Chess

I have been practicing chess lately. Can anyone give me some good tips to become a better player? Also how often do you play? and what are you favorite strategies?

Here is a good tip for you It is a dumb game that is more about memorization and chess theory than about thinking ahead. After 1950s the game went to soykaf. Now, 1800s were the bomb if you were to look at any of the games played then, but today games are so boring and predictable that even the top best players snooze one out during the match or make a completely obvious blunder out of not really focusing. Today chess is about having that one move on move no 14 decide the whole outcome of the rest of the game, and it's not even that cruitial of a move. play chess puzzles, analyze games from players with elos 200 to 300 points above you, follow chess tournaments and get yourself a butt dildo/stopper because you are obviously a homosexual

>>7295 With respect, I disagree. Learning by rote seems to be the trend but is by no means the rule. Chess puzzles are valuable insofar as they teach you examples of how to see the game in a more complex manner, but ultimately you're just learning someone else's muscle memory. You can't complain that the "game is dumb, predictable, and a dead end" if you haven't tried playing it outside of the confines of traditional chess practice. If the game's decided by a move in the mid-game, or worse, the opening move, someone is clearly doing something wrong. 99% of the time, if you can adapt to your specific opponent instead of playing by textbook, you will win. >>7294 Chess seems to be one of the few things I'm skilled in, but I don't play very often because very few people I know have interest in playing. If you want to get better, focus on the spatial relationships. With enough practice, you'll be able to see the power dynamics on the board. I'm talking about more than just threats, pins, and forks here. Ask yourself which groups of pieces are currently in play, where the major offensive/defensive power is concentrated, who has the initiative, what moves are available, and what the focus of the play might be. Is it a set-piece or a skirmish? If the majority of the fight is taking place on one side, what happens if you unexpectedly move a piece on the opposite side? etc. Once you learn to read what is going on, you can guess what *isn't* going on. Most people, though casual players, only think about the first part, trying to predict every move and possible scenario. It doesn't work. Your image is a good perspective to take. If chess is a game played with the mind, then the pieces on the board are the puppet-strings. You won't be able to predict with 100% accuracy what the opponent will do, but to an extent you can force them into certain patterns of behavior. It's also why I prefer in-person games. Spend as much time as you can watching the other player and not the board. Where they are looking can tell volumes about what they plan on doing. I guess it sounds kind of cryptic but this is all something I only know how to do by intuition. I'm not really sure how else to explain it. I haven't really gotten much into online chess, again, since I prefer in-person games, but if you are looking for someone to practice against, I'm sure I could set aside time.

>>7298 >trend but not the rule Sure, you can think out best move at every step, but when chess theory has developed so much that there is endgame and opening chess theory... and even middle game chess theory then there is no "agree to disagree". If you play anyway else you loose. You just need to learn best tactic in openings, best tactic in endgame and few tips in midgame. Even Fischer is saying what I am saying. Chess became the husk of a game that it was, chess theory ruined the game. >chess puzzles are for learning muscle memory You don't know what a chess puzzle is and I bet you never seen one. Chess puzzle is mid to endgame scenario on board that says "checkmate in 8 moves" and you have to find a way to push your opponent to make those 8 moves into mate. Puzzles are one of cute and interesting ways to challenge yourself to see beyond your possibilities because you know there is a mate coming in few moves. >You can't complain that the "game is dumb, predictable, and a dead end" if you haven't tried playing it outside of the confines of traditional chess practice. Bish, wtf you know what I tried and didn't try. Stfu. By your lack of knowledge of simple chess puzzles I am assuming you know jack soykaf about chess. >If the game's decided by a move in the mid-game, or worse, the opening move, someone is clearly doing something wrong. I was assuming the best case scenario. If you position yourself the wrong way in the beginning, but play the bestest move afterwards you will loose most of the times. Look into chess theory. >if you can adapt to your specific opponent instead of playing by textbook, you will win. All players of today that have elo above 1400 play by the books. By the rest of your post I assume you can max read like 4 moves in advance and that your daddy taught you how to play. And assuming by how you didn't say anything about elo I assume you never got ranked. You are a casual who should do more listenig and reading and less yapping.

