171–180 of 342 posts
Lately I have been enjoying chess with my SO, if you put aside stupid rivalries, it is another great way to bound over something simple.
I'm not good at chess by any standard, but I enjoyed playing for a while in my youth. My ex got interested, and I tried to teach her... She was so completely convinced that she was smarter than me that she swiped all the pieces clear across the room on her second mate and never wanted to play again.
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…
Hey, That's my project (caissabase). Small world, thanks for mentioning it :).
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 understood the game for the most part, but my execution was never good enough. Too much semi precise timings required and I could never get my APM high enough.
Highly, highly recommend "The Queen's Gambit" on Netflix. Like wow.
It's not very realistic when it comes to the chess, except the actual games. I also found it frustrating that they obviously were inspired by Bobby Fischer whose real life would have made a great story, but decided he wasn't hollywood friendly.
Also, using a woman character was a good idea in my opinion, since chess is such a man world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Eventually I decided that I no longer wished to prioritize the game over other things This is what I unfortunately found as well. I reached Legend in Hearthstone (The top rank, no clue what percentile it was) a while back and top 3-5% in StarCraft II a couple of years ago. In both games I stopped playing shortly after reaching that level because the time investment just didn't seem worth it to me. I love games, but…
It's the nature of competition and it's the same with physical sports. Lots of effort to gain minor benefits over the others. Browser games tend to respect your time more by making you login every day but limit how much you can do. You won't see players who play the game 24/7 because the game tells you to stop after you ran out of action points or scheduled your base, etc.
Most professional soccer players spend about 1-2 hours per day on training. Off-season they will spend slightly more but that's only for about 3-4 weeks.
Doing anything more leads to injuries.
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…
Thought I recognized that name. He's the kid on which Searching for Bobby Fischer is based.
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.
2) intelligence does have some elasticity. When you think of intelligence has a culmination of pathways/heuristics/low-level-techniques, it’s easy to see how many pathways are self-reinforcing and not easily taught or measured. You can be predisposed to a particular kind of intelligence, and not everything is attainable by everyone, but what we call intelligence is close to what we call talent: seems like an innate quality, but actually reflects long-term hard practice with countless hours dedicated.
A long while back, I dedicated my time to Tetris (on Gameboy). I surely spent less time on that than would have been necessary for chess, but it is amazing to see what progress is possible. I could play level 9[heart] without an end (in infinite play mode) or up to high 3 (6 rows of waste on bottom). When moving a brick to the left or right edge, the gameboy would make a long beep instead of individual blips. No idea…
I am however missing that you can't start from higher levels than 9 (thus forcing you to replay boring bits) and it is missing the modern Tetris features like holding and hard-drops. Somewhat surprising nobody implemented modern Tetris for the classic GB yet.
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.