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

161–170 of 320 posts

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

#161

Post by bnralt »

mgaunard wrote: post #77

I like casual chess; as soon as it gets into blitz and studying openings and patterns I tend to lose interest, that sounds like work, not fun. It's like studying the meta instead of actually playing.

This is how I feel as well. I did a little studying, but it not only felt like a treadmill, I actually felt like I was using less of my critical thinking skills the more I studied. Stuff like memorizing openings, memorizing the best move a chess engine would give you for certain situations, stuff like grandmasters memorizing entire games - this all seemed to be pretty common. I didn't see the point in putting in work only to enjoy the game less.

Of course, plenty of people enjoy a much more memorization heavy game. But it feels like ruining the fun part of the game to me.

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

#162

Post by sph »

4lun wrote: post #135
sph wrote: post #55

Great article. I got into chess recently, and I can only recommend the "Learn chess with Dr. Wolf" app. https://apps.apple.com/us/app/learn-chess-with-dr-wolf/id135... It's got a beautiful UI, and it's a conversational chess tutor that goes over the basics, tactics, advanced strategy and with whom you can play and will point out mistakes and blunders for later review. Perhaps it is too basic for anybody that has a fe…

Ah this is great, just spent 30 mins playing this on the London underground as it works offline too

Yeah it's great when you have a few minutes to spare. I do a little lesson and a quick game to practice it in my lunch break.

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

#163

Post by scotty79 »

When I first encountered chess as a kid I thought it was a game about thinking because that's how we played it. I was good at it. Then in high school I've met a kid that wiped the floor with me because he actually was taught how to play chess. I played with him few times until I won once just because he was lulled by a streak of wins. That was enough for me so I stopped bothering him with myself. Later in some other context I played checkers with him which I used played (and loose terribly) with my grandma as a few years old child. It turned out that I'm wiping the floor with him in checkers. He didn't even won once. Then I formed a overgeneralized opinion that games are not using any universal matter of thinking. Any thinking you do for the purposes of games is narrowly tailored to the game itself. Being good at one means you are still terrible at others. I generalized this opinion even more, into all domains of human activity. So now when highly educated geologist claims something about climate or zoologist claims something about vaccines I know that they are beginner level wrong.

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

#164

Post by necovek »

anonyfox wrote: post #106
robotresearcher wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Robots can’t even carry enough energy to play a physical/sports game, even if their AI was perfect and cost zero energy itself. There’s no imminent tech that will change this. We have many years. I’d love to be wrong about that, but I’m probably not. Check out Robocup for superhuman speed miniature soccer games. But the games are small and short. The humanoid games are much less well developed.

Probably we differ here on the timespans, thats okay :-) Personally I explicitly do not expect robots to actually have human-like shape but rather be optimized for the thing they do, which can change the energy requirements or otherwise things that might look "unfair" to humans. Usually this is one of the key reasons where different timelines come from in discussions, where people assume that a humanoid robot needs t…

That's moving the goalposts (pun intended :)): having a wheeled robot with an enclosed (ball protection!) basketball holder slide around the basketball court and extend the basketball holder up to the rim would certainly allow it to beat humans, but it wouldn't really be "playing basketball".

We engage in sports because they are fun and explore the limits of our physical and mental abilities (or well, go above our limits, as all the kinesio-tapes and supplements in pro sports indicate). Involving robots can only continue to be fun if robots work with roughly the same restrictions.

If we want to measure AIs against our mental abilities, it's only fair to pit them with controlling as much "machinery" and suboptimal movements as humans do in a particular sport: that versatility is what makes our intelligence so amazing and, well, "general".