>>7300 >You don't know what a chess puzzle is and I bet you never seen one Don't make me laugh. Thank you for assuming I'm a primary school student who never bothered with formal instruction, it makes the conversation so much more productive and civil. To save us both some time, just insert the inevitable "your mum" joke here, and insert the equally abrasive "mlg pro get out n00b" comment here. You're right, I didn't mention elo because I was never ranked. I'm still of the mind that pure statistics aren't everything. And I think you put way too much faith into chess theory. Take the statistical approach. Brute-forcing a computer to solve the game is impractical. This should say enough as to why chess is not a dead-end. The number of legitimate chess games significantly approaches the number of atoms estimated in the observable universe (10^40 and 10^80, respectively). To quote Kasparov who is himself paraphrasing, "...a player looking eight moves ahead is already presented with as many possible games as there are stars in the galaxy" (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2010/02/11/the-chess-master-and-the-computer/). Keeping in mind that while computers have long since outstripped humans in chess without actually solving the game and that human-computer pairs are far more effective than computers alone, I find it hard to believe that human creativity and error is insignificant. You mentioned blunders such as a lack of focus in your previous post. It is entirely possible to set that up in your opponent. Arrogance, focus, and rationale are all vulnerabilities that can be exploited and encouraged, or social engineering as an industry would not exist. "best" is then meaningless in the context that if you do everything the "best way" you're still following an exploitable pattern. Obviously if you're only looking at the tactical element, a given chess match will devolve into predictability since at that point it becomes a puzzle of logic and between two players thinking logically, the player who knows more possible solutions will win. I'm with you, chess theory ruined the game. But I'm talking about the human element here. In fact, chess theory ruined how we view chess. Doesn't matter how many moves you plan ahead. If your opponent is playing you and not the board, you don't stand a chance. Logic is a vulnerability like any other. If you still think I don't have a single valid point, at least read the rest of the article I linked. It goes into depth about computer-human chess, which is basically what you're describing.

>>7319 >ignoring my point about chess puzzles and deflecting to moral and discussion highground You do seem like a kid when you imply that chess puzzles are just training your muscle memory. When someone talks out of their ass about a topic they know jack soykaf about then they are to be put in their place which usually implies some rough talk and banter. You understand that no? >I'm still of the mind that pure statistics aren't everything Wtf lol? Are you talking about elo? So, you are daying that Magnus Carlsons elo count doesn't matter even though he has surpassed the best of the best when they were at their peak on the elo count basis? Are you implying that elo is poor scoring system? Wtf are you talking about? That your ego is so bloated that you are above such human pathetic ways as to measure the skill of playing chess? The fuarrrk lol? please elaborate I want to hear more about your thoughts of elo >And I think you put way too much faith into chess theory. And I think you didn't even know chess theory existed before I started talking about it... but it is still funny how fast you can form an opinion about something you know jack soykaf about. >explaining something I already know (or simply copypasting) to gain credibility Impractical? First, its a polynomial problem so of course it won't be trivial. Second, its a task humans have problem with not computers. Third, most of those chess moves are a dud, a soykafty path that will lead to nowhere so most of them can be easily ignored by chess theory standards... and want to guess how computer values one move over another? How it values one 20th move and chooses that over the other? That soykaf is based on chess piece value system based in chess theory. The only viable games you can brute force today that could win chess theory reliably are above 15 moves ahead, and even then you are using "intuition" as you said yourself. So shut up and continue reading those one liners from best chess players, maybe you will learn something. >But I'm talking about the human element here Is this just another of your pompous sophistry babble? What do you mean by this? What exactly? >Doesn't matter how many moves you plan ahead. If your opponent is playing you and not the board, you don't stand a chance. Logic is a vulnerability like any other. Jeez you sound like a pompous little soykaf, I tell you what. Let me explain those one liners you soykaf out of your mouth so you don't fuarrrk yourself over next time. Logic isn't a vulnerability, emotions are, that is why "playing the other player" is the situation where the player stands no chance. If you "play the game and not the player" then you win the game. Chess is about pure logic, not poker where you can bluff and play with human emotions. In chess most players don't even look at each other. You got your pompous one liners all mixed up, I assume because I called you up on your bullsoykaf and you got all flustered. Nobody ever does question you because you act smug and pompous and all knowing, but you are just a dumb arrogant little kid whose mom didn't tell him he wasn't special. Stop thinking you are hot soykaf because you linked me an article it took you 3 seconds to google. You do not know more than me on the topic, stop acting like you do. Dumb cunt. Go read a book or two, watch few tournaments, learn the names of couple of big name chess players from 200 years ago till today, get yourself ranked and then you can talk about something as if you know about what you are talking about. You aren't convincing ANYONE just by acting tough and pompous. I bet you have very little friends IRL and I would bet it is mainly because of this. You "know" everything about every topic and you are the master of it. You have to prove it by saying few buzzwords you heard here and there on youtube or few articles you read? How pathetic, to feed your ego that way. You sicken me with disgust.(Always argue in good faith and avoid using personal attacks.)

