Chess General

>>7834853
>1.e4 is a meme opening

Post disregarded

Are there any benefits to learning chess besides slowing down Alzheimers and having fun?

>>7834853
>playing a mathematically deterministic game
Chess is just advanced tic-tac-toe.

>>7834880
I don't think anyone disputes this, but it still hasn't been solved

I like facing e4 so I can play a Sicilian. I would like to play it except at the beginner level everybody wants to play the Philidor against it and put me to sleep. Then again playing d4 and getting QGD'd is almost as boring

>>7834871
It really depends on who you are playing and the level you play at. I prefer chess variants. I like all the extra pieces, new pieces, larger boards, and that feeling that you simply can't grasp everything. You can make far more complicated strategies and totally miss what your opponent is up to. I feel the added complexity and chance for being blind sided makes things a bit more realistic. Games are also much much longer normally and if you find someone else who likes to play these, your golden.

>>7834880
Not if you make it into a timed drinking game. 1 shot per piece you lose and 1 shot for taking longer than 5 seconds per turn. You may need a 3rd party to tell you what illegal moves your are trying to make.

>>7834871
I was gonna ask this. It's an ok game but it doesn't seem to improve anything.

>>7834853
>Chess
>Not Go

Is there a way to more clearly shout that you have a 2 digit IQ?

File: Hex-board-11x11-(2).jpg (35KB, 300x213px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 300x213px

>>7835043
>Go
>Not Hex
It's like you enjoy being a weeb and a pleb.

>>7835050
>Not playing the oldest and thus most developed game in the world
>Not playing the game of the nobles
>Not playing the game of the gods
>Not playing the game that is oficially a martial art for smart people

Stay inferior.

>>7835060
>the oldest and thus most developed game in the world
It's only "developed" if it actually changes. But people can't even agree on how Go scoring works.
>the game of the nobles
>the game of the gods
Inferior to the mathematical, abstract perfection of Hex.
>the game that is officially a martial art for smart people
Don't let Japan tell you what's good and what isn't.

>>7834853
chess is for degenerates.

fuck off.

>>7835071
>It's only "developed" if it actually changes.
I am talking about the meta. It has developed for 4000 years and now we have almost perfectly calculated moves that pro players religiously memorize and yet, a lot of pro players are known by how their play style differ from these calculated moves.

> But people can't even agree on how Go scoring works.
Go developed in different countries and thus each place developed its own culture around it. Nothing wrong about that, the core game is the same.
>Don't let Japan tell you what's good and what isn't.
Japan is not the only one that uses kyu and dan ranks. Everyone does it, even the US.

>>7835013
what are your favorite chess variants?

Enough talk, let's play

http://lichess.org/tm1TgHSu

>>7834853
ChessTempo is fantastic, unlimited puzzles for free, and the user interface is cool. Plus, you can follow your development through the rating system, which is motivating

>>7835034
>>7834871
Yes, increase in focus, strategic thinking, math performance, self esteem and IQ has been observed in chess playing groups of children compared to control groups. Google "benefits of chess", one of first results is a site with a lot of studies linked.

>>7835001
How does the Philidor put you to sleep? After e4 e5 Nf3 d6 e4 it usually goes into tactical fireworks. Look at Morphy's games for inspiration.

>>7835013
>chess variants
Ew.

>>7835284
CT is cancer. It's like hammering in mathematics with trial and error instead of learning the concepts. Don't tell CT faggots that though, there are idiots who did 50k problems there for a 150ish total point increase. Read Averbakh Advanced Chess Tactics (not really that advanced) and go through a structured puzzle book.
Quality >>> quantity

>>7835797
Watch MatoJelic's vids

>>7835800
His voice annoys me. I much prefer St Louis Chess club videos.

>>7835248
I only play one, locally with friends. It ranges from 2 to 4 players.

