Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Learning Chess at 40

nautil.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 104 posts

Re: Learning Chess at 40

#91

Post by pcmaffey »

V-2 wrote: post #73
pcmaffey wrote: post #41

I highly recommend speed chess (5 mins), as it allows for many more repetitions. You'll learn faster what works / doesn't. Intersperse every once in a while with a slow game to rethink your fundamentals and strategy. Also, speed chess is much more forgiving. 1 mistake is not the end of the game, as time is the great equalizer. Whereas in slow chess, going down a pawn unintentionally is often a loss.

While great fun, I don't think playing blitz is beneficial in the long run. It encourages plenty of bad habits: guessing (instead of calculating), "gambling" (making bold but refutable moves in hope that opponent misses the correct answer), over-relying on simple tricks like common opening traps which wouldn't work and would get you into an inferior position in a serious game, etc. etc. Good blitz players are good ch…

These are exactly the things that make it more "real" of a game, to me. It encourages guessing, yes, but it also encourages snap-shot pattern recognition, quick decision making, bluffing, calmness under pressure, and as you say, is great fun when the heart gets pumping in a close game as time runs out... In other words, it's less theoretical, and more like life.

>Good blitz players are good chess players who happen to put their skills to a use by playing blitz, but they haven't developed these skills just by playing blitz

I'm a class A player, and I've probably played < 20 slow chess games over the past 15 years.

Re: Learning Chess at 40

#92

Post by atoponce »

Scarblac wrote: post #90
atoponce wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes that's true. GMs are GMs, because they have full and complete mastery of the game- opening, middle, and ending. But that mastery is disproportionate, which is what I was trying to say (and didn't do that great of a job). You might be able to play a mad middle and end game, but if you didn't open strongly, your game could already be decided. To pinpoint my gripe with chess, a single tactical error in your opening…

An error anywhere during the game can be unrecoverable, that's why it's an error. The opening isn't special, in fact I'm sure an error in the ending is more likely to lead to a loss. Chess strength _doesn't_ depend strongly on memorization. GMs are often content to take an equal position against IMs and then just outplay them in the rest of the game. At top top level, they do spend a huge amount of time on opening re…

> An error anywhere during the game can be unrecoverable, that's why it's an error. The opening isn't special, in fact I'm sure an error in the ending is more likely to lead to a loss.

Agreed, but a tactical error in the opening is replicated and multiplied throughout the game. if I'm going to criticize it as an abstract strategy game, it's too sensitive in that regard. Yes, an error is an error, that's why they're called as such. In chess, opening errors have much more drastic consequences, depending on the error, than say Go, where you have more opportunity to recover from the error. An opening tactical error can spell doom for your middle game and end game (as analyzed by chess commentators, instructors, books, videos, etc.).

Outside of amateur casual play, you must play a stronger opening game than your opponent, if you want any hopes of winning. Even if your mid and end games are stronger, if you make a tactical opening error, you may never get the opportunity to play that genius finale, because you'll never get the opportunity to recover. Openings have to be damn-near perfect when playing seriously. That's what bothers me.

Re: Learning Chess at 40

#93

Post by Scarblac »

atoponce wrote: post #92
Scarblac wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An error anywhere during the game can be unrecoverable, that's why it's an error. The opening isn't special, in fact I'm sure an error in the ending is more likely to lead to a loss. Chess strength _doesn't_ depend strongly on memorization. GMs are often content to take an equal position against IMs and then just outplay them in the rest of the game. At top top level, they do spend a huge amount of time on opening re…

> An error anywhere during the game can be unrecoverable, that's why it's an error. The opening isn't special, in fact I'm sure an error in the ending is more likely to lead to a loss. Agreed, but a tactical error in the opening is replicated and multiplied throughout the game. if I'm going to criticize it as an abstract strategy game, it's too sensitive in that regard. Yes, an error is an error, that's why they're c…

It's just not true. Even at top level, many games are won from an equal or slightly worse position after the opening, heck Carlsen is famous for it and he's #1 by a huge margin. Saying that you must have a stronger opening than your opponent to win is not true at any level.

Re: Learning Chess at 40

#94

Post by OpenDrapery »

lordnacho wrote: post #12
danielvf wrote: post #2

I'm learning the game of Go at near fourty. But I'm not having any of the problems he describes. A great thing about learning and playing online is that you can find an opponent at your same skill level within minutes. Unlike learning in a local club, where every person you will ever play beats you every time, I win slightly more than half my games. I also get this nice increasing graph of my skill level. This is a l…

I wish physical sports were like this. Anything online is blessed with this mechanic where you can keep it challenging for everyone other than the people at the top or bottom (based on my experience in CoD where I'm pretty sure I'm bottom). With sports like soccer it's quite noticeable that some people are way better than everyone else, or way worse. And there's no way to improve since you can't just rearrange thousa…

I've seen the opposite effect. Parents with too much money placing their mediocre kids on mediocre traveling teams, to drive 800 miles to play other teams, when you know there is local talent that would give them all they could handle.

