Is it true that many average chess players

>>54105900
I really doubt anyone with below average ANYTHING can become a grand master let alone world champion.

>>54105934
I mean i honestly believe i have greater tactical chess understanding than Magnus

he'd obviously beat me with his positional chess

>>54105900
What's the difference?

>>54105951
troll time

>>54105900
he has the amazing ability to not make mistakes, he also has been playing chess his whole life, was a grandmaster at 13, and the secret to his success is that he is really good at chess.

also tactics IS positioning, so this question is a bit silly.

Is this a troll question?

>>54105900
What the hell are you even talking about?

All chess is just positioning.

>>54105900
There is something to be said for 'path dependency', the tendency to re-use strategies that worked in past games. This is part of the reason why computers can outplay grandmasters- they aren't locked into certain tactics. They just plot out a few hundred moves with every branch and evaluate. They'll see things a human grandmaster just doesn't have the vision to see.

Whether or not noobs can utilize their 'lack of path dependency' is an extremely dubious idea though. Maybe 1 in a 1000 games or something, but generally they'll fall for easy mistakes, simple traps, lack 2 or 3 foresight.

>>54105951
Is this the /tg/ equivalent of /v/'s "MUH GOOKCLICKERS"?

>>54105934
Social skills?

File: too_intelligent.jpg (10KB, 223x226px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 223x226px

>tfw too skilled to win

Was just reading up on the Queen's Gambit and it seems that the classic QGD with 2...e6 is hardly ever seen anymore among elite players.

chess? more like chizz, more like jizz amirite

>>54105900
Is there anyone who's going to come close to beating him anytime soon?

I know he dropped a game in the last championship, but still won most of them.

>>54105900
Seen 1000-ish ELO schmuck win over Grandmaster once, so you never know.

>>54109246
AYY LMAO
Well said brah

>>54105900
Real talk. Chess is a very difficult game and high-level players are extremely talented and impressive. But chess does not nearly translate one to one into tactical skill like bad movies would have you belive.

>>54109483
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1054890

Take this 123 move epic. On paper, White had the game won by move 78 (two minor pieces+pawn vs lone rook in practice is always a win) but Black stubbornly resisted for almost 50 more moves. He made several blunders and almost lost, but White failed to capitalize on it and let him back into the game (not unexpected when you've been playing probably 12 hours without a break). Also it's interesting just because endings with two bishops are pretty rare.

>>54105976
>hey magnus, do you know that one thing you inherited from me that you're really, really good at?
>yeah, the one that I let you spread throughout the rest of the legiones astartes and that is a vital infrastructural component of my empire
>don't ever do it again
>no, I won't tell you why, but if you ever do that thing that you and I used to do together and that I will continue to do, I will send your brother to murder you

Reti Opening? That shit's way way too subtle and positional for anyone under 2400.

>>54105900
>greater tactical understanding than Magnus
That's not a very high bar to clear.

>>54111336
More like
>Emperor/Malcador/Valdor sent Russ to just tell Magnus that the Big E is angry at him
>Russ thinks MAKE SURE MAGNUS KNOWS HE FUCKED UP is actually FUCK MAGNUS UP
>Lose an entire legion to Chaos because Russ couldn't keep his murderboner down

It seems that d4 openings have fallen out of favor lately, the 2016 World Championship match had only three d4 openings in 16 games and no Indian Defenses anywhere to be seen.

>>54111674
They come and go in cycles. For example, in the 1920s-30s everyone played d4 openings, then in the 50s-60s it was all e4, then d4 again in the 70s-80s. It's been kind of a little of both since the 90s.

Now compare those Karpov/Korchnoi/Kasparov world championship matches from the 70s-80s when it was nothing but Indian Defenses.

>>54111747
Also I should add that Karpov did mostly use e4 openings in the 70s, he switched to d4 by the mid-80s. Two games in the 81 world championship also featured Italian Games.

>>54109483
>Chess is a very difficult game and
Endgames are the hardest phase of the game. Openings are easy if you book up enough but endgames require a huge amount of calculation to win.

Magnus Carslen would probably lose if he played Bill Wall.

>>54105900
Looks like a Petrov's Defense in the picture.

