Live data from Hacker News

On Learning Chess as an Adult – From 650 to 1750 in Two Years

jacobbrazeal.wordpress.com

321–330 of 342 posts

Re: On Learning Chess as an Adult – From 650 to 1750 in Two Years

#321

I did something very similar with an old strategy game called Age of empires II. Over the course of two years I went from a 1300 rating to 1850. I don't play chess, so it's hard for me to compare the scales, but I will say the highest players were rated around 2600. I think being 1850 put me around 90-95th percentile for active players-- there were less than 50 players over 2300, and only a few hundred over 2000. My…

I don't know if you've ever played runescape but it has a very similar experience to the one you are describing. It's interesting you compare your time spent in a game to time spent productively outside the game. One of the things driving the 'investments' in those style of games(MMO's) is that you get this feeling of progress and can compare your progress to your friends 'skills'. I've been writing alot in my person…

I agree with this assessment: MMOs are very good at getting a person into a skill-acquisition mindset. I've been off-and-on with Planetside 2 for a few years now(it's been getting good updates lately, and I've been seeing new players popping up - good time to get in) and while not every part of it is as deep as it could be, it's got an absolutely huge surface area to study - MMO, FPS, vehicle gameplay, construction, leadership, strategy, and all the edges where these things meet - which means you can feel you've hit your limit in one area and simply shift over to another instead of quitting the game entirely.

Unlike many MMOs the grind is not heavily stat-focused either: while you can get unlocks and upgrades, most of them constitute "sidegrades" into a specialty role. On the field, your effectiveness still comes down to knowing the ins and outs of the gameplay. And there are leaderboards to motivate competitive players, but it's widely acknowledged that playstyles are not represented equally on these boards: it is straightforward to get a very high K/D by learning one of the various kill-farming techniques, and to get a lot of experience points with a support role around a meatgrinder battle. But those things don't necessarily contribute the most to your faction.

It's things like that that suggest where the model breaks down on application to real world skills. Generally, once a person is aware of the things they need to focus on, through good feedback, they can stay on the task. But if you look at a thing like programming, it's like, "where's the feedback?" It's not the butt-in-chair hours that are doing the lifting here. And it isn't reducable to lines compiled or issues cleared or other single-number metrics either. "Speedcoding" is only good in rare circumstances. It's more like a finished project is a series of quests that build on each other, with each quest having some checklist pass/fail requirements. But each one is bespoke, and hard to compare to others even if it's applying the same skills.

Indeed I actually do write down pass/fails conditions as a checklist in the comments to start with a complex implementation, and to create a kernel of documentation. Having tools helps, but it's that early conceptual/goal-setting where I put down boundaries that seems to make the biggest difference.

Re: On Learning Chess as an Adult – From 650 to 1750 in Two Years

#322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was how I played AoE and StarCraft as a kid! I think the vast majority of players play them this way, actually. If you're in the competitive multiplayer scene, it's easy to forget there are millions or tens of millions of single player / campaign-only players.

Campaigns seem to have a bad rep among most gamers online, but honestly they are the most satisfying aspect of strategy games. One of my favourite games growing up was Rise of Nations and its Conquer the World maps - remove that and you get a worthless husk.

I absolutely loved rise of nations. I didn't play the campaigns though, I played random map 1v1 matches versus the AI. Had a great time!

Re: On Learning Chess as an Adult – From 650 to 1750 in Two Years

#323
post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1-2 hours of training per day is incredibly low for a professional athlete. Professional cyclists are on the bike for over half the day, and there is even more work to be done on active recovery and strength training. Even runners, who are more limited by their body than nearly any other sport, spend 15+ hours a week just on running. It's a full time job.

I agree, there's no way professional soccer players only practice 1-2 hours a day. I'd guess 1-2 in the gym plus another few hours at least actually practicing soccer. Even something that's fairly brutal like American football involves an hour or two per day in the gym, plus practice. Professional athletes figure out how to practice as much as possible in a way that doesn't lead to long-term injury and "as much as po…

I also agree. There's a common tendency to overtrain to injury in sports, and it's mostly self-driven, even at amateur level. You look at people training something strenuous every single day, and you'll see a bunch of people who are constantly working around minor injuries, looking for a way to keep getting in the practice. The proliferation of PEDs in sports is not just about enhancing the on-field outcomes but also a quest to recover from this intense, high-volume training faster.

Re: On Learning Chess as an Adult – From 650 to 1750 in Two Years

#324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I stopped playing RTS entirely some years ago because of that. I used to love RTS but... 1. Rushing is stupid, all RTS seemly suffer from allowing it even when devs attempt to curb that down, I remember in AOE for example people training on how to build towers on the enemy base in 2 minutes or how to win with villager rush. (also knew a guy that relentlessy tested ways to rise to the second age faster) 2. Singleplaye…

> 1. Rushing is stupid, all RTS seemly suffer from allowing it even when devs attempt to curb that down, I remember in AOE for example people training on how to build towers on the enemy base in 2 minutes or how to win with villager rush. (also knew a guy that relentlessly tested ways to rise to the second age faster) I have to politely refute this. "Rushing" is the word inexperienced players use for "playing in a mo…

> I have to politely refute this. "Rushing" is the word inexperienced players use for "playing in a more optimal way that prepares you to attack sooner." If you call it "rushing," what you're really saying is that you need other players to deliberately play worse to give you extra time to prepare. All of these strategies have counterplay and usually lead into long games. Using a vil rush or tower rush is not a way to end the game, it's a way to begin it.

