[Event "The Blueprint 1400s to 1700s: A Reddit Chess Project.: The Algorithms of Chess"]
[Site "https://lichess.org/study/li3bsg62/SO2p5aXH"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "?"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "https://lichess.org/@/Paulcarrero"]
[ECO "?"]
[FEN "8/8/8/4N3/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]
[Opening "?"]
[SetUp "1"]
[UTCDate "2021.05.03"]
[UTCTime "03:57:28"]
[Variant "Standard"]

{ I often ask my students "What are the algorithms that a chess player goes through in order to find the correct move in a game?", they tend to have problems articulating their answers, they've been playing for years, but they find themselves in trouble when it comes to explaining what they do.

An algorithm, is a fancy term to say "series of steps to solve a problem". You can create an algorithm to solve the problem of being hungry in the middle of the night. For example:

Step #1: Stand up
Step #2: Walk to the kitchen
Step #3: Open the fridge
Step #4: Pick some food
Step #5: Eat it

Problem solved.

There are three key algorithms in chess, in my opinion:

a) Brute force:

The approach of old computers (They're getting more sophisticated), try to calculate every possible variation in a position as deeply as possible, discard the lines that do not work, select the line that works.

*Pros: It is thorough, you see as much as possible.

*Cons: It relies on calculation, you are a human, you can't calculate millions of lines per second as a computer does, and it is time and energy consuming. We humans are pretty bad at calculation, try multiplying 54324325 x 213214; can you do that in a second? I can't, probably you can't either.

b) Analogies:

An analogy is the extrapolation of the logic of case A to be applied in case B, because they share some similarities. Something worked before in a similar position to what I have in front of me, hence it should work now in this position. For example: Tal played like this in a Sicilian defense, I am playing a similar position to the one Tal had, therefore, I should play like Tal.

Sometimes this process can be unconscious, you might not remember whose pattern you're copying, but you get an intuition about it.

*Pros: Relies on pattern recognition, and it is fast. Humans are pretty good at pattern recognition, if I show you a picture, assuming there are 4 people in the image, and I ask you: "Who is your cousin in the photo?", probably you can give me an answer really fast, compare this to the previous multiplication in the example of brute force.

*Cons: It is not thorough, the position might be slightly different to your reference, and the logic that you apply might not be compatible with what you're facing now.

c) Heuristics:

A "Heuristic" is yet another fancy term that simply means "rules of thumb" or "mental shortcuts", ideas which are generally correct and work as a compass to show us the north; however, they are not always right. The heuristics in chess are the principles, for example: control the center, develop towards the center, castle as soon as possible, etc...

*Pros: Heuristics don't require a lot of thought; they are fast, easy to remember.

*Cons: They are not always right.
They can overlap, for example: What if I have a move that develops, another one that allows my king to go out of the center, and a move that controls the center with pawns? What's the priority?
----------------------------------------------
A good chess player doesn't rely on just one of the algorithms, he uses all of them, mixing them to obtain better results.

In games of people within this range (1400-1700), is common to see players using just one or two of the algorithms, which leads to mistakes. } *