Live data from Hacker News

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

jacobbrazeal.wordpress.com

191–200 of 342 posts

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

#191
post #35

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…

That's amazing. I love that game dearly and have been playing on/off for more than 15 years, so I get routinely obsessed with it, play a lot a few weeks, get good against the AI (usually using cheese like huskarl spam or massed mangudai), then get my ass handed to me online & ends up quitting. Then I don't play for a year or so. At which point were you able to reliably not fail the boar lure ?

If you’re dying to the boars you should just be playing the first 9 min of the game on repeat against the AI. If you can’t master that after 15-30 games, then RTS are not for you :)

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

#192

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…

Do you prefer his youtube channel or his twitch stream?

I am on YouTube a lot more than Twitch, but if he's streaming live on Twitch, I'll watch him. I have just been watching all of his back catalog of YouTube videos.

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

#193
I've mentioned this before in other discussions about chess. I was a little over 2000 USCF when I went to college before I decided that girls were more important than getting to 2200, lol.

Anyways, if you're a newer player and want to improve your game fast, this is what I would focus on.

1. Tactics. The vast majority of games between newer players are decided by tactics...someone hanging a piece, falling into a trap, etc. Practice tactics by doing puzzles, reviewing games of strong players with tactical themes. Lichess and Chess.com both have decent collections of tactics puzzles.

2. Don't try to learn a ton of openings. Pick one or two openings for white and black, and focus on them. Don't try to memorize lines, but rather become more familiar with the structures that result out of the openings, what typical objectives for white and black are, etc.

3. Familiarize yourself with endgame play. This is less important than #1 as a newer player, because all the endgame knowledge in the world means nothing if you hang a rook in the first 15 moves. But, it IS still important though, because you will get into endgames with a small advantage (or disadvantage) so you need to be familiar with how to convert that into a win (or hold your position). Rook endgames are especially important since they are generally the most common type of endgame. Lev Alburt has a good book called "Just the Facts" which covers endgame play. There are also puzzles and excercises on lichess and chess.com

4. Probably the fastest way to improve is to actually play games against stronger players than you and have them analyzed or annotated. You can either do this with a computer program, or a stronger human player if youre fortunate enough to know a strong player or have a coach. Lichess and Chess.com both have tools which will analyze your game and point out mistakes, missed opportunities etc. These are very helpful, they will instantly point out key moments in the game so you can see where you (or your opponent) went wrong.

Improvement in chess is really a volume game. The strongest players have played thousands of games and have a good sense and understanding of different positions because they have seen so many of them. They're able to quickly recognize patterns in these positions and devise a plan based on strengths/weaknesses. The best way to sort of develop this sixth sense is to put in the volume and play!

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

#194
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 e…

Absolutely. It is always a really indicator of if I'm tired or not if I start to fail a lot of chess puzzles where I should have seen something, but just didn't notice it because I was tired. As someone who tends to stay up late, it's been nice, because I have an objective measure of my cognitive decline from being tired that I wouldn't have seen otherwise, and it's made me want to go to bed so that I'm not tanking my puzzle rating on Lichess, haha. :)

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

#195
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's something to be argued that reaching a high level in any competitive game or sport has merit. I've learned more valuable lessons from competing in Starcraft than I can count. Without knowing the exact opportunity cost, I think trading my highschool grades for the competitive experience was worth it. The biggest mistake I think I made was not cutting games out completely after having learned those less…

I definitely agree and also feel like I've learned valuable lessons from SC2. It sucks to give a game up though :/.

I wouldn't frame it as 'giving up' when you stop playing, rather you achieved what you set out to do.

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

#196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think the similarity being raised isn't really in the game or mechanics of the game, but the mechanics of being top tier. Aside from some very surface level similarities, you're right that RTS and Chess have pretty low overlap. But I think that the grind required to be top-tier in both is similar. They require you to play A LOT, and to do one of the hardest things a human can do, which is to try to be as objective…

Exactly.

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

#197
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…

Can anyone recommend any books or resources on teaching chess to kids?

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

#198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

I was just watching Fedex play last night in a game on twitch! I never knew this.

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

#199
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 came to the comments wondering about this. I have always wanted to learn chess, beyond the basic rules, but never dedicated to it. I think I had some version of Chessmaster, but didn't really do much with it. I just don't know if it makes sense to really spend time on. I have, spent so much time on video games such as Starcraft 2, and other RTS games even. They sucked me in way more than chess. But, with a new daug…

I think learning basic chess is a good idea. It teaches a valuable idea very cleanly: The duality of offense and defense. This is a very valuable idea and not just applicable in violent war, but can also be applied to business and some competitive social relationships, including things like organized sports. I see a lot of people who lack this basic concept trying to operate in environments where it is crucial to understanding what is going on around you.

In my opinion, going deep into it like this into chess specifically has rapidly diminishing returns once you understand that concept.

However, there is also arguably some value in just putting in the effort to learn anything to that skill level, and childhood/teenage years are a good time to do it because you have the time (witness those in this very conversation talking about trying to combine it with the university time of their life... many people have learned how bad an idea that is the hard way....); chess is merely one of a panoply of possible options. It's probably not my personal first choice, I'd tend to suggest musical instrument mastery or language mastery or something else a bit more generally applicable, but if it floats you or your child's boat, that's fine. It's a lot easier if you have some buy-in.

I would just make sure to include an out; it's really easy for parents to encourage something and neglect to inform their child that it is a valid option to put a reasonable amount of effort into something and then move on when they're ready. My parents, 100% accidentally, did this to me with community youth baseball. In hindsight, they basically did nothing wrong, they were trying to be encouraging and supportive and everything else, and it just never crossed my mind to say that I didn't really want to do it, and I mean no criticism of them. But it was a blinding revelation one day when I realized that I could just not do that anymore.

Post reply on HN