>>7835797
CT is not cancer. It helps you improve your perception of the board and expose you to all kinds of positions, especially if you're a beginner. Of course you have to learn how to develop ideas in games in order to actually win, but practicing tactics and improving your vision will help you implement those strategies. Also, if you get a problem wrong, you'll stop and see why you got it wrong, so you learn.

>playing anything besides e4
go kill urself hipster fags
also: if you're elo is below 2000 you should seriously consider killing urself

>>7836091
>It helps you improve your perception of the board and expose you to all kinds of positions, especially if you're a beginner.
You know what also does that? A well made collection made by an experienced chess trainer.
>Of course you have to learn how to develop ideas in games in order to actually win, but practicing tactics and improving your vision will help you implement those strategies.
How's that CT specific?

>Also, if you get a problem wrong, you'll stop and see why you got it wrong, so you learn.
See above.

Tactics don't happen in vacuum. There are patterns that enable them to happen ("geometry"). Everybody agrees up to this point. Yet, the idea that some advanced player in the past collected great examples of those patterns and combined them with verbal explanations pointing out ideas is somehow unimaginable to some.

>>7836136
>the idea that some advanced player in the past collected great examples of those patterns and combined them with verbal explanations
Doesn't it make more sense to learn tactics by actually solving problems, I'd argue you remember them better that way

Also, there's probably a lot of people who play primarily on the internet, so it's meaningful to practice tactics the same way too. Not sure how well it translates to OTB skill

>>7836162
>Doesn't it make more sense to learn tactics by actually solving problems, I'd argue you remember them better that way
That makes sense, and it sure is a way to approach it, but it's really far from the best.

I think physics is a better analogue: imagine a site that feeds you random (optics, then electrostatics, then kinematics then...) high school physics problems. You don't know anything, but you can into basic math. Eventually, over time, you can memorise some problems and do some extremely similar. On the other hand, you have a book where every segment is discussed separately, ideas explained, instructive examples shown and then has 50 problems for practice. Which one would you pick in order to become better at physics?
>Also, there's probably a lot of people who play primarily on the internet, so it's meaningful to practice tactics the same way too. Not sure how well it translates to OTB skill
How's that related?

Anyways, I'm not bashing CT per se, it's a great tool to do a bit of practice and keep sharp but it is NOT a studying tool and provides zero instructional value. Go first with a ideas book and a selected problem collection and when you are completely done with that, use CT to keep sharp.

>>7836196
>How's that related?
Its related to CT not being cancer. Play on the internet -> practice on the internet. Practice, not cancer.

>Which one would you pick in order to become better at physics?
Why would chess be the same as physics and solving physics problems? I'd say chess is more like solving a rubics cube, its a game after all, you have the board and the pieces and rules that regulate them and that all. After all computers outperform humans in chess, they don't outperform humans in physics. It's a different deal and the comparison doesn't quite work. When you play chess your working more like a computer. Hope that makes sense

>>7836211
>Why would chess be the same as physics and solving physics problems? I'd say chess is more like solving a rubics cube, its a game after all, you have the board and the pieces and rules that regulate them and that all.
>After all computers outperform humans in chess, they don't outperform humans in physics. It's a different deal and the comparison doesn't quite work.
>When you play chess your working more like a computer. Hope that makes sense
Viper, my man, do you even play chess?

>>7836211
What's your rating?

>>7836232
1300

>>7836232
I don't have a rating, why?

File: dubs.jpg (8KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 225x225px

Total Noob here. Never learned how to play growing up sadly.

I have a keen interest in learning. Where do I start?

Thank you.

>>7835082
Does Go have Gocademy? Check mate.

>>7837131

Resources in English exist but are... not the best

2200 USCF, AMA

>>7836964
rules are simple. There are also plenty of resources on 'theory' and tactics. Best way to learn is to play because it is game.
I use Chess.com
You can sign in with facebook.
If you are into that sort of thign.

http://lichess.org/meAlKBZP

>>7837298
pascal is back and winning. forfeit after 3 moves.
pascal

http://lichess.org/dMDN1TTJ

Good chess videos?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21L45Qo6EIY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlxHusHfpck

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2M3lmQ37Yw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLzGTWs0I54

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hMoSetdXBU

>>7837329
pascal lost. Goodbye /sci/ cya in 2 more years.

