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

131–135 of 135 posts

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

#131

Post by blub »

toolslive wrote: post #57
idealism wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand what you're saying and agree, although I may suggest that 1700 number come down a bit to maybe 1200. I'm around the 1000-1200 range (just picked it up again recently) and I'd say most of my peers on Chess.com around that range have definitely studied openings and present sneaky traps consistently in the first ~5-15 moves. Playing as black for me is the real driving force for me to study openings because…

I'm at 2250 on Lichess, and I consider openings a waste of time. Ok, I confess I wasted a lot of time on them in the past, and my rating was rather constant for years and years, until I started tactics via the woodpecker method. It's hard work, but definitely worth it. (quite a few of the easier exercises are opening tactics) https://www.amazon.com/Woodpecker-Method-Axel-Smith-Tikkanen...

Funny how everyone that says openings are waste of time have already wasted their time on them and built an opening repertoire :)

What do you do know, play specific openings or move by instinct until reaching the middlegame? Willing to bet it's the former.

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

#132

Post by bluGill »

ummonk wrote: post #74
toolslive wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hold on... you're 2500?

I doubt it. Actual 2500 rated players aren't looking 15 positional moves ahead during a game.

I didn't say 2500 raters players look 15 moves in advance in games (though in some simple endgames they can see farther than that). I said that they can see 15 moves in advance when they spend weeks (or even years) before the game preparing their openings. It isn't unheard of for players at the >2000 level to pull out a planned novility 15-20 moves into a game - a position never before reached in chess that they prepared for one specific opponent in a tournament.

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

#133

Post by lazyant »

rafaelvasco wrote: post #82

Out of curiosity, what would be the final rating of the the Beth Harmon character from Queen's Gambit ?

chess.com has a computer persona with her at different ages, ranked:

  - 800 at 10 years old  
  - 1200 at 9,  
  - 1600 at 10,  
  - 1880 at 15,  
  - 2400 at 17,  
  - 2500 at 20 and  
  - 2700 at 22

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

#134

Post by toolslive »

bitcoinmoney wrote: post #112
toolslive wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm at 2250 on Lichess, and I consider openings a waste of time. Ok, I confess I wasted a lot of time on them in the past, and my rating was rather constant for years and years, until I started tactics via the woodpecker method. It's hard work, but definitely worth it. (quite a few of the easier exercises are opening tactics) https://www.amazon.com/Woodpecker-Method-Axel-Smith-Tikkanen...

What age did you get serious with chess? 2200 in lichess is high.

I started too late: 17

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

#135

Post by toolslive »

blub wrote: post #131
toolslive wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm at 2250 on Lichess, and I consider openings a waste of time. Ok, I confess I wasted a lot of time on them in the past, and my rating was rather constant for years and years, until I started tactics via the woodpecker method. It's hard work, but definitely worth it. (quite a few of the easier exercises are opening tactics) https://www.amazon.com/Woodpecker-Method-Axel-Smith-Tikkanen...

Funny how everyone that says openings are waste of time have already wasted their time on them and built an opening repertoire :) What do you do know, play specific openings or move by instinct until reaching the middlegame? Willing to bet it's the former.

My current strategy is this (mind I do have knowlegde, it just needs expanding) Whenever I play a game, I check afterwards from the point where the preparation (and my knowledge) ended what I should have played, and if it's in line with theory.

  - If the move I played is in line with theory, I don't bother trying to remember it because I can find it. 
  - If there are more than 1 plausible move in theory and my move is one of them, don't bother because I can find it.
  - If theory happens to be something I can't find on my own, then I investigate the idea behind it and automagically I remember (at least for some time)
Post reply on HN