111–120 of 132 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
lichess.org >>> chess.com. I encourage everyone who can afford to donate to do so!
Feature wise I agree with you, lichess is amazing. Chess.com funds a lot of tounaments that make the chess scene a lot more fun and interesting, lichess cant't do that.
Chess.com has the somewhat unique property of being a chess server run by people who aren't good at chess and aren't good at technology. I think they used to hire devs off Fiverr. However they are somewhat good at business as they've convinced thousands of people to pay $17.00 per month for something that can be found for free at Lichess.org. They do pay a ton of money to streamers to use their site exclusively, whic…
Bad at the game, bad at engineering, but good at marketing. There's a lesson in here. Similar to how most of the software that runs the internet is poorly written and has bad fundamentals.
"#20. A bad design with a good presentation is doomed eventually. A good design with a bad presentation is doomed immediately."
I am one of the people now playing chess every day but I don't think it's down to all those reasons listed. In my case, I am using it as a replacement for social media. Previously I'd pick up my phone and go straight to Instagram or some other app. I realised that my time was just wasted scrolling through pictures and videos that has absolutely no value. Chess is something I can open on my app and I can play on the b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm curious, as someone who appreciates the simple and intuitive Lichess UI, what makes the Chess.com UI better than Lichess'?
Some of the UI is really tiny on the smart phone version of the lichess app is my only complaint against their UI vs chess.com. As far as I'm concerned though they both could use a good designer. Neither of them are very good. Besides that I tend to use, and pay for, chess.com more for their other features than for anything directly UI related. Their puzzles are better. I think their post game analysis is nicer to us…
Chess.com has the somewhat unique property of being a chess server run by people who aren't good at chess and aren't good at technology. I think they used to hire devs off Fiverr. However they are somewhat good at business as they've convinced thousands of people to pay $17.00 per month for something that can be found for free at Lichess.org. They do pay a ton of money to streamers to use their site exclusively, whic…
Bad at the game, bad at engineering, but good at marketing. There's a lesson in here. Similar to how most of the software that runs the internet is poorly written and has bad fundamentals.
> 20. A bad design with a good presentation is doomed eventually. A good design with a bad presentation is doomed immediately.
Chess.com has the somewhat unique property of being a chess server run by people who aren't good at chess and aren't good at technology. I think they used to hire devs off Fiverr. However they are somewhat good at business as they've convinced thousands of people to pay $17.00 per month for something that can be found for free at Lichess.org. They do pay a ton of money to streamers to use their site exclusively, whic…
I've re-visited the game multiple times but really have trouble engaging with the game. I've tried to read a couple of tutorials here and there on some simple strategies, but it doesn't seem like anything "sticks," and I always feel so clueless after the first few moves as to what I should do. Any suggestions from the HN crowd on what may have provided you an "ah ha!" moment for chess strategy in general?
His style of cheesey, caustic humor isn't for everybody. However, he GETS beginners.
"GM Ben Finegold's Message to Beginner Chess Players"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5bCfwCyo18
"The Reason People Don't Get Better At Chess According to Ben Finegold"
I've re-visited the game multiple times but really have trouble engaging with the game. I've tried to read a couple of tutorials here and there on some simple strategies, but it doesn't seem like anything "sticks," and I always feel so clueless after the first few moves as to what I should do. Any suggestions from the HN crowd on what may have provided you an "ah ha!" moment for chess strategy in general?
* Start with climbing the rating ladder. He explains the basics and mistakes players at each level makes and how to avoid them https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2huVf1l4UE&list=PLl9uuRYQ-6...
* Watch his games (ideally with 10minutes or more time control) where he explains his thought process behind each move and what he is anticipating. This is priceless!
* Analyze your own games after you play
Everybody wants to play against Mittens?
I don't really get the whole mittens thing. Chess engines have been better than humans for a long time, and they've been on chess.com forever. I guess the joke of giving it rating of 1 when it is playing at a very high level and a cute picture is good marketing. But getting beaten by an engine isn't particularly fun. It isn't really educational either when it is so much better than you.
I've re-visited the game multiple times but really have trouble engaging with the game. I've tried to read a couple of tutorials here and there on some simple strategies, but it doesn't seem like anything "sticks," and I always feel so clueless after the first few moves as to what I should do. Any suggestions from the HN crowd on what may have provided you an "ah ha!" moment for chess strategy in general?
Having said that, what really helped me other than various tutorials is the basic goal of the game. The goal seems like it's to checkmate, and I focused a lot of effort on that. And that is theoretically the goal.
But really, most of the time, especially in the beginning, you're not going to be spotting fancy checkmates and neither are your opponents. So your main focus in the beginning should actually be about winning a material advantage (capturing something of theirs without them capturing you in return.) Then, once you have an advantage, just try to trade off all the other pieces until there's nothing left.
I didn't understand this idea at first. But it makes sense like this - if you have the full board, except the opponent is missing a rook, anything can still happen. But imagine now almost all the pieces are gone, except you have that extra rook and he doesn't. Now, it's a much easier and winnable game, and there's nothing the opponent can do anymore. Of course you have to know how to win a rook endgame, but that's fairly easy to drill.
So my advice - drill how to win with two Rooks, with a Queen, and with one Rook. Then most games boil down to trying to get some extra material, and then trading off all the pieces, and then winning that endgame.