What book should i buy if i want into chess theory/strategy?

The Theory and Strategy of Chess, probably

>>8996979
Just visit a webpage and watch videos that go into details about games played by grand-masters. Bobby Fischer is the father of modern chess, so you should watch games by him. Also, Magnus Carlsen and Garry Kasparov.

>>8996979
its really boring. it's all memorization.

>>8997013
Is there no discussion of meta-game? Surely it's not all just analysis of grandmaster games... ?

>>8997032
It is mostly analysis of grand-master games. The game has existed for so long, and is so limited by its non-randomized starting position, that no one does anything new, really. If we wanted meta-game development, we would have to implement Fischerandom chess as the new standard.

>>8997040
Does this mean that all the current top players in the world are just faggots that memorised a fuckton of moves?
What a shit hobby.

>>8997046
Yes, basically. That's what Fischer believed, which is why he invented Fischerandom chess. Professional chess players don't want Fischerandom chess to become the new standard, because then they would actually have to strategize and improvise, instead of memorizing a bunch of contingency lines.

>>8997040
>>8997066
>>8997013

You are utterly wrong
The only memorisation is learning openings, and most players only know a few simple openings up to maybe the 5th move

Beyond that, most skill in chess comes from practicing tactics, which are basically puzzles where the objective is checkmate or winning material

Memorisation is really only important for the top 0.001% of players, who only do it to gain a slight advantage

If you have no idea what youre talking about just shut the fuck up

>>8997085
Yeah, yeah. Alright, Carlsen. I'm sure you're a strategic genius. No, no. You don't memorize contingency lines. Sure.

>>8997085
Also as an actual answer, id recommend you try Yasser Seirawans series, starting with "play winning chess"

>>8997092
Carlsen wins most games in the ending, are you implying that you can memorise every possible line up to the ending? That is mathematically not even possible considering the number of possible games

Carlsen wins by applying strategic principles, and knowing when to break those rules

The term 'contengency line' isnt even used in chess, which leads me to believe youre just some random pleb

Even most principles are quite vague and require a lot of intentiveness to carry out, for instance controlling the centre, playing on the wings, figuring out and exploiting weaknesses, if you think you can memorise the trillions of possible combinations, you are a retard

>>8997085
Creds pls

>>8997092
>someone who actually knows the game is in the thread so let me double down on my retarded memery

>Not playing baduk

chess is fun though too

File: s-l1000.jpg (15KB, 340x500px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 340x500px

>>8996979
If you already know your tactics and basic endgames (and you should really, really know your tactics) give this a read. He was a huge influence on Petrosian and Larsen, so you know he's legit.

Tell me ur lichess usernames bois

>>8997189
Baduk is my obsession but speed chess with friends is a fucking blast.

Stops me from gettin' good cause I don't want our insane games to be one sided.

>>8996979
Learn how to lie to people and marry off your daughter to wealthy Jews. 4d chess. Don't forget to stack your cabinet with insiders and Jews.

>>8997316
TropicalLine

Check out John Bartholomew's and Simon William's youtube channels. They play games online in a sort of let's play format and talk about what they're thinking about in terms of strategy and possible variations while they play

>>8997207
Came here to post this. If there's a definitive guide/book, it's this one.

>>8997399
>>8997207
my system is good, but its more of a definitive reference book than a book for beginners
id recommend to only read it after a few years of basic study

>>8997404
>>8997207
Is there something similar for beginners?

>>8997473
Yasser Seirawans "Play Winning Chess"
Then "Winning chess tactics"
Then "Winning chess strategy"
Then practice tactics for about a year

After you get moderately good you start reading cyka blyad books

Learn some rules and basic shit like endgames.
Then read My System over and over again, studying each chapter until you have complete domain over each strategic element.

t. top 15 chess player in my country

>>8997481
Thank you anon. Is there a series by a different author you might recommend as well? I like to compare books before picking one.

>>8997518
Would you say that a chess mindset is actually applicable to real life strategies or is it purely a game thing?

>>8997518

What country?

