When will the chess programmers write an engine that plans ?

[Ovyron]

There is no "strategy" in computer calculation.

Depends on your definition of "strategy". It's like saying a calculator isn't doing math. We can't even hold this conversation without putting quotes around the word.

99% of human chess is calculation, the overall strategy of what to aim for occupies a very few space of human chess thinking, the rest is how to get there, and it happens to miss key opponent moves, so "long term strategies" from humans aren't even seen on the board because the opponent will not let you carry out your plan. If the opponent allows you to carry out your strategy and you win, well, an engine could have done it too, so it's clear the computer's plan would have been just as good, or better.

[Dann Corbit]

At some point, computers will see 100 plies ahead. No matter how you look at it, that's strategic.

It's not strategy or tactics. It's calculation.

Both strategy and tactics are calculation.

For computers, there is no strategy or tactics. It's just calculation. Strategy and tactics are meaningful concepts only for human chess thinking.

Humans have transported their human chess thinking into the programs.
The evaluation and search ideas are, in fact, human thinking.
<snip> and just about everything else a GM does.
Sure, it is just calculation, but that is also true when a GM does it,

This is not what a GM or any human does. No human sits there adding up lots of different terms (multiplied by awkward coefficients like 0.38526) to get a number, etc. The closest a human gets to that is counting pieces and assigning values to them to see who's ahead on material.

Have you ever read correspondence champion Hans Berliner's book?
That is exactly what he did.

[BrendanJNorman]

99% of human chess is calculation, the overall strategy of what to aim for occupies a very few space of human chess thinking

Absolutely not true, dude.

99% of human chess is intuition. This intuition is improved with exposure to more and more chess patterns.

Why are human GMs are so much stronger than average players?

It is NOT because they calculate deeper - I know 2200 guys who calculate more (in terms of % of the game) and more deeply (as in, calculating 13 moves ahead in highly complex positions) than human GMs, but due to their poorer intuition (or positional 'feel') he rarely gets to reach the positions they're calculating.

In computer chess terms, his search is very deep, but his eval sucks.

Most GMs have about 250,000 pattern chunks in their memory, and this gives them the intuition to find the right idea with very little calculation at all.

In fact, there is an old saying:

"An IM will sweat, and labor, and concentrate and calculate deeply...finally finding the right move for his knight - The GM on the other hand, throws his knight in the air and it lands on the right square"

This is intuition. If chess were 99% calculation, nobody on earth would be able to play bullet at above a 1200 Elo level.

If chess were 99% calculation, masters would not be able to give simuls to a group of 50 people.

In a simul, when he reaches the board, the master doesn't start frantically calculating, instead, he scans the board for relevant patterns, makes sense of them and quickly decides upon a move.

In all but the most highly complex, irrational positions - the human player doesn't need to look past about 6-8 ply - and rarely does.

[Ovyron]

99% of human chess is calculation, the overall strategy of what to aim for occupies a very few space of human chess thinking

Absolutely not true, dude.

99% of human chess is intuition. This intuition is improved with exposure to more and more chess patterns.

Why are human GMs are so much stronger than average players?

It is NOT because they calculate deeper - I know 2200 guys who calculate more (in terms of % of the game) and more deeply (as in, calculating 13 moves ahead in highly complex positions) than human GMs, but due to their poorer intuition (or positional 'feel') he rarely gets to reach the positions they're calculating.

In computer chess terms, his search is very deep, but his eval sucks.

Most GMs have about 250,000 pattern chunks in their memory, and this gives them the intuition to find the right idea with very little calculation at all.

In fact, there is an old saying:

"An IM will sweat, and labor, and concentrate and calculate deeply...finally finding the right move for his knight - The GM on the other hand, throws his knight in the air and it lands on the right square"

This is intuition. If chess were 99% calculation, nobody on earth would be able to play bullet at above a 1200 Elo level.

If chess were 99% calculation, masters would not be able to give simuls to a group of 50 people.

