|
Yeah I don't mind playing out a live game, but I will forfeit a daily game very quickly. Unfortunately the guy I'm playing in a king vs king/rook endgame does not share this philosophy and is taking his time.
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2021 23:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 13:03 |
|
|
I normally take opportunities like those to blunder several pieces then my queen
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2022 01:20
|
|
|
Below 1000 Elo every extra move favors the player losing the game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2022 01:21
|
|
|
Dias posted:Below 1000 Elo every extra move favors the player losing the game. Do you just mean that it increases the chances of the winner blundering, or is the # of moves factored into your ranking somehow?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2022 01:52
|
|
|
Baronash posted:Do you just mean that it increases the chances of the winner blundering, or is the # of moves factored into your ranking somehow? The former, my evaluation graphs need a defibrillator when no one wins in 20 moves or less.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2022 02:30
|
|
|
I found this video to be very interesting, certainly taught me something I never knew about the "value" of the pieces: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDw8yfeUiBg I did not know Yasser Seirawan was such a nice guy, I've always assumed he's a jerk - I had no basis for that, so not sure why.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2022 03:32
|
|
|
Apsyrtes posted:I had no basis for that, so not sure why.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2022 04:39
|
|
|
Sub Rosa posted:I mean he's associated with Eric Hansen, that's a reason lmao facts my dad gave me yasser's Winning Chess book series when i was a kid and i absolutely devoured it, idk if it holds up but i think it gave me a pretty solid base that i would go on to mostly forget
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2022 05:27
|
|
|
new year new goal of playing more rapid 10+5. starting as black, okay my memory for any opening against d4 is hazy but let me just do e5, oh they took it well this is probably a bust. managed to castle my king and drag out most of their pawns while rooks were still trapped. traded queens and ended up +2 due to their attempts to protect her. then they seemed to decide the endgame wasn't going to be much fun after I chased the remaining bishop a couple of times with my remaining knight. tldr: accidentally did an englund gambit and won against a 1400
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2022 13:50
|
|
|
i'm moving slow and playing bad in 5+0 anonymous blitz on lichess, finishing most of my games with a busted position and no time on the clock. it was pissing me off, so i thought "if im gonna play bad anyway, maybe i can at least train myself to play fast?" but i'm winning most of my games (both on the board and on the clock) when playing 3+0. that surprised me! i must be facing weaker opponents at this time control? why might that be -- is it simply because 5+0 is more popular?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2022 20:13
|
|
|
i used web search to try figuring out which time controls are most popular. i found this graph which is the Number of Hours played in each time control. I thought it might be interesting for the thread to look at! https://lichess.org/forum/lichess-feedback/lichess-time-controls-popularity-using-hours-graph There's also an older graph here, which counts number of games https://lichess.org/forum/lichess-feedback/lichess-time-control-popularity-graphs TL;DR: 5+0 and 3+0 enjoy similar popularity, with more slightly games played in 3+0, and slightly more time spent on 5+0.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2022 20:40
|
|
|
Here is a fun paper by tom7, the guy that did the bad chess algorithms youtube video. He calculates the longest possible game of chess as having 17,697 moves according to FIDE rules. It presents the oddities of FIDE rules, and weird corner cases. For example, did you know that this is officially a drawn position due to insufficient material? How about this one?  http://tom7.org/chess/longest.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2022 23:40
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:Here is a fun paper by tom7, the guy that did the bad chess algorithms youtube video. I love this guy way too much
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2022 01:54
|
|
|
Thanks for this, really enjoyed the part where he goes into some of the weird quirks of the rules. I would have read a whole paper on just those, I know there must be some related to clock usage that wasnt useful to the longest game problem. I remember Alireza being confused that he had lost instead of drawn a game when Magnus had only a king and bishop but had won on time, and it turned out that because Alireza still had material there was technically some way he could have been checkmated if he had walked his own king into a corner and allowed the bishop and king to mate him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2022 11:47
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:Here is a fun paper by tom7, the guy that did the bad chess algorithms youtube video. He calculates the longest possible game of chess as having 17,697 moves according to FIDE rules. It presents the oddities of FIDE rules, and weird corner cases. For example, did you know that this is officially a drawn position due to insufficient material? both of those should be counted as drawn positions though
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2022 12:07
|
|
|
Helianthus Annuus posted:but i'm winning most of my games (both on the board and on the clock) when playing 3+0 UPDATE: this winning trend has not continued lol But, I think I prefer 3+0, because my opponents are making more mistakes under time pressure. Its more fun to find and punish those goofs than it is to be the one getting punished all the time
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2022 22:00
|
|
|
this reminds me of a position i had earlier today, where i got pissed off and resigned because i thought it was mate in 2, and the opponents queen (checking me) was just hanging lmao i laughed at the paper, thanks
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2022 22:03
|
|
|
Ha 
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2022 23:34
|
|
|
quote:The game given is believed to be maximal, as measured in the this is the kind of thinking I need in my life
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2022 05:01
|
|
|
I'm reading My System for real and it's actually a pretty light read. Nimzo talking poo poo about bad moves is fun.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2022 05:04
|
|
|
i am bad at chess but an evening spent playing on tilt has made me think i'm absolute dogshit
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2022 22:04
|
|
|
so close to 4 figgies on dailies on chess.com and i’m clearly winning against an 1100 (about to be up a queen, rook and 2 pawns after a forced sequence). please resign dude, i want that extra zero
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2022 00:22
