat up a lion?
I believe much of GM's analysis is subconscious and they don't necessarily calculate more moves ahead but, via subconscious pattern recognition, they eliminate the vast majority of bad moves without hardly thinking. The amateur, however, sees numerous possibilities, most of which are bad, but s/he can't tell, so the multiple choice options increase from 2-4 moves to perhaps 8-10 possible moves. Mathematically, the number of possible lines that can be generated from 8-10 moves is exponentially higher than that of 2-4 moves.
It is like when somebody begins studying a new textbook...some people take extensive notes, others dip the book in highlighter ink. But as they learn more and are asked a multiple-choice question on the subject, they can eliminate several wrong answer choices immediately without thinking.
That's the best I can relate to GM's not necessarily calculating further than everyone else.
Can a bear beat up a lion?
This is an intriguing question, and one that I don't believe has been properly explored. In the middle ages there was bear baiting, and the Romans threw Christians to the lions in their magnificent colliseum. But did the Romans stage fights between bears and lions? If so, what was the tally of wins and losses? Did they wear uniforms? What was their managers' take? In a way I feel sorry for the lions and the bears, but we're all going to be part of the sixth mass extinction on planet Earth.
I think Magnus put it best when he stated that it doesn't really matter how far ahead you can see, which is dependent on the nature of the position anyway, but rather that you can assess the position correctly. When I think about it, seeing ahead is one of those 'polishing up' skills. How many of us can't even perfect the position in front of us! I'm just a hack, so what am I going to do, bring my weak amatuer assessment to bear ten moves into a line? I think any person, of any profession, will get annoyed when someone asks them a question that contains little to no relevance. My favorite is always sports reporters who insist on inquiring how the people are feeling after they lose the championship event. "Well Bob, I feel as bad as your interviewing skills"
The truth of this issue is rather more shocking. The Grandmaster Union has it written in their Code of Conduct that no member shall explicitly reveal just how much more clever they are than the rest of us, for fear of reprisals and banishment.