In a simul, when he reaches the board, the master doesn't start frantically calculating, instead, he scans the board for relevant patterns, makes sense of them and quickly decides upon a move.

In all but the most highly complex, irrational positions - the human player doesn't need to look past about 6-8 ply - and rarely does.

So why is it that intuition doesn't work against engines? Why is it that against engines the GM throws his knight in the air and it lands in the wrong square every time?

Of course I can't talk about first-hand experience, but only about high level play that I've seen commentated by the strong player, seeing live how they beat weaker opposition, and why. Seeing them lose against weaker opposition, and why.

The most common case is that intuition helps them take a look at unlikely moves that could be best, but they just don't go and play them by intuition (unless they're low on time), they usually CALCULATE if their intuitive move works or not, and only play it if after SEARCHING the move they can't find a refutation by the opponent. The only time they let intuition take over is in complex positions where by their own admission they have no idea what's happening, and then they play intuitive moves without searching, and usually come up ahead, but after the dust settles and they're up a piece or have a mating attack they go back to calculating.

Have you ever watched a GM play a 24-hour marathon while they explain their ideas as they defeat most people in their way? You should, it is a big eye opener about how they actually think, specially when you, comfortable at home, see how a blunder they play is bad, before them, because they get tunnel vision and lose their games as anybody else. The only difference is that their blunders happen a lot less frequently.

[mclane]

Humans play chess by seeing lines structures and trajectories on board, not real main lines or even outcomputed trees or subtrees.

This is pure fantasy, I've watched +120 hours of footage from GM Hikaru Nakamura while he plays games and explains his plans and I never saw him doing anything extraordinary. He's just a fast thinker, if I had the exact same thought processes that I do but 10 times faster I'd play stronger than him, as I was catching moves that he was missing now and then.

There's nothing special about human thought processes when playing chess, it's mostly about having seen lots and lots of patterns and remembering them and recognizing them when they're on the board and playing the right moves. The most telling thing about Nakamura games was that when he blundered because the chess pattern was rare, most of the time their opponents didn't see the winning move either, and when he was on losing positions his opponents didn't have enough time on the clock to play the winning moves, so he could easily get to 3000 elo.

But any chess player knows what is happening on the human brain, nothing different is happening on the brain of the top human players, it's just much quicker (10 seconds to see what one would take 10 minutes) and refined, but no "structures and trajectories" unrelated to chess lines happening, it's the same basic "I go there and they go there" stuff we see on chess engines, with a different eval function and much slower search.

We disagree on this, for you a human brain doing chess is like a computer, only slower.
This is not the way I see it.

The fact that humans have eyes and see the structures the pc program recognise digital way has a change in the method they use.

[BrendanJNorman]

So why is it that intuition doesn't work against engines?

Why is it that against engines the GM throws his knight in the air and it lands in the wrong square every time?

1. You said HUMAN chess is 99% calculation. I responded specifically to this claim. The reason it doesn't against engines is not related to your claim.

2. Human intuition can be simulated by adding knowledge to an engine and human calculating ability can be far surpassed by an engine. Obviously, humans will have no chance.

3. What makes you think that when the GM throws his knight in the air against an engine, it lands on the wrong square *every* time? This simply isn't true. 95% of the time, the GM is following the right plan, but in that last 5% of times, he has missed something in his (very shallow) "search" if you will, and this will be punished tactically by the engine.

The most common case is that intuition helps them take a look at unlikely moves that could be best, but they just don't go and play them by intuition (unless they're low on time), they usually CALCULATE if their intuitive move works or not, and only play it if after SEARCHING the move they can't find a refutation by the opponent. The only time they let intuition take over is in complex positions where by their own admission they have no idea what's happening, and then they play intuitive moves without searching, and usually come up ahead, but after the dust settles and they're up a piece or have a mating attack they go back to calculating.

Absolutely not true, and any decent player (say, above 2000 Elo or something) on this site can verify that this isn't true.

