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

161–170 of 342 posts

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

#161

Post by MaxBarraclough »

dreamer7 wrote: post #139
xuki wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who could never break 1750 on Zone, hat off to both of you. Even though I no longer play, I did follow the scene closely for a while until a few years ago. To my surprise DauT is still a top player, although one of his teammate is clearly the indisputable No. 1 by a distance compare to anyone else.

To me, DauT is the Mikhail Tal of AOE while Viper is Bobby Fischer. I've watched endless videos of DauT and Viper playing AoE. ZeroEmpires has done a lot to popularize AoE streaming. Here's his YouTube channel if anyone is interested - https://www.youtube.com/user/ZeroEmpires

Here's a long video of them facing off: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLNu7ELg4mk

(Their first round runs up to the 39:00 mark.)

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

#162

Post by caffeine »

hannofcart wrote: post #124
blub wrote: post #115

I would recommend chess for kids/teens, because it's an interesting way to teach certain self-control and tactical/strategy concepts which can be applied in real life. As an adult, chess is a time sink with very little upside if you want to be at least decent, especially at longer time controls. I've been playing chess for more than a couple of decades, but recently decided to stop partly because of the pandemic, but…

I advocate the same (teaching kids) Poker for the same reasons you mentioned (certain self-control and tactical/strategy concepts) but this is often greeted with controversy anytime I voice it. Learning to weigh the odds, exercising patience, taking calculated risks in the face of incomplete information, making allowance for the vagaries/emotions of your opponent all seem like great skills that would help one in life…

I am a grown up, but I'd love to hear your recommendations for how to learn poker for a beginner?

Say I can dedicate about 3 hrs / week to this, what is the most efficient way to spend that time?

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

#163

Post by gameswithgo »

tutfbhuf wrote: post #86
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.

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.

While I think people underestimate how much hard work can overcome low cognitive talent, such that probably a lot of people with average iq can hit a chess rating of 2,000 if that was their primary goal in life, I also think Hikaru's IQ probably isn't actually only 102. Online tests aren't so rigorous. Just from hearing him talk he seems to have the usual nuanced understanding of the universe on a variety of domains that would not be typical of an average iq. he also took the chest while streaming and talking to chat

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

#164

Post by dalbasal »

I think the meta that these experiences renforce is (the somewhat cliche) growth mentality.

Path A is different from B in term of ratings progress for any given number of hours played/practiced. Playing Blitz. Playing Classic. Having a coach. Self coaching. Analyzing games. Tactics. Openings... Some combination of these will build skill more effectively than other. You can intentionally select an effective path, if you want/choose to.

Being just a game/hobby for most people, it's perfectly rational to choose a slower rate of improvement. I play mostly bullet... no analysis/study/etc. It's fun, but not much progress. That's a choice, conscious or otherwise.

I think a lot of people, in retrospect, might characterize the intentionally progressive path as too demanding on time. This is often illusionary. The X curve is hours dedicated, whether that's 10 per year or 1000. Skill progression is not more demanding of time, but it can demand more "energy".

This is important because we do dedicate our time to something, inevitably. We spend a lot of time on "skilled" activities in the sense that it's possible to improve at them.. How many hours do you spend writing emails? Writing is skilled work. Programming, obviously. etc. We cook. We have hobbies. If you spend 30m per day with your kids on homework, that's teaching. Teaching is a skilled task. Gardening. Home improvement. It is possible to intentionally get better at these skills, if we choose to. We're already spending the time.

Even passive activities can be (arguably) skilled. "Film appreciation" is also kind of skilled. You can learn to appreciate the shots, composition. Each movie you watch can extend your understanding of filmography.

There's something kind of magical about and elo rating. It's a nice objective number that changes every time we play. Imagine having an elo rating for your cooking/writing/programming/etc.

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

#165

Post by kimjongtrill »

nurettin wrote: post #110
arcticfox wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might enjoy the games of Federico Perez Ponsa, chess Grandmaster. He plays Age of Empires II at a 2k+ level and is known as Fedex.

