How deep does a human think when playing chess?

[Spacious_Mind]

I read somewhere a little while back about a research where someone (a Dutchman I think) followed top chess players and club players in tournaments for several years. His findings were, if I recall, that there was no difference in the depth of analysis between a top player and a regular chess player, no proof of additional intelligence, no deeper searches into positions, nothing like that. What he did find, was that the top chess players could see positions on a board better than a normal player. Both based on his research (if I recall correctly) would search the positions in a game with about the same depth. I think he stated it was something like 4 - 6 ply. Therefore a top player rated at ELO 2800 how does he do that, why do they get to be so strong if their intelligence and search analysis is no deeper than a normal club player's? Is it just natural talent or loads of practice or what?

What are your thoughts on this. Taking speed (and endgame tablebases etc) aside what do engines (programmers) still have to do to get to this level of chess with the same depth (say 6 ply max) of thought as a human ? Is it possible will it someday be possible?
Best regards

Nick

ps... I thought this might make a nice change to discussing the other topic over and over again

[kgburcham]

Nick, I thought this article was interesting.
Also I think that a 2800 player can see well beyond 6 ply in long time control in most positions.

kgburcham

http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2007/08/ ... _human.php

[Fguy64]

I read somewhere a little while back about a research where someone (a Dutchman I think) followed top chess players and club players in tournaments for several years. His findings were, if I recall, that there was no difference in the depth of analysis between a top player and a regular chess player, no proof of additional intelligence, no deeper searches into positions, nothing like that. What he did find, was that the top chess players could see positions on a board better than a normal player. Both based on his research (if I recall correctly) would search the positions in a game with about the same depth. I think he stated it was something like 4 - 6 ply. Therefore a top player rated at ELO 2800 how does he do that, why do they get to be so strong if their intelligence and search analysis is no deeper than a normal club player's? Is it just natural talent or loads of practice or what?

What are your thoughts on this. Taking speed (and endgame tablebases etc) aside what do engines (programmers) still have to do to get to this level of chess with the same depth (say 6 ply max) of thought as a human ? Is it possible will it someday be possible?
Best regards

Nick

ps... I thought this might make a nice change to discussing the other topic over and over again

I'm very skeptical of those findings. All you have to do is look at some of the combinations that a top player would play and ask yourself whether an average player could visualize that far ahead, even if there are given the move notation. I'd say no. IMO Grandmasters can calculate deeper than c-class players, although you are right that some of that is because chess understanding helps them when it is apppropriate to calculate deeper.

That being said, calculating far in advance is probably something that the average person can be trained to do, if they start at the right age and have the right coaching. But I still think there is something in the genes of guys like Kasparov, Fischer, and Alekhine that predisposes them to such high levels of calculating ability, and no amount of training will help the average mortal to achieve that level.

[Spacious_Mind]

I read somewhere a little while back about a research where someone (a Dutchman I think) followed top chess players and club players in tournaments for several years. His findings were, if I recall, that there was no difference in the depth of analysis between a top player and a regular chess player, no proof of additional intelligence, no deeper searches into positions, nothing like that. What he did find, was that the top chess players could see positions on a board better than a normal player. Both based on his research (if I recall correctly) would search the positions in a game with about the same depth. I think he stated it was something like 4 - 6 ply. Therefore a top player rated at ELO 2800 how does he do that, why do they get to be so strong if their intelligence and search analysis is no deeper than a normal club player's? Is it just natural talent or loads of practice or what?

What are your thoughts on this. Taking speed (and endgame tablebases etc) aside what do engines (programmers) still have to do to get to this level of chess with the same depth (say 6 ply max) of thought as a human ? Is it possible will it someday be possible?
Best regards

Nick

ps... I thought this might make a nice change to discussing the other topic over and over again

I'm very skeptical of those findings. All you have to do is look at some of the combinations that a top player would play and ask yourself whether an average player could visualize that far ahead, even if there are given the move notation. I'd say no. IMO Grandmasters can calculate deeper than c-class players, although you are right that some of that is because chess understanding helps them when it is apppropriate to calculate deeper.

That being said, calculating far in advance is probably something that the average person can be trained to do, if they start at the right age and have the right coaching. But I still think there is something in the genes of guys like Kasparov, Fischer, and Alekhine that predisposes them to such high levels of calculating ability, and no amount of training will help the average mortal to achieve that level.

Yes I was sceptical as well, but I believe a lot of further research was made afterwards in Russia regarding this topic. I will have to search through my books and papers to find the article and see what else was written.

On that note...good night to you all...