>>7295 Yet you know so much of it, Chess it's predictable if you condition the opponent to a certain number of moves by threating other pieces thats where logic comes in and the hierarchy applies in this situations. its very difficult to predict all the opponent moves when you are in a presential match with time running the opening turns of the game are the ones who tell if the game is going to be predictable or not in most cases >Today chess is about having that one move on move no 14 decide the whole outcome of the rest of the game most ot the today tournaments I have seen always end in stalemates which is very boring indeed but is not in the first 14 turns that predicts the rest of the game even if it's based in chess theory >Bish, wtf you know what I tried and didn't try. I believe you didn't try enough then, if you ended up having such a straight and simple view in the game >chess that is more about memorization and chess theory >Chess is about pure logic I am seeing a hole here, where did you leave your chess theory soykaf ? I mean really I am a casual player but in my world you are talking about very different things I certainly believe you tried to play the game and you were not able to achieve your expectations, so you have a resentment to it and you try to aliviate it by telling lies about the game like you know everything about it. and trying to mock others does not put you in a credible situation either at all. you are the little soykaf in this thread so please move on. practice the game again if you wish. And I wish best of luck. And please get a life.

>>7295 The majority of people at least know the rules of chess and the majority of them would have no idea what you're talking about. Whatever you read on the internet to the contrary, a game of chess in the park on a Sunday afternoon is just as enjoyable and productive as it was 150 years ago.

>>7348 >I am seeing a hole here, where did you leave your chess theory soykaf ? I mean really I am a casual player but in my world you are talking about very different things Logical patterns can be memorized. Are you seriously this braindead? This is why there are mating positions that are widely known, that is why every grandmaster knows how to mate with a knight and bishop (because it is just pure logic that is memorized). Chess theory is abstract logic. >I certainly believe you tried to play the game and you were not able to achieve your expectations, so you have a resentment to it On the contrary, I achieved my goals and much more than that but the path I had to take to achieve that left a sour taste in my mouth. >you try to aliviate it by telling lies about the game like you know everything about it >lies https://youtu.be/-S4BU_AYJEs?t=20s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_theory Chess theory killed the game. It is now nothing more than memorization and "feeling out" the game situation. Maybe from time to time grandmasters do a 20 move plan in their heads just to see if something is possible or not, but most just play it by feeling than a hard hitting your head in the wall while trying to think 20 moves ahead. That is why nobody is playing Kings gambit anymore, nobody is even touching it with 10 foot pole, because it's "too risky of opening". This is same soykaf why chess engines give white few points of an advantage in the first move, merely because he had the first move. >And please get a life. I have it now that I am not wasting on that darn dumb game. And I hope others don't waste their time trying to get good at it. That is why I mock any retard who thinks chess is a fun game and challenging game. It is few levels above tick tack toe and that's it. And if I cyber bully a kid to stop him from playing that darn game, or to stop him from thinking that he is any good at it then I will be happy to do it again. That way he will either drop the game and realize the truth that the game is like kicking dead whales down the beach or try getting better at the game and realize few years after. >>7350 I think that saying "Ignorance is bliss" might be right.