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

91–100 of 342 posts

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

#91

Post by ZephyrBlu »

globular-toast wrote: post #62
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.

Once again HN readers revealing how sheltered they are in their little bubbles. If you pay attention to it you'll see how far removed from reality a lot of the readers here are. It's quite worrying really.

Can you elaborate instead of just dropping a sharp comment?

I'm curious about what you mean.

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

#92

Post by bvcvbuiy »

cupofcoffee wrote: post #70
globular-toast wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However, to be able to spend 2 hours a day on this seems like an indescribable luxury to me. Is this how far we've regressed? I'm sure most humans through history have had more free time than you.

Reminds me of Nietzche: "Whoever does not have two-thirds of his day for himself, is a slave, whatever he may be: a statesman, a businessman, an official, or a scholar.”.

You can add 'a parent' to your list.

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

#93

Post by Trufa »

prune2000 wrote: post #10

You should use lichess.org instead. You would have unlimited tactics per day which come from real games played on the website, endless number of studies made by other players on opening theories, free analysis of your games, and all these statistics about your progress and more! Like "do I win more often or not when Queens are traded?". Good luck!

I’m a huge fan of lichess for playing and analysis but I think for tactics, it’s the one place it’s lacking, it’s always too easy for me for some reason and I go to chesstempo instead. Does anyone else experience this? By the way, when I say easy it’s for me that I’m an average player.

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

#94

Post by philjr »

ritchiea wrote: post #56
em500 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Why? Even full-employed Americans spend 4 hours per day on average on leisure and sport. ( https://www.bls.gov/charts/american-time-use/activity-by-emp... )

Studying chess isn't leisure in the same way that watching TV or reading a book or playing a sport are leisure. If you are studying chess with the intention of actually improving your game it requires a lot of mental energy. For a lot of people, it not most people, it would be closer to more work than leisure time. I also play chess but I don't think of chess as time to unwind. It's definitely fun, but requires a lot…

Anything you put "work" in to (like serious hobbies, sports etc.) can still be considered a hobby / leisure. Lots of competitive low end golfers, tennis players, basketball players etc.

I've found it one of the best outlets from work quite frankly, to have another committed side interest that requires dedication and commitment. You should try it :-)

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

#95

Post by Fumtumi »

matsemann wrote: post #63
Fumtumi wrote: post #39

I thought about learning chess and what it actually involes when i watched the new netflix show. i came to the relisation that it actually involes becoming good in a very very big search space by having a lot of experience and being fast in calculating and remembering chess moves. Especially when i see how many people read up on grand masters, i came up with the theory: The normal person is running behind or trying t…

> The normal person is running behind or trying to 'just' learn the fast pre found and pre tested moves from a handfull of people who actually played/thought those moves through. Quite the opposite, amateur players play a few moves from a standard opening, and then deviate hugely from the book variations and go into uncharted territory really fast. And while pro's certainly spend an insane amount of time memorizing o…

Are they able to reproduce it and rememeber those experiences?

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

#96

Post by tabs_masterrace »

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…

Yeah, I think chess can give you cold hard feedback on how well your mind is working on a given day. As the author already mentioned, performance can vary a lot. When you're doing poorly, you often don't feel very different, but then you sit down to play chess and realize you're basically sleep walking. What you're looking for is a fully awake, high alert, high awareness state of mind. Factors like diet and regular exercise can make a huge difference in my experience.

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

#97

Post by jaggederest »

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…

If you're ever stuck on Rails stuff or want suggestions about where to go next, feel free to ping me, email in my profile. I've enjoyed tutoring/mentoring a lot over the last few years, would be a privilege to do more. That goes for any anonymous readers, as well. Anything from a one liner email all the way up to screensharing, helping people to learn is a gift.

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

#98

Post by castaweh »

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…

I can relate to this. I was briefly around 1800 in HD and DE, but found that if I didn't play for a while that I'd come back and find myself outclassed. I uninstalled and reinstalled the game about five times over a couple of years because I found myself putting too much time into it to try to maintain a competitive skill level.

I actually tried to get into chess after quitting AoE2, to fill that strategic urge, but found the same thing - if I wasn't dedicating time and thought to it regularly I couldn't retain the advances I'd made in skill without going through a "warm up" period all over again (usually of losses).

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

#99

Post by magicalhippo »

philjr wrote: post #94
ritchiea wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Studying chess isn't leisure in the same way that watching TV or reading a book or playing a sport are leisure. If you are studying chess with the intention of actually improving your game it requires a lot of mental energy. For a lot of people, it not most people, it would be closer to more work than leisure time. I also play chess but I don't think of chess as time to unwind. It's definitely fun, but requires a lot…

Anything you put "work" in to (like serious hobbies, sports etc.) can still be considered a hobby / leisure. Lots of competitive low end golfers, tennis players, basketball players etc. I've found it one of the best outlets from work quite frankly, to have another committed side interest that requires dedication and commitment. You should try it :-)

When I studied I worked at a grocery store part time, and found it a very good fit as it was mostly mechanical work requiring very little mental capacity.

After I graduated and got a programming job, I found that my hobbies took a big hit, as they all mostly required similar mental focus as work. So these days I generally do a lot less mentally taxing things. Sure I'll have bursts of creativity, but most days my brain is spent when I'm done at work and I'll go for a bike ride or watch a movie.

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

#100

Post by watwut »

philjr wrote: post #94
ritchiea wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Studying chess isn't leisure in the same way that watching TV or reading a book or playing a sport are leisure. If you are studying chess with the intention of actually improving your game it requires a lot of mental energy. For a lot of people, it not most people, it would be closer to more work than leisure time. I also play chess but I don't think of chess as time to unwind. It's definitely fun, but requires a lot…

Anything you put "work" in to (like serious hobbies, sports etc.) can still be considered a hobby / leisure. Lots of competitive low end golfers, tennis players, basketball players etc. I've found it one of the best outlets from work quite frankly, to have another committed side interest that requires dedication and commitment. You should try it :-)

My experience with such outlets is that I then put less effort into work and people around. And my observation of people who have super intellectually involved hobbies is that they do too. I can use prime mental effort for work and thinking about world around me. Or into difficult hobby (chess, electronics was for me a little). But if I do spend time with difficult hobby I am tired for work which requires focus. If I fully focus on work so I do my maximum, then I am too tired for chess. If I was not, I could be coding faster.

So for me, intellectual hobbies correlate with when project in work are boring or unmotivating (there are such periods).

Post reply on HN