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

331–340 of 342 posts

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

#331

Post by cambalache »

thelean12 wrote: post #288
cambalache wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you seen the top 100 chessplayer list? Now, 10 years ago?, 50 years ago? Have you see the women top 100 list? The few American women there are Asian-Americans or FSU. Only in Hollywood a cute WASPY girl is the GOAT of chess, and yes I know this is based on a 1980s novel.That does not make it realistic. It's like making a movie where the best 100m sprinter in the world is a Guatemalan woman. Nice story, 0 credibi…

And a bunch of oil drillers wouldn't be the best people to send to an astroid headed for earth. Since when does Hollywood have to be realistic to be entertaining or good? In fact, making it unrealistic often makes it more entertaining.

You are adding nothing to the conversation, I already said that. It's curious though that most of the unrealistic scenarios are the ones who portray the Americans are great and never the other way around. Ideology masquerading as entertainment.

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

#332

Post by friendlybus »

fakedang wrote: post #80
ZephyrBlu wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I play Starcraft for the story only, and I loved it. Still play the campaign from time to time. I feel like a savage amongst civilized men on this thread.

The majority of players come for the campaign and the space fantasy narrative.

The competitive scene has been stable and has kept sc going forever.

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

#333

Post by na85 »

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.

IQ tests just measure your ability to complete IQ tests.

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

#334

Post by thelean12 »

cambalache wrote: post #331
thelean12 wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And a bunch of oil drillers wouldn't be the best people to send to an astroid headed for earth. Since when does Hollywood have to be realistic to be entertaining or good? In fact, making it unrealistic often makes it more entertaining.

You are adding nothing to the conversation, I already said that. It's curious though that most of the unrealistic scenarios are the ones who portray the Americans are great and never the other way around. Ideology masquerading as entertainment.

> It's curious though that most of the unrealistic scenarios are the ones who portray the Americans are great and never the other way around. Ideology masquerading as entertainment.

Sorry I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

Are you saying that Americans should lose more in film directed at Americans? It's not that it doesn't happen. It's just that it's hard to do. An example that immediately came to mind is the ironically named (for this conversation) show, "The Americans", where the Russians definitely win more than they lose. From Wikipedia:

"The series's final season earned Rhys the Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actor in a Drama Series, while Weisberg and co-lead writer Joel Fields won Outstanding Writing for a Drama Series; it was also awarded the Golden Globe Award for Best Television Series – Drama. Additionally, Margo Martindale won the Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Guest Actress in a Drama Series twice for her performance in the third and fourth seasons. It also became one of the rare drama shows to receive two Peabody Awards during its run."

It's easily my favorite show.

Looping back to Queens Gambit, I think the basic idea is that it's juuuust unrealistic enough without being too unreasonable to take you out of it. It's not unrealistic that Americans can be the best at chess. Hell, an American faced Magnus last world championship for the title and is still world #2. It's also not unrealistic that a Woman could get there as well. Hou Yifan is 84th right now.

But the combination is just unrealistic enough without taking you out of it, which makes it very entertaining.

A documentary about an orphan Russian or Chinese guy who ascends to the top? Might be more realistic, but not a good enough story for a Netflix #1 level of entertainment to a US audience.

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

#335

Post by kwoff »

nebulous1 wrote: post #183
Trufa wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The puzzles on chesstempo are much better but the interface is much worse, particularly on mobile. Honestly the puzzles on chess.com are better than lichess. The lichess ones just seem to have limited scope, I'm not sure why. That said the interface is good and if you're finding them too easy then your puzzle rating should be rising to the point where it's offering you puzzles you'll find more challenging.

I feel like most of the chess.com puzzles have a point: fork the rook and king with the knight, or exploit a pin. That makes them easier (or maybe my level isn't high enough there, yet). The lichess.org ones I often have no idea what to even try, and when I'm given the solution I still don't know why it's the best move (though looking at the "Spectator room" of the game can help). Sometimes the better move is only marginally better; like the computer assesses black as -3.4 instead of -3.6.

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

#336

Post by akoshodi »

tikej wrote: post #105
sedivy94 wrote: post #31

Highly, highly recommend "The Queen's Gambit" on Netflix. Like wow.

It is a cool series but nowhere near real description of chess. Of course it’s ok, but it’s worth to remember, that in order to get to the international level you need excellent coaches and years of brutal many hour practice. Talent is somewhat important but nowhere as important as training. To have more objective outlook at “chess prodigy” story it’s interesting to look story of Joshua Waitzkin. He is a great and ta…

The NatGeo documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wzs33wvr9E , "My brilliant Brain" featuring Susan Polgar touches on some points you have made. Most people will not be able to pay the necessary price to be an elite player. I found some similarities between Susan Polgar and the fictional character in Queen's Gambit.

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

#337

Post by akoshodi »

developer2 wrote: post #271
sedivy94 wrote: post #31

Highly, highly recommend "The Queen's Gambit" on Netflix. Like wow.

Just watched it over the past week. I enjoyed it immensely. I don't care whether its depiction of chess is realistic. The lead actress is superb in her role. Its depiction of addiction and depression was spot-on with my experience; many of the scenes gave me chills, particularly when the adoptive mother is involved (whether directly or indirectly). Highly recommended: "The Queen's Gambit", 7-episode miniseries on Net…

You will also find the NatGeo documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wzs33wvr9E , "My brilliant Brain" featuring Susan Polgar interesting.

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

#338

Post by OskarS »

snarf21 wrote: post #314
hannofcart wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Started looking at backgammon after reading your comment. I find it fascinating. I'm probably going to go ahead and invest some time learning it. Thanks. I found this section on the Backgammon Wikipedia page relevant to this discussion: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backgammon#Legality

And to be clear, there is a lot of gambling on backgammon. Add in the doubling cube and it is similar to poker.

There's gambling on backgammon in the same way there's gambling on chess (or any game): sure, you can play for money, but that's not really the usual way to do it. Nothing in the game requires it. Backgammon clubs work essentially like chess clubs.

And no, the doubling cube does not make it similar to poker. The doubling cube is just a way to add another element of risk/reward to the game. In poker, you literally have (fake or real) money in front of you and the entire point of the game is moving that money into the pot and trying to win the pot to gain more money. There's nothing comparable in backgammon.

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

#339

Post by OskarS »

hannofcart wrote: post #270
OskarS wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

Started looking at backgammon after reading your comment. I find it fascinating. I'm probably going to go ahead and invest some time learning it. Thanks. I found this section on the Backgammon Wikipedia page relevant to this discussion: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backgammon#Legality

Yeah, Backgammon is rad, I really enjoy playing it. It's also an incredible tool to teach both probability (given that you use two dice, and understanding the probabilities of dice events is crucial) and risk/reward judgment calls. It teaches many of the same lessons of poker, but without the gambling aspects.

As for the section on that page, you could make the same arguments about monopoly, or any game that uses dice. Backgammon can be played for money like any game, but it's not the usual way to play it, and it's not integral to how it functions. Indeed, the conclusion of the judge in that case was that it was NOT gambling, but a game of skill.

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

#340

Post by dcist »

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 play AOE2 as well (the Definitive Edition is really great), but I never got that serious about it. I play with relatives and friends mostly. I've watched some videos about how to increase my efficiency and some basic strategies (killing the boar, fast castle, etc.) but never really dedicated myself to it. Really brilliant game. It just gets everything right and the graphics are timeless. I can't think of another game that still gets regular updates and has a big online following 21 years after it was released.
Post reply on HN