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

151–160 of 320 posts

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

#151

Post by Double_a_92 »

smatija wrote: post #119
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.

It's still a systematic "issue"... If it is virtually impossible to find a great or optimal move (even given enough time) without having to memorize tons of specific situations first that's kinda annoying. It's a similar thing with competitive programming. At first the problems are solvable by thinking, but at some point you just need to memorize (or even copy paste) a solution that someone else figured out first... Boring.

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

#152

Post by Oreb »

zelphirkalt wrote: post #56
chongli wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you follow the link to the data analysis [1] you’ll see that the argument is based on higher rated players. Low rated players have much higher variance in their rating and can improve by quite a lot, just by learning to stop blundering. That’s basically the situation you’re in. Getting to 2000 rating is going to be quite a mountain to climb for you, unless you’re very young. [1] https://github.com/jcw024/lichess_d…

And not to forget to avoid disappointment: An online 2000 is maybe an offline 1800 or so. Online ratings are in general higher than what people actually have offline.

That’s pretty much the opposite of how I feel. I can win against much stronger players over the board than online. It’s so hard to summon the same focus and energy in an online game.

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

#153

Post by wccrawford »

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've been the same way for as long as I can remember. It applies to single player games, too.

I've found that there are some games that losing isn't completely off-putting. But I think the real issue is that the fun I get from most games is in winning, not in playing. If I was playing for not reason (not to win, no goals, etc) I wouldn't play it, and would do something else instead. Winning makes it feel enough better than I want to play.

I've been trying to "overcome" this, too, and having the right mindset is start. "I'm here to enjoy the game, not the win.", etc.

Good luck. :)

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

#154

Post by AntoniusBlock »

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.

Rather than studying specific moves and move orders, you can get away with studying plans and ideas if you're under 2000 FIDE. I got to around 2200 online with minimal opening memorisation, but with a lot of time dedicated to solving tactical puzzles (2-3 hours every day for around 3 years).

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

#155

Post by scotty79 »

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?

Take up any online multiplayer game and then lose a lot. Lose till it wears you down, so you'll stop caring, about loses ... and wins. It will feel terrible at the beginning and you'll want to come back to single player games that are built in a way that lets you win, but after some time (years) you'll no longer care and will enjoy the game itself not the result.

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

#156

Post by vjerancrnjak »

pedrekz wrote: post #137
smatija wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's possible, if unlikely - wayward queen is not as bad as it looks (black has maybe a tiny bit more than equality), most players don't face it often (so probably don't have a lot of prep memorized) and in blitz time controls it's hard to find optimal punishment for subpar opening play. And 2000 is not that high again - top 0.3% on chess com is maybe top 50% of tournament players. Online chess has a lot of begineers…

Everyone who’s higher rated than 500 can see that you’re lying, I don’t know why you insist. Yes, you’re not immediately losing the game if you play the right moves, but it stops being a “trick” waaaay before you’re 2000, even in blitz. You don’t need any “prep”. Edit: you’re not the same person from the comment above, my bad

edit: what the other responder says

I'm not saying I'm mating people in 3 moves. There are many unique mating opportunities in queen openings and many ways to create immense pressure on the king's side if the player does not defend well. Try it yourself and you'll quickly see that -2000 rated players (online) struggle with it. Similarly, you're not sacrificing development and you castle at the same moment (sometimes after black).

For example, many games I would get my queen attacked on F3 and then I would lose my rook. But this 3 move knight play on the opponents side gives you a lot of moves to create pressure, in one case you can have 3 pieces developed, while opponent has 0 (excluding the knight stuck in the corner). With the queen on king's side, you have a lot of options to equalize. If opponent is focused on saving the knight, the moves are just bad.

In 2+1 and 3 min blitz it's unlikely you'll get someone that won't make the position almost even after 10 moves.

The biggest hurdle to progress was my endgame and in blitz I found that being a piece down is rarely an indicator of loss at that level. + I did win a lot on time.

I was playing 200-250 blitz games a day and would analyze many, but I never bothered with openings. I quit because it was obviously too much.

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

#157

Post by smatija »

Double_a_92 wrote: post #151
smatija wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's still a systematic "issue"... If it is virtually impossible to find a great or optimal move (even given enough time) without having to memorize tons of specific situations first that's kinda annoying. It's a similar thing with competitive programming. At first the problems are solvable by thinking, but at some point you just need to memorize (or even copy paste) a solution that someone else figured out first...…

You can say this about any human endeavour - to learn language, you need to learn idioms. To write, you need tropes, to program you need patterns, etc. Every sport has its plays.