>>8997522
There are a lot

"Logical Chess: Move by Move" is considered a good "second" book to read, it just takes you through some master games and gives you a basic explanation for each move

"The right way to play chess" is good if you really want the shortest book with the best crash course

Artur Yusupov, a Russian GM has a series called "build up your chess", its very good but its fucking hard, and he makes you figure things out yourself

Jeremy Silman has a series of books which are widely used

If you want to do tactics (the equivalent of fitness training for an athlete) go to chesstempo.com

>>8997539
Democratic Republic of the Congo

>>8996979

How to Reassess Your Chess by Silman helped me a lot.

>>8997539
Chilel

>>8997554

Nice. That's really cool that you're on a short list of best players there. I wish I could say the same.

>>8996979
the inner game of chess

>>8997316
>>8997329
>tfw i already have an account
lets play some 5+3 senpai
SunshineRecorder

>>8997548
Thanks for the recommendations. I downloaded Yusupov's first book and it's fun playing them out as puzzles.

Which is Jeremy Silman's introductory (or first) book?

>>8998017
I think Amateurs Mind is the intro one
You could probably read Reassess your chess if you were willing to put the effort in

The key with chess books is doing all the exercises and spending time on it, a lot of chess players have shelves of books and have never read one fully

What a boring night.
Come on faggots lets play some chess.

My FIDE rating was a little over 2,000 when I played.
The books I found most helpful among the many I read were works from Tal (Tal-Botvinnik, The life and Games of) and Dvoretsky's Endgame Manuel.

There's plenty more extremely useful material, that's just what was most beneficial to me. I would suggest googling essential lists of GM's

I could probably beat everyone in this thread and have never read more than a few pages from a chess book. I have a very high working memory and logical proficiency which I think accounts for my ability.

I've not read any book either and play chess often. My IQ is over 150. I definitely could beat everyone in this thread easily.

>>8998207
I failed to mention: I highly recommend studying Chess960 intensively if you are very serious about improving

>>8997085
>The only memorisation is learning openings, and most players only know a few simple openings up to maybe the 5th move
Most players only learn a few moves of an opening, but most players are shit.

>Beyond that, most skill in chess comes from practicing tactics, which are basically puzzles where the objective is checkmate or winning material
At the professional level, memorization of often 20+ moves of any given opening is mandatory, including dozens of variations for each opening.

>Memorisation is really only important for the top 0.001% of players, who only do it to gain a slight advantage
Anyone who memorizes all the 20+ move variations of any given opening will pretty much dominate any sub-2000 player without ever having to think for themselves. You obviously have to learn what moves punish incorrect deviations, but that's still pure memorization.

With that said, tactics and strategy are absolutely necessary skills as well. Spotting tactics and learning end-game strategy is mandatory. It's not one or another. Beginners should forget about memorizing lines beyond basic openings and learn tactics and positioning, but at some point, around 2000, you will hit a plateau where it becomes impossible to advance without memorization. Players like Carlsen are both chess libraries and have chess engines for brains, and it's that full package that allows them to dominate.

Most chess engines have pre-loaded lines for every opening, but at some point a game will become too "unique" to rely on past analysis, at which point the engine begins brute forcing lines.

>>8998230
What's your lichess name, I'll send you a challenge

>>8998254
>What's your lichess name, I'll send you a challenge

>>8998278
Do you refer to 2000 FIDE or by some elo on a website?
When I played in FIDE events, the players you described were about 1750-1800 or even lower that would ruin anyone that lacked the knowledge of specific lines.
I would be surprised to find someone else on here that was involved with FIDE and impossibly unlikely that they had a fair rating

>>8998291
almost certainly a chess.com rating

>>8998291
I'm referring to lichess.org ratings, which are probably a bit inflated.

>>8998317
chess.com ratings are actually deflated for mid-tier players, and fairly accurate for the top tier players.

>>8998339
Ah. Definitely inflated. I find most online Chess services are polluted with Stockfish users that want to gloat their faux elo to their friends

>>8998278
You tell me your name and I will send the challenge.

>>8998353
Minister_B

>>8998353
>>8998356
say who wins i bet high working memory loses

>>8998356
I will need to make an account, I have only played in offline tournaments.