Re: Learning Chess at 40

#95

Post by atoponce »

Scarblac wrote: post #93
atoponce wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> An error anywhere during the game can be unrecoverable, that's why it's an error. The opening isn't special, in fact I'm sure an error in the ending is more likely to lead to a loss. Agreed, but a tactical error in the opening is replicated and multiplied throughout the game. if I'm going to criticize it as an abstract strategy game, it's too sensitive in that regard. Yes, an error is an error, that's why they're c…

It's just not true. Even at top level, many games are won from an equal or slightly worse position after the opening, heck Carlsen is famous for it and he's #1 by a huge margin. Saying that you must have a stronger opening than your opponent to win is not true at any level.

That's because the opening is 17 moves deep when the error is made. You're entering mid game at that point. Ruy Lopez, Queen's Gambit, Sicilian, Dutch, and King's Indian defenses, Stonewall, others, are generally preferred, because of their strengths. But if you're not familiar with them 17 moves deep, and several of their variations, you're screwed. There's a reason why you have "Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings"- it's the disproportionate strength of chess.

Re: Learning Chess at 40

#96

Post by aptsec11235 »

dfc wrote: post #65
jlg23 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A great, free site: http://lichess.org/

Its really a toss up between lichess and fics. I wish lichess did not let people chose color for rated games. I also miss xboard...

esc really needs your look. Stephanie flew to close to the sun and lost her king signal. the whole llama farm in at risk. and my radio sig isn;t responding. my puter is going after the everyone valuable to me. Especially the llamas, the farmers, the dogs goats chicken and CATS. The ducks are just sitting in the line of fire. esc

Re: Learning Chess at 40

#97

Post by komaromy »

atoponce wrote: post #95
Scarblac wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just not true. Even at top level, many games are won from an equal or slightly worse position after the opening, heck Carlsen is famous for it and he's #1 by a huge margin. Saying that you must have a stronger opening than your opponent to win is not true at any level.

That's because the opening is 17 moves deep when the error is made. You're entering mid game at that point. Ruy Lopez, Queen's Gambit, Sicilian, Dutch, and King's Indian defenses, Stonewall, others, are generally preferred, because of their strengths. But if you're not familiar with them 17 moves deep, and several of their variations, you're screwed. There's a reason why you have "Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings"- it…

You only get into those situations if you choose to follow theory, which is not necessary. There are myriad sidelines that are adequate outside of the very top level and will give you a playable middlegame with little to no theoretical knowledge.

For example: as White, you can play 1. g3, 1. b3 or a reversed Queen's Indian and get by with zero concrete knowledge. As Black it's a little more involved but 1... d6 and 2... e5 takes about thirty minutes of research and you can play anyone under 2400.

Re: Learning Chess at 40

#98

Post by jnbiche »

markism wrote: post #68
jnbiche wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At around 40, I'm now learning things like math quicker, but then I forget them a year later, whereas the things I learned in college I still remember now. Is this normal, I wonder? You might say, well, if you're forgetting them a year later then you didn't really learn them, but I disagree. I feel more complete mastery of a subject matter more now than I did in my teens. No, I forget things I learn much more quickly…

This might be as simple as the fact that you're spacing your learning out less. In college you learned things over a span of 15 weeks, giving you many opportunities for spaced repetition, which is one of the most effective methods to make material stick. Now I'm assuming you learn material in much less time than a semester, so there's less repetition and therefore less long term retention. https://en.wikipedia.org/wi…

Thanks for this suggestion -- this may well be the cause. Perhaps I'll start trying spaced repetition learning.

Re: Learning Chess at 40

#99

Post by Scarblac »

atoponce wrote: post #95
Scarblac wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just not true. Even at top level, many games are won from an equal or slightly worse position after the opening, heck Carlsen is famous for it and he's #1 by a huge margin. Saying that you must have a stronger opening than your opponent to win is not true at any level.

That's because the opening is 17 moves deep when the error is made. You're entering mid game at that point. Ruy Lopez, Queen's Gambit, Sicilian, Dutch, and King's Indian defenses, Stonewall, others, are generally preferred, because of their strengths. But if you're not familiar with them 17 moves deep, and several of their variations, you're screwed. There's a reason why you have "Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings"- it…

It's really not necessary, especially with white. Before that move 17 you can deviate at virtually any point and end up with an even game. As black it is harder to be really equal without knowing theory against an opponent who does, but black has a huge information advantage (you only play 1 obscure defence to 1.e4, white has to know them all).

What distorts your view is that many chess players _like_ to study theory. The Sicilian with its famous counter attacking situations! The King's Indian with its famous attacks on opposite flanks and a closed center! I have seen many GM games like that and I want to play like that too.

When both players are like that, they play into really sharp and hard to understand lines, where it really matters if you know the theory one move deeper. There it does, because such positions are often extremely sharp, and as you _can_ prepare them often, that is worthwhile.

But in the other games where you meet an opponent who plays something quiet that you've never seen before on move 3, it's all useless. And such moves are a perfectly legitimate and strong choice.

Anyway, go to any chess club, and ask around which players have memorized the most opening theory. It'll be the 1700 guys, not the masters. Memorizing theory doesn't actually make you stronger.

Post reply on HN