Such flawed thinking has probably stagnated your own chess without you even knowing. Seriously.

To think that human chess decisions are made with some sort of brute-force calculation (and a little bit of intuition sprinkled in in complex positions) is just not true.

I repeat what I said in my previous post: Strong players are only calculating prior to making critical tactical decisions (whether in attack or defense), and in some games there is ZERO calculation at all (Capablanca's best games are replete with examples of this).

Have you ever watched a GM play a 24-hour marathon while they explain their ideas as they defeat most people in their way? You should, it is a big eye opener about how they actually think, specially when you, comfortable at home, see how a blunder they play is bad, before them, because they get tunnel vision and lose their games as anybody else. The only difference is that their blunders happen a lot less frequently.

Of course, I have. I have been involved in online chess since around 1999-2000 when FICS and ICC first got big.

I was doing what is now called "Banter Blitz" already back in 2008-2009 when chess.com was first launched.

I have played against (sometimes defeating) dozens of GMs, IMs and FMs and analyzed with tons of them as well.

I have also been a chess coach since 2007, have coached hundreds of students in that time, and maintain an online rating well over 2300 despite not having played a tournament for ten years.

I'm not a GM (so enough blowing my own trumpet ), but I know a little about the decision making process of human chess players.

And that is, after all, what we're discussing.

[BrendanJNorman]

At some point, computers will see 100 plies ahead. No matter how you look at it, that's strategic.

It's not strategy or tactics. It's calculation.

Both strategy and tactics are calculation.

For computers, there is no strategy or tactics. It's just calculation. Strategy and tactics are meaningful concepts only for human chess thinking.

Humans have transported their human chess thinking into the programs.
The evaluation and search ideas are, in fact, human thinking.
<snip> and just about everything else a GM does.
Sure, it is just calculation, but that is also true when a GM does it,

This is not what a GM or any human does. No human sits there adding up lots of different terms (multiplied by awkward coefficients like 0.38526) to get a number, etc. The closest a human gets to that is counting pieces and assigning values to them to see who's ahead on material.

Have you ever read correspondence champion Hans Berliner's book?
That is exactly what he did.

Exceptions don't prove rules.

[BrendanJNorman]

Suppose that you have a human thinking about a chess plan, but you give them a decade to plan their next move, and as time goes on their plan goes deeper and deeper. Finally, at the end of the decade they managed to come up with a plan that is a line that the engine found in 1 minute. You claimed that you don't count the engine's line as a plan because of the depth it required, but since the human could come up with it after enough time then, when did it stop being a "plan"?

I think we're having a mixup of definitions, bro.

A PLAN is not a line. A plan is a group of ideas that bring you toward an overall goal.

For example, a plan might be: "I will transfer my knight to f5, trade off my bad bishop and then try to play ...f6 and after the pawn exchange, dominate the open file"

Once you establish a plan, then you can start thinking of specific moves to help you achieve it. Sometimes not a single line will need to be calculated.

Notice the absence of concrete lines in the above plan? A PLAN will rarely be a "line that the engine found" but a previously visualized position that has features that favorably match patterns stored in your brain.

Sometimes calculation of lines will be needed to choose move-orders or avoid tactical pitfalls or whatever, but not always.

This is the difference between engines and humans - engines calculate deep lines in EVERY position - while humans know when calculation isn't necessary.

[Ovyron]

For example, a plan might be: "I will transfer my knight to f5, trade off my bad bishop and then try to play ...f6 and after the pawn exchange, dominate the open file"

An how long does it take you to come up with that plan?

Tell me a number of seconds.

Now tell me the number of seconds used for thinking about the actual moves to achieve that plan.

What fraction of it is used for thinking about the plan?

Because once a chess player thinks of a plan, on the next moves 0% of their time will be used thinking about a plan, because they already have a plan, the only time they have to think about formulating a plan again is when the opponent does something that makes the old plan unattainable or they already achieved their goal and have to formulate a new plan.