>>54112124
Most elite GMs use the Petrov's Defense as a drawing weapon although the chessgames.com database lists 36 Carlsen Petrov games and only 12 were draws.

>>54109270
He's been dropping games lately, so...

>>54105900
So this guy's supposedly the greatest chess player in the world.

If we played a game, what strategies does he have that would stop me from slapping the pieces off the board then beating him up? What tactics or positional knowledge would prevent me from dunking this manlet on his head?

None? I thought so. Checkmate, literally.

>>54112861
The main advantage GMs have over amateurs is their vastly superior strategic/positional knowledge, they can see possibilities in a given position that normies can't.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1799349

And Stockfish completely failed to find the coup-de-grace rook sacrifice on move 22. All of which proves that computers still can't top a human player. :^)

>>54113400
It seems from my experience that computer engines aren't that good at finding sac combinations.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1721829&kpage=1

Longest decisive tournament game with 210 moves, a ridiculous rook vs rook/knight grindfest. Doesn't Bogdanovich know it's not nice to torture old people like this?

>>54114047
I'm in my 20s and I wouldn't want to play a game that long, let alone be 50 like his opponent was.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1237282

Finally drawn on move 157 after the 50 move draw rule was reached.

File: dsc_1474.jpg (82KB, 810x540px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 810x540px

>>54109483
>can't hold up the knights' and rooks' forward progress along a three-hundred mile front for months because the pawns blend in with the civilian population and can't be immediately dealt with
>can't get your budget tightened because your queen fleet is way too expensive and underutilized to be worth the capital invested
>can't place economic sanctions on the opponent for committing war crimes in one of your allies' civilian population centers with his bishops
Honestly, it was a Persian battle simulator game meant to train and hone generals' minds for times of war. They didn't even conceive of things such as airstrikes and non-state actors and the military-industrial complex. It's like Old Snake said: War has changed. Proxy shadow conflicts play out every day across ethernet cables and trading hub tickers as much as they do in sandy outcrops and jungle brush. There are no more war lines to draw. It's all war, all the time. It's just a matter of who's got better funding and PR.

I could never get into chess because I don't understand the whole "think three moves ahead" concept.
Say there are 20 possible moves my opponent COULD possibly make at turn N, a low estimate. Then say there are 20 possible moves I could make at turn N+1 in response to each of those, making 400 possible board states. Yeah, some of those are obviously pointless, but I have to imagine them before I can tell they're pointless. It fucks me up because there's no real order to any of this like going down a checklist, I forget which board states I thought about and which I didn't.
Worst of all, I can't predict which moves at turn N+1 would be advantageous without thinking about turn N+2, and I can't predict that without thinking about turn N+3, and it's infinite. How the fuck do I know what move my opponent will make two turns from now if I don't even know which move I myself will take next turn, but which move I take depends on predicting future moves? I'm stuck in a loop of ignorance. It's impossible for me to narrow down all the potential moves to a most likely few because that would require extrapolating the entire match in my head a billion times.
>hurr git gud
I want the non-meme answer.

>>54109483
At the end of the day, it all boils down to pawn structures; they're what determines the course of a game. Philidor proposed this back in the XVIII century, although Steinitz was the first to prove it.

>>54115372
People like to say that Steinitz invented positional chess and before his time everyone just played crazy King's/Evans Gambit sacrificial attack games, but it's not really true. Actually, positional chess and d4 openings were more common in the Romantic era than is generally believed and one thing to remember is that a lot of the really wild games played by Morphy, Anderssen, et al were against scrub opponents. When elite players faced each other, they tended to use a more positional playing style. As an example, if you look at the games played in the London 1851 tournament, there's quite a few closed games and d4 openings and a distinct absence of King's Gambits.

The thing is that chess books habitually reprint the more wild games played by Romantic players, like the Immortal Game and the Opera House Game, which gives the misleading idea that all games from that time were like this.

>>54115428
IIRC Morphy made it a requirement for matches that at least half the games be e4 e5 openings. He also had a loathing of the Sicilian Defense. I guess like most every player, he had a couple of pet openings he liked and understood--generally the King's Gambit and Italian Game as White, and the Dutch Defense/Philidor Defense as Black.