>dat feel when you like chess but 95% of chess people are simply too snobby or too autistic to play with
>those chess people who get excited over this shit

I really like playing chess, but god damn, it is just a very very simple game and it really isn't all that complicated at all. Yet people preach that it is the end all bullshit for intellect.

I think this happens because it was considered a game for royalty. And, everything royalty did, the peasantry wanted to do and ate up with a spoon.

>>7836244
>>7836257
It was obvious.

>>7837452
Find a better chess club or join a local tournament. Hopefully getting your ass kicked by people will show you that while you can teach a man to play chess in an afternoon, most people will spend a life playing and never go over 1900. Rules might not be complicated, but chess at higher levels is fucking hard.

>>7835001
I usually try to play some kind of English system against the Sicilian, with mild success needles to say. Why would you play QGD against d4 if it bores you tho? Why not KID, Nimzo-Indian or Grünfeld?

>>7835043
I like go because I like to think.
I like chess because I like to win.
>>7836136
About that wining. do you have any good sources online for that. my UNI library have only 2 shitty old chess books and I read them.
and the online seems to only give me trail and error.
>>7836964
Yeh, just start by getting a lot of games in. And read about basic openings ideas, that is going to improve your game very fast.

>>7837844
Read Averbakh - Advanced Chess Tactics first, then continue with a tactics book. I've heard great things (but haven't personally used) about:
John Nunn's Chess Puzzle Book by John Nunn
The Ultimate Chess Puzzle Book by John Emms
Chess Tactics for Champions by Susan Polgar
Google a bit and find out what you need.
I used Polgar's 5334 book, but unless you hate yourself, 2k mates in two (out of which 1k will seem impossible) will fuck with your head.

>>7837805
>It was obvious.
If obvious, why ask.

I'm actually thinking about learning crazyhouse. It seems much more interesting than normal chess.

>>7837292
Are you an NM yet? If you're not, can you please kill yourself so I don't have as much competition?

>>7834853
Chess is a shit game.

File: Mikhail_Tal_1982.jpg (19KB, 280x352px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 280x352px

>>7835797
>CT is cancer. It's like hammering in mathematics with trial and error instead of learning the concepts.


Then you are doing it wrong. You cant just check moves by trial and error, you have to solve whole position in your head and you mvoe pieces and the end when you are sure you know correct solution.

It is better to spend 2-3h and solve 10 of 10 correct than waste 1h and solve 10 of 100 by trial and error.

>>7836196
Whats your normal elo rating?

>>7840492
High 1900s, occasionally over 2000 fide.

>>7840487
You are misunderstanding me, I know how tactics puzzles work. I just think that doing thousands of unrelated puzzles automatically generated from games is vastly inferior to a collection of positions carefully selected for their quality by an experienced instructor.
That goes 10x for a beginner (<1500).

>>7835050
But wasn´t hex basically just invented to do game theoretic analysis on it?

>>7834853
I like the chess.com lessons

You can really learn a lot and it's super comfy to relive history. Stuff like "The pressure on e4 is mounting, and after a g6-g5 push, black would be able to capture the pawn on the next move. Casablanca must find something, and do it quickly, or his center will crumble and the game would be lost. Which moves creates an immediate threat on the queenside to which black must react?"

lichess.org is probably the best site on the internet, not even related 2 chess
I haven't seen a free site that dank yet

>>7841594
This to be honest
That nigga who hosts it really knows how to code

>>7834853
2041 here.
i barely play anymore.
i would like to hit nm but i am too busy atwork to train

>>7841094
> I just think that doing thousands of unrelated puzzles automatically generated from games

This sounds funny, unrelated to what? They are taken from games played by GMs or other titled players in tournaments, especially the bit harder ones. The positions have actually occurred in real chess, they are hardly unrelated. The very nature of chess is that you cannot know what you opponent will do next, therefore, you'll have to solve positions you might have never seen before, and that's what CT specifically trains.