|
|
|
man i dont think ive ever made any money from chess. congrats dude.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2022 04:19
|
|
|
This might be a strange question, but is there any chess terminology that has stuck out to people as idiosyncratic? I don't mean things like "pawn structure" which is fairly direct jargon, but more abstract terms. For example, I hadn't heard "X is better" used before for other games (presumably because chess is more drawish so "X is winning" is a distinct state). Or "tension" to describe situations where pieces may trade off with each other but haven't (yet). Or "accuracy", "(in)accurate" moves. Is there any resource of chess etymology? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2022 23:24
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure the word "gambit" comes from chess and made its way out into the wider world. Myself, I find myself saying "intermezzo" instead of "intermediate" pretty often.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2022 23:27
|
|
|
Hand Knit posted:I'm pretty sure the word "gambit" comes from chess and made its way out into the wider world. Myself, I find myself saying "intermezzo" instead of "intermediate" pretty often. Whoa, that's surprising but sure enough: "gambit (n.) "chess opening in which a pawn or piece is risked for advantage later," 1650s, gambett, from Italian gambetto, literally "a tripping up" (as a trick in wrestling), from gamba "leg," from Late Latin gamba (see gambol (n.)). Applied to chess openings in Spanish in 1561 by Ruy Lopez, who traced it to the Italian word, but the form in Spanish generally was gambito, which led to French gambit, which has influenced the English spelling of the word. Broader sense of "opening move meant to gain advantage" in English is recorded from 1855." https://www.etymonline.com/word/gambit "Ruy Lopez invented the word gambit" is some s tier chess trivia. Salt Fish fucked around with this message at 23:40 on Jan 5, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2022 23:38
|
|
|
Yeah that's a surprise for me too. Now that I think about it, "compensation" is another one that I've started applying outside of chess contexts
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2022 00:17
|
|
|
Redmark posted:This might be a strange question, but is there any chess terminology that has stuck out to people as idiosyncratic? I don't mean things like "pawn structure" which is fairly direct jargon, but more abstract terms. I played OTB chess a lot in the 1990s and then came back to the game a few years ago. One thing that stuck out when I came back was all the talk about "accurate" vs. "inaccurate" moves. Maybe a "?!" was referred to as an "inaccuracy" 25 years ago but I can't remember anyone talking about accurate moves. I am assuming the term arose because we now have far stronger computers to compare our "accuracy" to.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2022 00:24
|
|
|
Carbolic posted:I played OTB chess a lot in the 1990s and then came back to the game a few years ago. One thing that stuck out when I came back was all the talk about "accurate" vs. "inaccurate" moves. Maybe a "?!" was referred to as an "inaccuracy" 25 years ago but I can't remember anyone talking about accurate moves. I am assuming the term arose because we now have far stronger computers to compare our "accuracy" to. Oh yeah, I've definitely incorporated stuff like "!?," "dubious," and "exclam" into everyday speak.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2022 00:33
|
|
|
I think speaking in the present tense about possibilities is a very chess-y thing, i.e: "if you do this, it loses because of X..."
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2022 00:38
|
|
|
Talking in second person is a very covid-policy thing. I fear for the lexical landscape we are creating for our children
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2022 00:40
|
|
|
Zugzwang is a term I love to apply to everything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2022 00:46
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:Zugzwang is a term I love to apply to everything. Zugzwang is a good word, Germany always comes thru when we need words for abstract concepts. I've been calling...well, exchanges exchanges, instead of trades like I used to when I played CCGs, that's another one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2022 01:00
|
|
|
"endgame" came up today, outside a chess context (but maybe lots of other games have endgames too)
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2022 04:41
|
|
|
I’ve been getting a lot of use out of “concrete” and “accurate” at work, personally.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2022 04:55
|
|
|
Helianthus Annuus posted:"endgame" came up today, outside a chess context (but maybe lots of other games have endgames too) It was used in the title of the highest- or second-highest grossing movie of all time...
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2022 05:13
|
|
|
Dias posted:Zugzwang is a good word, Germany always comes thru when we need words for abstract concepts. Zugzwang is pretty funny, because it became popular in German in the same year as in English. And it also expanded into being used as an allegory at the same time. In short Nimzo is just that cool.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2022 14:37
|
|
|
How do you improve your ability to recognize mating patterns and good moves in actual games? I've gone through (twice, in some cases) the mating patterns, tactics, and endgame examples on Lichess. I average about 30-40 puzzles a day, review tactics and positions from books, and have tried to work in some YT content on chess tactics and strategy. But in actual games, at least when I'm not getting crushed, I'm ending up in positions like this:  And just completely blowing it. Instead of the obvious mate in 2, I went Rf1 to get his queen. I ended up missing a forced checkmate 3 more times before finally blundering my queen and losing. In a puzzle, I know there is a great move buried somewhere, so I'll spend as long as I need to find it. In a game though, even on long time controls I'm never sure if a position warrants more evaluation. Are there any shortcuts you use that'll make you think "hold on, I think there might be something here"?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2022 23:22
|
|
|
I'm not good enough to help with the actual calculation part but I think part of it is figuring out whether you're "supposed" to have a tactic given the state of the game. Looking at a position like that my evaluation would be "come on there has to be mate here", so that would be motivation to spend more time trying to find one. Similarly if your pieces are more developed or better-coordinated than the opponents, that's usually more promising for tactics than when you're on the back foot. I think of it like "if the chess gods are just, should I be winning here?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2022 23:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 13:03 |
|
|
Do you have more pieces around your opponent's king than they have? Look for the kill.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2022 23:44
|
|