|
Bilirubin posted:played what I thought had been a careful, thoughtful game, and in reviewing it the computer agreed. Up until the point I hung my queen. Fortunately, opponent didn't see it under the pressure I was applying but holy hell, play dumb games, If I'm feeling too good about myself I can always count on the computer to bring me back to Earth.
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 16:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 23:36 |
|
|
I get annoyed at stockfish for calling like five of my moves in a row "inaccuracies" because it thinks I should trade off a piece. I get that sometimes it's advantageous to trade off a piece, but it's often difficult to tell why the fish thinks this tradeoff is advantageous. Blunders are usually easier to figure out, you hung a piece or your opponent hung a piece or maybe you permitted a forced checkmate in 12 (that your opponent never saw either) but it'll show you the line that leads there so at least you can see why stockfish says it's a blunder. But the inaccuracy and "mistake" labels are harder to figure out IMO and that means I tend not to learn from them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 17:01
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I get annoyed at stockfish for calling like five of my moves in a row "inaccuracies" because it thinks I should trade off a piece. I get that sometimes it's advantageous to trade off a piece, but it's often difficult to tell why the fish thinks this tradeoff is advantageous. Blunders are usually easier to figure out, you hung a piece or your opponent hung a piece or maybe you permitted a forced checkmate in 12 (that your opponent never saw either) but it'll show you the line that leads there so at least you can see why stockfish says it's a blunder. But the inaccuracy and "mistake" labels are harder to figure out IMO and that means I tend not to learn from them. My problem with this is I'm not convinced it is right. I'll happily do an even trade if it gives me better positioning on the board. If it is a mostly neutral play, I'd rather keep my piece and pick a better spot for a trade off.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 17:15
|
|
|
I think it's right in the sense that stockfish can see 15 moves ahead and there's some advantage that, if I were playing a master opponent, they'd take advantage of or I'd lose or whatever. It's just unhelpful to a novice player. I get that the system needs to be rigorous as far as labeling different types of mistake moves, but it feels like there's an opportunity for a better automated teacher that could explain in simpler terms why a given move was inaccurate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 17:24
|
|
|
To put it in poker terms, Stockfish gives you the game theory optimal play (so far as it can calculate it). But because your opponents aren't stockfish, another move that directly exploits their weaknesses (induces blunders) can work better.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 17:39
|
|
|
sometimes stockfish will give me a blunder and then upon investigating it it will show me a series of 15 precise, brilliant moves that end with me losing a queen and then i'm like, cool, anyway in the real world my 900-rated blitz opponent's next move was hanging a rook
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 18:41
|
|
|
Puzzle training and computer analysis actually made me incapable of playing this game properly, because I spent so much time hyper focusing on the theoretically best sequences without ever figuring out what "improving a position" or "attacking" actually meant in practical terms, so I never ended up in positions where tactics even existed. Don't be like me, don't go to stockfish for answers that can be easily found by a human
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 18:57
|
|
|
It would probably be good if the game review feature stuck more to blunders that lose material (eg hanging a piece), missed tactical opportunities (not finding a fork that would win you material) and blatant violation of principles for no good reason (eg speculative advances with your Knight while you still have pieces you need to develop), especially at lower levels. It is hard though since chess computers don't remotely think in the same way humans do so you kindof have to reverse engineer a logic that would make sense to a person. To me the most confusing thing about Game Review is how it classifies Good moves. Like that move just lost my opponent a full bishop, I do not see how you could rate that as reasonable
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 18:59
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:It would probably be good if the game review feature stuck more to blunders that lose material (eg hanging a piece), missed tactical opportunities (not finding a fork that would win you material) and blatant violation of principles for no good reason (eg speculative advances with your Knight while you still have pieces you need to develop), especially at lower levels. It is hard though since chess computers don't remotely think in the same way humans do so you kindof have to reverse engineer a logic that would make sense to a person. from what i understand moves are rated based on how they shift advantage and how they compare to the best move, so if a position is totally lopsided you will sometimes see strange ratings like "yeah that move lost a bishop for no gain but you already blundered your queen and both rooks so losing a bishop didn't actually affect much since you were hosed before you lost it and you're still hosed now so it was Good" or the flipside: "you just blundered your queen for no reason but your opponent is so hosed that all this did was change it from Mate in 1 to Mate in 11 so it was Excellent because it's a move that still makes you win the game eventually"
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 21:40
|
|
|
I just tried playing puzzles while sick and man. Going from 2100 to 1600 is a lot
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 22:38
|
|
|
ikanreed posted:I just tried playing puzzles while sick and man. Going from 2100 to 1600 is a lot ahhh, addict rage queueing, I've been there, oh yes
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 23:52
|
|
|
I read a thing a while back I've been trying to implement, just being very disciplined on limits. My rules are: Exactly 15 ranked puzzles per day (Rush or Survival after that if I want more) No more than 5 Blitz games in a row. Take a break, go back and see if I got an opening move wrong, then decide if I want 5 more. Two Rapid losses in a day is a hard stop (I broke this one last week and went 0-5 in 2 hours, punting away 40 points in a full tilt).