>>7842743
>This sounds funny, unrelated to what?
Unrelated to each other. You aren't practicing a theme. Again, like physics, you are becoming half decent at everything instead of mastering a theme one by one. Good for review, bad as a main way of getting better.
>They are taken from games played by GMs or other titled players in tournaments, especially the bit harder ones.
So?
>The positions have actually occurred in real chess, they are hardly unrelated.
See first point.
>The very nature of chess is that you cannot know what you opponent will do next
But that's objectively false. You usually have a pretty good idea what your opponent will do next and besides, tactics mostly have (semi)forcing moves. Anyways, if you've ever played chess at a semi decent level, you see possible tactics before they happen and you try to realise them.
>therefore, you'll have to solve positions you might have never seen before, and that's what CT specifically trains.
So does a puzzle book.

You are strawmanning here, I'm not arguing that tactics training is bad, I'm arguing that training with CT provides less instructional and educational value than a good puzzle book. Shit, this isn't even my unique opinion, every higher rated (2200+) I've met finds it a okay way to keep sharp but a bad way to improve.

>>7842766
And this is completely ignoring the less than perfect CT implementation: having computer defend badly, having too little or too few moves, incorrect solutions due to weak engine (endgame transition) etc. Some aren't unique to CT, but they are much less evident in good chess books.

>>7836121
Telling 99.99991% of people to kill themselves.
Found the jewlluminati.

>>7842766
I agree books and other media offer more instructional value, that is true. To be honest, I just got mad because you called CT cancer, and I wanted to argue. I'm a casual player on the internet and I practice there everyday (I also watch videos on youtube) but I'll consider getting a book for the sake of variety

>>7834869
by that logic, all openings that fight for center control are 'meme' openings.

e4,d4,c4,f4, nf3 etc

File: 2016-02-08_05.33.56.jpg (308KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

308KB, 1080x1920px

Did I lose?

>>7840487
capablanca and fischer both said that chess has become a shit game because of all the theory, hence why 90+% of top level games end in draws.

if you want a good game play fischer random variant, capa proposed a game on 10x10 board with extra pieces

>>7842798
ofc not, there are a few moves could play here

i would probably play nc6 then qf3

>>7842790
> To be honest, I just got mad because you called CT cancer, and I wanted to argue. I'm a casual player on the internet and I practice there everyday (I also watch videos on youtube) but I'll consider getting a book for the sake of variety
Yeah, I figured. It's okay, no hard feelings, I just think your time would be better spent with a book appropriate to your level. Start with Averbakh.

>>7842799
Call me when you know all the theory. Magnus is doing pretty well with avoiding a lot of it OTB.
Tbh family, advanced openings are worthless <2100.

tfw was rated 1650 online at this time last year

tfw stopped playing because busy with stuff

tfw started again a week ago and some guy at 1300 Siberian trapped me

guess I'll just do tactics till I get my "vision" back

>>7842810
>call me when you know all the thory. Magnus is doing pretty well with avoiding a lot of it otb

are you fucking retarded? you dont get and maintain 2850 or whatever his fide rating is without keeping up to date with the latest opening theory.

>>7842827
haha this is exactly me, i peaked at like 1800 blitz on icc last year now im weak as shit, imma go do some chesstempo tactics

>>7841094
>high 1900s, occasionally over 2000 fide.

why does everyone claim to have a 2000+ fide rating on this thread, yet noone has proven it.