Chess theory in the Romantic era was really, really underdeveloped and most of the openings those guys used like King's Gambit, Giuoco Piano, and Philidor Defense are not used outside the amateur level at all today. Morphy never faced an Indian Defense or a Slav Defense in his life. There were few chess books in those days, and what did exist was expensive. Most players just winged it and played variations that are seen as a joke now.

>>54115495
Two games in the '16 world championship used the Italian Game. It's not at all dubious like the King's Gambit, but it doesn't have a lot of punch compared with the Ruy Lopez and the more aggressive Evans Gambit is too dangerous to attempt in serious matches.

>>54115526
The King's Gambit has never been refuted, but no GM is foolhardy enough to play it. Why? Because in serious tourney play, you want to be able to draw the game if desired, and the King's Gambit rarely ever produces a draw, you either win or lose. It's part of the business side of professional chess.

Openings like the Sicilian Defense are preferred because they offer the same chance for aggressive gameplay and are easier to steer into a draw if desired.

>>54115555
I mean, Kasparov shocked everyone when he used the Scotch Game in the '91 world championship match.

>>54115592
Yeh some long extinct openings like the Scotch Game, Four Knights, and even the Bishop's Opening were resurrected in the 90s, but the King's Gambit has yet to make a comeback outside amateur chess.

Slightly serious question, why do people still try so hard at chess when AI is better then they'll ever be every time?

File: IMG_0877.jpg (108KB, 894x894px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 894x894px

I read an article about him where outright states he relies more on instinct and his gut rather than tried-and-true strategy. If something "feels right" to him he goes for it

>>54115683
No computer engine is perfect. See the example given earlier in this thread. I ran a game through Stockfish and it didn't find the game-winning rook sacrifice. In general, computer engines are bad at this sort of thing because they can't figure out that you could intentionally give up material to gain a positional advantage. They merely see something like "This move would result in loss of material with no compensation, which is bad."

>>54112861
Legions of fans and women madly attracted to him who would gladly kill an autistic neet trying to attack him

You're a worthless idiot. He's a superstar who fucks new bitches every day. Don't ever compare yourself to him

>>54112861
Why did I laugh so hard at this retarded post? Jesus I'm in tears

>>54105951
You should get some treatment for that megalomania of yours.

>>54112861
>If we played a game, what strategies does he have that would stop me from slapping the pieces off the board then beating him up?
You seriously think he can't afford to hire a few guys to beat the shit out of you while he fucks your mom?

>>54115683
You could ask the same about any videogame.

>>54115793
Joke's on you, I'm already fucking that anon's mom. Magnus has to wait in line.

>>54115709
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1134883

Another example--this Tal classic from 1969. Stockfish failed to find 11. Qh5 (very important since the queen is put into a firmly entrenched position that Black can't drive it away from) and 15. Nd4 (also important since it leads to the removal of the e pawn which is a main bulkwark of Black's defense).

>>54115917
It did find 20. Qxe5, but recommended that Black castle instead of taking the queen, which was obviously the fatal mistake that cost him the game (he resigned with mate in two).

>>54115917
>>54115955
Black should have castled when he had the chance.

>>54115973
That he should, especially when facing a dangerous tactical player like Tal.

>>54105900
What's up with his face?

>>54115224
Because players generally follow strategies based on the hierarchy of pieces. In the most broad of strokes it goes King>Queen>Rook>Bishop>Knight>Pawn. Bishop and Knight are pretty equal, and obviously the King is not a powerful piece but it must be protected. Once you understand that certain pieces are more important than others it becomes a lot easier to play and understand, but rarely is this explicitly taught, it's just assumed and inferred.

But it gets a lot more complicated when you take into account positioning and how freely a piece can move. Rooks are worse early game then Knights because it takes a lot of moves to get them out and the player can see what you're doing. Kings are very weak in the early game and can't do much, but late game the king's placement becomes very important. Pawns become extremely important in the late game too. But once you realise this general hierarchy you can reasonably predict what most players are thinking and more importantly, what they are capable of doing. A player will target a Queen over a Knight, a player will protect his Rook instead of his Knight etc. Once you've got that understanding down you can form strategies, and once you start forming strategies you are "thinking three moves ahead", but in more broad strokes instead of "this is literally the most likely board state 18 turns from now".