For less experienced players, rushes like these tend to end the game early rather than begin it in an interesting way. Either the defender knows how to hold the strategy and shuts it down, or hasn't seen it before and gets destroyed. While these strategies are certainly part of the game and make high level competitive games far more interesting, it is often a frustrating experience for low/mid level players. Many of those players are looking for an experience where they build their army for a while and attack once they're satisfied with what they've built. Certainly not strategically optimal, but that's often what they find fun.

Re: On Learning Chess as an Adult – From 650 to 1750 in Two Years

#325

I did something very similar with an old strategy game called Age of empires II. Over the course of two years I went from a 1300 rating to 1850. I don't play chess, so it's hard for me to compare the scales, but I will say the highest players were rated around 2600. I think being 1850 put me around 90-95th percentile for active players-- there were less than 50 players over 2300, and only a few hundred over 2000. My…

As a chess player I could never get into RTS games though my friends were playing them alot, especially Warcraft 3, but even then they switched to mods like Dota). Instead, I'm pretty good at turn-based games like Civilization V and VI. It feels very cumbersome to control all these units in real time. I could never get used to it and I played many games in that RTS genre: Rise of Nations, C&C: Generals, AOE 2 and 3.…

Try Heroes of Might and Magic 3 (HD version with Horn of the Abbys). This turn-based strategy game is excellent. It's 20 years old, and yet it has a larger average Twitch viewership than AoE, because of its awesome competitive scene.

Re: On Learning Chess as an Adult – From 650 to 1750 in Two Years

#326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1. Rushing is stupid, all RTS seemly suffer from allowing it even when devs attempt to curb that down, I remember in AOE for example people training on how to build towers on the enemy base in 2 minutes or how to win with villager rush. (also knew a guy that relentlessly tested ways to rise to the second age faster) I have to politely refute this. "Rushing" is the word inexperienced players use for "playing in a mo…

> I have to politely refute this. "Rushing" is the word inexperienced players use for "playing in a more optimal way that prepares you to attack sooner." If you call it "rushing," what you're really saying is that you need other players to deliberately play worse to give you extra time to prepare. All of these strategies have counterplay and usually lead into long games. Using a vil rush or tower rush is not a way to…

I totally understand that. It's how I played from 1999-2015.

I'm just saying that rushing isn't a flaw or a problem, rather it's a matter of perspective. Players who want to build up for a while nearly always want to do that because they haven't learned any other way to play. And they're not under any obligation to do so, either-- but it's not fair to say the game is flawed on that basis.

Re: On Learning Chess as an Adult – From 650 to 1750 in Two Years

#327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23888814 > GM Hikaru Nakamura famously took the Mensa online IQ test and scored a very average 102 His elo peak rating is 2816. Just one example for an extraordinary strong player with average IQ (there are many other examples). I don't think that a high IQ is required to become a decent chess player (like 2000). It may help though.

While I think people underestimate how much hard work can overcome low cognitive talent, such that probably a lot of people with average iq can hit a chess rating of 2,000 if that was their primary goal in life, I also think Hikaru's IQ probably isn't actually only 102. Online tests aren't so rigorous. Just from hearing him talk he seems to have the usual nuanced understanding of the universe on a variety of domains…

I think that the value of IQ is overestimated. IQ tests don't capture "nuanced understanding of the universe on a variety of domains". They measure something much more narrow, i.e., how good you are at the particular type of IQ tests.

Re: On Learning Chess as an Adult – From 650 to 1750 in Two Years

#328

I did something very similar with an old strategy game called Age of empires II. Over the course of two years I went from a 1300 rating to 1850. I don't play chess, so it's hard for me to compare the scales, but I will say the highest players were rated around 2600. I think being 1850 put me around 90-95th percentile for active players-- there were less than 50 players over 2300, and only a few hundred over 2000. My…

Hey, OP here - thanks for this wonderful comment. I'd like to hijack this thread to say that I respond to this comment and several other questions here - https://jacobbrazeal.wordpress.com/2020/11/17/the-touching-r.... Thank you all for such a warm reception.

Re: On Learning Chess as an Adult – From 650 to 1750 in Two Years

#329
post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well,his method is not that different of what I have seen other parents have done with their talented kids. Tiger Woods, Ichiro Suzuki, Son Heung-min, Andre Agassi, the Williams sisters, among others, were coached relentlessly since they were almost babies. You can discuss how healthy it is, but the results are there. Judit is by a ridiculous margin the strongest female player in the history.

I suppose my point is, it just feels slightly patronising that the story is presented as this weird brain experiment when I don't think we bat an eyelid at the same upbringing for male players. This is (for better or worse) what it takes to reach 2700. Also, do you categorise the gulf between Polgar and Hou Yifan as a ridiculous margin (about 50 Elo)? Obviously Polgar was better at her peak, stayed there longer, and…

ELO inflation is a real thing in chess.Caruana ELO is 60+ points over Fischer. Polgar reached top 10, Yifan will never be a top 50 player. A top 10 player is in the rounds for the candidates tournament, a top 60 player is lucky if she or he is invited to a 19+ category tournament.

Re: On Learning Chess as an Adult – From 650 to 1750 in Two Years

#330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

T90official is also suuuuupercool! He also started as a pretty mediocre player and now deserves his rank among the best players! He shares a lot of his secrets and is also #1 commentator now for AoE II:DE related games: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZUT79WUUpZlZ-XMF7l4CFg Also watch his Twitch account. Spirit of the Law is also a great resource: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChzLZJo-SxuPHz-oYKAIC_g

T90 to me is such a confusing phenomenon. I've never understood why a low-rated player who (to me) did not have a particularly entertaining personality was the most-subscribed AoE2 player on twitch. Is he actually good now? How high-rated is he compared to Daut and Viper and so on?

He's likeable, non-offensive and casual. Watching people try too hard at a game is draining sometimes.
Post reply on HN