>>8998364
You don't need an account. Just click the "play with friend" button and post the link

/lit/ chess team fucking when

>>8998447
/lit/ wouldn't be competent enough to play chess

they would obsess over the "purpose" of chess and burst into tears whenever a pawn is killed, claiming that it deserved a better chance at life

>>8998230
>I could probably beat everyone in this thread
>gets called out by anon
>disappears
typical

>>8998455
What is more important, the intrinsic value of a pawn or the potential value of that pawn to become something more powerful?

>>8996979
Chess for Dummies

Chess is a rather stupid hobby. Pseuds will use it to show how intellectual they are. Perhaps it's because I have a BS in Math that I've never felt the need to show how I'm like a super smart kid who plays chess and studies Latin in my free time. The entire game is memorization. Seriously. The entire thing. And I would know. I set out to really learn chess. I thought to myself "Surely not everyone is a posturing fraud. It must really be the intellectual's game that it is known as." Nope. Totally wrong. Memorizing openings for 30+ is required. Memorizing end-games is required. Tactics are almost nothing. They don't even come into play. There is no strategy in chess. Just autism. The funny thing is that everyone knows this, but they refuse to improve the game. It's like a pyramid scheme. The only people who care enough and have enough power to change the game have invested too much time into getting good at its current autistic form. Why would they campaign to change the game when they are a top 300 world ranked player? It's literally all they have. Chess960 would improve the game remarkably and yet it goes mostly unused. The frauds in charge of FIDE have no excuse except for fear of becoming irrelevant because their memorization won't help them in an actual contest of strategy like Chess960.

>>8998609
You are pathetic

>>8998630
Why? Because I have a different viewpoint than you? At least I articulated myself. I am fed up with the stodginess of modern chess. It used to be about innovation. The game was filled with vigor. Have you ever studied chess in your life? Do you know the work of Capablanca, Morphy, or Alekhine? Have you ever even heard of these guys? I'm the real deal, pal. I know all about chess. I didn't read a wikipedia article and decide I didn't like it. I've studied it. I know it. I don't know what the fuck you know because you chose to only type out 3 words. How about you put in a baseline effort next time, little bud? I don't know what you hope to accomplish with your baseless insult. Feel free to actually start a discussion. Or keep calling stuff pathetic and then running out of the thread. Wow. I wish everyone posted like you. Can't wait to hear what single adjective you are going to use to express yourself next.

>>8998463
I couldn't find you. Are you still online?

>>8998609
You have no idea what you're talking about. Sounds to me like you're making excuses for sucking at chess.

>>8998650
I am. What's your name, i'll send you a challenge

File: Untitled.png (108KB, 232x338px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 232x338px

I recently started getting into chess and I picked this up. Did I do good? I skimmed through and seemed pretty thorough.

>>8998647
>Why? Because I have a different viewpoint than you?
No, because you are clearly lying and have no idea what you are talking about.

>>8998658
4chanchess658

>>8998696
I'm getting a player not found screen

>>8998728
Try again I am online.

>>8998674
And you can't name one thing I am wrong about. You will continue giving posts devoid of content or stop altogether. Feel free to prove me wrong.

>>8998696
>>8998741

Where do you guys play online?

>>8998751
Lichess

>>8998741
still not found. just link your profile

>>8998746
Not doing is not the same thing as being unable to do.

>Memorizing openings for 30+ is required
At very, very high level play. To know a line in 30+ moves of an opening is not that hard. To know the hundreds to thousands of lines in an opening to have any chance of being able to use that line is the hard part. I find modern professional chess stale, but we should not confer the tediousness of that onto anything but high level professional play.
>Chess is a rather stupid hobby
>hobby
Even if everything you have said is true (and I don't differ much for professional play) you are still saying chess sucks for everyone not matter their skill level. This is just ridiculous.

>Memorizing end-games is required.
And? This is absolutely not the same thing as opening memorisation. The amount of positions can be be memorised by endgame are simple enough that there are far, far less complications. It is a much more feasible task

>Tactics are almost nothing.
Said no player of the Najdorf variation of the Sicilian. Who is Tal, did he never make any use of tactics or was that all memorisation?

