Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chess tactics explained

chesstactics.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 271 posts

Re: Chess tactics explained

#51

Post by k__ »

Normille wrote: post #2

I wondered if the popularity of 'The queen's Gambit' would lead to a brief infatuation with chess in the popular imagination. The fact I've seen about 3 chess related submissions on HN recently, where I don't recall ever seeing one before, suggests it does. I used to enjoy a game of chess back in the day, although I was never very good. And I always imagined myself playing chess with a remote opponent by post when I…

[Spoiler Warning]

As a person who can barely play chess The Queen's Gambit was a good show not because of the chess, but because it was a show about a women where everything went well. There was foreshadowing and all, but all went well in the end.

It was very wholesome.

Sure, it was about chess, but it could have been any sport, really.

Re: Chess tactics explained

#52

Post by mci »

ludocode wrote: post #24
mci wrote: post #16

> This site teaches chess in words. > It assumes you know only how the pieces move and builds step-by-step from there. Do not get me wrong: TFA is a fine and useful book for an intermediate player but the above claims are overselling it. They are equivalent to telling you that learning the x ^= y; y ^= x; x ^= y; trick will make you a better programmer while being silent on what copy-and-paste programming, magic cons…

I believe the opposite is true. Most chess teachers will agree that tactics are much more important than positional advantage for lower level players. For example here's Jeremy Silman talking about it: https://web.archive.org/web/20120205054644/http://www.jeremy... After learning simple piece development and basic checkmating techniques, it's tactics, tactics, tactics. The positional concepts you espouse like rooks o…

> After learning simple piece development and basic checkmating techniques, it's tactics, tactics, tactics.

Fair enough, tactics is fun, pretty, and rewarding. I like it, too, and do not advocate avoiding it. But if any of their games lasts till the endgame, it is usually the principles not the tactics that contributes to the victory.

> Modern chess engines have evolved towards simpler, faster evaluations

Alas, modern humans do not undergo Moore's law so your analogy to computer chess can as well be turned upside down: we ought to improve our evaluation function if we want to play better with the limited resources of our brain.

Re: Chess tactics explained

#53

Post by MauranKilom »

faceplanted wrote: post #44
fabian2k wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you're playing at something like 3000-3500 ELO. That's very, very far from subtle. And that is something you can detect by analyzing the games, a human won't pick the engine moves all the time.

I've never looked into it myself but when I was graduating someone in my graduating classes final project was a cheating detection system for chess that essentially ran your moves through a variety of different chess AI's like stockfish such and over the game built up a tally of matching moves for each system, and if you matched one too closely flagged you as cheating. I asked the guy how he would cheat against it an…

The blunders computers make and that human players make are/feel very different. I wouldn't expect to last long if I were cheating on, say, lichess.org by playing out the moves of a mix of engines at various ratings.

Re: Chess tactics explained

#54

Post by dmurray »

tgb wrote: post #38

> between good players, a one-piece advantage is enough to cause the disadvantaged party to resign. Is this accurate? I would have assumed that, say, positioning is equally important and a naive "count the pieces" assessment wouldn't hold much value.

Yeah, it means a one-piece advantage (and specifically, a "piece" in this context means a bishop or a knight) with everything else being equal.

It's possible for one side to have a crushing positional advantage that is worth more than a piece, but that's relatively rare. For 90% of quiescent positions reached by strong players where one side has the advantage, "count the pieces" is indeed enough to tell you which side it is.

Re: Chess tactics explained

#55

Post by MauranKilom »

seamyb88 wrote: post #43

Looks like good information for beginners, but the hardest part of chess, for me, is the opening and how to play from move 4 onwards. It is less obvious why a strong position is a strong position early on, unless your opponent makes some very poor choices.

I feel that this is something that ChessNetwork (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCDOQrpqLqKVcTCKzqarxLg) explains very solidly in most games he covers.