Also nowadays computer lines dominates top level play, just memorise 30 moves of the latest
theory and boom you're a supergrandmaster

>>7842829
Do you even follow chess? Magnus is not a very openings oriented player and prefers to leave theory relatively soon. Contrast that with Kasparov, who knows his sicilian lines 50 moves deep.

>>7842856
You want my fide card lel? Fite me irl

>>7842775
true, both the CT and LiChess trainer only examine one line of defense, often not the strongest. Most combinations have multiple lines of defense that you need to analyze in order to prove they work.

I was just going through a pre-computer era problem book (Winning Chess Tactics Illustrated, 1963) which are all combos from actual games. I found that one problem was cooked, so I started confirming all the problems against a computer. At least 5% of the solutions were busted! In another 5%, the played line was not the strongest.

>>7843110
another thing, finding the key move of a combination is only part of the battle. In real games, you recognize the pattern for a combination, analyze it, realize it doesn't work yet, then make a quiet positional move to set it up instead. Tactical problem sets never have this kind of "null solution" problem, but they are just as valuable for real chess play. Problem sets are just as fake as multiple choice tests compared to real games.

>>7842860
Kek, lad. I would love to play you in a game. Lichess? 3 minute time control

>>7843110
Yeah, a lot of old literature has been found faulty with computers. C'est la vie.

>>7843372
>if I win, I cheated
>if you win, I'm obviously 1100 rated
>you get to check my casual play profile for my most recent embarrassing blunders
It's like the game is rigged from the start.

>>7843430
No. We have 3 minute time controls, no one thinks you're going to cheat. I'm rated highly enough to know if you're actually 1900.

>>7843430
>>7843531
Let me know when you're ready

>>7843534
>>7843531
>I'm rated highly enough to know if you're actually 1900.
That's really interesting, when you think deeper about it. Here's the deal, I have 3 games from lichess. You are free to do an engine check on them. Guess at least 4 players' rating within 200 points and I'll play with you. You can say Elo or lichess, doesn't matter, let's assume that lichess = Elo + 200

>>7843592
http://pastebin.com/3HWkEm8D

I sure hope you can't search lichess for PGN.

>>7842766
I SUMMON THE IMMORTAL GAME

>>7843599
I'm unable to view pastebin, any alternatives?

>>7843616

Game 1:
1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Bf5 5. Ng3 Bg6 6. h4 h6 7. Nf3 Nd7 8. h5 Bh7 9. Bd3 Bxd3 10. Qxd3 e6 11. Bf4 Ngf6 12. O-O-O Be7 13. Kb1 O-O 14. c4 a5 15. Rhe1 b5 16. cxb5 cxb5 17. Qxb5 Nd5 18. Be5 Nxe5 19. Nxe5 Rb8 20. Qc6 Rb6 21. Qc4 Rb4 22. Qc2 Qb6 23. Nd7 Qb5 24. Nxf8 Rc4 25. Qh7+ { Black resigns } 1-0

Game 2:
1. e4 e5 2. g3 f5 3. exf5 e4 4. Bg2 d5 5. d4 Bb4+ 6. Bd2 a5 7. Bxb4 a4 8. b3 b5 9. bxa4 bxa4 10. a3 Bxf5 11. g4 Bg6 12. f4 Qh4+ 13. Ke2 Nc6 14. Nd2 Qxg4+ 15. Ndf3 Qxg2+ 16. Ke3 Qxh1 17. Bc5 Bh5 18. Qb1 Nf6 19. Qb7 Ng4+ 20. Kd2 Qg2+ 21. Ne2 Rb8 22. Qxc6+ Kd8 23. Rg1 Qf2 24. Ne5 Qe3+ 25. Kd1 Nf2+ 26. Ke1 Qxe2# { White is checkmated } 0-1