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2023 00:35
|
|
|
i gain all of my elo during amphetamine fueled chess rampages and then slowly drop about 100 points playing casually during the refractory period
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2023 00:56
|
|
|
Mikojan posted:ahhh, addict rage queueing, I've been there, oh yes It's not rage. My brain just sucks poo poo when I'm sick apparently
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2023 00:58
|
|
|
cock hero flux posted:sometimes stockfish will give me a blunder and then upon investigating it it will show me a series of 15 precise, brilliant moves that end with me losing a queen and then i'm like, cool, anyway in the real world my 900-rated blitz opponent's next move was hanging a rook Yeah just use the computer to look for mistakes you overlooked, but don't worry about computer lines or take the labels too much at face value. The computer will criticize you for missing mate in 12, it doesn't know that you're rated 700 and don't know what en pissant is. Take the computer seriously but not literally.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2023 04:29
|
|
|
Me: I think that might be my most complete game ever. I was seeing everything! I HAVE SOLVED CHESS Stockfish: actually, 3 inaccuracies 3 mistakes 1 blunder u chump
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2023 07:19
|
|
|
e: non spoiler post below this one If you missed this game from the Swiss today you really owe it to yourself to check it out. I don't know how to link to a game from the beginning, so the link will be a spoiler. https://www.chess.com/events/2023-fide-grand-swiss/03/Lazavik_Denis-Wojtaszek_Radoslaw PGN [Event "FIDE Grand Swiss 2023"] [Site "Chess.com"] [Date "2023.10.27"] [Round "03"] [White "Lazavik, Denis"] [Black "Wojtaszek, Radoslaw"] [Result "0-1"] [WhiteElo "2560"] [BlackElo "2668"] [TimeControl "40/5400+30:1800+30"] 1. d4 {[%clk 1:40:47]} 1... Nf6 {[%clk 1:40:54]} 2. c4 {[%clk 1:40:59]} 2... e6 {[%clk 1:41:21]} 3. g3 {[%clk 1:41:03]} 3... d5 {[%clk 1:41:34]} 4. Nf3 {[%clk 1:40:58]} 4... Bb4+ {[%clk 1:41:57]} 5. Bd2 {[%clk 1:41:13]} 5... a5 {[%clk 1:42:20]} 6. Bg2 {[%clk 1:40:56]} 6... O-O {[%clk 1:42:39]} 7. Qc1 {[%clk 1:40:48]} 7... Be7 {[%clk 1:41:11]} 8. O-O {[%clk 1:40:28]} 8... Nbd7 {[%clk 1:41:36]} 9. Bf4 {[%clk 1:39:41]} 9... c6 {[%clk 1:41:49]} 10. Rd1 {[%clk 1:39:40]} 10... a4 {[%clk 1:39:36]} 11. Qc2 {[%clk 1:35:57]} 11... h6 {[%clk 1:38:37]} 12. Ne5 {[%clk 1:34:25]} 12... Qb6 {[%clk 1:25:16]} 13. Nxd7 {[%clk 1:27:39]} 13... Bxd7 {[%clk 1:19:26]} 14. c5 {[%clk 1:22:14]} 14... Qa7 {[%clk 0:52:42]} 15. Nc3 {[%clk 1:21:04]} 15... Rfc8 {[%clk 0:51:07]} 16. Rab1 {[%clk 1:09:12]} 16... b6 {[%clk 0:49:27]} 17. cxb6 {[%clk 1:08:58]} 17... Qxb6 {[%clk 0:49:53]} 18. Nxa4 {[%clk 1:08:57]} 18... Qa7 {[%clk 0:47:08]} 19. b3 {[%clk 1:06:54]} 19... c5 {[%clk 0:46:09]} 20. Nxc5 {[%clk 1:07:11]} 20... Bxc5 {[%clk 0:41:44]} 21. dxc5 {[%clk 1:07:34]} 21... Rxc5 {[%clk 0:42:09]} 22. Qd2 {[%clk 0:59:33]} 22... Qxa2 {[%clk 0:41:08]} 23. Rb2 {[%clk 0:57:50]} 23... Qa6 {[%clk 0:41:22]} 24. Bxh6 {[%clk 0:57:55]} 24... gxh6 {[%clk 0:37:58]} 25. Qd4 {[%clk 0:58:20]} 25... Qa1 {[%clk 0:24:58]} 26. Qd2 {[%clk 0:33:45]} 26... Qa3 {[%clk 0:21:23]} 27. Rbb1 {[%clk 0:32:22]} 27... Kg7 {[%clk 0:21:03]} 28. g4 {[%clk 0:32:30]} 28... Rac8 {[%clk 0:16:32]} 29. g5 {[%clk 0:32:04]} 29... Ng8 {[%clk 0:16:56]} 30. Qd4+ {[%clk 0:26:52]} 30... Kf8 {[%clk 0:16:33]} 31. gxh6 {[%clk 0:25:21]} 31... Nxh6 {[%clk 0:16:38]} 32. Ra1 {[%clk 0:25:23]} 32... Qxb3 {[%clk 0:16:19]} 33. Qh8+ {[%clk 0:25:41]} 33... Ng8 {[%clk 0:16:35]} 34. Rd3 {[%clk 0:25:44]} 34... Rc3 {[%clk 0:15:01]} 0-1 Bruce Hussein Daddy fucked around with this message at 14:19 on Oct 28, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2023 22:23
|
|
|
Here's a non-spoiler link and a gif of the game in the spoiler bar: https://lichess.org/qlw5RpL9 
