1200 player vs. GM

In other news, a layman would be able to land a 747 after stepping into a cockpit for the first time in his life, provided he's got "enough" time to try out all of those fancy knobs and controls.  Sure, a pilot will do it faster but that's just because he practiced a little more.

Hmm, I think I see what you're saying a little better now.  When I think of giving a 1200 lots of time, I'm thinking of what I would do as a 1200 in such a game... which is calculate for a little bit and then settle on a bad move.  Kind of like what you're saying about the tactics trainer, we even miss puzzles we "should" have gotten sometimes like you said (time constraints or laziness).

You're saying if the 1200 really did spend all ____ minutes/hours.  If they tried their best, and never settled on a move they didn't think was the very best, then they wouldn't fall for all these bad tactics they normally get into.  And that makes sense I see your point.

There aren't any masters who come around to my club, but a few have stopped by in the past.  My problem with them is I get into these really difficult situations right out of the opening.  There was nothing tactically or even (to my mind anyway) strategically wrong with what I did, but suddenly I'm feeling like I'm in trouble and I don't know why.  (I usually tell myself if I could only get to move 20 in an equal position I could win... not that I necessarily think so but I'm trying to encourage myself here :).

So I think in a practical situation there are certain problems a 1200 player will face.  One being laziness, but ok we can throw that out for the sake of argument.  The other is I think their position will be really difficult early on in the game.  Sure a GM will make many tactical blunders in a blitz game, but if you give them a strategically winning position, then their errors (and they will make them) won't amount to enough to turn the tide. 

I'm sure you've had blitz games like this where you have a very comfortable position, that certain point where you think "ok, now I'm 95% sure I'm going to win because my opponent has nothing he can do."  I think the GM would reach a position like this very quickly.

On chess tempo I've spent as much as 30 minutes before on one puzzle determined to work it all out.  And it's great when I get it right.  Sometimes though I simply miss a move, even when I've spent a lot of time, and even when I think I've found a forcing combination.  Chess is so complex I don't think a 1200 would be able to work it out... because even when they find that really good move, it might turn out to be bad.  GMs have memorized so many openings and tactical patterns that they'll spot these mistakes instantly.

The point that spagehtio and others don't seem to grasp is that a class player playing a GM (3 miniutes per move is far, far, far, more than a GM needs against a weak player) you could be tactically perfect, and you would still get your ass kicked. All this shit about being able to calculate tactical sequences given enough time is irrelevant, and also not true for master level tactics (and even if it werent, it doesnt matter).

First off, lets pretend that being able to calculate the tactical sequences at each move would make a difference. Can the weak player do it? Only if the moves were with check, and forced.

1.) Even in a semi-forced, master-level variation, the weak player will not be able to spot the moves without calculating every possible move -- i.e. operating like a computer... which people arent very good at.

Of course, leave it to a poster like spahgetio to say "well, theyre simply not calculating enough ply".

The class player would have to calculate almost every move, because their sense of which moves are "plausible", and calculating those only, will not work for a master level tactic.Some quite little move which would be almost immediately considered by the GM due to sub-conscious pattern recognition, would appear as "Wtf.... that move is pointless" to the class player.

They wouldnt be able to tell the difference between that move... and the dozen other moves which genuinely are pointless little move. Suppose the opponent has a bishiop lined up on the same diaganol with his king, but there are 2-3 pawns, and maybe a piece in the way. Such a fact would not even register as a "potential tactical circumstance" most class players mind, whereas the GM will intuitively grasp the potential tactics with no calculation -- and then do a quick calculation to check.

However, for the class player, is just one potential move, out of dozens, but the class player would have to spend like 30 minutes calculating-like-a-computer at every stage of every sequence (so a couple hours to calculate-like-a-computer per move), and do something like this numerous time per game just for that one possibility.

Remember, the average class player would get screwed if he did a "thourough" 5 minute "I go there.... and if he goes there..... I go there...." .... hmm, is that bad for me? Hmmmm, doesnt look like it.

So even though people in general suck at trying to calculate like a computer (figure 1-2 seconds per move - 10s of thousands of permutations, at least, for a master level sequence) -- and naturally, you would have to write everything down, or else you would obviously forget -- you do the math for the time required -- and thats just for one turn.

2.) Keep in mind that even the above -- this is considereing that the class player knows how to systematically calculate (very, very slowly) like a computer -- still only applies to sequences where there is something like a forced material gain or loss.

Playing against a GM, this situation will probably never come up, unless the GM literally had a couple of seconds per move, and even then -- even though the conscious mind cannot calculate much in that time, the subconscious is estimate to be able to calculate 1 million times or so more per/time than the conscious mind. The GM has "chess intuition" that makes tactical material losses (like losing a piece) uncommon even in blitz games against other GMs -- much less a class player.  This is why even in bullet conditions -- you are very, very unlikely to get a single instance of a tactical blunder -- much less 3 whole minutes per move.

Of course all people make mistakes -- Kraminicks' mate in one vs the computer. But these are obviously "flukes" for statistical purposes, because its obviously not something that happens due to the GMs lack of ability.

(GMs see deeper into the position in a bullet game than a class A player will see in a slow game))

Getting back on track, for any tactical sequences that leads to a serious positional advantage, even one that the computer would rate as making a difference of 1-2 points, the GM will recognize this very quickly, whereas for the class player, unless there is a major material difference, or an blatantly obvious factor like the king winding up in the middle of the board, they can stare at the board for eternity, and not know whether the resulting position is good or bad.

A class player vs a GM -- these tactical situations will come up all the time for the GM to exploit. Opportunities that the class player is even close to being able to understand, much less take advantage of, will only come up as a fluke, and even if it did, it wouldnt have much influence on the outcome of the game.

3.) We've established that even if it were possible for the class player (or any person for that matter) to "calculate like a computer" all tactical possibilities throughout the game ( I dont think Tomato Sauce Spaghetio realizes just how many permutations there are for this to work -- nor, how much of a role the subconscious plays (99% or more).

With the subconscious being estimated at being able to process information at 1 million times faster than the conscious mind, tactical sequences where the class player has no subconscious pattern recognition ingrained brute force calculation like Spghageti Meatballs is suggesting, cannot even remotely compensate.

****

And even if it could, we've established that it would not make much of a difference, other than to stop the class player from losing "even faster" due to dropping a piece due to a blunder.

Positional changes which happen every couple of moves -- which the computer might rate as a .15-.25 point change -- each time, are imperceptible to the class player. This is why the class player could try to brute force calculate for a week every move, and within 10-15 moves after the opening sequence, they are so lost that even they can recognize it.