Instructive discussion: How many moves do you look ahead?!

[jkid1134]

Generally, I only look about 3-5 moves ahead, just to make sure I'm not walking into any tactics. In sharper positions though, I have no idea. How far I've tried to calculate and how far I can calculate accurately are two completely different numbers.

[iliginjaili]

Well I can sometimes make a decent 5 move ahead calculation but I usually over look an opponents defensive resources

[kryptoknight69]

I recall seeing a video with Kasparov where he says that he considers one of his greatest strengths to be the ability to look at a given position & come up with the best move...The reverse engineering of moves & synergistic effect of combining strategy & instinctive tactical decisions that you mention are very interesting,as well as combining that with the pruning effect you mention in some of your more recent videos...How to cultivate/incorporate these into ones own playing style is of interest

[fresniak]

I always was speaking about QxQ as a possible alternative for WHITE (you like capital letters dont you) instead of the rook sacrifice (a quick fair choice for me not having the depth of thinking of kasparov ). It's you who completely misunderstood my point, so ask yourself who was the dumb to answer to my original post the way you did? You picked my words and used them the way you wanted.I never used notation in my comment, so how can you say i cannot understand it. dont make a fool of yourself.

[kouluampuja96]

i can follow games in algebraic notation for 5 - 10 moves before i start forgetting the previous images in my mind. my puzzle solving ability is about as deep. when placing a rook on an open file in a blitz game i calculate about 1 move. when the lines become more forcing even the next 5 moves can be quite clear.

[chesscentral135]

Calculate ONLY in positions in which there are tactics or pieces in contact. Calculate until there are no major threats for the side to move, and the position is quiet, and then use intuition/

[shailesh2k1in]

100 moves ahead.

[moviecritic6]

2-6 moves

[igobananas21o]

i do not think that i have any strategic thinking at all, any moves that i make without thinking are pre-calculated in the opening. i calculate well for my rating (10-12 plies at the most when the position is complicated) but i find that i am tired out about 2 games to the end of a tournament and do badly in those games. i usually win by over-complicating the position so much that my opponent makes a slight mistake that i can take advantage of.

[KBoogs719]

and another thing, in general i dont think i play strategically at all, because i place my entire faith behind my calculating ability, as a general strategy i try to overwhelm my opponent with alot of tactics, pins, skewers, discoveries, dbl attacks, until i get a material advantage. once i have this i can simplify to a winning endgame. if i cant get a meterial adv thru tactics i am not lost tho, i can play out a positional struggle, but its all on the basis of calculation not a strategic idea.

[KBoogs719]

i try to calculate as far forward as i can see in my mind, i find i can see 10 moves ahead with good concentration, that means 5 moves for each side and the resulting position, my peak rating is 1451 or so, so i'm not sure wether this is good or fairly mediocre for my level of play. i try as hard as i can tho to see the resulting positions after long exchanges, that seems the only way to have an edge on your opponent.

[fresniak]

I think kaspy was losing the pawn on d5 that's why he got into this crazy deep thinking. But I don't think he saw the win at first, he saw probable an equal position

[fresniak]

I'd play QxQ with few thinking

[chrism216]

@fresniak QxQ is a very bad move.

If QxQ then follows

Rxf4, Nxd5

Rxf7+

and white is a clear pawn up with a rook on the 7th and black's king either cut off in the 8th rank or stuck on the 6th behind his pawns in a huge vacuum of weaknesses with white's second rook ready to come in. The rook on h8 is also tied down to the defence of h7, and after f3-f4 the black's light squared bishop would be hitting thin air uselessly. it would be a very bad position for black.

[fresniak]

@chrism216 I said Qxq was the move for white but you seem to be analyzing from black's perspective..not very smart are you? Also I said I would play QxQ without thinking..of course it is not white best choice

[chrism216]

@fresniak

?? what the hell are you talking about? can you even read chess notation? how is that analyzed from "black's perspective"??

its freaking obvious that its black's turn to move, so the move QxQ would be for BLACK. the move in question is AFTER Rxd4.

