- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

What is the best move in chess?

#3

@manoale60 said in #2:

very interesting and valuable your perspective, can it be compared to K-MPAS (lichess.org/@/totalnoob69/blog/how-to-visualize-k-maps-analysis/eVtTXMDs)?

It is a bit different - in chess, there are many tools we can use in a given position. K-MPAS is one of them, so is the Four Variable Rule, but there are many others, for instance, Checks Captures and Threats (calculation) , the Three Questions proposed by Aagaard in his book Positional Play, etc. The important thing is to use these well. For instance, it makes no sense to use Checks Captures and Threats in a position in which the decision is just positional in nature, for example, if I should exchange a bad bishop or not, as there is nothing to calculate there. My post is mostly about a rule for post-mortem analysis with the engine, and a way to better work with it and learn from it, but it is also useful during a game, mostly from a time-management perspective.

@manoale60 said in #2: > very interesting and valuable your perspective, can it be compared to K-MPAS (lichess.org/@/totalnoob69/blog/how-to-visualize-k-maps-analysis/eVtTXMDs)? It is a bit different - in chess, there are many tools we can use in a given position. K-MPAS is one of them, so is the Four Variable Rule, but there are many others, for instance, Checks Captures and Threats (calculation) , the Three Questions proposed by Aagaard in his book Positional Play, etc. The important thing is to use these well. For instance, it makes no sense to use Checks Captures and Threats in a position in which the decision is just positional in nature, for example, if I should exchange a bad bishop or not, as there is nothing to calculate there. My post is mostly about a rule for post-mortem analysis with the engine, and a way to better work with it and learn from it, but it is also useful during a game, mostly from a time-management perspective.
#4

Great answer, now I understand, you clarified a lot for me, it's a lot for a newbie like me to learn, but at least I'm getting my bearings in the general plan, I really appreciate your message.

Great answer, now I understand, you clarified a lot for me, it's a lot for a newbie like me to learn, but at least I'm getting my bearings in the general plan, I really appreciate your message.
#7

Interesting topic. A bit philosophical... and I like that, so I'll jump in :P

I agree that the "best" move is subjective, because "best" is a term used mostly for subjective analysis. So, the "best move" of a position might be different for you and me. It depends on what we calculated, our strenghts and weaknesses, the opponent you face, etc.
Of course, that means that it will be impossible to prove a given move is "the best", but that does not mean there cannot be a healthy debate, in a given position, on what move "should" be played.

I don't like the "Rule" part of "The Four Variable Rule", since I don't think it's useful to look at it as a rule, but I agree it is sometimes helpful to ask yourself those questions.

As for the "objective" value of a move... I don't like that idea at all :) because I think the objective value of a move is not what a number some powerful engine gives, but the evaluation "god" gives. And what is "god" (in chess terms, of course)? Well, "someone" capable of calculating everything until the end. So it will just say "Draw" or "Checkmate in X moves". If we take that definition, most likely 1.e4 and 1.f3 have the same objective value. Counterintuitively, I think the stronger engines get, the more of a "human touch" we need when evaluating a position. I predict in a few years we will have "engines" capable of showing you not only the "best" moves, but other kinds of useful analysis, such as how "easy" the position is to play or if there is a series of forced moves you must know

Interesting topic. A bit philosophical... and I like that, so I'll jump in :P I agree that the "best" move is subjective, because "best" is a term used mostly for subjective analysis. So, the "best move" of a position might be different for you and me. It depends on what we calculated, our strenghts and weaknesses, the opponent you face, etc. Of course, that means that it will be impossible to prove a given move is "the best", but that does not mean there cannot be a healthy debate, in a given position, on what move "should" be played. I don't like the "Rule" part of "The Four Variable Rule", since I don't think it's useful to look at it as a rule, but I agree it is sometimes helpful to ask yourself those questions. As for the "objective" value of a move... I don't like that idea at all :) because I think the objective value of a move is not what a number some powerful engine gives, but the evaluation "god" gives. And what is "god" (in chess terms, of course)? Well, "someone" capable of calculating everything until the end. So it will just say "Draw" or "Checkmate in X moves". If we take that definition, most likely 1.e4 and 1.f3 have the same objective value. Counterintuitively, I think the stronger engines get, the more of a "human touch" we need when evaluating a position. I predict in a few years we will have "engines" capable of showing you not only the "best" moves, but other kinds of useful analysis, such as how "easy" the position is to play or if there is a series of forced moves you must know