Game 3:
1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 g6 3. d4 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. Bd3 O-O 6. Nge2 Nc6 7. d5 Ne5 8. f4 Nxd3+ 9. Qxd3 e6 10. O-O exd5 11. cxd5 Re8 12. Ng3 c6 13. dxc6 bxc6 14. e5 dxe5 15. Qxd8 Rxd8 16. fxe5 Nd7 17. Bg5 Re8 18. Bf6 Nxf6 19. exf6 Bh8 20. Rad1 Ba6 21. Rf2 Re6 22. Nge4 Rae8 23. h3 h6 24. Kh2 Rxe4 25. Nxe4 Rxe4 26. Rd8+ Kh7 27. Rd7 Kg8 28. Rxa7 Bb5 29. Ra8+ Kh7 30. Rf8 Bc4 31. b3 Bd5 32. Rb2 Rf4 33. Rd2 Rxf6 34. a4 Re6 35. b4 Be5+ 36. g3 Kg7 37. Rd8 Bc3 38. R8xd5 cxd5 39. Rxd5 Bxb4 40. a5 Ra6 41. Rd4 Bxa5 42. Ra4 Ra7 43. h4 Bb6 44. Rb4 Bc5 45. Rb3 f5 46. Kh3 Ra6 47. Rc3 Bd4 48. Rd3 Be5 49. Re3 Kf6 50. Rb3 Rc6 51. Ra3 g5 52. hxg5+ Kxg5 53. Rb3 Rc3 { White resigns } 0-1

>>7843629
Game 1: Seems like a fairly well played caro kann variation for the first 10 some odd moves. Would guess 1600-1800 elo for black, and around 2000+ for white. Pretty solid, I think for white.

Game 2: what a shit game, is this bullet? quite terrible 1200-1300 elo?, no indication of opening theory, but seems like a fast game anyway.

Game 3: White is 1500 elo, Black is 1600. pretty shaky grasp of the openings tbqh, whites mid game kind of shit

>>7843687
I'm following this with curiosity

>>7843687
I would like to be clear that in Game 2, white is the 1200-1300. It's difficult to say what black is though, sort of wider range...

>>7843687
Pretty good. Can we agree on a conversion rate lichess<->Elo before I post the games?
I'm also curious, what do you think the tempo is for the game 1 and 3?

>>7843732
black lost quite a bit of tempo mid game in the first game, i think. too many useless rook threats to the queen. black was good in 3rd, but lost tempo as well due to trivial threats on the part of white.

lichess = elo + 150/200 works for me desu.

>>7843761
http://en.lichess.org/qtNYHT51/black#49
http://en.lichess.org/EFEwww3l/black#52
http://en.lichess.org/1wCUIik6/black#52

>>7843801
interesting. both games the significantly higher rated player lost to an underrated player.... And white definitely gave a consistently superior performance in game 1

>>7843817
http://lichess.org/3t9reyzN

>>7843835
I'm in, lad.

>>7837382
Ben FInegold is my favorite instructor.

Probably because he still "plays" the game, and it's not just muscle memory.

>>7841461
>Casablanca

*Capablanca was his name, fugg :D

>>7843592
you are fucking braindead, you can even compare online to irl its a fucking pointless exercise because they are completely different pools of players. Online could have stronger players or perhaps weaker

>>7834853
>playing Chess instead of Go or Hex
>calling yourself an intellectual

>>7841367
If you saw Beautiful Mind then you'd know it was basically a Knee Jerk reaction on the part of John Nash because he was butthurt about the coldness and counter-intuitive tactics in Go causing him to lose like a bitch.

>>7843801
>http://en.lichess.org/qtNYHT51/black#49

black is a very weak player here,

1. doesnt develop his pieces properly
2. qa5 is a much stronger move in response to blacks c4

>>7843687
>Game 2: what a shit game, is this bullet? quite terrible 1200-1300 elo?, no indication of opening theory, but seems like a fast game anyway

who fucking cares about opening theory, unless you're a super gm just forget about it altogethor, stick to opening principles

>>7838628
this, it wasnt always a shit game though, maybe 150 years ago it was a good game because there was very little theory

>>7843863
Which one of you was black? Who won?

