Body: <p>Naturally, having more time to ponder each move lets skilled players figure out better decisions and avoid errors one might make when there is a pressing time limit, with more time allowing more informed moves.</p>
  <p>However, we're also just human, and even the smartest chess players have imperfect memory and ability to envision deeper and deeper decision trees, so at some point the benefits of additional time would become negligible.  In general, how much time per move would be sufficient such that increasing it further would not result in a noticeable improvement at the grandmaster level?</p>
  <p>I'd like to focus on just the human computation aspect, so you can ignore fatigue or attention-span effects from spending many hours on a single chess game.</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-10-25T21:43:17.797Z
Comments.Text: A definitive answer requires a finite limit on/measurement of human computational ability. I'm not sure that's possible; but hopefully someone can give a range/estimate based off *some* data?
Comments.UserDisplayName: TCooper
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-10-26T08:15:18.830Z
Comments.Text: Well, there were errors even in postal chess, in the pre-computer time...(At least one could experimentally solve the same questions for computers and then extrapolate.)
Comments.UserDisplayName: Hauke Reddmann
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-11-01T09:04:39.803Z
Comments.Text: I really love this question. I imagine the answer, assuming that the player had no competing demands on their time, and was sufficiently motivated, would be in the months. I mean, essentially they would be launching a research project each move, spending weeks analysing all the different lines etc. If they were allowed to take notes, maybe there would be no real limit.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Steve Bennett
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2022-04-21T20:51:13.783Z
Comments.Text: @SteveBennett I imagine note-taking is not admissible. That being the case, human memory capacity is very limited and the answer would be quickly reached (let's say, a couple of hours per move). If note-taking is possible, the next limit would be motivation to keep exploring different lines for months per move, as you say. However, working 24/7, I doubt humans would be motivated to perform well analysing months per move trying to collate all notes on paper and make sense of them after. A few days per move is probably still the max I'd guess.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Mobeus Zoom
Tags: <grandmaster><time-control>
Title: At the Grandmaster level, at what amount of additional time per move do the benefits become negligible?
ThreadText: # At the Grandmaster level, at what amount of additional time per move do the benefits become negligible?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2021-10-25)
  
  Naturally, having more time to ponder each move lets skilled players figure out better decisions and avoid errors one might make when there is a pressing time limit, with more time allowing more informed moves.
  
  However, we're also just human, and even the smartest chess players have imperfect memory and ability to envision deeper and deeper decision trees, so at some point the benefits of additional time would become negligible. In general, how much time per move would be sufficient such that increasing it further would not result in a noticeable improvement at the grandmaster level?
  
  I'd like to focus on just the human computation aspect, so you can ignore fatigue or attention-span effects from spending many hours on a single chess game.
  
  **Tags:** grandmaster, time-control
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: A definitive answer requires a finite limit on/measurement of human computational ability. I'm not sure that's possible; but hopefully someone can give a range/estimate based off *some* data?  
  > **username_2**: Well, there were errors even in postal chess, in the pre-computer time...(At least one could experimentally solve the same questions for computers and then extrapolate.)  
  > **username_3**: I really love this question. I imagine the answer, assuming that the player had no competing demands on their time, and was sufficiently motivated, would be in the months. I mean, essentially they would be launching a research project each move, spending weeks analysing all the different lines etc. If they were allowed to take notes, maybe there would be no real limit.  
  > **username_4**: @username_3 I imagine note-taking is not admissible. That being the case, human memory capacity is very limited and the answer would be quickly reached (let's say, a couple of hours per move). If note-taking is possible, the next limit would be motivation to keep exploring different lines for months per move, as you say. However, working 24/7, I doubt humans would be motivated to perform well analysing months per move trying to collate all notes on paper and make sense of them after. A few days per move is probably still the max I'd guess.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 0 answers
  
  