How

do puzzles on lichess

>>34611362
Play more
Play more
Play more

>>34611784
>Play more
>Play more
>Play more
loving this meme

>>34611362
Play online more, it does wonders. Solve puzzles as well. This is a weird position you got yourself to, the two knights and the rook are on starting position and you didn't castle. How long have you been playing?

>>34611861
Also, read the theory. I doesn't matter if you have good thinking when you can't get past the opening stage of the game.

Been playing 2 weeks

>>34611362
develop knights first, go watch 'matojelic' on youtube. learn a few openings and don't hang pieces.

Chess is a god-tier father/son activity.

>>34611362
Fuck, it's really just playing more, it's not a meme, training does makes you better at something,

The only way to get smater, by playing a smarter opponent - Fundaments of Chess, 1883

>>34612680
I wroted wrong there, forgot an "is" after the comma

>>34611362
You don't. Chess is a dead game. Computers can smash any human opponent with ease and cheating is rife throughout the "sport." In fifty years being "good" at chess will be like being "good" at go fish.

>>34612753

What do you mean cheating is prominent? I know obviously you can cheat online, but how do real tournament level players cheat frequently?

>>34612753
Smartphones. Chess engines these days are amazing and fit right in your pocket. A lot of serious tournaments now require that participants turn in everything in their pockets before they play because of how easy it is to cheat.

>>34611362
Play more lichess then get a computer analysis after all your games.

>>34612753
>>34612965
For what it's worth, I'll throw in my personal anecdote. I don't play much anymore these days so I'm probably hovering in the 2100 strength range. When I occasionally play random games on lichess, I lose about 1 in 4 games. ELO literally is a statistical measure of how frequently you win or lose. If we assume the average person is 1200-1500, we can calculate how frequently I should lose, subtract that from 25%, and however much left is one sample of the percentage of cheaters. Do this test for a lot of people and you'll have an idea of how many cheaters there are. Personally, I think it's in the 10%-20% range. I bring this up because while you're new, your loses are likely your fault but as you get better, don't get discouraged, if you get smashed, it's entirely possible that you lost to a cheater if it could be as high as 1 in 5.

>>34611362
You don't. Chess has a very low skill cap. Almost pure RNG.

>>34613499
The average person could be in the low 2000 range if they tried as hard as they could to be good at chess. The top players are in the 2800 range. That's a huge gap in ability. That said, the skills involved are literally the autistic kind, not the kind of mental ability that carries over well to real life. You know though, I would have imagined /r9k/ would shill chess, not shit on it. /r9k/ is full of dumbasses who can't get their life together yet think they're smarter than everyone else because they like useless BS like computer games and anime.

>>34613600
Lol chess is easy. It's just a matter of memorizing all the positions (there are only 6x as many squares as tic-tac-toe, and think about how easy that is). After that it's basically RNG.

>>34611362
The best way to get better at chess it to

1. Read up on the cornerstones of chess strategy and tactics.
2. Study a few easy openers
3. Complete tonnes of chess puzzles until you can recognise most situations and know what to do without thinking about it too much
4. Continue completing chess puzzles but start prioritising actually playing the game.
5. repeat point 4 again and again until you die or quit chess.

You probably won't become a GM chess player unless you memorise every single possible combination of moves on the board and their perfect counters up until round 20, but could still become pretty good.

>>34613703
You're probably trolling but if you're just an idiot, in TTT, only one piece can occupy a square and once occupied, that square can no longer be occupied, additionally, after a certain amount of moves, the game ends. In chess, any piece with the exception of the pawn can occupy a square, that square can used infinitely and the moves can be infinite. Chess can be solved eventually but even today's computing can't do it yet, that fact alone is enough to talk about the complexity.

>>34614403
he's right for the wrong reasons though. All the chess pros just memorise the perfect counters to every position. In fact, the very process of learning from a chess game is to review where you went wrong and (learn) to recognise what you should've done instead until you have massive internal mental intuitive databank. It's why practicing chess puzzles is such a good way to develop chess "sense". Of course the best players in world don't rely solely on this, and that's why Bobby Fischer was so amazing.

>>34614519
You're right about needing the memory bank but you lost the plot after that. To my original point, the ability to memorize and focus that well is a skill, albeit an autistic one. But it's a skill nonetheless where there is a huge divide in ability. As for chess puzzles, they're great for tactics but do very little for overall chess understanding. That said, if you're playing blitz, the entire game is decided on tactics. Also, if you're under 2000, the entire game is decided on tactics and most everyone is under 2000. Fischer was an amazing person because he forged his own way in life. Before him, all the top chess players came from rich backgrounds or state supported like the Soviets. Fischer was also an amazing chess player. However, he was no different than the other top memorizing players. He was just significantly better at memorizing.