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

How to learn chess as an adult (2021)

alexcrompton.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 320 posts

Re: How to learn chess as an adult (2021)

#111

Post by WJW »

rtpg wrote: post #68
DeathArrow wrote: post #17

Is there a well known strategy game where AI doesn't have better chances to win than a human? Is there possibly, math wise, that such games exist? I kind of dislike not having a chance when playing against bots.

I've found playing against weaker bots you lose on the sort of human nature of weaker players. In particular humans tend to have a bit of an internal narrative, but weaker chess bots tend to just throw in shitty moves. It's pretty well known that bots resort to cheating to win at stuff like Civ. I'm sure there's a patch out there that removes the cheating, and you can stomp on computers there.

The problem with video game bots in games like Civ is that "playing well" is not actually the core goal of the devs. Rather, it has to be enjoyable to play against and easy enough to build and debug in the limited time available until release. Given those constraints, most game devs just give the bot free resources and call it a day.

If somebody would bother to put in the time to make it, a well-crafted Civ bot could probably roflstomp every human out there just by virtue of perfectly micromanaging its production in every city on every turn without effort.

Re: How to learn chess as an adult (2021)

#112

Post by stavros »

dabeeeenster wrote: post #93
xboxnolifes wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Educated. Access to good schools.

What has that got to do with being good at chess?

The concept of privilege is that you have time/energy/resources to do things like play chess instead of looking for work. I'm not sure if you're questioning the concept of privilege (which is fine) or saying that it specifically doesn't have anything to do with chess.

Re: How to learn chess as an adult (2021)

#113

Post by iLoveOncall »

I think the most important thing about learning chess is to not play blitz or bullet games until you are already at a high-enough level (1500+).

Learning comes with analysis and deduction, both of which are pretty much impossible in a sub 10 minutes game for a beginner.

Re: How to learn chess as an adult (2021)

#114

Post by mtlmtlmtlmtl »

hinkley wrote: post #98
washmyelbows wrote: post #18

"Only about 10% of players ever gain more than 100 points, and only about 1% of players gain more than 200 rating points given years." This seems like a wild claim. On chess.com I've gone from 500 to ~1050 in a handful of months without any real study, just some light YouTube watching. 500->800 felt like all it took was learning a few openings and not blundering pieces. 800-1050 felt like it came mostly from getting…

I’ve known this guy off and on for years. When we first met 15+ years he was slightly better at Go than me, which was middling amateur. All the Go books say if you want to be a pro you have to start as a child. But he studied, and studied, and last I knew he was 3 dan, which is about the point you can entertain the idea of becoming a pro (if I just worked harder). Kids have a lot more free time to sink into a singula…

You're right I think. Most adults really don't improve at chess very often. They do when it's a new hobby, but then they plateau. And it's not that they couldn't improve further, it's just that they're not able or willing to do the things necessary, which is usually a lot of exercise and study. It's just a hobby for most people at the end of the day, and they'd rather spend an hour at the club discussing and blitzing some silly openings with friends than spend an hour solving puzzles or studying endgames. We still all carry the illusion of some prospect of improvement, that's the human condition. But most people don't take it very seriously and are more in it for social reasons.

Re: How to learn chess as an adult (2021)

#115

Post by smatija »

narag wrote: post #87
washmyelbows wrote: post #18

"Only about 10% of players ever gain more than 100 points, and only about 1% of players gain more than 200 rating points given years." This seems like a wild claim. On chess.com I've gone from 500 to ~1050 in a handful of months without any real study, just some light YouTube watching. 500->800 felt like all it took was learning a few openings and not blundering pieces. 800-1050 felt like it came mostly from getting…

This seems like a wild claim. On chess.com I've gone from 500 to ~1050 in a handful of months without any real study, Is rating on chess.com similar to rating in lichess? The article mentions 1%, but you start with 1500 in lichess??? If you lose often, you quickly go down. But if you keep an even record, you stay in 1500. I don't understand how people learn from slamming blitz/bullet games. As in the article, speed t…

Rating on chesscom is wildly different than on lichess in lower rating ranges.

300 cc should be similiar to around 800 lichess. Around 2000-2200 ratings even out on both sites and on higher ratings lichess ratings tend to be lower than on cc.

For improving longer time controls are better. The old adage, that if you want to play blitz better you should play rapid and that if you want to improve rapid you should play classical is still valid today. Blitz is beneficial only at higher rating ranges (2000+) to allow practising openings, and even that only in moderation. Players who don't play classical time controls (90min+30sec/move at least) tend to plateau around 2000-2200 online.

This ofc doesn't mean that blitz isn't fun - vast majority of my games are in blitz time controls.

