Hacker News Reader

Comment by nonethewiser | Hacker News Reader

>the average chess grandmaster during a classical game will analyze roughly the same number of moves as an amateur player, but they analyze only the most critical moves

What does this mean exactly? They analyze the same number but the grandmaster analyzes "only the most critical moves."

So does that mean at every given analysis opportunity (each move I guess), they analyze better candidates?

If so I guess these 2 things are totally redundant? "they analyze only the most critical moves and do a better job with that analysis."

Alternatively I wondered if perhaps they actually perform analysis on less moves (perhaps because they already know the lines or remember their previous analysis). But I think that contradicts the claim that they analyze about the same number of moves.

View on HN

Meaning, you analyse 100 moves will not be the same set of GM 100 moves. And GM work on better 100 moves than yours. If you pick the moves that GM not thinking of, you likely get crushed because those moves are very inferior moves that GM already can see the outcome without the need to consider. Meanwhile if GM takes on moves you dont consider, you get crushed too. The likely silver lining will be you picking the same moves as GM. But up to a point, his depths will crushed you either you pick a wrong moves by mistake, or he out think you a few step more. Is like a math student who do same amount of steps as yours, but you look at his answer in awe because better and succint...and even confused as how it reach that. TBF, today AlphaGo engine will crush Stockfish and any GM too.

> Meaning, you analyse 100 moves will not be the same set of GM 100 moves. And GM work on better 100 moves than yours. If you pick the moves that GM not thinking of, you likely get crushed because those moves are very inferior moves that GM already can see the outcome without the need to consider.

This is intuitive and I guess I'm not surprised this is what was meant. They analyze the same amount of moves they are simply better at it (picking candidates, calculating, etc.)

I guess maybe im being a bit nitpicky but I feel like this is still a misleading way to say that.

> the average chess grandmaster during a classical game will analyze roughly the same number of moves as an amateur player, but they analyze only the most critical moves and do a better job with that analysis.

You could just omit "only the most critical moves" instead of listing it as an additional thing.

> the average chess grandmaster during a classical game will analyze roughly the same number of moves as an amateur player, but they do a better job with that analysis.

"only the most critical moves" sounds like less, especially when listed in addition to analyzing better.

I digress.

They have tree pruning heuristics. Probably all human masters of any craft have them. They're precise to some given extent, after which tacit/embodied knowledge, aesthetics and vibes take over.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com