How many moves ahead do you calculate

I think I tend to calculate around 3-4 moves at most ,but usually I tend to play a move because it looks right and it would be impossible to calculate all variations . I am especially interestedto see how much instinct comes into play with higher rated players ?

That's interesting to read. I think I have a similar approach. I tend not to calculate but rather feel whether a position is comfortable or stressful etc. The exception to this is when my opponent or I are forced to play a strange move or one with significant consequences. In this case I will tend to calculate about 3-4 moves ahead but seldom deeper. My feeling is that for my level and below the random factor is far too important to go much further.

That said I do feel this lets me down very strongly in my end game where I tend to get excited and miss a simple save or win. When the game is simplified to a few pieces I feel I should probably delve a bit deeper as the calculation has less reasonable moves to consider.

Yeah, after 3-4 combinations I tend to get bored and the permutations become too large so that would be my limit too.  The only time I really get let down, is when I miss osmething simple like a pinning or forking of my pieces, but I think excitement gets the better of me sometimes.

I tend to try and follow my move through to about 4 or 5 moves.

It completely depends on the position. If I have calculated forward 5 moves and it's check, or the queen is attacked, I don't stop and think "well, I calculated 5 moves ahead, might as well stop here."

In a forcing seuence with maybe a couple of branches, I can calculate 7 or more moves ahead.

One way to calculate more deeply is this stepping stone method, suggested by GM Tisdall, and its really quite easy with a little practice.

What you do is calculate your 3 (forced) moves, imagine the new position in your head, then calculate 3 moves from there. You are basically concentrating on a fixed position which you know you can reach.

Its a similar concept to assessment of a new position that you can force tactically compared with the current position. If the new position is better for you, then your first move is a good move (although there might be even better).

It is quite obvious that a lot of GMs do this as is witnessed by them looking into space when calculating variations, rather than staring at the board. Also, see the quality of their blindfold games.

The inability to visualise possible new positions accounts for a lot of mistakes in long tactical sequences so it is worth practicing.  I have certainly had that sinking feeling when I realised that e.g. the rook I intended to mate with on move 7 had actually been swapped off on move 3.  This persistence of vision is especially noticable where there have been fixed pawn chains for most of the game. Your mind filters them out in calculations as a constant feature of the game, then when a tactical sequence involving pawn captures occurs, it is very difficult to concentrate on the fact that the pawn chain has changed in an imagined position several moves later.

Also, famously, backward diagonal moves by bishops are very difficult to 'see' several moves ahead.

Part of the ability to calculate depends on your visual/spatial IQ, which is one component of your overall IQ.  However, if you are not very good in this area, it doesnt matter so much as that is only one part of chess playing ability. I have seen various chess GMs quoted as saying that they normally only see 3 or 4 moves ahead. For instance, I once saw a game by Gligoric (great player by the way) where he missed a mate in one (!) but won through a deeply formulated positional squeeze lasting many moves, which he had already focussed on. That latter aspect of chess is probably more relevant to the majority of games at high levels as it involves 'feel' rather than calculating ability. 

One of the exciting things about chess is seeing the battle between the master tactician and the natural positional supremo. Chess is such a great game that all approaches are valid ones if carried out correctly!

Good post MXD...

I was asked one time in a game (with a lower rated player) how many moves out it was customary to analyze before feeling ok about playing the desired move.

I thought about it for some time and it struck me... I think it may be more important to think about ideas than moves. What do you want to accomplish.

Sometimes that means being sure about the next 2-3 moves, sometimes you have to look farther... 7-8 moves. Many times it happens (perhaps not so often with stronger players) that you simply can't calculate all the lines. You do the best you can and you work off of intuition at some point. Where that point is would be best explained by someone stronger than myself. I work off intuition to know when to work off intuition.

But being able to link ideas together (which later tranlates into linking moves together) is where your chess game takes a leap up.

For many moves no calculation is required at all.  Instead you think about where you want to place your pieces and you move them there.  Other times, the position becomes very tactical and you need to start calculating all sorts of stuff.  But you shouldn't just calculate randomly - instead look for ideas and use that as a basis of calculation.  I have solved so many chess tactics problems where just calculating randomly did not help, instead stepping back and looking for the weakness in the opponent's position immediately led me to the right variations.

