How To Think About Chess • Hacker News Board

Re: How To Think About Chess

#11

Post by derefr » Wed, Apr 01, 2015, 1:24 AM UTC

ryanx435 wrote: post #9

taurath wrote: post #6

I got really into chess for a bit, but started to find it sort of boring after a while. Midgames can be interesting but the early games are simply displays of memorization. Really incredibly good players end in draws more often than not. Games like Starcraft are pretty much the exact same - there's a defined early game, a midgame and endgame.

>> there's a defined early game, a midgame and endgame. all things with defined start and finish criteria can be conceptualized this way. careers: education is early game setting you up for success, job/career is midgame, retirement is end game. relationships: dating is early game, engagement/marriage is midgame, death/divorce is end game. software development: envision project/write requirements is early game, codin…

I think you've got the parallels for "early game" right, but the parallels for "endgame" wrong. The endgame is the phase directly before the end of the game, where two players who have each managed to avoid screwing themselves over in the early game, and who have each managed to match their opponent's multiple-front challenges and feints in the middlegame, finally are forced (usually by the game's increasing resource constraint) to "put all their cards on the table" and do the interesting and tricky things that make their playstyle unique.

Re: How To Think About Chess

#12

Post by randomnumber53 » Wed, Apr 01, 2015, 1:29 AM UTC

derefr wrote: post #10

JacobAldridge wrote: post #8

Good conversation at about my level (read: plays a bit, but not necessarily well). I've noticed that many new players seem to obsess on their Openings, while my skills are very much the Endgame (I'm great at holding multiple logic trees in my head, which becomes an asset late in a game when you can pursue these to a checkmate). Basically, if I can survive 15 moves against comparably skilled players, I will win. But t…

Is there a playstyle of chess where both players agree to skip the opening, just setting up the board as if the opening were played "by the book" by both players and going from there? It seems like that'd be much better for getting amateur-level players practice in their middlegames, since they wouldn't need to worry about perfecting the opening before they could even attempt it.

This type of training game is more often used to practice a certain structure that arises from a specific opening, and thus is a type of practice used more towards the higher levels of play (International Master+).

The thing is, if two amateurs are playing, neither of whom deeply know openings, then the starting position (or 4-5 moves in) is essentially new territory, like what might arise for a Grandmaster 15-30 moves into the game. Does this make sense?

Re: How To Think About Chess

#13

Post by randomnumber53 » Wed, Apr 01, 2015, 1:32 AM UTC

taurath wrote: post #6

I got really into chess for a bit, but started to find it sort of boring after a while. Midgames can be interesting but the early games are simply displays of memorization. Really incredibly good players end in draws more often than not. Games like Starcraft are pretty much the exact same - there's a defined early game, a midgame and endgame.

I play chess "seriously" (expert level) and am about a gold/platinum league Starcraft II player, and the games do show a surprising amount of similarity. Both show the most variance in the midgame, begin in identical formations (where memorizing openings is common), and converge to endgames that have somewhat less variance than midgames.

Re: How To Think About Chess

#14

Post by randomnumber53 » Wed, Apr 01, 2015, 1:35 AM UTC

navan wrote: post #7

I have an expert level rating. I agree with everything in the content. My games are very similar to what he describes. I have not memorized many openings. I just know a few moves in common openings and how to respond to a few quirky responses to them. I want to get to the middle game or out of my opponents memory as quickly as possible. I also sometimes deliberately make some opening weak moves to get out of opponent…

I am also an expert player, and agree with most of what was said, but I do think I should point out that this player's style is not the only strategy ("My strategy is usually to throw lots of pieces at their king and hope they die or I can win some material"). Personally, I prefer more closed/quite games, so most of my thinking (even in the middle game) is about how to achieve a favorable endgame, and win from there.