Rxd4, Qxf4

Rxf4, Nxd5

Rxf7+

how is that so hard to understand?

dont call people dumb if you are too dumb to figure out what they are saying please.

[fresniak]

@chrism216 "its freaking obvious that its black's turn to move" really? maybe you should check better what this all video was about? IT was about the ability of white to find the move Rxd4 and the ability to think 10+ moves ahead. So it was white turn to think and find the move. Not for you unfortunately.

[joechuckyourtube]

I started an infinite analysis of the position where Topalov had to choose between accepting and rejecting the rook sacrifice on my 3 GB Intel Core 2 Duo Laptop. Rybka 3, after thinking for the first 3 min and 29 s that acceptance was the best move, decided in favor of Kb6 at depth "15.37" (i.e. when it was searching 16 plies). To me, that diminishes the beauty of the attack.

[JohnnySkillish]

One of the most insightful vids I've ever seen from you KC. I think I spent over 1.5 hours just stopping the vid and analyzing the positions move by move myself and usually tried to get 4-6 moves in advance. The way Kasparov played it, I just couldn't see that far ahead. I had some of the moves, but it was still too hazy for me to see the entire winning combination. But this vid definitely helped me become more in tune with how and ways of doing so. Thank you!

[DSREK7]

Kasparov says it depends on the position....

[Ruxistico]

It's an interesting question. A couple of months ago I played a correspondence game with my neighbor. We had no time control at all, just playing moves when we felt like it. About 10 moves into the game my opponent played a move that I felt was inferior, allowing me to build up an attack. I started calculating variations and got intrigued, spending 4 days on it. I calculated ALL the variations for 12 moves (I was moving with a lot force) and was able to win.

[Ruxistico]

I checked my calculation with the computer afterwards, and I was very happy to find out that I had not missed anything.

That experience made me a better player (actually the biggest and fastest boost in my playing strength so far). I guess I learned something about patterns and possibilities, what works and what does not. Now, at the board, I can intuitively dismiss moves that I earlier would have wasted time on calculating. So now, I try to improve my intuition, by calculating- off the board.

[Ruxistico]

In some cases (if, for instance, I smell a forced mate) I might calculate quite a lot of moves - maybe up to 10 or 12, but most of the time, I do not calculate beyond the immediate tactical implications of my move, maybe 4-6 moves in 3-4 variations.

[Clownpaintdude]

Ditto.

[l3xrun]

Generally only a few moves, unless the position is screaming out for long forced variations.

[eldiagrama]

I play for position. I only count when I'm worrie abot the position.

But then again Im terrible.

[TheOscarsClub]

why after his rook is taken doesnt kasparov take the pawn at d4 with his queen putting the king in check and then theres a whole host of things he can do.......

[raptriforcee]

I don't even think 5 moves ahead. It's more about an instinctive feel for the board.

[Syncdev]

I only really think 5+ moves ahead when im given a gift or feel I have a long term plan I want to achieve.

[ham101ma]

not really i just try to understand my opponent moves , play risky with minor player and carefull with stronger,cos there is infinit number of variation on every move ,but never wait always creat some threats and attacks ..never rush to win...ofcourse having strong foundation otherwise you can t read even your own moves...

[gologram]

Many chessplayers became grandmasters by learning from Kotov's "Think like a grandmaster".

Richard Reti said: "First a chesplayer should learn combinations because combinations allow him to see all the subtleties of the game".

One can't play strategically without knowing the principles of tactical play and viceversa.

[o0masta0o]

I have always wondered about this game. What would have happened if on move 31. Anand would have played Rd1 check. then on move 32 play Qd4 check and fork the queen and king. Forcing the trade of queens, and I think black has a better fighting chance.

[colourmegone]

Begs the question "How long is piece of string." It depends totally on the position and the amount of time, etc. etc. and so on and so forth. There is a great quote from Reti; when a reporter asked him this question he replied "One!".