That's what I meant with 1% of the time being used for planning, something like "I will transfer my knight to f5, trade off my bad bishop and then try to play ...f6 and after the pawn exchange, dominate the open file" can be thought of as fast as you can type it, the rest of the time is used CALCULATING how to carry it out.

How long did Capablanca take on his moves, anyway? If he was thinking about his plans really quick yet he was taking his time that'd just support my point that he was using the rest of his time for calculating the best way of doing it. If you tell me he was playing all his moves instantly regardless of time control I'd surrender.

I've beaten and reached winning positions against people of your strength, so I know what it takes and how to do it. My planning is good, and there's no problem with my strategy, ironically what is holding me back is that I suck at tactics. And my main problem is that I find boring doing the things that I'd need to do to get good at them. But who knows if with proper training I'd get stronger than you, at least I'm quicker to point out strategical mistakes of the GMs that I watch before them, sometimes several moves in advance, so I have unexploited potential, while it seems you have reached your peak for a while.

I wonder how a game between us would look like, it's possible I'd manage to reach a winning position and blew it up after missing some easy tactic, but at least it'd show I was better on the strategical department to reach it on the first place.

[BrendanJNorman]

Because once a chess player thinks of a plan, on the next moves 0% of their time will be used thinking about a plan, because they already have a plan, the only time they have to think about formulating a plan again is when the opponent does something that makes the old plan unattainable or they already achieved their goal and have to formulate a new plan.

That's what I meant with 1% of the time being used for planning, something like "I will transfer my knight to f5, trade off my bad bishop and then try to play ...f6 and after the pawn exchange, dominate the open file" can be thought of as fast as you can type it, the rest of the time is used CALCULATING how to carry it out.

No. You are confusing two words: Calculating and Analyzing. Maybe more of your time would be spent ANALYZING the position and refining your plan and so on, but not calculating unless the position requires it.

Also, a plan cannot be thought of "as fast as you type it out" - that's not true. Planning takes time.

If you'd studied any works by Kotov or Nimzowitsch (or other great teachers of strategy) you'd know this, but instead, you analyze with engines and so you think chess is as easy as engines make it *appear* to be.

In fast games, there is often not much time for long-range planning, and so that's when intuition is relied upon (ever heard a strong player say "Hmm this move looks good" - that's intuition at work!).

I've beaten and reached winning positions against people of your strength, so I know what it takes and how to do it.

Nonsense. This really is appearing like some Dunning–Kruger effect going on.

If you knew how to beat 2300 players, you wouldn't be 1500. Period.

Anything else is delusion bro.

And my main problem is that I find boring doing the things that I'd need to do to get good at them.

Is this a variation of "I could be strong If I wanted to, but I don't want to"?

But who knows if with proper training I'd get stronger than you, at least I'm quicker to point out strategical mistakes of the GMs that I watch before them, sometimes several moves in advance, so I have unexploited potential, while it seems you have reached your peak for a while.

I reached my peak for a while now? What data are you using to make this assumption?

Or it is just speculation?

I have some data...let's see.

Let's see how recently each of us was scoring against higher rated players. This is a good way to see 1. potential and 2. whether one has peaked in strength.

Oly's Rating and Best Wins:





Where are these wins against guys of my strength? The top guy you've beaten is 1997 and that was back in 2018 (your peak? )

Now let's compare...

Brendan's Rating and Best Wins:





So what do we see? 760 Elo difference and my best wins were pretty recent....In fact, two of them were this month!

And I don't even have time to study chess, train or play tournaments...so imagine where I'd be if I did.

I wonder how a game between us would look like, it's possible I'd manage to reach a winning position and blew it up after missing some easy tactic, but at least it'd show I was better on the strategical department to reach it on the first place.

Delusion again bro. I don't mean to sound nasty, but you really are not being realistic. 700 Elo (or even 200) is not easy to overcome, even if you got MUCH better at tactics.