>>8998817
I don't think I mentioned skill level at all. When I say "chess" I am obviously talking about people who actually know what they are doing, i.e., elo 1900+. My criticisms of the game apply to anyone with a half-way decent elo. Of course I could not criticize the state of the game of poor chess players. There is no "state of the game" for poor players in any sport or hobby. I am sure poor players are using tactics, invention, and novelty. And they get trounced by people who play by pure memorization. This is exactly why I don't like chess.

After reading your post, I am not really sure why you have been up my ass. We both agree modern pro chess is stale. To your final point about Tal: yeah, go ahead and give me a list of current great players like him. Of course you can't---there are none. This is the problem my dude. An individual from 2+ generations ago can't support your view in my opinion. Modern chess is pure autism.

I'm not sure why you think me saying "chess sucks" is ridiculous. Are you really unaware that people do not like chess? I think I have said my peace as to why. That should be all you ask for when it comes to hearing someone's opinion---not demanding that they agree with you.

If you prefer classic to chess960, fine. Personally I don't see the merits and honestly don't care. There is so much more to life than any single life. Chess stopped being appealing when I learned it was so autistic. It seems like a lot of people still have a romanticized view of it because they are too scared or uninformed to speak out against it. This is why I have spoken so long about the topic. Looks like I was the autistic one all along.

I'm seeing more posts about the integrity of chess as a game rather than book recommendations. Come on guys, stay on topic?

File: 788.png (120KB, 937x737px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 937x737px

How come pawns don't have their own symbol in algebraic notation? It makes shit hard to learn.

>>8998999
I guess the implication is that if there is no symbol it was a pawn that moved.
Also nice digits.

File: 32514_stefan-zweig-schachnovelle-iii[1].jpg (69KB, 614x800px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 614x800px

>>8998255
960 is the best.

OP, you don't need bookz. I'm self-taught and I'm rated 2200 in 960 on lichess (started 2011).
Once you grasped the basics you only need to study tactics, compositions, end game studies and games by grandmasters. Playing blindfold is a good practice, too, you should try it out once you reach 1600. Memorizing chess games like poems can be helpfull, too. It's all about visualizing the board in your mind.


But the best advice I can give you is not to play chess at all. It'll fuck up your brain. It's extremly exhausting. It's highly addictive. It ruined my perception. I dream chess, I see chess positions in people faces; it's a passion I hate, it's a curse.

Nowadays I narrowed playing chess down to two games a day. Quitting is impossible for me, it makes me pugnaciously; my mind is empty and bored without the challenge that chess gives me.

The only good thing I discovered through chess is the asthetic pleasure I get from solving chess compositions, undoubtedly the highest form of art I know. But trust me, it isn't worth the site effects.

I play alright in the beginning and mid game but I'm so bad at actually causing a checkmate. I just had a very embarrassing game where I dominated the other guy to the point where he only had a few pawns while I had a queen, rook, knight, and a bishop but the game ended in a draw because I couldn't force his king to the edge of the board in time with my rook and queen. How do I get better at this?

>>8996979
Does anyone still think Trump was playing 4d chess?

>>8997066
For whoever is interested in this, you can play this kind of chess on sites like lichess, but it's called Chess960. To be honest it's the first time I hear it called "Fischerandom", but it must be the same thing.

>>8998609
You know that the real strategy is knowing when to use each opening and endgame, right?

Also, why improve the game? It's mathematically correct to say that a chess game with two perfect players will always end in draw. It's perfectly balanced.

File: 1423960902153.jpg (22KB, 300x333px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 300x333px

>>8997013
this, to be good at chess you don't need books, you need autism

>197,742 possible games of chess

Durr it's just memorization

>>8999252
You can use a program like Lucaschess to practice checkmates, it can just give you tons of checkmates to solve

>>8999968
There are way more than that

>>8997085
>ex 2200 elo here
That's blatantly false. After a certain level, a lack of knowledge in openings will result in you systematically entering middle-game with a small disadvantage.