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

#165

Post by mptest »

sph wrote: post #55

Great article. I got into chess recently, and I can only recommend the "Learn chess with Dr. Wolf" app. https://apps.apple.com/us/app/learn-chess-with-dr-wolf/id135... It's got a beautiful UI, and it's a conversational chess tutor that goes over the basics, tactics, advanced strategy and with whom you can play and will point out mistakes and blunders for later review. Perhaps it is too basic for anybody that has a fe…

Can anyone recommend a similar app/site for learning go? That one feels so hard to learn, but it is so fun. the games really feel like a conversation

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

#166

Post by V-2 »

zpeti wrote: post #30
alberto_ol wrote: post #28

I briefly scanned the article. I am not that impressed by the result. I thought that an average smart person and particularly someone with a scientific background could reach that resalt in one or two months. My experience. I played chess when I was between 13 and 16, at that time I was a good player but not a child prodigy, let's say one of the best players in my school. I have no idea of my ELO then, there was no i…

Lichess ratings are higher generally, although they even out with chess.com the higher you get. 1400 on lichess is more like 1200 on chess.com, but 1900 is probably 1900. Based on your post though, you definitely seem like you are very smart or have a natural affinity for chess. 1900 is extremely high, especially in a few months or even years. Normally people gain around 300 ELO points per year if they are learning a…

> 1400 on lichess is more like 1200 on chess.com, but 1900 is probably 1900.

Not in my experience. I'm rated 1900+ on lichess and 1600+ on chess.com. That's after playing a significant number of games (nearly 500 on chess.com, thousands on lichess).

The way I feel about it, a 1900 player on lichess is an intermediate beginner (like myself), whereas 1900 on chess.com already represents a decent club player level.

For reference, "in real life" (Elo rating / FIDE) I'm rated below 1300 in classical chess, and about 1400 in rapid - although I've played only one rapid tournament, and I don't have a blitz rating at all, which makes comparisons a bit tricky.

For what it's worth though, as far as I can tell, these proportions are about typical.

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

#167

Post by necovek »

DeathArrow wrote: post #42
netfortius wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True randomness doesn't drive better results for humans, due to some intrinsic humane qualities, but rather eliminates the advantage of large volume data access and processing of AI. Basically true randomness levels the playing field. Backgammon is a perfect example.

You want a game where searching large amounts of data, computing moves and calculating probabilities fast doesn't help. Maybe some randomness will help, but might not be enough. My ideea is that bots can't win in the real world economy, no fund driven solely by algorithms can win more than funds driven by humans. So if we can find a game modeled like the economy, where nothing is random but many things are uncertain,…

TBH, "real world economy" does allow humans to rewrite the rules, and they've done so: issuing more bonds, deflating the currency, printing more money, bailing out broke banks, hiding facts and selling before downturn goes public, pure and simple fraud...

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

#168

Post by tutfbhuf »

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…

I think what you're describing is the crux of the issue for chess players who don't want to commit full-time to chess but also have problems just playing a game here and there casually because it draws them in. In other words, they’re too good to be casual but not good or dedicated enough to be full-time professionals. These people are usually chess experts with 2000+ ratings but below international master (IM) level. I, for one, played chess when I was a kid, but decided not to devote too much time to it (1800 elo), although it was a lot of fun, because I wanted to spend time with friends and I didn't want to spend too much time on chess. Over the years, I adopted the approach of trying to be in the top 10% in many different things, just for fun and interest, instead of being just in the top 0.1% in one thing.

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

#169

Post by necovek »

jabl wrote: post #53
DeathArrow wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You want a game where searching large amounts of data, computing moves and calculating probabilities fast doesn't help. Maybe some randomness will help, but might not be enough. My ideea is that bots can't win in the real world economy, no fund driven solely by algorithms can win more than funds driven by humans. So if we can find a game modeled like the economy, where nothing is random but many things are uncertain,…

I would imagine in many games randomness (e.g. through throwing dice, or pulling cards from a randomized pack) add noise, but the underlying strategy (including processing data, calculating probabilities etc.) still help. In such a game even though an AI might be superior, the randomness might mean that occasionally the human wins. Or for an extreme example, if nothing you do in the game really matters, it's all just…

> if nothing you do in the game really matters, it's all just down to random chance... But such a game would probably not be particularly enjoying to play.

I guess all the slot machine players tend to differ in opinion there :)

Sure, slot machine operators adjust winning chances so players keep on playing, but to a player, it's not influenced by anything they do, other than "just one more time and I'll win".

Post reply on HN