Thanks, that is interesting. I used to be 2000+ rated for AOE1 on zone.com and 1400+ chess on Yahoo! games back in late 90s, and to me it is a point of contention that I often bring up because chess is not motivated by capital greed whereas microsoft and their game studios are. And the dissimilarity between two games is pretty obvious to anyone who plays above 700 ranks.

What does this even mean?

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

#166

Post by XCSme »

sandworm101 wrote: post #149
XCSme wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this a real issue in online chess, cheaters get banned pretty fast, very easy to detect. There are cheaters as in any other game, but from my experience there are percentual a lot fewer cheaters in chess than in Counter Strike for example.

>> Such controversies have been replicated even in the lower-stakes world of junior play. Sarah Longson, a former British ladies’ champion who runs the Delancey UK Schools’ Chess Challenge, said at least 100 of 2,000 online participants cheated. I would say 5% is pretty bad. Assuming there is an advantage to cheating, the higher up the ranks you get the greater the likelihood that you will face an undetected cheat.

I think that the big difference between chess and other competitive video games is that in chess you have to do all the steps as the computer says, not just a few of them. In high-level chess one good move is not enough to win a game, you have to consistently find the best move. In a game like Counter-Strike or League of Legends it is pretty easy to just use the cheat a few rounds, or just parts of a round to gain an advantage and then maintain that advantage.

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

#167

Post by gameswithgo »

edanm wrote: post #120
mantap wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If anything, top level chess players are likely to have missed some non-chess education when they were young due to being a chess prodigy, which would contribute to a lower IQ in adulthood.

I'm pretty sure IQ tests aren't supposed to work that way. At least theoretically, they're measuring intelligence, not education.

that is the goal but at the extremes i imagine it fails. imagine you are a chess prodigy that was homeschooled and never had a sit down exam before. don’t know if hikaru fits the description.

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

#168

Post by OskarS »

hannofcart wrote: post #124
blub wrote: post #115

I would recommend chess for kids/teens, because it's an interesting way to teach certain self-control and tactical/strategy concepts which can be applied in real life. As an adult, chess is a time sink with very little upside if you want to be at least decent, especially at longer time controls. I've been playing chess for more than a couple of decades, but recently decided to stop partly because of the pandemic, but…

I advocate the same (teaching kids) Poker for the same reasons you mentioned (certain self-control and tactical/strategy concepts) but this is often greeted with controversy anytime I voice it. Learning to weigh the odds, exercising patience, taking calculated risks in the face of incomplete information, making allowance for the vagaries/emotions of your opponent all seem like great skills that would help one in life…

I agree that poker teaches many useful lessons about probability and weighing your decisions, but it's not just a moral panic to say that's it's maybe not the most appropriate game for kids. Poker is genuinely very harmful for a non-trivial number of it's players, and it can be a destructive force in a way that (say) chess is not. I've had more than one friend lose tremendous sums of money and had to go cold turkey on the game, lest it completely ruins their life.

Teach your kids Backgammon instead.

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

#169

Post by cglace »

dreamer7 wrote: post #141
hahamrfunnyguy wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel exactly the same way, chess and other complex strategy games are more work than they are fun for me. As someone spends a portion of the day thinking and solving problems as part of my job, I prefer to unwind with other hobbies.

I've found Blitz to be an effective way to unwind. It's sort of like playing GTA Vice City or Counter Strike and unleashing some mayhem on the board. There's not much time to think too long and get exhausted but enough time to feel deserving of the victory or defeat

If you just want to just have fun I find bullet to be the best.

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

#170

Post by bvcvbuiy »

llarsson wrote: post #159
bvcvbuiy wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can add 'a parent' to your list.

That is exactly why I would consider 2 hours daily to spend on mastering a game a luxury. Before kids? Sure. After the kids are old enough to basically be on cruise control? Likely. But now? Not even close.

To be fair, pre-lockdown I use to have an hour long commute and that would allow me to study Japanese close to two hours a day and still let me a lot of time to look after my baby once home.
Post reply on HN