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2023 22:56
|
|
|
Wow. The clock usage is interesting. Yeah Qd4 sure looks like it wins back a piece, it seems like Lazavik went for the bishop sac without too much thought. Then Wojtaszek took 30 minutes to find and calculate the queen sac! I wonder what Lazavik was thinking about the whole time, because he then spent 30 minutes on his next move.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 02:33
|
|
|
okay I saw agadmator's video on it and there are like a dozen other lines I hadn't considered. What an incredible position. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1U2vmgp_CPw
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 08:07
|
|
|
So I'm not sure if it is the smart thing to do, but lately I've just been saying gently caress it with openings. Pretty much everything I do, I just ask myself what my opponent is trying to attack or defend with his move and then just think of an appropriate countermeasure. The funny thing about this approach is when I review my games after, I'm staying on book approaches longer than when I tried openings. Anyone else do this?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2023 03:13
|
|
|
Sataere posted:So I'm not sure if it is the smart thing to do, but lately I've just been saying gently caress it with openings. Pretty much everything I do, I just ask myself what my opponent is trying to attack or defend with his move and then just think of an appropriate countermeasure. The funny thing about this approach is when I review my games after, I'm staying on book approaches longer than when I tried openings. Anyone else do this? Its how I first started with openings, focusing on opening principles. There is a very good, free, chessable course on this as well: https://www.chessable.com/smithys-opening-fundamentals/course/21302/ Even now that I am starting to build a basic opening repertoire, the lessons I am working from are for lower level players, and they work through the openings very much on this basis so its really clicking for me. Also at my level, honestly, having a large, solid repertoire is not necessary. For me though I needed help developing ideas for the first few moves and it has given me this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2023 15:51
|
|
|
Bilirubin posted:Its how I first started with openings, focusing on opening principles. There is a very good, free, chessable course on this as well: https://www.chessable.com/smithys-opening-fundamentals/course/21302/ Oh that looks like it kicks rear end. Can't wait to watch it
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2023 22:48
|
|
|
if you wanna feel good about yourself I found out chess.com will give you a brilliant for the centre-fork trick in the ruy lopez every single time
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2023 01:59
|
|
|
Arrhythmia posted:if you wanna feel good about yourself I found out chess.com will give you a brilliant for the centre-fork trick in the ruy lopez every single time as white with d4 or black with Qd4 ?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2023 08:21
|
|
|
Arrhythmia posted:if you wanna feel good about yourself I found out chess.com will give you a brilliant for the centre-fork trick in the ruy lopez every single time 
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2023 08:30
|
|
|
Arrhythmia posted:if you wanna feel good about yourself I found out chess.com will give you a brilliant for the centre-fork trick in the ruy lopez every single time it'll do it for the fried liver attack and the knight sacrifice in the damiano defence, too
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2023 08:30
|
|
|
Mikojan posted:as white with d4 or black with Qd4 ? White d4.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2023 12:45