A great chess player will play the opening like a book, the middle-game like a magician, and the endgame like a machine.

>>8997106
>Carlsen wins games in the endgame
Wrong. In most cases, endgame is just the harvest of the advantage sown in middle-game, even if this advantage is nothing more than a slightly better pawn structure. Of course some games are really won in the endgame, but this is not at all the norm.

>>9000597

>ex 2200 elo

Is that IM? Why the hell did you quit man? That's crazy impressive.

Is there a standard text on openings?

Can we agree that Lasker is the superior chessfu?

>>9000616
IM is 2400. He might be an NM if he's American and not lying.

>>9000616
IM is not really tied to elo, you basically have to make three "norms" in three different tournaments. IMs also have around 2400 elo if I remember correctly.

I stopped because I was too old - I was around 17 years old - which made it pretty much impossible to ever become pro. The idea of becoming a good club player or a little un-extraordinary MI made me stop.

Regarding openings, you can find quite a lot of "complete repertoire for white/black" books if you want the easy way. What I remember doing at the beginning, was to pick a broad book - a French equivalent to Chess for Dummies - browse all openings and pick some I liked. I then bought specific books for each opening - scandinavian and king's indian for black and e4 four knights, 2.c3 against the sicilisn. Progressively, I broadened and started tackling the main lines.

can we start a chess general? ;_;

The Art of the Deal

>>8996979
Personally, I just chess.com'd the fuck out of opening and endgame strategies. Middle game usually falls into a pattern of stalwartism or exchanging pieces until one side makes an elementary mistake and then the game spirals quickly. From what I've heard, Fischer and Kasparov are the equivalent of pop writers ala Malcolm Gladwell or Steven Pinker in that they care more about seeing you their book then teaching anything worthwhile. I mean just even think of the title "How Chess Imitates Life" to get a cringy, superficial image of what you'll be slogging through. Honestly, what I've always regretted not doing is picking up something about the Medieval monk players and their strategy. After all, if we are to compare chess to literature, it's not too far out of the question to say that you'd want to engage with the ancients of any discipline as to learn the essential knowledge that has stuck around for millennia.

As a beginner what sort of opening should I be focusing on using? As white I usually just go e5, Nf3, Bc4, Nc3, and then I just wing it. I'm so new I haven't played as black enough to know any opening.

>>9000676
Not to say you are incorrect on the average, but there were a few people who have become GM starting from the age of like 20. Hell, I think there was some indian guy who started at 46? and became a GM

>>9000704
some dudes try sometimes on /tg/

>I am obviously talking about people who actually know what they are doing, i.e., elo 1900+.
>My criticisms of the game apply to anyone with a half-way decent elo.
This seems like a really weird definition of halfway decent. If we are going by FIDE certified Elo ratings (as in not going by inflated internet ratings) then 1900 is pretty damn good and is the sort of rating that will only ever be achieved by long and intense study. You criticised chess as a hobby but I take serious issue with you deciding that people of sub-1900 Elo ratings don't even deserve to call their pursuit of chess a hobby. You mentioned before 30+ opening theory knowledge. 1900 rated players will know fuck all lines that go that deep, and if they do they will be so circumstantial that the odds of it ever been used in a game are remote at best. At a 1900 level you will have a thriving middle-game to look forward after your opening theory is exhausted. Sure you might know a lot of lines of the Grunfeldand the Semi-Slav but all it takes is for the game to go into a Benoni, or an obscure line of something you are familiar with for you to run into an uncertain middle-game.

This thread is made by someone who knows very little about chess and is interested in learning something about it, and you are telling him not to due to aspects of the game that this player will probably never get good enough to even begin to become a problem. This is the problem I have with everything you have said. You say chess is a rubbish is a rubbish hobby but then define hobby in such an unusually and elitist way as to make yourself right by definition.

>And they get trounced by people who play by pure memorization. This is exactly why I don't like chess.
Which is why we have ratings so that players tend to play other people somewhat within their skill level.