But I'm pretty amateur, no doubt a lot of it is visualizing hundreds of moves.

>>54111336
>Hey you know how you've got a liver that's really good at processing alcohol
>please practice safe drinking instead of binging and assuming you'll be fine

How do I get into chess?

>>54118236
Just read the rules and you'll already be doing well. Seriously, 60% of professional players don't actually know how the knight moves.

>>54112861
Security, you fucking idiot. He wouldn't even have to lift a finger, because you would be knocked out by security or his fans and then charged with assault.

File: Pos4.jpg (61KB, 532x532px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 532x532px

>>54105900
>>54105951
No.
>>54105991
Positional game is the way humans get good positions while not being able to actually calculate deeply.
For example, I would avoid to double or isolate my pawns because I know they will be weaker, and maybe make me lose 30 moves from now. But there is no way I actually calculate lines of 30 moves, so we don´t call this tactics.

Positional game is fine tuning once you reached master tactic level, and if our tactics could improve more, positional game would be just useless.
Computers lack this positional way to judge the game, yet they are way better than humans, just with calculation.

File: The Saavedra position.png (10KB, 302x352px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 302x352px

>>54106898
Actually all chess is tactics.
Positioning and strategy are just a silly words human use for "things that usually work in long-term", and somehow compensates our inability to calculate deeply.

>>54111989
>Openings are easy if you book up enough
The red pill here is that endgame is exactly like openings, but easier to study because they don´t change.
The Sicilian Defense for example, has been evolving for decades and is still evolving, experts can´t guarantee what´s the best way to play it and probably you will never know exactly.
But a Rook&Pawn vs Rook endgame has been already studied to the limit. You learn it once and you will play it perfectly the rest of your life.

Middlegame is the real deal on chess.

File: Mate.jpg (48KB, 532x532px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 532x532px

>>54118236
>Until 1200~
Learn the rules, practice basic checkmates and tactics, and play a lot.

>Until 1400~
Opening: Care the centre, develop minor pieces first (knights&bishops), castle soon.
Middlegame: Checkmate and tactics in 2-3 moves
Endgame: Know how to win/draw King&something vs King alone positions

Pic related for mate in 1 and basic endgame.

File: Not too hard.png (433KB, 559x553px) Image search: [Google]

433KB, 559x553px

>>54118236
>>54119308
>1600~
Openings: Start learning some theory (lines and branches), or a system (trying to reach a modelic position)
Middlegame: Keep the work on problem solving. Add some other chess related puzzles to sharp your mental skill: Chess variants, Troyis, Chess Light, Black Night, whatever you find.
Endgame: Deepen in Rook&Pawns and Pawn endgames, which are the ones you will reach more often.

>1800~
Openings: Actually work on your openings, with strong answers to 1.e4 and 1.d4 being black, and main openings against main defenses being white.
Middlegame: Start with positional concepts, go harder on tactics, always looking for patterns you didn´t know.

>>54118236
>>54119510

>2000+

Opening
Banish secondary or marginal ideas: hoping to surprise your oponents doesn´t work at this level. Even if they don´t know what you are doing, a weak game will be punished.
Working on main lines is harder, but it will make you play better, and actually understand the nature of chess. Study theory and master games to understand your openings.
- White Openings: Banish secondary or marginal ideas, look for lines that actually keep the intiative, make black fight hard to even the game.
- Black Defenses: Look for active and main defenses, trying to deprive white of any advantage from move 1.


Middle Game
Work on problems that make your head hurt, develop the discipline to keep thinking for several minutes even if you don´t have a clue. Analyze master games trying to guess their moves, and deeply analyze your own games.
Go hard on strategy, go berserker on tactics.

Endgame
Know all essential endgames (around the 100 more often reached), and the few most common fortress. Try to impose yourself over machines (3000+ elo) on hard to win endgames (Queen&King vs Rook&King; 2Knights&King vs King&TroitzkyPawn, etc).
Deepen on Rook endgames, with any number of pawns.


From this to master level, just repeat and persist, increasing complexity of your skills and withd of your knowledge as you improve.

TL;DR: A few studying, a lot playing, and infinite tactics of all kind.

