chess knowledge vs. search depth

[Tony]

Knowledge in this, as in anything, is a kind of a elaborate, sophisticated shortcut to replace what we cannot do, simply to see all as it is. They are rules of thumbs even if with pretensions of being something more. If you can see -trough search. you does not need them.
The question is: how much search is necessary for what?

My best
Fernando

Search is not going to tell you how to help your opponent to blunder.

If you have a won position then deep search is enough and you do not need evaluation but
If you have a drawn position then you need evaluation to help your opponent to blunder.

Uri

That's optimium play wich is different from perfect play.

Tony

[Ovyron]

That's optimium play wich is different from perfect play.

Tony

I think that optimum play needs some sort of evaluation.

[Tony]

That's optimium play wich is different from perfect play.

Tony

I think that optimum play needs some sort of evaluation.

Yes, I think so.

Mainly because you still have to define what optimal is. But this probably has more to do with opponent modelling.

Tony

[Ovyron]

But this probably has more to do with opponent modelling.

Tony

Yes, and probably being able to play perfect is also a requirement. You need to know what moves don't change the game's outcome for the worse, because you can't predict the moves of the opponent, entering into lost positions if you know that your opponent will blunder (and will enter a lost position itself) is not possible.

After you caused your opponent's blunder, you can play any move randomly, as I don't think optimal requires beating the opponent in the least possible moves.

The interesting part is that what works optimally against opponent A doesn't work optimally for opponent B, and why. Chess is just a decision making game and I wonder why each position doesn't just have 1 optimal move and these depend on the opponent.