You expect someone to read all that?
Define "Best Move"
Sort:
Oldest
IMBacon wrote:
I expect SOMEONE to, just not you obviously.
You expect someone to read all that?
IMBacon wrote:
Well, maybe you're right. No one seems to be interested.
You expect someone to read all that?
This was an interesting post. I think that another variable to consider is that of psychology; some moves are best simply because they are confusing and strong at the same time (a confusing and bad move is a hope chess move).
Oct 18, 2018
0
#6
Ahptoemiz wrote:
IMBacon wrote:
I expect SOMEONE to, just not you obviously.
You expect someone to read all that?
Get reckted mate. (Talking to IMbacon)
Oct 18, 2018
0
#7
I read it all. It’s not that long. Interesting post. I’d like to add that other times move order is completely trivial. Like in many situations there are two moves that need to be played shortly but it doesn’t really matter which one is played first. So maybe you’re trying to castle and you have a bishop and knight in the way. It likely doesn’t matter whether you develop the knight first then the bishop or viceversa
LoganicChess wrote:
Thanks. there's always that human aspect to consider in practical chess. I tried to leave it out in defining "best move" though because there's always the subjective aspect that what may be confusing to one person isn't to another.
This was an interesting post. I think that another variable to consider is that of psychology; some moves are best simply because they are confusing and strong at the same time (a confusing and bad move is a hope chess move).
staples13 wrote:
I read it all. It’s not that long. Interesting post. I’d like to add that other times move order is completely trivial. Like in many situations there are two moves that need to be played shortly but it doesn’t really matter which one is played first. So maybe you’re trying to castle and you have a bishop and knight in the way. It likely doesn’t matter whether you develop the knight first then the bishop or viceversa
You're right. Move order can often be arbitrary. I guess that would fall under co-equal best moves.
DeirdreSkye wrote:
I have to say this is the topic that has puzzled me more than any other. Chessplayers never cease to amaze me.
A chessplayer asks from others to give the definition of "best move". It's like a driver asking from others to give a definition of the fast car.
I am not sure what answer do you expect. There are positions in which the best move is a matter of taste(several equally good moves). There are positions in which the best move is the move that secures the best possible result(either that is win or draw). And there are positions in which the best move simply leaves the objective evaluation of the position(whichever that is) unaltered. Obviously, in some cases, the best move can be one, in others, it can be more than one
I have no idea why you think that can be an interesting topic and I have no idea why you expect from someone else to give you the definition of "best move". Unless there is a philosophical approach which I completely missed, there is really no practical value in your question(are you Yigor's brother?).
Chessplayers train all their life for one purpose only: To find the best move. That's their El Dorado. No one questions it, no one defines it. The "best move" is the definition of chess. We look for it from move 1. If you don't understand what best move is, you don't understand chess but if I missed the essence of your question I apologise.
My question was partly rhetorical so I could present my own thoughts, but I also wanted to see what others might come up with. I think on the objective side I presented a viable answer. The "best" move is the one that gives the opponent the narrowest path to maintaining the status quo and not slipping from, say, drawn to lost.
In fact if this didn't work computers could not play strong chess by persuing just such a winnowing strategy.
Practically speaking, unless we're in tablebase territory, we don't usually know which moves are optimal. But I think the concept is sound. Of course humans often win by playing sub-optimal moves, but this is the non-objective, practical side of things.
mickynj wrote:
The following is from GM Alex Yermolinsky's The Road To Chess Improvement (Gambit 1999).
...One strong GM once told me that during the game we (he meant World Top 100 or so) may happen to know, able to calculate, or in any other way find the best move in approximately 90 percent of positions. This means that, if an average game lasts 50 moves, there will be 5 times during the game when we won't know what to do! There comes the most interesting, yet difficult part. He also said that these moments are very characteristic for a chess-player's style and personality.
(~7 days ago)
Oct 19, 2018
0
#12
Indeed. Aside from your question being "partly" rhetorical, technically a "drawn" position occurs mostly late middle game or early transition into the end game, therefore "partly" (or "mostly" to me) ruling out the discussion about 'no opening leads to a forced win for white and black should always equalize' ("in all likelihood"). It doesn't quite jive with me. Many openings are comprised of moves, lines, variations worked, reworked from generations upon generations of player's games of objectively "best" moves. The fact that players (like you stated) often times play mediocre, sub-par moves or outright deviate from the "best" path because (IMO) of their personal preference, familiarity, or ignorance especially in the opening, begs other questions in a practical sense: what IS the "best" move in a position where white has a slight plus or black has a slight advantage? Or the position is balanced but could go either way? Or just plain inaccessible (unclear)? Posing those kinds of thoughts make your opinion of what the "best" move is (to draw, not to lose) more credible.
"... How can we define the 'best' move so that we can recognize it? One approach is this: the 'best' move is that which promotes the most efficient coordination of the forces and which therefore develops the initiative to the greatest degree. ..." - GM Vlastimil Hort (1974)
If there was a definition than computers would have solved chess(as in forced drawn with best play). All the engines have a different evaluation of best move...
Who has the expertise to say which move is best ?
IMBacon wrote:
You expect someone to read all that?
I did why
I think that the objectively best move in a deterministic game like chess would be the move that has the most likely chance of ending in a victory or draw. You could theoretically, from any position, map every possible move and use all of the endings to come up with a probability of victory or draw. However, most engines take a shortcut and only anticipate probably moves. Does this answer your question? I am willing to debate 
ARCS2016 wrote:
I think that the objectively best move in a deterministic game like chess would be the move that has the most likely chance of ending in a victory or draw. You could theoretically, from any position, map every possible move and use all of the endings to come up with a probability of victory or draw. However, most engines take a shortcut and only anticipate probably moves. Does this answer your question? I am willing to debate
It seems to me that there are two problems with this sort of thinking. (1) Is it useful to have a definition that can only be "theoretically" applied? (2) In order to "come up with a probability", what could one do other than (a) make the doubtful assumption that all moves are equally likely, or (b) use human behavior to assign probabilities to moves? 2b would result in probabilities that vary from one player to another.
Oct 19, 2018
0
#20
I'd say:
A move that maintains the true evaluation is best in a weak sense.
A move that does the above while also increasing the difference between easy of play (in your favor) is best in a strong sense.
(Difference between ease of play meaning it's easier for you to find good moves than your opponent.)
Assuming it’s true that for any given position there is an objectively “best” move (or alternatively a co-equal set of best moves) then how do we define this in all instances?
In some instances defining best is trivial. If only one move delivers mate in one and all other moves draw then, obviously, the move that mates is best. And if there are multiple moves that mate in one while all others allow a draw then any of the mating moves are best. But what if we have a position that has two mating sequences, one a mate in one and one a mate in three, is the mate in one “better” just because it involves fewer moves? The scoreboard will still read the same after the game is over.
And granting that a faster win is better (I think most would) What about drawn positions? Can we distinguish “better” between two moves that both should result in a draw? If you say no then how could one differentiate between, say, different openings when, in all likelihood, no opening leads to a forced win for white and black should always equalize (regardless of whether it’s on move five or 25) and then draw.
Regarding drawn positions let me answer my own question and propose that any move that maximizes the potential for one’s own side to achieve the best possible result is best. So, for instance, if I play a move that my opponent can answer with eight possible moves and five will draw and three will be a win for me, that is objectively better than if I played an alternate move that allows six moves that will draw and two that will win for me.
Thoughts?