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

171–180 of 320 posts

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

#171

Post by erfgh »

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…

Some people just want to have fun and that's what blitz is for. Why are people so preoccupied with improving when it comes to chess? If any other game is mentioned the discussion will not be so centered on improvement as it is with chess. Maybe it is because chess has this air of a "thinking man's game" which does not really deserve. It's just a game like any other.

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

#172

Post by erfgh »

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.

Just play chess960. It is a better game.

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

#173

Post by nicky0 »

erfgh wrote: post #171
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…

Some people just want to have fun and that's what blitz is for. Why are people so preoccupied with improving when it comes to chess? If any other game is mentioned the discussion will not be so centered on improvement as it is with chess. Maybe it is because chess has this air of a "thinking man's game" which does not really deserve. It's just a game like any other.

Because learning and improving is part of the pleasure of chess. It's a game you can enjoy to play, but also enjoy to study. As you improve, there's a tangible sense of progression which is rewarding. And the scope for progression goes very very deep.

Not all other games have this feature. If I play Catan with my friends, it's fun, but then the game is over. I'm not going to analyse my game and discover new tactics or strategies, like I will with chess.

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

#174

Post by ShoneRL »

AntoniusBlock wrote: post #158
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 50…

I remember I saw some website which allowed you to select some 960 position and it would show like some commentary on how to proceed as either side and what should be prioritized and showcase past games with the same position, this was like a year or two ago.

By middlegame theory, I meant that there is a lot of resources on Chessable that go into middlegame theory of an opening if both sides played early opening by the book, so even middlegame is quite covered in terms of variants and the otherwise general strategy ideas are actually incorporated as part of the theory and studied as such.

As for endgames, I don't think the theory is too difficult but it's also been a situation where people are guided towards books like Dvoretsky's endgame manual and 100 endgames you must know and stuff like that which again is just thrown at you and told to go study it because a lot of the people read these books.

Now, generally, I agree, you can play Chess by intuition to a really good level but I've had games where my opponents just told me my moves were sound, made sense and in a way they were "good" but they fell to a part of their preparation theory that was like 8-9 moves deep and honestly, I really didn't like that and I absolutely didn't want to join this "rat race" because I think for me it would be a unhealthy life to aimlessly keep studying Chess just so I can be competitive against other people who do this same exact thing of studying.

Anyways, hope I clarified things and thanks for chipping in!

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

#175

Post by ShoneRL »

sjducb wrote: post #133
ShoneRL wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose it does to a certain extent but most of my experiences were with Chess, Football and Boxing. People say Chess is a sport but it's not really physically-exerting like some other sports or even healthy at all. In terms of other sports, I think football (soccer) is a sport you don't really have to be 100% at, since that sport is somehow globally recognized and profitable so even subpar players can live well of…

I think you have to be very good at football/boxing to make a living off it. A subpar 3rd division football player is a better athlete than anyone you have ever met in your day-to-day life. Chess supports maybe 30 full time competitors, whereas football supports a few thousand. However millions more people try to be footballers. Your odds of success are probably better with chess. All three of those sports destroy yo…

Local football team has people who are mostly mediocre and they make decent money, since I know one of the players. I don't mean to belittle their efforts or the time invested but generally, it is a competitive sport but it's also at same time providing more opportunities overall.

I suppose it depends on where you are and how competitive it is.

You do have a point about elite sport though the argument extends to casual as well, where casual football, tennis or even basketball is just healthier than sitting over a chess board. Pardon me, I might be a bit biased here since I am maybe too conscious about sedentary chair-lifestyle since I work from an office and spend a lot of time in a chair and lately been trying to get more active.

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

#176

Post by TrackerFF »

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…

As the classic quote goes:

"The ability to play chess is the sign of a gentleman. The ability to play chess well is the sign of a wasted life."

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

#177

Post by FartyMcFarter »

shric wrote: post #143
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 don't understand how people learn from slamming blitz/bullet games. The time constraints are too rushed to really think about what makes a move good or bad. I assumed it was a young person's thing, but the author said he plays these quick formats too. I'm 47 and started playing around 5 years ago. I only play Blitz and Bullet because I find it fun. In the first two years I went from around 1000 on lichess to arou…

If you analyse the blitz games after playing them, that can bridge some of the gap.

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

#179

Post by erfgh »

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…

Most of what you say about the highest level is true for most other pursuits.

My view is that chess without memorization is not a very interesting game. What remains is just calculation which is uninteresting to 99+% of people. Since you reached a high level in the game I believe you have excellent calculation skills and part of the reason for that is that you, as you say, find calculation interesting.

I find calculation pointless and thus I'm very bad at it; even after 30 years of playing I hang pieces on half my games and I rarely, if ever, calculate more than one move deep. I believe most people are like me in this regard and therefore most people will remain at a sub-1500 rating forever.

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

#180

Post by V-2 »

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.

> So what I really need to study are the famous openings and the responses to various openings. Seems like a memory game.

That's a bit like saying that mathematics or physics are "memory games", because if you take them seriously, you can't avoid learning tons of equations and formulas instead of being creative (and reinventing the wheel by going from scratch) :)

While memorization is certainly a part of chess:

* Opening theory doesn't matter all that much up until a very high level. Below the master level chess is about 90% tactics. You can pretty much rely on general principles in the opening, and your opponents won't know enough opening theory anyway (so what's the point of eg. memorizing the theory on Sveshnikov Sicilian up until move 15 if you won't ever use it, because your opponents will be out of the book and play something non-theoretical long before).

* Even when opening theory does matter, memorizing it blindly is not enough, and it would be very difficult when done that way. It has to be based on deeper understanding of themes, underlying structures, typical plans for both sides in resulting types of positions, crucial squares to control etc.

I remember this scene in "Suits" (courtesy of YT recommendation algorithm - never watched the entire series, so I don't know the broader context). A guy without a degree walks into a law office, and the boss says "sorry, we only hire from Harvard", but he demands that the boss opens some law book on a random page, and he can quote the book perfectly like a savant. Needless to say, he's hired on the spot : )

This is what people may imagine the work of a lawyer revolves around, but it's not really accurate.

Post reply on HN