>Of course you can't---there are none. This is the problem my dude. An individual from 2+ generations ago can't support your view in my opinion. Modern chess is pure autism.
This is pretty accurate for professional chess but you are taking it further and saying that this is also true for far, far weaker players which just isn't true. There is still plenty of scope for sharp, seat of your pants tactical play in chess outside of top level professional play.

>>8998870
>After reading your post, I am not really sure why you have been up my ass.
That was my first post in the thread, I'm not the other guy you were talking to.

>>9000866
I found when I was starting out that sharper, tactical openings were easier to understand because the purpose of every move was much more immediately apparent and each players moves were more influenced by the other players. I would imagine d4 openings to be hard for a beginner because of the transpositional possibilities of the openings that follow. I think things like the Italian or Ruy Lopez are great openings to start with.

>>9000866
that's fine

>>9000944
>This seems like a really weird definition of halfway decent. If we are going by FIDE certified Elo ratings (as in not going by inflated internet ratings) then 1900 is pretty damn good and is the sort of rating that will only ever be achieved by long and intense study.
kek
t.1900 player

>>8998990
Books don't really help. The only real way forward is to play long time control games and then analyze them afterward with a computer. Most people sub 1800 (which is ~80th percentile of all active tourney-going players and probably 99th percentile of all players including casuals) can depend on tactics and endgame knowledge for victory. Opening mistakes can be recovered very easily in the middle game or avoided entirely with unconventional or rare openings.

The thing is, you have to keep at it everyday to remain "sharp". This means doing tactics puzzles every day in addition to game analysis.

Anyway, if you still want book recs:
1. Manual of Chess Combinations (all three volumes)
2. Igor Smirnov's stuff (you can find pdfs of the courses)

>>8997013
Why do people talk about things they have no fucking clue about?

just use chesstempo

File: Attack-And-Defense-James-Davies.jpg (10KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 200x200px

>>8996979
This one because you've chosen the wrong game

>>9001477
Go is a snorefest.

>>9001002
Low level players aren't going to understand computer analysis with the exception of obvious blunders.

>>9001546
then Chess must be benzos in game form

Just play video games. They are more socially acceptable and more fun.

>>9001546
Maybe if you're a mental midget who needs to move horsies around to be stimulated

File: ENDGAME.jpg (9KB, 208x300px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 208x300px

E N D G A M E
N
D
G
A
M
E

>>9000597
Agreed. It is totally false. I'm 1900ish on lichess, learned all I know about chess from Chessmaster tutorials, and I've still memorised up to ten lines on different oppenings. Never actually went and learn them, but they're automatic to me now. They do come along all the time, and different ones transcend into different ones, so knowing what's advantageous in certain situation is helpful, not to mention immensely entertaining when you pull a trap on higher ranked player.

>>9001546
What's it like having such a low IQ?

>>9001617
>>9001680
>hurrrrr if u don't like things I like ur dum
Wow you sure showed him

>>9001697
Its not my fault I'm right

File: autism.jpg (14KB, 502x417px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 502x417px

>>9001735
As opposed to someone who becomes emotional over some random person on the internet calling a game boring. You certainly have put your your intellectual prowess on display. Go make a Go thread if you want to talk about boring games that no one plays faggot.

I would kill to have a Star Trek tridimensional chessboard, if you recall the one from TNG. My dad a subscription to some magazine in the mid-90s and there was this insert that had the board for $34.95 or something close to it. I didn't get it then because I wasn't into chess at the time. Now I'm kicking myself because the original goes for $200+.

File: ImageHandler.jpg (44KB, 240x333px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 240x333px

Say what you will, but I found this really good when I was just starting; it's comprehensible for someone who doesn't respond well to being faced with a giant wall of annotation.

>>9001805
what you will

>>8998609
good copypasta

>>9001747
>noone plays Go
>there are more Go players than cess players

rev up those neurons

>>8997535

It's basically nonsense.

Chess is a game of pure human intellect, turning the brain into a computer to memorise positions and predict the opponents future moves based on their current ones. The winner is the one who can bring the most mental power to the equation, not the one with the best 'chess philosophy'.

The game isn't really flexible enough to allow mindsets to come into it beyond the very, very first moves. He who can predict more turns into the future than his opponent wins.

