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

What is Chess? What to think and for how long

alexcrompton.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 126 posts

Re: What is Chess? What to think and for how long

#31

Post by bsaul »

akuro wrote: post #17
keiferski wrote: post #4

I’ve always found Deleuze and Guattari’s comments on chess vs. go to be interesting. Some of the terminology might not make sense if you’re unfamiliar with their work, but I think you can get the general gist: Let us take a limited example and compare the war machine and the state apparatus in the context of the theory of games. Let us take chess and Go, from the standpoint of game pieces, the relations between the p…

Reading this has made me realise that I am nowhere near as literate as I think I am.

IMHO the 1950s and 60s were the pinacle of intellectual life ( at least in france). Students were actually "fans" of philosophical figures like jean paul sartre. The trendiest place for youth wasn't a nightclub or a gym. It was the café de flore, close to "la sorbonne" university, were one could hope to see a famous writer have a coffee. Young people would spend their saturday skimming through books at "gilbert joseph" bookseller.

This is simply gone forever. Whenever i see today's celebrities becoming famous via 20 seconds tiktok, or pseudo intellectuals debating over twitter, and i think about this era that was only 50 years ago, i feel like crying.

Re: What is Chess? What to think and for how long

#32

Post by jjbinx007 »

ronyfadel wrote: post #8

Hijacking the comments to ask: what is the best way to get better at chess? (other than “just” playing matches, I’m already doing that)

Aman Hambleton has an EXCELLENT although very long series on Youtube called Building Habits. He starts at a very low ELO and follows a set of basic rules. He loses several games but his win ratio is high. Once he gets to a higher Elo he has to introduce new rules, and again it doesn't mean you'll win every game but you build good habits by practicing over and over again.

And so it continues. Here's the full playlist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8pZbhjL-fQ&list=PL8N8j2e7Rp...

Re: What is Chess? What to think and for how long

#34

Post by vikingerik »

brrrrrm wrote: post #9
ronyfadel wrote: post #8

Hijacking the comments to ask: what is the best way to get better at chess? (other than “just” playing matches, I’m already doing that)

Puzzles + learning openings. I highly recommend lichess for this

Make sure you do defensive puzzles as well. I'm fairly decent at spotting a tactic to win material a few moves ahead, but terrible at seeing one coming from my opponent early enough to avert it. I'm not sure what lichess has, but definitely look for puzzles where you have to avoid a knight fork or some pin or incoming checkmate.

Re: What is Chess? What to think and for how long

#35

Post by kubb »

akuro wrote: post #17
keiferski wrote: post #4

I’ve always found Deleuze and Guattari’s comments on chess vs. go to be interesting. Some of the terminology might not make sense if you’re unfamiliar with their work, but I think you can get the general gist: Let us take a limited example and compare the war machine and the state apparatus in the context of the theory of games. Let us take chess and Go, from the standpoint of game pieces, the relations between the p…

Reading this has made me realise that I am nowhere near as literate as I think I am.

To be fair, philosophy is often strong in words and weak in content.

Re: What is Chess? What to think and for how long

#36

Post by DC-3 »

TechBro8615 wrote: post #24
ycombinete wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seneca was of a similar opinion: It would be a lengthy business to mention all the different people who have spent their lives engaged in chess-playing or exercise with ball or the practice of roasting their bodies in the sun. They are not unoccupied when their pleasure form such a busy occupation. No one will doubt that those men are energetic triflers who devote their hours to the study of useless literature - On t…

That's weird, since chess didn't exist when Seneca was alive. Perhaps that's a mistranslation and he was referring to Ludus latrunculorum? [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludus_latrunculorum

Mistranslation is unfair. It's a translation that best reflects the spirit of the original. It would be distracting to the modern reader to refer to a game which would be obscure and unfamiliar, when most likely the point of the original text is to invoke a board game which would be universally known among the audience.

That said, you are right:

https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/De_brevitate_vitae

> XIII 1. Persequi singulos longum est, quorum aut latrunculi aut pila aut excoquendi in sole corporis cura consumpsere vitam. Non sunt otiosi, quorum voluptates multum negotii habent. Nam de illis nemo dubitabit, quin operose nihil agant, qui litterarum inutilium studiis detinentur, quae iam apud Romanos quoque magna manus est.

(emphasis mine)

Re: What is Chess? What to think and for how long

#37

Post by bzhang255 »

bsaul wrote: post #31
akuro wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reading this has made me realise that I am nowhere near as literate as I think I am.

IMHO the 1950s and 60s were the pinacle of intellectual life ( at least in france). Students were actually "fans" of philosophical figures like jean paul sartre. The trendiest place for youth wasn't a nightclub or a gym. It was the café de flore, close to "la sorbonne" university, were one could hope to see a famous writer have a coffee. Young people would spend their saturday skimming through books at "gilbert josep…

Were you one of those youths or are you just romanticizing someone else's past (which you know nothing about) so you can criticize a contemporary youth populace (whom you know nothing about)?

Re: What is Chess? What to think and for how long

#38

Post by cglace »

ronyfadel wrote: post #8

Hijacking the comments to ask: what is the best way to get better at chess? (other than “just” playing matches, I’m already doing that)

I’m ~2000 online and got there by training tactics/puzzles and becoming really good at a few openings. I would suggest learning an opening or two for white and an opening or two for black. Kings Indian, modern defense, Sicilian defense, and danish gambit are some of my favorites.

Re: What is Chess? What to think and for how long

#39

Post by chucksmash »

ycombinete wrote: post #5
sadhorse wrote: post #2

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

Seneca was of a similar opinion: It would be a lengthy business to mention all the different people who have spent their lives engaged in chess-playing or exercise with ball or the practice of roasting their bodies in the sun. They are not unoccupied when their pleasure form such a busy occupation. No one will doubt that those men are energetic triflers who devote their hours to the study of useless literature - On t…

Ha, I just re-read this page in this book this morning.

The translation my book used instead of "chess-playing" was "draughts."

Re: What is Chess? What to think and for how long

#40

Post by jrumbut »

vlovich123 wrote: post #18
armitron wrote: post #7

Precise thought patterns, acronyms, X seconds per move... This seems like a terrible, robotic way to play chess, at least when it comes to having fun. I've played in excess of 100k games on lichess (mostly 3 minutes, some 5 minute and bullet too, no increments) with my ELO rating being ~2100 and I don't consciously do any of these (whether these or approximations of such still take place unconsciously is a different…

> No masters are sitting there counting TSAW TISP on their claws! I think this is misguided. A rigorous thought pattern is not a cage, it is an x ray. It shows our lion's bones. Strong players don't notice their thought patterns - you only notice bones when they're broken. The goal is not to think TSAW TISP in t, the goal is for good thought patterns to become so internalised that they form the skeleton our muscles h…

I think I just don't enjoy chess, so maybe all advice is wasted on me and I should give up on it for this lifetime but I appreciate your sentiment.

Periodically I try to learn, and I know some openings out to a handful of moves and have done a bunch of end game puzzles and read about some concepts, but that middle area feels like a dark forest with no obvious path.

I either make the blunder that sets me up to lose, watch my opponent make their blunder, or we survive.

I think a more structured approach to the midgame would help me develop some of the sensibilities the grandparent poster is talking about. Does that even exist?

Post reply on HN