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

A Beginner's Garden of Chess Openings (2002)

dwheeler.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 135 posts

Re: A Beginner's Garden of Chess Openings (2002)

#101

Post by oldstrangers »

metroholografix wrote: post #5

Below 1700 or so, openings are mostly a waste of time and tactics rule the day. Learning the basic opening principles and two basic opening moves that you keep playing (one for white, one for black) and focusing on tactics [1][2] is in my experience the fastest way to advance. After 1700 or so, specific openings can be studied. I suggest playing d4 instead of e4 as white (avoids dealing with the Sicilian) and as blac…

Openings easily start to matter at 1400-1500. A '1700' player can usually overcome not knowing the opening lines with better tactical ability against players under 1600 or so, but it's not guaranteed. It's a rather antiquated idea that openings are reserved only for players over a certain level, especially these days given the immense amount of tools and training available to new players.

At the very least, all players need an understanding of opening fundamentals.

Re: A Beginner's Garden of Chess Openings (2002)

#102

Post by JohnL4 »

metroholografix wrote: post #5

Below 1700 or so, openings are mostly a waste of time and tactics rule the day. Learning the basic opening principles and two basic opening moves that you keep playing (one for white, one for black) and focusing on tactics [1][2] is in my experience the fastest way to advance. After 1700 or so, specific openings can be studied. I suggest playing d4 instead of e4 as white (avoids dealing with the Sicilian) and as blac…

Study joseki, lose two stones, eh?

Re: A Beginner's Garden of Chess Openings (2002)

#103

Post by blastro »

metroholografix wrote: post #5

Below 1700 or so, openings are mostly a waste of time and tactics rule the day. Learning the basic opening principles and two basic opening moves that you keep playing (one for white, one for black) and focusing on tactics [1][2] is in my experience the fastest way to advance. After 1700 or so, specific openings can be studied. I suggest playing d4 instead of e4 as white (avoids dealing with the Sicilian) and as blac…

Nice! Validation for my training. I always play D4, and French if possible. As a hobbyist it give me options.

Re: A Beginner's Garden of Chess Openings (2002)

#104

Post by todd8 »

billfruit wrote: post #99
SoSoRoCoCo wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with tactics training is that there is always a "best answer" because they have been picked to have a best answer. What got me playing over 1700 (lichess rating grin ) were two things: 1) deepening my mental checklist: 1) am i being attacked, 2) are there unprotected pieces, 3) am I about to be forked/pinned, 4) can I fork/pin my opponent ... and increase how far down you can BFS this without getting a he…

I am not at any skill level, but I do think that after some time studying endgame patterns, I could easily apply them in finally forcing the mate in end games, whereas studying openings seems more abstract and unclear how exactly it is going to benefit.

There are some endgame basics that new players need to learn, K&Q against K, K&R against K, K & 2 Bishops against K, how to catch a passed pawn and some others. These aren’t difficult to learn, and once you reach these basic positions you can expect your opponent to resign.

The reason for the advice to avoid end games is that the real end game contests happen with positions having a few more pawns or pieces. These positions can have a single not obvious winning move out of many alternatives. One false step can lead to a draw or loss instead of a win many moves later. Two almost identical positions can result in different outcomes even with perfect play.

Re: A Beginner's Garden of Chess Openings (2002)

#105

Post by k_sze »

oldstrangers wrote: post #100
SoSoRoCoCo wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with tactics training is that there is always a "best answer" because they have been picked to have a best answer. What got me playing over 1700 (lichess rating grin ) were two things: 1) deepening my mental checklist: 1) am i being attacked, 2) are there unprotected pieces, 3) am I about to be forked/pinned, 4) can I fork/pin my opponent ... and increase how far down you can BFS this without getting a he…

1700 on lichess is about 1400-1500 on chess.com. Lichess tends to be about 200 points overrated on average.

Wait, how is that even possible? Are they not using the same ELO algorithm?

Re: A Beginner's Garden of Chess Openings (2002)

#106

Post by nwallin »

k_sze wrote: post #105
oldstrangers wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1700 on lichess is about 1400-1500 on chess.com. Lichess tends to be about 200 points overrated on average.

Wait, how is that even possible? Are they not using the same ELO algorithm?

They have different player populations. A pool of Elo ratings only rates players relative to the other players in the population.

If you take everyone whose FIDE rating is between 2400-2600, and you create a new pool of Elo ratings for them, their new Elo ratings will range from 1400-1600. If you take everyone whose FIDE rating is between 1400-1600, and you create a new pool of ratings for them, their new Elo ratings will range from 1400-1600. And so on.

Re: A Beginner's Garden of Chess Openings (2002)

#107

Post by slyall »

nwallin wrote: post #106
k_sze wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, how is that even possible? Are they not using the same ELO algorithm?

They have different player populations. A pool of Elo ratings only rates players relative to the other players in the population. If you take everyone whose FIDE rating is between 2400-2600, and you create a new pool of Elo ratings for them, their new Elo ratings will range from 1400-1600. If you take everyone whose FIDE rating is between 1400-1600, and you create a new pool of ratings for them, their new Elo ratings…

Also both sites use the Glicko rating system rather than a straight ELO

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glicko_rating_system

Re: A Beginner's Garden of Chess Openings (2002)

#108

Post by k_sze »

nwallin wrote: post #106
k_sze wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, how is that even possible? Are they not using the same ELO algorithm?

They have different player populations. A pool of Elo ratings only rates players relative to the other players in the population. If you take everyone whose FIDE rating is between 2400-2600, and you create a new pool of Elo ratings for them, their new Elo ratings will range from 1400-1600. If you take everyone whose FIDE rating is between 1400-1600, and you create a new pool of ratings for them, their new Elo ratings…

So what does that say about the relative strengths of the players between chess.com and lichess.com? That chess.com has the more elite players from lichess.com and so the lichess.com players are weaker on average than the chess.com players?

Re: A Beginner's Garden of Chess Openings (2002)

#109

Post by lightbulbjim »

k_sze wrote: post #108
nwallin wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have different player populations. A pool of Elo ratings only rates players relative to the other players in the population. If you take everyone whose FIDE rating is between 2400-2600, and you create a new pool of Elo ratings for them, their new Elo ratings will range from 1400-1600. If you take everyone whose FIDE rating is between 1400-1600, and you create a new pool of ratings for them, their new Elo ratings…

So what does that say about the relative strengths of the players between chess.com and lichess.com? That chess.com has the more elite players from lichess.com and so the lichess.com players are weaker on average than the chess.com players?

Maybe, but it doesn't really matter in practice. If you play against opponents with a similar rating to you then you'll be evenly matched.

Re: A Beginner's Garden of Chess Openings (2002)

#110

Post by YetAnotherNick »

iamcreasy wrote: post #31
YetAnotherNick wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The opening strength will only work when you know how to exploit something small in opponent's opening like a miss of tempo or wrong reply, which I think is above the skill of sub 1700. All the players above 1000 know basic principles like mobility of pieces and developing centre.

> The opening strength will only work when you know how to exploit something small in opponent's opening like a miss of tempo or wrong reply That's exactly what I am saying. If one person knows the strength of an opening and the other person don't then the person who knows the opening has a clear advantage. I agree with @skulk's argument though - the time is better spent on learning tactics and analyzing games over l…

> the opening has a clear advantage

not exactly if the person can't use the slight advantage for their benefit. They only have window of 2-3 moves at max to exploit less developed pieces else the advantage fades away(assuming non point positional advantage). It is hard for 1700s to exploit very minor advantage and most of the time the win is due to a blunder by opponent.

Post reply on HN