I think learning games of past masters in chess is akin to learning culture when studying language. Standing on the shoulders of the giants and all that jazz.

Especially since learning openings is not pure memorization of moves - its about learning ideas, stories, patterns. For example:

Najdorf variation of sicilian begins with 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 [0]. Idea behind 5. ... a6 is that black wants to play e5+d5 to gain full center, but 5. ... e5 right now losses due to 6. Bb5+. So black prevents it with 5. ... a6.

Now white has a lot of choices - 6. Bg5 is very concrete, you need some memorization, 6. Bc4 is sharp but a bit more rational, 6. Be3 is very popular today, ... All of them have some benefits and drawbacks.

I play 6. Be2, since it gives white some pressure, while having very classical idea-based play and black players often lack preparation for it. Black can now play 6. ... e6 (transposing to Scheveningen sicilian) or 6. ... e5, staying in the Najdorf waters. Lets look at 6. ... e5. White plays 7. Nb3, 7. Nf3?! is worse since white will soon want to play f4 or f3 and knight would block that pawn.

Now is the interesting part: the only good move in this position is 7. ... Be7 and it's hard to see why. A lot of my online games are already decided in next few moves.

Point is, that 7. ... Nbd7 (with idea of developing light squared bishop on b7) interferes with black control of d5, so white can gain bind on d5 via playing a4 (preventing b5) and then either Bc4 or Nd2-Nc4-Ne3 takes full control of d5. This is crucial, since if black is unable to achieve d5 pawn break he has nothing to play for in these structures, so game is totally in white hands.

Secondly 7. ... Be6 fails very concretely to 8. f4 Qc7 9. g4 exf4 10. g5!, which was pioneered by Julio Kaplan, a former junior chess world champion and software chess pioneer. We get to a very open position where black king is stuck in the center, so white gets a very pleasant attack for free.

I hope this gives you a bit of a counterpoint towards why learning theory is not only annoying.

[0] - in algebraic notation, for those interested in learning it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebraic_notation_(chess)

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

#158

Post by AntoniusBlock »

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…

Chess at the highest levels is drawish, but we're talking 2500+ FIDE. The vast majority of players aren't near 2500. Memorisation isn't even a problem for most people because most people won't ever be playing at the professional level and even then the amount of memorisation required isn't as much as you're making it out to be. For example: a close friend of mine is an FM and I saw his opening files. He has around 500 lines on the Benko, around 600 lines on the English (1. c4) and 700 lines on the Sicilian Najdorf (including anti-Sicilians). That's his entire repertoire, which he has been building up for 10 years. That isn't a crazy amount. As for 960 theory, please show me. I've heard of 960 principles, like developing bishops before knights because bishops, but not actual opening theory.

>Middlegame theory

What do you mean by this? There are strategical principles, but I don't think I've ever heard of middlegame theory.

>Endgame theory

Endgame theory isn't too difficult up to around 2000 FIDE if you know the basic principles (taking opposition, key squares, square rule, philidor position, other rook endgame basics, knowing which pieces you can mate with, etc) which can be learnt in an evening. You said you love calculation. Well, to me, even if you don't know endgame theory you can still be a good endgame player if you're a good calculator.

Anyway, I agree with your other points about there being no money in chess and chess leading to an unhealthy lifestyle.

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

#159

Post by scotty79 »

smatija wrote: post #118
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 -…

Wins feel unearned (the opponent just played so bad) or accidental (he played good but made this one mistake, it could have gone either way).

In case of the loses you feel way more in control somehow (ooh, I definitely shouldn't have done that) or are just funny (I can't do anything, they are wiping the floor with me, it's comical) where you set up your own small goals to achieve because you have no hopes of actually competing (yes! I got him this one time so it's 12-1 not 12-0).

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

#160

Post by sph »

ShoneRL wrote: post #120
sph wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 easie…

Even if I dont completely agree with your negative take, I appreciate the point your making.

"The ability to play chess is the sign of a gentleman. The ability to play chess well is the sign of a wasted life." applies to a lot of things. How worth is it for me to spend my evenings honing my programming skills, instead of traveling, seeing the world, falling in love?

At the end of the day, there is no preordained path, nor St. Peter at the gate or other God deciding our worth by weighing our heart. Do what is fun for you, no one cares, not even God. The person that played chess all their life, and the person that did something better end up in the same place, forgotten, waiting to be swallowed by our red giant sun.

But if your parents wanted you to become a chess Grandmaster, and you just want to play ball, fuck them, go live your life.

Post reply on HN