>>7844087
anyone that plays tournaments. you do realize that any semi-decent player with an understanding of opening theory will wreck you if you don't respond to openings properly, yes?

>>7834880
pretty much this

>>7845341
this is exactly why chess has become a shit game, forget natural ability its just memorisation and parroting computer lines

>>7834871

what benefits are you looking for?

i basically only play against computers.

>>7846863
What happens when you get out of theory :^)

>>7844062
With a spread of 200 points, a reasonable rating difference can be determined. Just like you can say that uscf is 100ish points higher than elo or bcf rating can be compared to elo. It's not accurate, but at 200 point spread accuracy isn't that important.

>>7844087
See
>>7845341
I though the same until I start playing people with decent rating. I played 10 games with a 2300 and I couldn't last 15 moves with opening principles.

>>7847846
>i couldn't last 15 moves with opening principles

that just tells me you are an extremely weak and pathetic player and you should probably quit chess

>>7834880
>living in a mathematically deterministic universe
why even exist with your faggot mindset? you're just an advanced amoeba.

>>7847846
>what happens when you get out of theory

you often don't, why do you think 90+% of top level games end in draws?

>>7849304
not poster, but yeah that's me
i still like the idea of chess, but being shit at something isn't enjoyable

>>7849304
I know you are just shitposting but it was very educational to see natural development moves end up with you being choked. A natural move leads to a annoying but fixable issue, which you don't have time to fix and it snowballs from there. For clarification, when I say I couldn't last 15 moves, I don't mean I'm mated in 15, but that by 15th move I either have one or more long term weakness. I played a few to the very pawn ending, but my problems started in the very opening.
FM level and above get scary at times.

>>7849313
>90%
At least try

>>7849312
drugs make me feel good, fleeting pleasure is the only objective truth in a world otherwise void of meaning

>>7849666
>FM level and above get scary at times
I get super spooked watching the super GMs. I mostly do this via Chessexplained's tournament recaps ( don't have time to sit down and watch the games live ). Those guys are alien.

>>7849666
>at least try

but it's the truth, check gm game databases

>>7837805
Are ratings all you care about? Were you born with inherent greatness at what seems to be one of the few crutches that support your fragile ego in your life? Coming across as some smug bitter critic hardly does anything to further the survival of the game so many love.

B4 you spaz out on me, please reread my post:

>what seems to be...

Please be nice, or just fuck off, no one is going to lose any sleep either way.

>>7849945
But it's simply not true. Kasparov Karpov had 60% draw rate and after some googling it seems to be around that figure for most top GM battles. Still, that's significantly below 90%. While the draw death is a problem, it's not yet that severe and it's virtually nonexistent below supergm level.

>>7850004
>Are ratings all you care about? Were you born with inherent greatness at what seems to be one of the few crutches that support your fragile ego in your life? Coming across as some smug bitter critic hardly does anything to further the survival of the game so many love.
Dude... What are you even talking about? You are this butthurt because I criticised chesstempo and asked about your rating when you said that humans play chess like computers do?
>Please be nice, or just fuck off, no one is going to lose any sleep either way.
You seem easily offended, maybe this site isn't for you.

>>7850628
I said that humans operate more like computers when playing chess than they do when solving physics problems, not the guy you're replying to

File: 249391.gif (800KB, 450x300px) Image search: [Google]

800KB, 450x300px

Link me to a game and I will play you and beat you.

>>7850628
What's your rating?

>>7842856
>why does everyone claim to have a 2000+ fide rating on this thread, yet noone has proven it.

2k elo is nothing special, people below 2400 elo have normal job and play chess part time because you can not make enough money from chess if you are not >2600.


>Also nowadays computer lines dominates top level play, just memorise 30 moves of the latest
theory and boom you're a supergrandmaster

this is dumb as fuck and it shows that you have no idea about chess. You are not able to memorize all possible positions and its very unlikely that you will be able to play your 30 memorized moves.