I do both as was suggested earlier.  I think ideas and I also try to think a few moves ahead.  The amount of moves varies.  I also sometimes make mistakes because sometimes I forget my orginal plan because my opponent throws an unexpected move my way.  Also like someone else said sometimes it is necessary to use a pawn and that is counter to my orginal plan.  I remember watching "Searching for Bobby Fisher"  there is a point where Josh offers his opponent a draw and his opponent declines saying "Look at the board"  Josh replies "I am."  They go into a mad pawn race for promotion and twelve moves later Josh wins.  Josh's chess mentor sees what Josh has seen and tells Josh's father.  Just recently my daughter said "Dad I have trouble playing chess."  I replied "Stephanie good players think and plan several moves ahead."  I think this is an important part of your game.

The tough part is to visualize variations and positions. I really like to play them out on a board, using a 2nd board! Any suggestion how to improve this? Thanks

There is two things that I rely on in my chess games.  I'm not a Master but I have studied chess and am trying to improve.  When it is early in the game tactics are less important, think strategy.  I want to control the center, or I want to control all the dark squares/light squares.  If you decide to control the dark squares think about how you can trade a knight for his dark bishop or something.  Once you have a solid plan, then you think tactics.  How can you set up a position that will acomplish your goal.  When you think tactics that is when you sometimes need to do big long thinks.  You dont think about every move, you think about the moves that affect your plan, or the moves your opponant can make for his plan that are a threat to you.  I try to keep my calculations relevant to the plans my opponant and I have, this saves you on random calculations, and helps you to accomplish your goal.

For me, the long calculations only occur in forcing sequences with no more than two or three branches, or in the endgame  where material is simplified  and several of the moves are just pawn moves straight ahead that need to be counted.  The longest forced mate  I have ever successfully  calculated in advance  was five moves--I had the good fortune to do that against  a master.  That made him put down the magazine he was reading while playing me and pay attention! The longest  middle game combination I have ever successfully calculated  in advance was eight moves--that was against  Bill Adickes,  former champion  of North Carolina.

What is perhaps more interesting is the fact that I have learned to defeat a number of players that I know are better calculators than I am. I used to get wiped off the board by the highly tactical, attacking, combinative calculation type player. I had to get good enough at tactics and calculating to stay on the board with them. But the key to winning was superior strategy and position play. 

"They go into a mad pawn race for promotion and twelve moves later Josh wins."

 

I often visualize 10-20 moves ahead before entering a pawn endgame. There are many technique like counting, key squares, stepping stones, etc. that simplify the process so it's not as difficult as it sounds.

I look into each good move about 5-6 steps, and try to think of which is the best from there. Thats how my dad told me to do it.

mxdplay4 wrote:

In a forcing seuence with maybe a couple of branches, I can calculate 7 or more moves ahead.

One way to calculate more deeply is this stepping stone method, suggested by GM Tisdall, and its really quite easy with a little practice.

What you do is calculate your 3 (forced) moves, imagine the new position in your head, then calculate 3 moves from there. You are basically concentrating on a fixed position which you know you can reach.

---

This is good to know. I maybe see about 5 moves ahead in the middle game, but it base of what the position look like. in certain  positions I might only look a couple of moves. and I limited myself to about 3 to 4 varaiations. first, in my mind, I make all of my opponents moves, then try to figure out how to prevent them. If I have a positional advantage the variations would shorten. If I have a bad position the variations would increase.  

Zenchess wrote: For many moves no calculation is required at all.  Instead you think about where you want to place your pieces and you move them there.  Other times, the position becomes very tactical and you need to start calculating all sorts of stuff.  But you shouldn't just calculate randomly - instead look for ideas and use that as a basis of calculation.  I have solved so many chess tactics problems where just calculating randomly did not help, instead stepping back and looking for the weakness in the opponent's position immediately led me to the right variations.

---

that is so true!

Pawn endings are unique in terms of how many moves ahead one should try to calculate. First, by their nature, every piece on the board is only going one square at a time. So it can take many moves to accomplish a very lineary goal (pawn race for example).

 

Second, because of the stakes! They call it an endgame for a reason afterall, the reward for playing it right and the punishment for small mistakes is much greater than in the middle game or opening. After a small error in the middle game, there is often time left to outplay your opponent and make up for it, but make even the slightest error in the endgame and you're shaking hands.

"There just isn't enough televised chess." -- LETTERMAN

"Chess is mental torture." -- KASPAROV

One move. The correct one

"but make even the slightest error in the endgame and you're shaking hands."

Exactly! Some pawn endgames defy over-the-board analysis, but most can be pre-calculcated as a win, loss, or draw. It's worth spending most of your clock time double-checking the result before you trade down into one.

As much as possible, depending on the position...