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

101–110 of 271 posts

Re: Chess tactics explained

#101

Post by sjcsjc »

Kaibeezy wrote: post #84
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…

Accused of cheating online (scrabble, chess, trivia) so often, I just had to stop playing pickup games. Now I only play with friends.

I experienced that with Scrabble (and as you, only play with friends now), but not with Chess. But then I'm not very good at Chess (rapid rating c 1300 on chess.com)

Re: Chess tactics explained

#102

Post by jfengel »

RHSman2 wrote: post #58
k__ wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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.

As an actor myself, I was very impressed. They played chess like chess players. Each move had a meaning to them. They told a story just with the way they touched the pieces. The emotions were both powerful and tightly contained, which I find more exciting than the kind of big, showy acting that usually attracts the most attention.

It was an exercise in intention and specificity, things that get drilled into you in acting classes but rarely so clear.

Re: Chess tactics explained

#103

Post by iKlsR »

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 started playing this year and the first game I won (after playing about 30) was after I watched this video[1]. I made nearly every mistake he advised against. My openings are fairly good now for a beginner, working on tactics now. I'd recommend watching the whole playlist. Also doing puzzles daily really helps you to spot stuff faster when playing.

TL;DW - Develop your pieces, you need your whole team to play effectively.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21L45Qo6EIY

Re: Chess tactics explained

#104

Post by justarandomq »

tromp wrote: post #19

Train your chess tactics at https://lichess.org/training/ For me, the challenge is solving 15 consecutive problems correctly to turn the bottom bar all green. I also enjoy the 5 daily problems at https://www.chess.com/puzzles/rated

Long-time player here. Strangely enough, the hardest part of these exercises is the uncomfortable brief moment of getting acquainted with (or being teleported to) a random board position.

Re: Chess tactics explained

#105

Post by [deleted] »

srtjstjsj wrote: post #80
sudhirj wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It absolutely re-kindled my interest in chess. I played as a child, but never took it seriously. Got a chess board for my 4-yo, but unfortunately she isn't a prodigy. Who'd have thought. Still has fun arranging the pieces and make up stories with them, though. And I'm playing on the Chess.com app. The puzzles especially are a neat way to get your brain running, and they're a better attention sink than Twitter / HN.

The vast majority of grandmasters didn't play chess at age 4.

[deleted]

Re: Chess tactics explained

#106

Post by drw »

sudhirj wrote: post #3
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…

It absolutely re-kindled my interest in chess. I played as a child, but never took it seriously. Got a chess board for my 4-yo, but unfortunately she isn't a prodigy. Who'd have thought. Still has fun arranging the pieces and make up stories with them, though. And I'm playing on the Chess.com app. The puzzles especially are a neat way to get your brain running, and they're a better attention sink than Twitter / HN.

Something we work very hard on at chess.com is the rating of the individual tactics puzzles.

Some of you might enjoy looking at the distribution of our puzzle ratings. Truly hard problems are precious, and we would always like to have more at the high end. The distribution is multimodal because puzzles of different lengths have different modes.

  +----------------+---------+
  | ratings_band   | count   |
  |----------------+---------|
  |   100-199      | 5320    |
  |   200-299      | 2542    |
  |   300-399      | 31542   |
  |   400-499      | 10282   |
  |   500-599      | 4539    |
  |   600-699      | 7644    |
  |   700-799      | 6017    |
  |   800-899      | 5288    |
  |   900-999      | 5109    |
  | 1000-1099      | 5187    |
  | 1100-1199      | 4905    |
  | 1200-1299      | 4369    |
  | 1300-1399      | 8164    |
  | 1400-1499      | 8969    |
  | 1500-1599      | 8430    |
  | 1600-1699      | 8007    |
  | 1700-1799      | 7795    |
  | 1800-1899      | 8143    |
  | 1900-1999      | 9116    |
  | 2000-2099      | 10551   |
  | 2100-2199      | 10261   |
  | 2200-2299      | 7057    |
  | 2300-2399      | 2446    |
  | 2400-2499      | 1225    |
  | 2500-2599      | 1067    |
  | 2600-2699      | 1055    |
  | 2700-2799      | 964     |
  | 2800-2899      | 888     |
  | 2900-2999      | 881     |
  | 3000-3099      | 917     |
  | 3100-3199      | 434     |
  | 3200-3299      | 282     |
  | 3300-3399      | 144     |
  | 3400-3499      | 206     |
  | 3500-3599      | 131     |
  | 3600-3699      | 104     |
  | 3700-3799      | 86      |
  | 3800-3899      | 114     |
  | 3900-3999      | 42      |
  | 4000+          | 5       |
  +----------------+---------+

Re: Chess tactics explained

#107

Post by jgwil2 »

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…

Honestly, why even worry if your opponent is cheating? You can learn equally well regardless. Just worry about what you do; as long as you're not cheating it's not a waste of time.

Re: Chess tactics explained

#108

Post by YinglingLight »

thiago_fm wrote: post #97
srtjstjsj wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vast majority of grandmasters didn't play chess at age 4.

That's incorrect. I did a lot of ending puzzles and knew a lot about openings and variations at age 5, learned mostly because a father of a friend was very enthusiastic about it. I quit playing around age 7 because some kids there were really out of my league and there wasn't enough government or support for me to continue playing given that I wasn't the best. I still play to this day, but mostly amateurish and very…

Chess is like Boxing. Pays nothing. The workload is insane, the natural talent is insane, your competition is global.

Only the very top 0.5% get name recognition (money). And like Boxing, these athletes could get paid more had they devoted their life literally ANY other pursuit with their work ethic and talent. With far less punishment involved.

Concept of Talent Stacking: https://personalexcellence.co/blog/talent-stack/

Re: Chess tactics explained

#109

Post by Buttons840 »

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…

> as I'd never be sure my opponent wasn't just putting the moves into a computer and playing whatever it told him to play.

As mentioned, cheaters are detected and banned.

But from another perspective, cheater or not doesn't matter. You know you are playing against someone you have a statistical chance to beat. Same thing in Starcraft where people use map hacks. Who cares? The ranking system matches you with people you have a chance to beat. The challenge lies before you, and unfair advantages or not, there is good reason to believe you can succeed if you play your best game. Play to improve, play to have fun. Sometimes you will lose, no matter how strong you become this fact remains. And if you ever reach a point you believe you can only lose due to cheating, seek mental help.

Re: Chess tactics explained

#110

Post by noir_lord »

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.

There are certain metrics that can be used.

Pieces developed onto unattacked squares, squares under control (because more attackers than defenders), undefended pieces, a balance of control on the white/black or both, open files, half open files, open diagonals, half open diagnals, pawn structures, doubled pawns, isoated pawns, pawn islands.

It's a nuanced thing, it's also largely how chess engines evaluate a position - it's not something humans can do because to do all of the above would take too long however strong players get an intuitive grasp of all of that and more and use it to assess a position.

Post reply on HN