File: Antimachine.png (747KB, 558x545px) Image search: [Google]

747KB, 558x545px

>>54119868
Forgot pic. This is the kind of problem a computer will have a hard time solving, along with fortresses.
White to move and win in a number of moves, avoiding all the checkmate and drawn tricks from black.

File: tumblr_n2y1bwR9aq1s71y5uo1_1280.jpg (78KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 640x640px

What do you guys think about BJJ and how it is usually called "human chess"?

You sound like that one guy who said he could beat a gorilla in a fight

>>54119960
Thanks anon!

>>54119960
Tricky position, but white can sacrifice a rook, fork the black king and rook with the pawn on b, then promote it always putting black in check. With the black rook on c8 gone, g7xh8Q (possibly with check depending on whether black moved their king to b8 or a7) removes the threat to white of checkmate in one.

With a rook against a queen, and one bishop and several pawns down, black might as well resign.

>>54120135
BJJ is a meme

>>54119960
I *think* I have this.

Ra7+,Kb8
Ra8+,Kxa8
b7+; if kb8
bxc8+,Kxc8
gxa8=Q++

If after b7+
...Ka7,
bxc8=N+, Ka6
gxh8=Q, many branches but I think they all lose due to the queen being able to cover any backrank threats.

>>54122060
Wait, wait, crap. No,

If gxh8=Q, black can draw with d4, Qxd4, Ra1+, Qxa1.

So instead, let's try gxh8=B, which protects against the immediate threat, but leaves a breathing hole if he tries the same rook trick, since h5 is no longer defended.

But now, Black can try to slip in with the rook. But I think you can cover all possible backrank squares with the bishop pair. If Rb3, bg6; Rd3, Ba4; Re3, e8=Q, and of course f3 and c3 are out.
... Rd3,

>>54105934
Penis size.

>>54105900
The last best Chess player was an explosionist Druid that hated Jews and Alienists and lived in a shack.

File: Knight Jumps.webm (73KB, 408x408px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 408x408px

>>54122116
1.Ra7+ Kb8
2.Ra8+ Kxa8
3.b7+ Ka7
4.bxc8=N+ Ka6
5.gxh8=B is correct, but there is still work to do:

5... d4!
6.Bxd4 Rc3
7.?

Great job, though. That problem is not easy.

>>54122236
Oh come on, the hard part's over with.

If 6... Rc3
7. Be3 (covering the backrank square), Rxe3 loses to e8=R, if he goes to d3 or b3, you have the same bishop protections on h5/g4, and if he goes to a3, you can play h8 and give yourself another darksquare bishop.

File: Surrounded King.jpg (211KB, 626x900px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 626x900px

>>54122290
Nice

>>54122372
Incidentally, I tried feeding the position to Stockfish, the one on Lichess.

While it had a false start, going back to b7 to check the king again, after that, it solved the problem pretty quickly. When was this composed? I mean, this isn't exactly top of the line computer chess these days.

>>54111608
>Fagnus dindu nuttin

>>54116565
The early game will mostly involve skirmishes between minor pieces; the queen shouldn't move out before mid game or risk getting punted around/trapped. Rooks are typically the last pieces to become active which is why the rook endgame is the most common.

Beginners are too often tempted to charge the enemy castled position with the queen, while ignoring weaknesses in their own camp that can be exploited, and also forgetting that a successful assault on the enemy king will require at least three pieces.

The exact point where the mid game ends and the endgame begins is difficult to determine, but in general the endgame starts when the king becomes an active participant in the game instead of a passive spectator.

File: Asedio.png (758KB, 566x545px) Image search: [Google]

758KB, 566x545px

>>54122404
I have no idea, but I have another one equally mysterious and complex.
White to move and win.

File: One Move.jpg (190KB, 1101x1144px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 1101x1144px

Also for beginners, white to move and checkmate in one move. It´s a tricky one, I warn you.

Castling is also vital for your king's safety especially in e4 e5 openings. In some of the more closed openings, it may be possible to skip castling. If the queens get exchanged off the board early, then you also don't really need to castle that badly, the danger to the king drops considerably when the queens are gone.

There's no particular advantage to queen or king side castling, although the latter is more common simply because you can do it faster. Queen side castling places the rook in the center of the board, which is more aggressive, but it also leaves the a pawn exposed, and you will typically have to waste a move putting the king on b1/b8 to protect it.