Even if you memorize those 30 moves your position at best will be equal. There is no magic trick in chess theory that will let you gain big advantage.

If you do not understand why are you playing certain moves because you memorized them, your oponent will change moves order and you are fucked because you will make wrong moves.

After 30 moves there is endgame, again you are not able to memorize all possible endgames so you have to understand common rules how to play endgames K+P vs K+P, K+R vs K+R+P etc.

>>7835013
True. Thats the reason I got into Chinese games.
Xiangqi, Go, Gomoku, etc..
It really feels awesome to be in games that aren't completely "theorized" yet, and you can just play as you like

>>7834853
>Chesscademy
Bruh why i gotta gib dem my email like sheeit nigga, I dont want the NSA watching me learn baby chess nowimsayin

>>7844072
this. i just played it on http://www.lutanho.net/play/hex.html
i won and it's shit
Nash was a retard

>>7852727
>>7844072
basically the one who has the first stone (or swaps always wins). I remember how Nash said in the movie that Go is flawed. Lolling at Hex, then

File: ngnl1.jpg (213KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 1280x720px

>>7834880
shiro pls

>>7834871
I once played strip chess with a girl and it ended predictably

I unclothed her with out losing any pieces and when she wanted to have sex afterwards I told her she hadn't earned my bare naked body with that performance. called her an uber and that was that.

File: Doc_Ock_evil_grin.png (481KB, 734x524px) Image search: [Google]

481KB, 734x524px

>>7852802
>tfw you play a gambit opening and she doesn't get you're not trying to provocate, but seek an actual advantage

>>7844089
>fischerfag

File: 1453549427600.png (365KB, 720x769px) Image search: [Google]

365KB, 720x769px

>>7852829
>>7852802

kek'd

>>7849312
but the universe isn't deterministic nigga

>>7852926
what

>>7852926
the universe is not mathematically deterministic

>>7852802
How christian gray of you. Pretty hot, but I hope you kept in mind steps 1-3 (be attractive, don't be unattractive and be attractive.)

Does anybody watch ChessNetwork? What do you think about him as a learning resource?

>>7853528
he is a decent player and a suitable instructor, i find his voice annoying though

>>7838429
>so i don't have as much competition

what competition? you will play high rated players regardless if you are rated as high as you say you are

What about moves which seem wrong but lead to a greater tactical advantage in the long term?

I just play fighting games instead.

>>7854722
example? that is the definition of a good positional play

>>7854722
Any sacrifice

I wish to be 1800 one day, I'm 19, how many games should it have been for me to read 1500 elo?

I think I am too slow at this game to get club level good.

>>7855082
The amount of games isn't important. If you want to get to 1800 asap, then you need a coach and to study lots. Playing blitz or many games will not help you as effectively.

>>7835043
Anybody have any good lectures for absolute beginners at Go?

I found an old as fuck webpage with a list of youtube videos, but every last one had been set to private or deleted.

>>7856386
If you want to read a book, you can try this for example:
http://bookfi.net/dl/1469177/c17c1c

To read stuff online, use this Go wiki:
http://senseis.xmp.net/?PagesForBeginners

To play online, use either OGS or KGS
https://online-go.com/
https://www.gokgs.com/

Start by playing on 9x9 board until you are confident that you understand how the rules and scoring works, then move to play on 19x19 board.

>>7856907
That book link seems broken, so go to
http://en.bookfi.net/
and search for "Go A Complete Introduction To The Game".

>>7856910
>>7856907
Thanks

>>7855082
Play a lot, study a lot. You need a decent grasp of tactics, endgame and strategy and at least bare minimum of openings and middle game ideas. You also need a good, consistent thought process. Force yourself to always look at checks, captures and threats before making a move, always look for a better move etc. First one will help you point out tactics, second one will stop you relying on your intuition because your intuition is shit.