Re: How to learn chess as an adult (2021)

#116

Post by sjducb »

ShoneRL wrote: post #60

A bit of an unhinged, unpopular opinion take: Chess is a very overrated game that's overglorified to the limit and it's an unhealthy addiction for a lot of people and I think modern media needs to stop flaunting Chess as something of a high-horse type of thing. To put simply, I believe Chess is good as something of a brain exercise for when you're younger or if you are a parent and want to develop your child's logica…

This argument generalises to all sport.

If you want to become the best in the world at something then you have to give it 100%. It will be everything in your life.

Most people who try to be the best don’t make it. If you’re nearly the best then your life sucks. You’ve spent all of your energy trying for something that’s not going to give you any returns personally.

Re: How to learn chess as an adult (2021)

#117

Post by [deleted] »

8n4vidtmkvmk wrote: post #99
INTPenis wrote: post #86

My dad was a master chess player in my country when I was growing up so I know all the moves but I never had the interest to go further than that. So what I really need to study are the famous openings and the responses to various openings. Seems like a memory game. Computer games were always more fun.

This is why I've been avoiding chess. Anything that feels too memory intensive just doesn't seem fun to me. It's not creative strategy it's just rote memorization. Same goes for Rubik's cubes.

[deleted]

Re: How to learn chess as an adult (2021)

#118

Post by smatija »

kzrdude wrote: post #81

I don't like losing, I want to always win. That's why I don't play. I've been thinking recently that I should play anyway so that I could grow out of this condition. Any tips for that?

I prefer losing actually - I always find myself a bit dissapointed after achieving victory.

From every loss I learned something (either that my tactics need work, that I need to improve my understanding of this or that structure, that I need to add a line to my repertoire), from victories not so much.

Also I find that going for a beer with opponent when they win is usually much better experience than when they lose - people tend to be more open and talkative after win than after loss.

Re: How to learn chess as an adult (2021)

#119

Post by smatija »

INTPenis wrote: post #86

My dad was a master chess player in my country when I was growing up so I know all the moves but I never had the interest to go further than that. So what I really need to study are the famous openings and the responses to various openings. Seems like a memory game. Computer games were always more fun.

To be fair it only gets memory intensive at higher levels (lets say 1800 fide, 2100 online) - before you can get by playing any not directly lossing line you want, since your opponents won't know how to punish it optimally.

Re: How to learn chess as an adult (2021)

#120

Post by ShoneRL »

sph wrote: post #70
ShoneRL wrote: post #60

A bit of an unhinged, unpopular opinion take: Chess is a very overrated game that's overglorified to the limit and it's an unhealthy addiction for a lot of people and I think modern media needs to stop flaunting Chess as something of a high-horse type of thing. To put simply, I believe Chess is good as something of a brain exercise for when you're younger or if you are a parent and want to develop your child's logica…

Sounds like you have terrible experience with being forced to explore one's talent for the game, but I dont think that deep of an history with it can provide an objective assessment of the game: any hobby taken to the extreme, maniacal and methodical level stops becoming a hobby, and turns into work. There is this widespread notion that the deeper you go, the more enjoyable it is and it is utter nonsense. Even in gam…

While I absolutely understand your point, I also feel like it's sometimes beyond someone's control to get sucked into something. I started playing with friends on school breaks and soon I was joining a Chess club with them and soon I was googling ways to get better and soon I was skimping out on social interaction because I felt it was better to stay home and play online chess because starting up a game was far easier than having to go somewhere physically and wonder if it's gonna be a good time and all.

Chess is a bit weird. I enjoy playing it. It's just a game but we place intellectual superiority on people who play it (well) but that's not true, a great Chess player wouldn't necessarily be a great engineer or an architect. There's some point of prestige to playing Chess, even in your wording, why is the elderly person playing Chess at a park a "gentleman"? It's because they play Chess and playing Chess is just classy in pop culture.

Anyways, my original comment was just an introspective on what Chess really is about on a higher level in my experiences, generally I see Chess as bit of a flawed game, since the better you get, the less interesting the game is and it just transitions in an overcomplicated memory game.

There's no glory to Chess. Good players were just kids that got shoved into this Chess lifestyle and kept at it. Adult players can get better but if you haven't played Chess as a kid, your talent is very limited and your progression speed is much worse, it's not impossible per say but it's also not likely.

"I am learning Chess so that if one day I find an elderly gentleman at the park with a board, I can sit for a game and a chat."

Since I quit actively playing, this is exactly my thought, it doesn't hurt to know how to play but any effort towards improving isn't really important, nor should it be any sort of priority. Take it slow, enjoy the ride but don't get too entangled.

A wise man once said, "The ability to play chess is the sign of a gentleman. The ability to play chess well is the sign of a wasted life." and that just resonated with me, deeply, because it is really true on every and so many levels.

Post reply on HN