|
|
|
Is there any place I can create custom drills? I want to practice Vienna opening variations. It would be nice to have a bunch of variations set up that play out randomly. The drill section on chesscom isn't quite what I want. I want a drill that plays out from move 1, then reacts with a programmed set of moves. Kind of like the drills on Chessly, but bunched up in a big pool that play out randomly. - edit: ah nvm, Chessly literally has this exact option. Is there a place I can create these pools myself though?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2023 13:02
|
|
|
Mikojan posted:Is there any place I can create custom drills? I want to practice Vienna opening variations. It would be nice to have a bunch of variations set up that play out randomly. The drill section on chesscom isn't quite what I want. I want a drill that plays out from move 1, then reacts with a programmed set of moves. Kind of like the drills on Chessly, but bunched up in a big pool that play out randomly. I think you can do something like this with Chessable?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2023 13:13
|
|
|
CubicalSucrose posted:I think you can do something like this with Chessable? I'll check it out. One step further though: could I get this somewhere for offline use?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2023 13:33
|
|
|
Chessable now has an offline mode, not sure if you have to be a pro subscriber or not though
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2023 14:48
|
|
|
Mikojan posted:Is there any place I can create custom drills? I want to practice Vienna opening variations. It would be nice to have a bunch of variations set up that play out randomly. The drill section on chesscom isn't quite what I want. I want a drill that plays out from move 1, then reacts with a programmed set of moves. Kind of like the drills on Chessly, but bunched up in a big pool that play out randomly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2023 15:03
|
|
|
https://listudy.org/en You make a lichess study with all the weird lines and this’ll cheasable style randomly throw them at you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2023 19:11
|
|
|
former glory posted:https://listudy.org/en this site is new to me, the blind tactic mode is kicking my rear end. thanks for the link
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 14:25
|
|
|
former glory posted:https://listudy.org/en this is a neat resource, thanks for sharing
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2023 10:08
|
|
|
jesus WEP posted:i found you also get one for literally first move out of book in the evans gambit, if your opponent takes a second pawn I don't know if this is actually true but I have heard it claimed that chess.com's "brilliant" scoring is weighted by your rating, so even if you're following a well known opening, it still really likes a good piece sac because I guess it assumed you didn't know that opening and discovered it independently, or at the very least it's just praising you for studying up. A funny one is that a lot of the traps in the Stafford Gambit will get a "brilliant" score from chess.com's analysis engine, but it really hates when you go into it in the first place and calls Nc6 an inaccuracy (to be fair it's pretty popular thanks to Eric Rosen so it's probably fair to call it a bad move when so many people know about it now).
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 19:13
|
|
|
Just hit 1500 blitz on lichess. Finally I'm above the median. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 21:19
|
|
|
And 1200 blitz on chess.com.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2023 19:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 23:36 |
|
|
gz! what rating were you around the time you started?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2023 20:37
|
|