Re: Chess tactics explained

#56

Post by chongli »

jjeaff wrote: post #30
fabian2k wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the chance of cheating is a serious issue if you're playing at a low level online. You're generally matched against playes with a similar rating, and someone using a computer heavily would drastically inflate their rating. Which also increases the chance at detection significantly. Computers are scary good at chess, it's not exactly invisible if you use them to cheat. If you're a beginner it's also quit…

I suppose if you are really cheating, you wouldn't sprinkle in some computer moves. You would just move your pieces in the computer game exactly as your human opponent does. Then you move your own pieces in the human game exactly as the computer does in the computer game.

As a human player you can combat that by keeping the position closed for as long as possible. If you’re playing on short time controls with no increment then your opponent will be wasting a lot of time transferring their moves back and forth to the computer. Then when their time gets really low they will panic and have to play the moves on their own, without computer assistance.

Re: Chess tactics explained

#57

Post by telesilla »

Normille wrote: post #2

I wondered if the popularity of 'The queen's Gambit' would lead to a brief infatuation with chess in the popular imagination. The fact I've seen about 3 chess related submissions on HN recently, where I don't recall ever seeing one before, suggests it does. I used to enjoy a game of chess back in the day, although I was never very good. And I always imagined myself playing chess with a remote opponent by post when I…

This absolutely rekindled my interest. I used to play as a young girl (pre-teen) and enjoyed it but as I got older didn't feel welcome in the chess club. It's nice how they show on TV that girls who wanted it just got in there and be involved but the reality was not as easy.. (hopefully it's easier now, the 80s was not kind to girls with a nerdish bent).

I've started reading chess openings and tactics as a way to send me to sleep, on one of those chess sites that sets up a play for you. I don't think I'll ever play chess again - time is limited and I don't think anyone would suffer playing with me given what I've forgotten - but I'm enjoying learning strategies again. It's great stuff for the brain.

I've put the Chess Tactics site on my weekend-lazy-reading list. Who knows, maybe I find my way back to playing games again.

Re: Chess tactics explained

#58

Post by RHSman2 »

k__ wrote: post #51
Normille wrote: post #2

I wondered if the popularity of 'The queen's Gambit' would lead to a brief infatuation with chess in the popular imagination. The fact I've seen about 3 chess related submissions on HN recently, where I don't recall ever seeing one before, suggests it does. I used to enjoy a game of chess back in the day, although I was never very good. And I always imagined myself playing chess with a remote opponent by post when I…

[Spoiler Warning] As a person who can barely play chess The Queen's Gambit was a good show not because of the chess, but because it was a show about a women where everything went well. There was foreshadowing and all, but all went well in the end. It was very wholesome. Sure, it was about chess, but it could have been any sport, really.

the character work is sublime.

Re: Chess tactics explained

#59

Post by Steko »

Normille wrote: post #2

I wondered if the popularity of 'The queen's Gambit' would lead to a brief infatuation with chess in the popular imagination. The fact I've seen about 3 chess related submissions on HN recently, where I don't recall ever seeing one before, suggests it does. I used to enjoy a game of chess back in the day, although I was never very good. And I always imagined myself playing chess with a remote opponent by post when I…

You can avoid 99% of cheaters by not logging in on lichess but you're at the mercy of much less appropriate matchmaking. You can also play at faster or less unusual time controls.

Re: Chess tactics explained

#60

Post by dalbasal »

Normille wrote: post #2

I wondered if the popularity of 'The queen's Gambit' would lead to a brief infatuation with chess in the popular imagination. The fact I've seen about 3 chess related submissions on HN recently, where I don't recall ever seeing one before, suggests it does. I used to enjoy a game of chess back in the day, although I was never very good. And I always imagined myself playing chess with a remote opponent by post when I…

I think the show is part of a zeitgeist that was already there.

Streaming & such is popular. Famous GMs like Magnus & Naka are charismatic and extremely online. There are some great sites to play on these days, especially lichess. Lockdown makes for more game time. Chess is on an upswing.

It's an old game, I bet there have been a lot of peaks and troughs.

Post reply on HN