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

On Learning Chess as an Adult – From 650 to 1750 in Two Years

jacobbrazeal.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 342 posts

Re: On Learning Chess as an Adult – From 650 to 1750 in Two Years

#11

Post by sgt »

turing_complete wrote: post #9
llarsson wrote: post #4

Cool that the author does this, and has found a method that works for them! However, to be able to spend 2 hours a day on this seems like an indescribable luxury to me. And the quote about netting about 1.5 ELO per day sounds like a linear growth is assumed, which I can assure will not be the case past the initial massive improvements one gets from "not knowing the rules" to "actually starting to get it". I love solv…

I would not be able, or rather willing, to spend two hours per day playing chess at this point. However, it is all about priorities. If playing chess and improving is valuable to you, everyone can make the time.

Would you be willing to spend 2 hrs per day on any type of game?

Re: On Learning Chess as an Adult – From 650 to 1750 in Two Years

#12

Post by will_pseudonym »

turing_complete wrote: post #9
llarsson wrote: post #4

Cool that the author does this, and has found a method that works for them! However, to be able to spend 2 hours a day on this seems like an indescribable luxury to me. And the quote about netting about 1.5 ELO per day sounds like a linear growth is assumed, which I can assure will not be the case past the initial massive improvements one gets from "not knowing the rules" to "actually starting to get it". I love solv…

I would not be able, or rather willing, to spend two hours per day playing chess at this point. However, it is all about priorities. If playing chess and improving is valuable to you, everyone can make the time.

And since it is a game, someone can also just have fun playing it, too, and meet people along the way too as an added bonus.

Re: On Learning Chess as an Adult – From 650 to 1750 in Two Years

#13

Post by bArray »

I have been thinking about chess for a while now as an indicator of cognitive health. Not that a single number can define how smart a person is relative to another, but instead how my own cognitive ability is doing.

I had been using the game of 2048, but given the random element and how easy the game is, it's just not a great measure anymore. I have recently started a different diet and I want some measurable way of knowing how well my own brain is affected by it.

The only real problem with chess as a measurement is that if you do the online games for example you get cheaters, etc. Does this detriment your ranking or do people generally find this not to be a problem?

Re: On Learning Chess as an Adult – From 650 to 1750 in Two Years

#14

Post by nl »

tutfbhuf wrote: post #5

Congratulations that's a great achievement. I think that almost everyone should be able to achieve a solid 2000 elo rating, with enough dedication over the years. Doing tactics puzzles is one of the most important factors for fast improvements. > Some day, I want to become a titled player. A candidate master needs an ELO of 2200 2000 and 2200 are completely different skill levels. I have some friends who play chess f…

> I think that almost everyone should be able to achieve a solid 2000 elo rating, with enough dedication over the years

I went to check rating to prove how unlikely this is. Sure enough, that would put you just outside the top 100 players in Australia.

But then I noticed the guy who played one board above me at school when we played is rated above 2000, and he wasn't really much better than me.

So yeah maybe it is possible!

Re: On Learning Chess as an Adult – From 650 to 1750 in Two Years

#16

Post by will_pseudonym »

bArray wrote: post #13

I have been thinking about chess for a while now as an indicator of cognitive health. Not that a single number can define how smart a person is relative to another, but instead how my own cognitive ability is doing. I had been using the game of 2048, but given the random element and how easy the game is, it's just not a great measure anymore. I have recently started a different diet and I want some measurable way of…

You can also gauge how well you solve chess puzzles. A great place for this is Lichess[0], where you are presented with situations from real games played on the platform, and you are trying to find the best series of moves for one side, playing against the computer. Those puzzles have difficulty ratings based on the ratings of players who have been able to solve them or not, and your rating goes up or down depending on if you solve it successfully. It's also great because there's no time commitment or pressure with the puzzles. You can jump in or out at any time.

[0] https://lichess.org/training/

Re: On Learning Chess as an Adult – From 650 to 1750 in Two Years

#17

Post by voxl »

will_pseudonym wrote: post #6

I've been watching a lot of GM Daniel Naroditsky's "Speedrun" series, where he plays games and teaches you why he's making the moves he's making vs alternatives, starting at a very low rating, to get back to a 3000 rating. He's a great teacher, and I've gotten a lot out of watching that series. He streams them live, and then edited videos of the games on stream are uploaded on his YouTube channel. Here's the YT playl…

Why is there a random Jordan Peterson video in that playlist?

Re: On Learning Chess as an Adult – From 650 to 1750 in Two Years

#18

Post by ivnubinas »

bArray wrote: post #13

I have been thinking about chess for a while now as an indicator of cognitive health. Not that a single number can define how smart a person is relative to another, but instead how my own cognitive ability is doing. I had been using the game of 2048, but given the random element and how easy the game is, it's just not a great measure anymore. I have recently started a different diet and I want some measurable way of…

There's cheaters but the number is so low that it doesn't really make that much of a difference. Also, if they get caught you get your points back.

Re: On Learning Chess as an Adult – From 650 to 1750 in Two Years

#19

Post by will_pseudonym »

voxl wrote: post #17
will_pseudonym wrote: post #6

I've been watching a lot of GM Daniel Naroditsky's "Speedrun" series, where he plays games and teaches you why he's making the moves he's making vs alternatives, starting at a very low rating, to get back to a 3000 rating. He's a great teacher, and I've gotten a lot out of watching that series. He streams them live, and then edited videos of the games on stream are uploaded on his YouTube channel. Here's the YT playl…

Why is there a random Jordan Peterson video in that playlist?

No idea. Daniel's channel is solely devoted to chess. My best guess is his editor made a mistake in making the playlist, maybe thinking he was logged into his own personal account? I didn't realize it was there in the playlist, as I just watch the new videos when they get posted.

Re: On Learning Chess as an Adult – From 650 to 1750 in Two Years

#20

Post by watwut »

sgt wrote: post #11
turing_complete wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would not be able, or rather willing, to spend two hours per day playing chess at this point. However, it is all about priorities. If playing chess and improving is valuable to you, everyone can make the time.

Would you be willing to spend 2 hrs per day on any type of game?

Another person, but no.
Post reply on HN