[bomber1230]

in the first position i think that be6 is a very good move...if theres something that can make the move look stupid tell me.if the pawn takes the bishop u got the knight and if the pawn on d5 is take put the rook on e6 the queens gotta go somewhere and u take the pawn on a6 and the position is a clear advantage to white.

[8thArmada]

In relation to what Kasparov advocates about strategy and calculations, i find that the choice of strategy highly depends on RECOGNIZING your tactical ability based on how confident and how deep you can calculate on that particular day of the match. if you feel that you have been overlooking simple tacticle nuances in positions you come across, you must lower the bar for what you are set on achieving via the strategy and depth of calculation. what do you think?

[nomindbeats]

thanks, that was helpful:)

[8thArmada]

kingscrusher,

i just want to say that your vid's are great especially this one. im reading the "Life immitates chess" book too and it truly inspires me in chess and in other things. i just want to know, what do you think of the book personally? because most online reviews really criticize it. . because to me its really good and i feel like Kasparov writes very well and puts things in details and perspectives that we probably wouldnt get frm any one of his other books.

[atircash]

It seems in principle calculation must be superior to strategy: consider GK's intuitive goal of leaving the king exposed, and lets say Topa calculated 10 moves ahead while GK only 9 and that 10th move of Topa finds a defence or even refutes the whole sac combo of GK. Where does that leave GK's strategy? Of course practically an exposed king is a huge liability but it does not change the principle of the matter.

[drveen]

Know the old saying: "A wise man bgins at the end; a fool ends at the beginning"

[Neueregel]

thx for the nice commentary!

[furrer08]

I love this game!!!!

[Nimzomyth68]

Ive changed my way of thinking recently or attempted to after reading a book about forcing chess moves. I tend to play more tactically these days so my calculation is more intense than before. Now if i feel i have an advantage I look at forcing moves first, which very often involve sacrifices. I would say on average that I look 5 moves ahead, but its all subjective. Im too slow in my calculation, i know that, and innacurate to many times.

[MAfr3ak]

well it really depends on the position. sometimes only 5 or 6, sometimes 10 or 11, it depends on the complexity of the position, sometimes if you have a headache, time pressure, etc.

[nightenglow]

Kingcrusher- A little off this topic, but Im interested also in how best to use the Queen. It seems to me the master players know something about how to use the Q that I don't quite understand. Sometimes when I'm playing if I cant go after the enemy king, instead I will target their Q instead, and this is a strategy that I sometimes use.

[edmalikin]

Thanks a lot for your video.

[macnolds]

this is an incredibly famous game.

after a quick glance at the initial position,

I instantly recognized kasparov's "immortal."

[alexholowczak]

I can't get this video to load, but I've seen it before in a book. It was a great combination, and I wouldn't have seen it if I was black (I'd end up in the smothered mate, I think).

[alexholowczak]

It really depends. If someone leaves material en pris, I look for a mating combination (no more than 4/5 moves ahead). In the opening, I don't think ahead at all, it's just "from the book". Generally no more than 4 or 5 moves ahead; beyond that, I rely on intuition, i.e. guessing.

[kingscrusher]

Yes the "sharper" the position, the more one must "react" appropriately instead of "act" - hence the need more for forward-thinking, not deep strategic thinking. The more closed the position, the more there is a luxury and necessity for more abstract positional reasoning IMHO.

[grumour]

However i do think that it can also just depend on the position, sometimes it is necessary to accurately calculate ten moves ahead as its at a crucial point in the game.although quite often it can only be a few moves ahead and just a positional piece of play

[kingscrusher]

Does anyone think there should be a video called "What is the difference between tactics and strategy" - which might overlap a bit with this video, but maybe more focused on the differences ?!

[KNIGHTSTALE22]

yes that would be good. I have always seen tactics as mini combinations and view strategy as more like planning and positional thinking.

[lucy6M]

Yes, this seems a grey area. Isn't the purpose of the opening to set out a strategy for the game, and then work out the tactics as you go? Or is this too simplistic an approach? Does the middlegame begin when you've run out of opening theory?!

