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

81–90 of 342 posts

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

#81

Post by Pelic4n »

nurettin wrote: post #53
windowshopping wrote: post #28

I did something very similar with an old strategy game called Age of empires II. Over the course of two years I went from a 1300 rating to 1850. I don't play chess, so it's hard for me to compare the scales, but I will say the highest players were rated around 2600. I think being 1850 put me around 90-95th percentile for active players-- there were less than 50 players over 2300, and only a few hundred over 2000. My…

There is not even a modicum of similarity other than both of them being called games.

There is a staggering amount of similarity between the two, especially at the competitive level where chess moves needs to be played very fast.

The biggest differences I see is that AoE2 is not a perfect information game, and that it needs micromanagement.

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

#82

Post by mrslave »

fabian2k wrote: post #75
mrslave wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A quick second endorsement for this absolute gem of a website: lichess.org. I've gone from a player who can't beat the computer on level 1 (estimated ELO 800 LOL) to winning 50% of matches on level 3 (est. ELO 1400). Still pretty poor, but so is my study effort. And I'm OK with it. My colleague from another time zone struggled to recommend a book for my level and kinda laughed (albeit politely). But now we can play a…

I would strongly recommend to play against real humans, not the computer. The computer with a handicap just plays in very weird ways, and that is not really helpful for learning. I also played the computer at first, and level 3 is the first level where it actually puts up a fight. But it plays very weird combinations of strong moves and then completely blunders at times. The problem is that it blunders in a very non-…

Thank you. I do play against humans (I hope) but less than half the time.

I too have noticed the blunders. What is the first level where you estimate it plays consistently?

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

#83

Post by thom »

It feels like a golden age to be learning chess right now. There's just infinite good content on YouTube (St Louis Chess Club, Atlanta Chess Club, Chess24 etc) and various apps (lichess, Chessable, Chess Tempo etc). Plus you can get a decent sized database (e.g. http://caissabase.co.uk/) and cutting edge engine for your own study for absolutely free. Really hoping when the pandemic is over this leads to a boost for actual chess clubs and isn't just an online phenomenon.

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

#84

Post by rocqua »

JanecekPetr wrote: post #45

For complete cheers beginners who want to learn and understand the ideas of the game, I highly recommend buying an oldish engine, Chessmaster XI: Grandmaster Edition, as it contains a set of amazing, approachable tutorials by an IM Joshua Waitzkin. You might know him at the author of the Art of Learning book. Some will say that the program is old. It is. Who cares, the engine is strong enough for you, of that I'm sur…

I loved that series of tutorials!

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

#85

Post by yetkin »

1750 rating is quite achievable, if you put certain interest on chess, via classic books or analyzing important games. Achieving 2000 is something different as well as 2300 and 2500 I think ratings up to 1750 is about not making silly mistakes, understanding the basic concepts.

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

#86

Post by tutfbhuf »

hvdfhbj wrote: post #32
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 think you are massively underestimating the natural range of human intelligence. I don't think the average IQ 100 individual could ever reach an ELO of 2000 regardless of how much they practice, and half the population has IQs of less than 100.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23888814

> GM Hikaru Nakamura famously took the Mensa online IQ test and scored a very average 102

His elo peak rating is 2816. Just one example for an extraordinary strong player with average IQ (there are many other examples). I don't think that a high IQ is required to become a decent chess player (like 2000). It may help though.

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

#87

Post by barry-cotter »

will_pseudonym wrote: post #12
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.

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.

If you have heard of K. Anders Ericsson or deliberate practice you’ll know this has limits. The fastest way to get great at anything when you’re already good is not play. It’s deliberate practice. You work at the edge of your ability, doing something you are just barely capable of doing, trying to get to competent. Once you’re competent you move on to the next frustrating thing that you can’t quite do reliably. It’s closer to mentally exhausting than fun.

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

#88

Post by rocqua »

cyberferret wrote: post #37

I've set out on a similar journey in the past couple of years, but been very much doing it 'in the dark' by focusing on learning and watching a lot of tactical videos on Youtube (mainly agadmator's and GothamChess's channels) which have given me a new insight into various chess theories. I have a paid Chess.com account (same username as my HN handle), but still lack the confidence to really engage a human opponent 1…

In my go games, I have noticed a massive aversion to actually playing, because I hate my blunders too much. My advice would be, either accept that you will blunder and play anyway, or give up on playing. Blunders are part of playing, there is no avoiding them. Moreover, the more you try to avoid them, the more they hurt when they inevitably do happen.

The only viable way to play that I can think of is to embrace that blunders will happen. For me that seems to be too hard, so I don't play anymore.

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

#89

Post by fabian2k »

mrslave wrote: post #82
fabian2k wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would strongly recommend to play against real humans, not the computer. The computer with a handicap just plays in very weird ways, and that is not really helpful for learning. I also played the computer at first, and level 3 is the first level where it actually puts up a fight. But it plays very weird combinations of strong moves and then completely blunders at times. The problem is that it blunders in a very non-…

Thank you. I do play against humans (I hope) but less than half the time. I too have noticed the blunders. What is the first level where you estimate it plays consistently?

I never played it above level 3, and I would assume that any handicap will result in weird plays. And without handicap it is too strong for any human.

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

#90

Post by mpol »

paulpauper wrote: post #54
hvdfhbj wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think that almost everyone should be able to achieve a solid 2000 elo rating, with enough dedication over the years I think you are massively underestimating the natural range of human intelligence. I don't think the average IQ 100 individual could ever reach an ELO of 2000 regardless of how much they practice, and half the population has IQs of less than 100.

Garry Kasparov is smart but we're not talking Feynman levels of intelligence The correlation between chess ability and IQ is positive but not that high. not as high as it is with physics and math abiltiy.

Chess is mainly about memory and recognizing patterns and implementing those patterns at that exact moment at the chessboard.

So I would definitely think there is correlation between chess and memory. There was a really good documentary about memory called How Does Your Memory Work. Highly recommended, you get to see a glimpse of the workings of Susan Polgar's brain. I might also confuse it with My Brilliant Brain from National Geographic :)

I remember seeing a live post-mortem analysis by Anish Giri. It was just astonishing how fast he can see combinations, yet also how deep those combinations are. And then on top of that throw in a sentence like "Oh, it is not new, it was played in 2006 as well, in that game between him and him". So really, fast thinking, slow thinking, and picking deep into your memory, all at once, seemingly without any effort. That is 2760 ELO for you :)

Post reply on HN