That's why computers are always always going to be better at chess than humans, no matter what they do. A human struggles to think a measly half dozen moves into the future. Even a weak computer can think of what, hundreds? Thousands?

That's also why its so crushing when a big name in chess loses decisively to another. There's not a lot to hide behind for the human ego, not many excuses to go to other than 'that guy's brain is more powerful than mine'.

>>9001887

>/lit/ is a mainly Chinese board

>>9001887
[citation needed]

>>9001891
>doesn't realize gooks are the master rice

File: human accomplishments.jpg (52KB, 577x866px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 577x866px

>>9001940
>One of the oldest civilizations
>Highest IQ's
>Have contributed almost nothing to human civilization in contrast to Europe

Really makes the neurons tingle

>>9001940

No

>>9001747
he doesn't seem particularly emotional to be quite honest

File: blueface.png (141KB, 500x392px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 500x392px

>>9001965
>he

File: abstract pepe.jpg (123KB, 423x620px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 423x620px

>>9001971

>Pretending to be a woman

File: sh.jpg (563KB, 1344x1800px) Image search: [Google]

563KB, 1344x1800px

>>9001988
>woman

>>9001988
No. He's samefagging.

>>8996979
Just learn by heart classical positions. That's all chess is about. No need to understand a thing about the game.

Logician with the high working memory here, is the apparently good anon from yesterday still here? I still want to play you buddy.

>>9002046
Your favorite book is probably ender's game

>>9002003
who is?

>>8999114
You are talking like it was poetry or something lol. A chess romantic, i like it. At what age did you start?

>>9000597

And a REALLY really great chess player will play the opening like a book, the middle-game like a book, and the end-game like a machine. Once the game is solved it's basically all book. Pure memorization really does destroy skill though.

>>8999114

Chess isn't unhealthy for your mind, that's like saying walking is unhealthy for your body. By constantly playing chess, you are tuning up your brain.

Though as I've gotten better at chess I've begun to think that I cosmically force other players to lose and make shitty moves, am I psychic? How would one win at chess otherwise, it's all been decided.

File: Schachnovelle_Holzschnitt_2[1].jpg (98KB, 506x700px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 506x700px

>>9002278
>>9002740
This ain't some fiction. Chess changed my life for the worse.

I started playing with 15 years and with playing I mean immersing into game. When I started making chess compositions myself I completely got out of touch with reality. The task of composing is to convert a complex idea onto the chess board. Everytime I'd try it my mind would leave this earth and wandern onto the 64 black and white fields for several hours without any interruption. And at the end there was either a chess position I'd be proud of like it were my first born child or a crushing emptiness. It's a psychotic obsession, a true creative suffering. Nabokov wrote about this, too.

Anyway, I digress. Chess changed my perception to some kind of synesthesia and that's no fun. Be aware.

File: Capture.png (3KB, 204x59px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 204x59px

>>8996979
I'm actually starting to feel that, regardless of the amount of chess theory and practice you know, natural talent is what matters in chess far more.

Why do I feel this way? Pic related. It took me 1800 puzzles to reach this score from 1000. I topped at around 1620 probably. I mean, I don't get it - I have a very high IQ and 9 out of 10 on my logic and critical thinking courses at uni(no bragging at all) so I'm obviously not dumb but I just can't "get" chess.

>>9003088
>I'm an idiot who doesn't know how to separate fiction from non-fiction
>Therefore this is the fault of non-fiction
Jesus fucking Christ, sometimes I wonder if anyone has ever gotten laid on this board, this is some 16 year old level angst.

File: when the tao hits just right.jpg (52KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 640x480px

>>8996979

>He doesn't play Go

File: Kafka[1].jpg (75KB, 495x660px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 495x660px

>>9003134
>not being acquainted with the mysteries of an artistic mind

>>8996979
I wanted to do this too but I realised it's largely memorising moves. Literally every starting move and strategy you will ever think of was named and perfected hundreds of years ago. Instead I just play it, try to be decent on my own and work out my own starting moves and strategies. I could be way better by not doing this but it's far more enjoyable. I've done the opposite of this when playing other games (competitive video games) and it just means you're bored and/or worried if you're doing it right, at least for me.