EDIT: I dislike studying openings too, (I started playing 1. g3 to avoid theory while still getting into some fun positions)

Re: How To Think About Chess

#15

Post by randomnumber53 » Wed, Apr 01, 2015, 1:38 AM UTC

meowface wrote: post #3

ff_ wrote: post #2

Besides the awesome content - which is great for starters to grasp some basic concepts of tactics and pay attention to some common patterns on the checkboard - I love the format too. It's really a conversation, a chat, but with solid content and serious people. So following is really easy, and satisfying. (unlike audio/videos of interviews here you can go back and reread lots of times a passage you lost - which is go…

I like the format and the content as well, but the domain name and company name seem pretty terrible, if I'm to be honest. Imagine explaining it to a friend or prospective user. "Yeah it's called Taaalk, just go to taaalk.co" "What, talk.co?" "No, you need 3 As." user types 3 more As "Taaaalk.co is giving me a 404." "Sorry, you needed 2 more As, let's start over." "Taalk.co?" "Just google 'talk'. Actually, wait, don'…

Yeah, but who shares URLs with their friends by speech these days? In fact, who really speaks?

Re: How To Think About Chess

#16

Post by sharkweek » Wed, Apr 01, 2015, 1:42 AM UTC

navan wrote: post #7

I have an expert level rating. I agree with everything in the content. My games are very similar to what he describes. I have not memorized many openings. I just know a few moves in common openings and how to respond to a few quirky responses to them. I want to get to the middle game or out of my opponents memory as quickly as possible. I also sometimes deliberately make some opening weak moves to get out of opponent…

I am a terrible player, but I absolutely love playing. One of my biggest problems is making a move and them immediately seeing the err of my ways. It's beyond bizarre how quickly I'll realize what a shitty move I have just made right after I take my hand off the piece.

I'd say I have a few decent tactics that I sort of lean on, but, like you pointed to, if my opponent does something to break me from that memory, my game is shot and I'm flailing around trying to recover (which rarely works).

Not sure if I'll ever dedicate enough time to reach "decent" status but I definitely enjoy the game.

Re: How To Think About Chess

#17

Post by arh68 » Wed, Apr 01, 2015, 2:00 AM UTC

I have to agree there is a slight bias towards White winning, but it really isn't a landslide [1]. And it's probably a cliche by now, but I always liked the saying (apparently by Tarkatower [2]):

    The winner of the game is the player who makes the next-to-last mistake.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-move_advantage_in_chess

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savielly_Tartakower

Re: How To Think About Chess

#18

Post by brongondwana » Wed, Apr 01, 2015, 2:09 AM UTC

navan wrote: post #7

I have an expert level rating. I agree with everything in the content. My games are very similar to what he describes. I have not memorized many openings. I just know a few moves in common openings and how to respond to a few quirky responses to them. I want to get to the middle game or out of my opponents memory as quickly as possible. I also sometimes deliberately make some opening weak moves to get out of opponent…

I was surprised to see nothing about pressure and the whole pins/forks/discovered attack options that restrict your opponent's choices.

Beyond the basic "stupid mistake" level of play, chess centres around forcing your opponent into a situtation where they have two different risks that they need to defend against and only one move to do it, while not allowing your opponent to do the same to you.

Re: How To Think About Chess

#19

Post by randomnumber53 » Wed, Apr 01, 2015, 2:09 AM UTC

arh68 wrote: post #17

I have to agree there is a slight bias towards White winning, but it really isn't a landslide [1]. And it's probably a cliche by now, but I always liked the saying (apparently by Tarkatower [2]): The winner of the game is the player who makes the next-to-last mistake. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-move_advantage_in_chess [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savielly_Tartakower

The first-move-advantage becomes increasingly relevant the higher the level of play, of course.

Re: How To Think About Chess

#20

Post by randomnumber53 » Wed, Apr 01, 2015, 2:20 AM UTC

brongondwana wrote: post #18

navan wrote: post #7

I have an expert level rating. I agree with everything in the content. My games are very similar to what he describes. I have not memorized many openings. I just know a few moves in common openings and how to respond to a few quirky responses to them. I want to get to the middle game or out of my opponents memory as quickly as possible. I also sometimes deliberately make some opening weak moves to get out of opponent…

I was surprised to see nothing about pressure and the whole pins/forks/discovered attack options that restrict your opponent's choices. Beyond the basic "stupid mistake" level of play, chess centres around forcing your opponent into a situtation where they have two different risks that they need to defend against and only one move to do it, while not allowing your opponent to do the same to you.

Those dominate much of the thinking of a player in the 1200-1800 range, but become second nature after that point.