Nick

[Steve B]

Hi Nick
i think you might be referring to Degroots book "Thought and Choice in Chess"

from what i remember one of the main points of the study was that pattern recognition was a chief contributor to the play of the stronger chess player and not the ability to think many moves ahead

i.e. the more experienced the player(years playing) the more likely to come across familiar positions or themes in positions(Bxh7+ sacs ..etc..etc) which then guided the players thought process in move selection

my memory is a bit sketchy on this though as i read the book a long time ago

Thougtless Regards
Steve

[jesper_nielsen]

In my recollection the statement was this:

In general:
The difference between a 2200 player and a 2600+ player is not in the depth, speed and accuracy of the calculation. The main difference was the number of familiar positions. So in essence the main difference was better evaluation of positions based upon experience and knowledge.

BUT to get to 2200, you have to improve the chess vision and the calculation ability.

So there is a BIG difference in the calculation skills of a beginner and someone rated 2200+.

So in short:
Beginner + Calculation and vision skills => 2200.
2200 + knowledge => 2600.

At least this is how think I remember the article!

I think Dan Heisman maybe discussed this in one of his Novice Nook articles at chesscafe.com?!

Kind regards,
Jesper

[Marek Soszynski]

Go here...

http://www.chesscafe.com/archives/skittarch.htm

... and look for a PDF excerpt from How to Think in Chess.

I shan't explain why I recommend the book, which I certainly do.

[K I Hyams]

i.e. the more experienced the player(years playing) the more likely to come across familiar positions or themes in positions(Bxh7+ sacs ..etc..etc) which then guided the players thought process in move selection
Thougtless Regards
Steve

Such a conclusion does not explain how child prodigies produce the goods, nor does it explain why they don't always continue to improve as they gain experience. Perhaps those who fail to improve as their pattern recognition becomes more complete, lose something at the same rate at which they gain experience. If that is the case, the only thing that I can suggest that they lose is lack of inhibition. There are however plenty of intelligent, enthusiastic and uninhibited youngsters who are not particularly good at chess.

I know absolutely nothing about the game of Go, however I understand that pattern recognition in that game may be even more important than in chess. I also understand that Go positions have a much higher branching factor than chess positions, which again would imply that pattern recognition is more important than analysis. However I have seen no research that links chessplaying ability to Go playing ability.

[Uri Blass]

I read somewhere a little while back about a research where someone (a Dutchman I think) followed top chess players and club players in tournaments for several years. His findings were, if I recall, that there was no difference in the depth of analysis between a top player and a regular chess player, no proof of additional intelligence, no deeper searches into positions, nothing like that. What he did find, was that the top chess players could see positions on a board better than a normal player. Both based on his research (if I recall correctly) would search the positions in a game with about the same depth. I think he stated it was something like 4 - 6 ply. Therefore a top player rated at ELO 2800 how does he do that, why do they get to be so strong if their intelligence and search analysis is no deeper than a normal club player's? Is it just natural talent or loads of practice or what?

What are your thoughts on this. Taking speed (and endgame tablebases etc) aside what do engines (programmers) still have to do to get to this level of chess with the same depth (say 6 ply max) of thought as a human ? Is it possible will it someday be possible?
Best regards

Nick

ps... I thought this might make a nice change to discussing the other topic over and over again

The maximal depth of chess players is clearly bigger than 6 plies even when you talk about club players.

I agree that the one advantage of top players relative to weaker players is more knowledge about chess but I think that they are also better in calculating lines and calculating lines is not about how many plies you see forward but if you see clearly the final position and if you pick the right lines to calculate.

If you calculate a long line that is full of blunders then your calculation worth nothing and
I remember that in one of my games I talked with my opponent after I won the game and he told me that he calculated some long line but missed shorter line that I saw and this was the reason that he lost.

In the game I also thought about the long line as something interesting but decided that it is too complicated for me to see things clearly so I simply spent my time to search for alternatives.

The target is not to see more plies than your opponent but to see correctly.

Uri

[Uri Blass]

i.e. the more experienced the player(years playing) the more likely to come across familiar positions or themes in positions(Bxh7+ sacs ..etc..etc) which then guided the players thought process in move selection
Thougtless Regards
Steve

Such a conclusion does not explain how child prodigies produce the goods, nor does it explain why they don't always continue to improve as they gain experience. Perhaps those who fail to improve as their pattern recognition becomes more complete, lose something at the same rate at which they gain experience. If that is the case, the only thing that I can suggest that they lose is lack of inhibition. There are however plenty of intelligent, enthusiastic and uninhibited youngsters who are not particularly good at chess.

I think that there is a simple explanation
People who do not continue to improve simply do not learn from experience more than they forget.

People who continue to improve have a better memory for chess.
If people train to learn words in new languages then I also expect to see the same.

At some point people are going to stop to improve because the number of words that they forget will be not smaller than the number f words that they learn.

People with a better talent for language will be able to learn more languages.

I believe that special traing of memorizing chess positions may help people to improve more than they achieve today but different people have different limit for their memory.

I am sure that people who do not improve in chess usually do not remember all their tournament games and the mistakes that they did in them when I believe that top players remember all the details.

Uri