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

How To Think About Chess

taaalk.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 51 posts

Re: How To Think About Chess

#41

Post by GotAnyMegadeth »

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'…

I spent AGES trying to choose an easily pronounceable, non ambiguously spelled name for last project as I expected to have to tell people it a lot. A typical conversation goes:

"Just go to playlistful.com and..."

"Urgh, can't you just send me a link?"

Re: How To Think About Chess

#42

Post by nsxwolf »

negroni wrote: post #40

As a person of color, I really got this: "At the very very highest levels winning with black is really quite an impressive achievement, and black will often go into a game playing for a draw. The advantage of the first move is very pronounced, and sets the tone for the entire game, with white generally calling the shots. Attempts by black to generate active counterplay are often very risky. " "So the aim when black i…

That reminds me of the billiards scene from Boomerang:

"The white ball dominates everything. Knocks the shit out of the yellow ball, the red ball, right? And the game's over when the white ball drives the black ball completely off the table."

Re: How To Think About Chess

#43

Post by Lawtonfogle »

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.

When I played I basically refused to memorize openings and instead worked on developing my own. It was weak, and the highest level players crushed me, but players below them were often so thrown off by the opening that I was able to gain an advantage and win against people who would have soundly trounced me if I had used a standard opening. I ended up getting out of chess when I reached the point where I was primarily playing against those who were unfazed by non-standard openings.

Re: How To Think About Chess

#44

Post by ParadoxOryx »

negroni wrote: post #40

As a person of color, I really got this: "At the very very highest levels winning with black is really quite an impressive achievement, and black will often go into a game playing for a draw. The advantage of the first move is very pronounced, and sets the tone for the entire game, with white generally calling the shots. Attempts by black to generate active counterplay are often very risky. " "So the aim when black i…

That's a pretty funny double entendre.

Re: How To Think About Chess

#45

Post by Practicality »

I play ridiculous amounts of blitz and bullet chess and I can tell you that openings dominate faster games. The more bizarre the better.

But you had better know the main openings and a lot of sidelines fairly deep or you're toast.

Of course, my memory is next to useless, so for me, to really "know" the openings means I understand them. When my opponents plays weak moves "to get me out of my memory" that's when I really dominate.

Honestly, sometimes chess strategies are like rock-paper-scissors. Guys with great memory can sometimes trounce me, but people who use this "play weak moves to confuse my opponent" oh yeah, I eat that for breakfast.

Re: How To Think About Chess

#46

Post by ryanx435 »

mod wrote: post #30
ryanx435 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

right. the end game is before the end of the games. we're on the same page on that. disconnect on our understandings is that I didn't define the game ending criteria for each example. in chess, it's either a checkmate or a draw that ends the game. for my examples, my criteria are death for the career, the relationship ending, and the software product reaching the end if it's supported life.

The point was that checkmate is not "endgame," it's literally when the game is over. Endgame is a part of the game, the late stages. It comes after the midgame. It doesn't go "early game, midgame, checkmate." Same for all of your examples, where you note the endpoint, not the endgame.

look, I get it.

everything has a starting point. (you decide what career you want) then an early game phase. (you go to school to get a degree) than a midgame phase. (you start work and collect paychecks during your career) than an end game phase. (uou live the retired life using the resources you earned during your career ) than the game actually ends when predefined conditions are met. (you die or whatever)

got it.

we are literally arguing in circles because we are not conceptualizing the problem the same way and not communicating clearly.

Re: How To Think About Chess

#47

Post by prairiedock »

negroni wrote: post #40

As a person of color, I really got this: "At the very very highest levels winning with black is really quite an impressive achievement, and black will often go into a game playing for a draw. The advantage of the first move is very pronounced, and sets the tone for the entire game, with white generally calling the shots. Attempts by black to generate active counterplay are often very risky. " "So the aim when black i…

You'll be glad to know that in GO, the ancient Japanese game which is played with black and white stones on a cross-hatched board, black goes first and has the advantage.

Re: How To Think About Chess

#48

Post by wcbeard10 »

negroni wrote: post #40

As a person of color, I really got this: "At the very very highest levels winning with black is really quite an impressive achievement, and black will often go into a game playing for a draw. The advantage of the first move is very pronounced, and sets the tone for the entire game, with white generally calling the shots. Attempts by black to generate active counterplay are often very risky. " "So the aim when black i…

Reminds me of the Bill Cosby outtake

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRzL8I0xC3c

Re: How To Think About Chess

#49

Post by derefr »

ryanx435 wrote: post #46
mod wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point was that checkmate is not "endgame," it's literally when the game is over. Endgame is a part of the game, the late stages. It comes after the midgame. It doesn't go "early game, midgame, checkmate." Same for all of your examples, where you note the endpoint, not the endgame.

look, I get it. everything has a starting point. (you decide what career you want) then an early game phase. (you go to school to get a degree) than a midgame phase. (you start work and collect paychecks during your career) than an end game phase. (uou live the retired life using the resources you earned during your career ) than the game actually ends when predefined conditions are met. (you die or whatever) got it.…

I think the thing trying to be pointed out here is that "retirement" is not inside what most people consider to be the game of a career. When you quit your last job, your career is over; that is the checkmate moment.

Retirement, on the other hand, is the equivalent of the time between games (or after you quit playing games) when you have a static ranking from your previous play (maybe you're a retired world champion, say), that other people treat as a milestone in their own development—something to reach or to pass.

Now, if you said life, then sure, the endgame phase of that is retirement. But the early-game phase of that is when your parents are providing for you, and only extreme incompetence (or genetic bad luck) can cause you to "lose."

Re: How To Think About Chess

#50

Post by ryanx435 »

derefr wrote: post #49
ryanx435 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

look, I get it. everything has a starting point. (you decide what career you want) then an early game phase. (you go to school to get a degree) than a midgame phase. (you start work and collect paychecks during your career) than an end game phase. (uou live the retired life using the resources you earned during your career ) than the game actually ends when predefined conditions are met. (you die or whatever) got it.…

I think the thing trying to be pointed out here is that "retirement" is not inside what most people consider to be the game of a career. When you quit your last job, your career is over; that is the checkmate moment. Retirement, on the other hand, is the equivalent of the time between games (or after you quit playing games) when you have a static ranking from your previous play (maybe you're a retired world champion,…

again, we're arguing in circles because we are conceptualizing the analogies differently. our definitions of "career" are different.

oh well.

Post reply on HN