>>9003134
your concept of the nature of individual perception combined with your boring, externally motivated ego tell me other boards might suit you better

File: cia mgs.gif (61KB, 156x267px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 156x267px

The amount of verifiable idiocy in this thread makes me think how many things I read on this board and just take for granted that they know more than me

>>9003088
>I started making chess compositions
problems or studies?
care to post one?

>>9001952
>Graph of scientific accomplishments
>Human civilization

wew lad, you have a long way to go

File: 1.png (79KB, 804x811px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 804x811px

>>9003206
Only problems. I tried it a few times but I have no idea how to make studies or end game compositions. That's just over my head.
My respect and reverence to Kubbel, Kasparyan, Troitzky and the rest of them (by the way, check out the endgame studies app by chess king).

So, this is one of my compositions. I never wrote them down, I hope I recontructed everything right from memory.

>white to move, mate in 2

>>9003268
does qe5 work?
if he takes the queen then rh1
if he takes the rook then rh1
cant see how hed prevent rh1

File: 2.png (65KB, 804x809px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 804x809px

>>9003293
Correct!
...Nxb1 or ...Nd1 prevents Rh1 but then 2.Qh2 is mate.

Here's an other one I remember. It's a study-like problem, I hope you like it.

>white to move, mate in 7

>>9003088
It actually sounds like a lot of fun but it also sounds retarded because it happened over Chess

>>8997548
Anyone have any pdfs of these?

>>9003304
this one is cuhrazy
i know a8=q is the first move, then qxf5 is the only move, but i cant see what next

>>9003875
I think it's Qf3 Qf6 h3.

>>9003907
oh wait then you have Qa1+ and back

>>9003922
simply 3.Ra1?

>>9003907
>>9003922

Ra8 is silent but deadly, the only thing that black can do is to take the queen. Zugzwang (Rh7 Rxf8+ Kxf8 gxh7) finishes the game

>>9003935
>>9003932
I meant Ra8 not a1 I promise.

>>8996979
Start with the Greeks

>>8997316
Zoo3y

>>8997189
This. So much more fun but none of my friends know how to play

>>8997481
+1 for Seriawan, also check out his lectures at the St Louis School of Chess on YouTube, he's an absolute pleasure to listen to.

>>8998870
I agree with what you're saying to a degree, but I think there's hope for exciting chess to make a comeback.

Shirov vs a 16 year old named Sam Sevian. I think you'll enjoy this game if you haven't seen it.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1820837

>>9003103
Not true, you're just not noticing the patterns that exist, or you're trying the solution too fast without thinking it through.

Try chesstempo puzzles, and take a look at their notes on chess motifs. There's also something to be said about just logically concluding that you probably have a good move. Take a scenario like the puzzle of the day today: it's a 1700 puzzle. iirc there are two bishops, a queen and a rook facing the king. the correct solution is not one where you win a pawn, for example

>>9001891
Why is it relevant that the board consists of pseudointellectual cretins?

>>9006530
Also, now that lichess has added an option for going straight from puzzle to analysis board, try playing the move you thought was right and see how it's wrong. I started uncovering patterns of mistakes through that.

I'm pretty shitty at chess, I only have a puzzle rating of ~1650 after a year of playing, but hopefully this advice isn't bad

>>9006544
Good advice. Basically, you should never guess and visualize every possible outcome.

>>9006523
Those rook sacrifices. Brilliant game, thanks for sharing.

>>9000044

That is exactly what I need. I didn't even know you could do that sort of stuff with Lucas chess.

>>9000676
You fell for the meme of >muh I can't do anything because time

It's a jewish lie to keep you down and to make you a good goy.

>>9006523
this is now a post neat games thread
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80-I7lPpdCI

>>9007830
Lucas chess has a complicated interface, so it can be hard to find certain features, but it has every feature youd want hidden behind 10 different toolbars

>>9008258
seriously you need to see this

>>9008258
my favourite
>http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1259999