Chess General

Also, what site/program do you anons use for online play?

>>52172064
Depends on what platform you're playing on and your ELO. Memorizing lots of openings doesn't usually help weak players, learning to actually outplay opponents does. But if you're getting up there around 2200 FIDE elo otb then opening theory and memorizing lots of lines will be of great benefit to you. If you're playing on Lichess, you'll probably be 300-500 elo higher than your otb rating. Chess.com is similar in this manner.

>>52172086
lichess is god-tier, chess.com is alright, chesstempo is great for training. There's an offline program called Lucas Chess with a metric shit ton of tactics problems and stuff. I keep it on a flash drive. Sometimes I start chess matches over facebook messenger with my friends. You have to use algebraic notation to make your moves but it's still chess.

>>52172064
>Is using/learning textbook strategies even worth it?

How much effort are you putting into your game? How strong do you want to get? What's your goal? How strong are you now?

>>52172112

You know, I'm not doubting you about 3-500 higher than your ELO, if for no other reason that I recognize some of the GM and IM's there and know what their actual FIDE ratings are, but I don't quite get why that happens. I mean, it's the same system that FIDE and the rest use.

>>52172199
On lichess specifically everyone starts with 1500 (or 1300 or something?) causing a shift in elo distribution. Not sure about chess.com but there's a similar phenomena over there.

>>52172199
I'm serious about play, and in fact I want to compete officially. But I'd really prefer not to memorize strategies by the book.

I play like an army commander, dependent on the temperament, and offensive/defensiveness of the opponent. It's the only way I know how.

>>52172279
Mind a quick game, at 5/2 time controls, so I can get at least a little bit of a gauge in your strength?

https://lichess.org/N1OCwehN

>>52172279
At some point you're going to have to do some rote learning, whether you like it or not. Unless of course you have 1000 years to sit around and develop chess theory yourself.

>>52172296
I started one already. I'll make another when finished.

>>52172348

No hurry. I see you there, assuming you're Moe-Mystic.

>>52172402
>>52172348

Ok, assuming that OP of this thread is the Moe-Mystic guy I played, here are my following ideas.

No offense intended, but you're a rank beginner, and if you're winning most of your games, you're probably playing other rank beginners. If you're looking to get into tournaments, even local ones, be prepared for the fact that most people with FIDE or other local ratings are going to be significantly stronger than you.

That being said, I don't think you should start memorizing openings yet, like the other anon said memorizing heaps of openings is something that you're not even ready for, we need to get you some opening principles first.

So for starters, here's what I would recommend.

META-GAME LEVEL.

I noticed you said in the post >>52172279 that you "play like an army commander, dependent on the temperment of your opponent." I wouldn't recommend that. Chess isn't even a game on some levels, more of an opposed calculation. Play the board, not the other guy. In every position there are a small series of best moves, often only one best move, and a much larger series of bad moves. Learn to identify the good moves from the bad ones, and avoid the latter; don't think too hard along the lines of

>Well, this guy's aggressive, he's likely to attack
>This other guy's defensive, he's not going to attack.

Good players attack in positions where they have attacking chances and defend in ones they don't, even if they do have tempermental differences one way or the other. And if you start going to tournaments, play a lot of people you don't know, you won't have time or opportunity to scope out their personalities.
1/2

>>52172715


>OPENING THEORY.

Like I said, don't worry too much about individual lines. But here's what I would try to keep in mind. You have 3 major goals out of every opening position, and every good, GM stamp of approval opening at least tries to do this more than your opponent.

1) Get your king safe
2) Control the center
3) Develop your pieces off the back row.

Obviously, those 3 interrelate. No matter where your king is, it's not safe if your opponent has a huge cluster of pieces in the center and your guys are standing around in their starting posts. In the game we played, you moved both rook pawns, presumably to play your rooks to a and h3, and then move them out. It's a bad plan; you spend 3 moves per rook mobilized, and I can easily stop them by pushing my center pawns and covering those squares with my bishops, giving me faster development and control of the center. You never did get your rooks out by those avenues, instead one dying on its starting square, and the other getting in the game by you castling; those rook pawn pushes did nothing for you but waste time.

Speed, not in terms of clock time but in move time, is paramount in chess, especially in the early game. Get moving quickly, or people will eat you.

>Middle game

I didn't get the impression you were thinking too far ahead, or in terms of scope. Mostly just making sure all your pieces covered each other. It's a good start, but it's not enough if you want to play seriously, and several times I was capable of trading weaker pieces for stronger ones, like when I pinned the knight on c3 or trapped the bishop on g5. A very quick rule of thumb is "The more spaces my piece can move to next turn, the stronger it is". Blocking your bishop with your pawns weakens it. A pinned piece can't go anywhere and should be un-pinned as soon as feasible.
I can't really speak to your endgame, we didn't get to that.

>>52172064
Inertial Queens Illustraded Manual

File: Napoleon_reading[1].jpg (56KB, 479x359px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 479x359px

>Played on a checkered, black-and-white board
>All pieces start the game equal in status, none are inherrently superior to the other
>Through hard work, talent and perserverence a piece can be crowned
Post yfw you realized checkers is just Republican chess.

>>52172715
>>52172728
Middle of the game I made several mistakes. The dog went nutty and I had to shut her up. Lost my rhythm after that.

As you can tell, I don't play as well online, since can't get a read on the person. You're definitely right though, I need to phase out of that style of charisma-based play and focus on physical strategy.

>>52172064
Short answer is yes. It makes a massive, massive, difference.

>>52172827

No offense, but you had already ceded the advantage of playing white on the first move (a4 really is bad), and had pretty much lost the game by the fourth. Losing a knight for a pawn was inevitable once I had the pin aided by the d4 pawn, and down a piece that early is pretty hopeless. In fact, the computer analysis is saying I made a pretty bad error playing Nf6 on the following move, instead of dxc3 which leads to an immediate mate if you try to take the queen.

>>52172827
You're giving yourself too much credit, m8. You're garbage. Not only is it worth it to formally study chess, it's necessary to not be complete shit. This is true for everyone, not just you. Almost nobody is just naturally good at chess, regardless of how smart you are otherwise, and the ones are naturally good, study chess formally so they can get even better.

>>52173510
Impolite much. I know I'm not very good. But I'm not bad either. I'll wreck ye at Scrabble, mate.