[ve9jonny]

Yes!

[grumour]

the brain is constantly evolving and transforming as it is set new challenges.My experience of chess has been short and intense,and thus i believe the brain can be specialised into acting in a certain way, which in this case would be to subconsciously analyze a position up to a certain amount of moves ahead and the refute it and move onto another potential move.What im trying to say is that an established chess player doesnt know how many moves he looks ahead, because he does it without thinking

[KNIGHTSTALE22]

currently i am working hard on the study of positions when the queens are exchanged early on (i considerd this as an endgame already) and how you should develop and plan in these situations. its supringly hard to conduct these games accurately because i believe this is where demands on positional play are most called for because of the lack of attacking chances. i am wondering what others may think of the idea that the best way to improve your positional play is to study this theme.

[LennoxLewis86]

I'm not that good at chess but I know that Kramnik has studied this too.. Maybe you should look at his games where the early trade occurs, I'm pretty sure he studied this in the world championships against Kasparov

[KNIGHTSTALE22]

thanks for the input lennox, i will take a close look and i am keen to read more comments. my logic is that it becomes more important to sieze the right squares for pieces, take control of open files, create and blockade passed pawns, understand the best way of using your knights and bishops and to develop an overall plan. all of this is what nimzowitsch says are the most important postional elements and what every amatuer has most difficulty learning.

[maikel1707]

I have trouble looking ahead but I'm trying to play strategic moves rather then chasing a plan which takes some moves.. I know that a rook on the seventh is good, I know that I should not develop the Queen to early to avoid loss of tempo.. It wins me games against stronger players because I have a feel for good positions and awkward looking positions I wanna get out of! Without seeing threats coming I automatically refute them with a bit of luck! Your videos are VERY instructive, even for me!

[KNIGHTSTALE22]

hi maikel, you sent the reply to the wrong person lol. Kingscrusher is the man you want, and i agree his videos are excellent.

[KNIGHTSTALE22]

you know, i also think that computers are still behind because humans instruct and build the computers openings base which in the long term could have serious flaws and long term structual weakness' and so with accurate play can be exploited and thus lose through no fault of the computers calculation or independant decision making. After all as time goes on many openings have been disregarded because of flaws and new findings. I would like to see a strong computer play on its own from move 1.

[KNIGHTSTALE22]

understand and thus the brain will express itself with what we call instincts.

[KNIGHTSTALE22]

another thing that suprised me, i recently finished fred reinfields 1001 chess sacrifices and combo's and while playing an over the board game i somehow sensed that a fairly complex sacrifice against the castled king would work but couldnt calculate or understand y i felt this. Anyway i played the combo and worked through in 5 move fragments (10 including blacks reply) and to my surprise it did work. Could it be that the inner mind knows the pattern but the brain carnt simplify it 4 you to

[zappy2]

I just look a few move ahead. But I really rekommend "How life imitates chess".

[KNIGHTSTALE22]

I think we all look many more moves ahead than we realise. if i look 1 move ahead i look on average at a possible 3 candidate replies from my opponent so in essence i am already looking 4 moves ahead. Another question you could ask therefore is how many different branches do you look ahead. But if there is a forced win (combination) i would say about 8-10 moves at my current ability. Very good question though and suprisingly difficult to give a straight answer. Great Video, Enjoy the debates.

[gerrytol]

i definitely look too many moves ahead for my grandiose plans and miss the opponent's simple retorts.

[DamnControl2]

Just 5 or 6 maybe.

[MattIsBeastly1]

I play mostly blitz games so I really only try and look 2-3 moves ahead. It's mostly instinct and just the general feel of the position.

[jrobichess]

Definitely an interesting topic. I have a video rated on my channel page of Kasparov touching on this subject. I think the video is called "Gary Kasparov: Making Mistakes in Chess". He doesn't get too deep into the discussion on the video, but definitely touches on it. I think I will need to check out that book you mention here.