How many moves ahead?

It is a hoary old chess story, which points up the difference between tactics and strategy. The master of combination play is asked how many moves ahead he calculates and replies "usually 20" (or 10, or 30, according to the source); the positional player is then posed the same question and says: "One - but always the best one". The history of the tale is explored here.

I was reminded of that when I read Jon Andrew's contribution on Liberal Democrat Voice to the predictions stakes. He writes: "If a chess player decided that he or she had no idea what the next ten moves would bring so didn’t bother planning ahead, they would find themselves checkmated pretty quickly." Well, that is true up to a point. It certainly applies if you are an attacking player: you need to see deep into the branches of the tree of moves to make sure that there is not a hidden flaw in your logic. Likewise, if you are on the wrong end of an attack, you need to work out the best way to survive it. However, several very successful grandmasters (Tigran Petrosian comes to mind) relied on the steady accretion of small advantages leading to a winning position. For them, it was probably necessary only to check no more than two or three moves ahead. Of course, they depended on a positional sense developed over years of experience.

Yes, Liberal Democrats need to think tactically and many a local council or by-election campaign has been won by reading the runes and switching resources or changing a line of attack accordingly. On the other hand, one may also point to a couple of occasions in general election campaigns when the leader failed to anticipate the nature of a counter-attack by the Conservatives and their supporters in the media.

The long-term strategy must be right too, and I would define that as continually hammering out the core message of what the party stands for. Otherwise, the party is seen as a set of opportunists, not much different from the others.