About Seeing Moves Ahead...

Sorry to many if this sounds ditzy or trivial, and possibly already discussed with many an eye roll....

When we say we can see "6 moves ahead", how do we calculate that figure?

I went, opponent went - thats 1 move.. I went, opponent went... thats 2 moves ahead

or is it...

I went... one move... opponents turn ... 2nd move... I go... 3rd move... 

also, if it is the first method, Why doesnt anyone ever claim a ".5" half a move ahead.

For instance, If one can only see "5 moves ahead", wouldnt it be commonly presumed that you could only see your 5th move, but unable to predict anymore about what you're opponent would do after that position gets reached, therefore meaning if we are to be truly accurate in a claim, many times the claim would have to include a "half move ahead" or a "half move less" ???!?!?  

Ok Im confusing myself and probably most out there - appreciate if any take the time to answer...

- Sabrina 

Normally in chess a move is a move for both sides, and if you just mean for one side you would say a half move. As for how many moves ahead you can see, I guess based on tactics problems people solve or fail at.

I don't think you can really say with any certainty, it completely depends on the position. If it's a complicated position with a number of different moves to look at it's going to be difficult to keep track. If each side only has 1 or 2 reasonable moves it's going to be a lot easier.

Then there's a question as to what is 'seeing'? In some pawn endgames I may be able to 'see' 15 moves ahead. I'm not really, I'm just taking shortcuts based on knowing certain positions. It's the same in middlegames, you can stop calculations at a certain point based on recognising a certain pattern as being good for you or your opponent or yourself.

It's useful to build how accurately and how far you can calculate. I don't think it's helpful to try and put a number on how far ahead you or other players can see.

The "seeing N moves ahead" is usually relevant and correct parlance if you are dealing with highly analytical positions on the board with forcing lines with captures and threats, as in a 6-move combination/tactic that wins material or mates.

For tactical survival, it pays to always be calculating 3 ply under normal circumstances, i.e.

What are my opponent's forcing responses to my next move and HOW will I deal with them safely.

Normally, even the strongest players in the world  do not average more than 2-3 ply as they pretty much don't HAVE to (they are not calculating, but instead playing from a pattern-database in their head!)

This is a good point. Obviously certain things have to be calculated deeply, but the idea that they are looking ahead dozens of moves all the time is false. The key is knowing when it's necessary to calculate far ahead (normally if there are forcing captures or threats), and when it isn't necessary.

For an exhaustive dive into this topic, try to find De Groot's Thought and Choice in Chess.  Some very interesting observations on how *much* calculation and pattern-lookup behavior varies between club players, experts and Masters.

Some positions are very complicated and it's impossible to see even 1 move ahead. Some positions are very clear cut and you can calculate until you find a mate. But I think how most people calculate nowadays is using candidate moves. An engine also does this, it's called pruning.

What?

Puzzles, compositions, etc

Sabrina,

GM Jose Raoul Capablanca ( World Chess Champion from 1921-27) - once said, "...I only see one move ahead, but it is always the correct one..."

Why are you asking this question? Are you asking it because you believe that the player that sees the most moves ahead is going to win the game? Please let me know. I would really like to know.

If you have to think every move - you missed something the last time you thought.

When I have seen eight or nine moves (not half-moves) ahead in an OTB game, I remember it.

This blog post was one instance (I saw 40.b3 ten moves from this position and knew that it was winning):

Kings and Pawns

I have no idea how you justified Rxf7+. I would have played Ng5 with the idea of e6 if black defends the pawn again.

Simplifying into a pawn ending that I can play blindfolded brings an end to the game (even though this opponent always plays to checkmate--he resigned one move before mate.)

Actually, if you think every move and double-check everything, you'll be a much stronger player.  Witness Anand saying last week "I saw the same mechanic with Qc5, but then I just played Qg5 anyway..." (in a situation when he allowed a pawn push he could have avoided).  He did not do his due diligence.  This is what happens when you get tired out.

Pure king and pawns endgame is a double-edged sword. It is very unforgiving. I wouldn't go there unless there is no other option, or the end result is straightforward to win. I would calculate and recalculate to see as far as possible before going into king+pawns endgame.

because pawn and rook endgames are easier?

It's covered at the 1200ish level (or below) in Silman's Endgame Course. I teach it to third graders.

yep