Don't castle if the pawn structure on that side of the board is ripped up, or if a large concentration of enemy pieces are present there. When both sides castle on the same side of the board, it's more likely to lead to a closed game while castling on opposite sides more often leads to an open, tactical game.

>>54122523
Looks like it's from some old Fred Reinfeld book.

>>54122116
Good catch, yeah, if the black king goes to a7, the second pawn will have to be promoted to a bishop and not a queen.

I think you mean Rd3, Bh5 however. But yeah, all the squares can be covered.
If ... Rb3; Bg6 and Rd3 loses.
If ... Rd3; Bh5, Rb3; Bc2 and columns a-d are all covered so Re3; Bf6 Re3; and now it gets tricky again with Bc3.
If ..., Rxc3, black longer threatens checkmate and the pawn on e promotes to a queen and black goes checkmate no matter what.
And if Bc3, Rxe7; h8Q and white STILL got a second pawn promoted, black can no longer threaten checkmate and the whole thing implodes.

>>54115732
You seem to imply that people who play professional chess have sex. If you look at the history of the world's greatest players, they were generally /r9k/ personified.

>>54122462

This one doesn't seem as bad, it's got its own gimmick, which you don't see until you're a bit down the line, but it doesn't have those annoying "gotcha" careless traps that the first one did.

Bd2+, b4
Bxb4+,Kb5
Nd6+, Kb6
Ba5+, Kxa5 (If Qxa5, then Nc4+ and easily won pawn endgame)
Nc4+,Kb5

And now, amusingly, black is stuck. He can't move his king, and he can't move his queen, if it goes to either b7 or c8, you have Nd6+, winning it with the fork. If he pushes his c pawn, make sure to push your d pawn in response. So you can take your time marching your king over to the f file, secure the f pawn, and then push your own f pawn, as long as you're careful not to expose yourself to the black queen.

>>54122523
This one, on the other hand, is stumping me, which is kind of embarrassing. Is this some kind of joke puzzle? You've only got three moves that puts black in check, kind of a pre-requisite for mate. Na5+, Qxd5+, and Bd7+, none of which are mates in 1.

>>54122669
Capablanca was quite the romantic, but then he was Latin. Fischer and probably most Russian players never came anywhere near a vagina.

>>54122669
A lot of the best chess players in the world at the turn of the 19th-20th century died of syphilis. Far more World Champions have been married than not.

File: Robotics.jpg (183KB, 1000x958px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 1000x958px

>>54122698
>And now, amusingly, black is stuck
You have also to keep an eye on h6:
1.Bd2+ b4
2.Bxb4+ Kb5
3.Nd6+ Kb6
4.Ba5+ Kxa5
5.Nc4+ Kb5
6.Rf4 c5
7.d5 f5
8.Kg5! f4
9.f3 And black has no moves.

>You've only got three moves that puts black in check
Try to think what could have been the last black move.

>>54114047
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1268705

Of course the all-time record, this absurd 269 move game.

64 Dimensional chess BRUMPF BTFO

>>54122838
Good catch, I let up once I realized I had the queen more or less trapped.

>Try to think what could have been the last black move.
Oh come on, aren't you supposed to communicate an en passant is possible?

>>54122846
While I'm a long way from GM play, I once played a 243 move game once in a college match. I've got the score somewhere around here, but the tldr was

>Playing rival college
>4 board team game
>We split the other three boards 2-1
>So all I need to do is draw to win the match.
>Down a pawn, bad.
>Opposite colored bishops, good, at least for holding a draw.

And this fucker would NOT give me the dead draw. Nothing could move, nothing could progress, and it was just a huge procession of bishop moves, push a pawn to set the 50 move count back to default, and do it again. Bloody Princeton bastards.

>>54122943
If you find the score, you should get an account on chessgames.com and upload it.

>>54122972
Why? I mean, it's not particularly instructive. It's a bunch of 1700ish players fencing, and not particularly well, leading to a very drawn out dull draw that was about 175 moves later than when even us dipshits called it.

Plus, I've always been a bit mortified of publishing ever since I discovered one of my games from when I was 14 getting curbstomped by an IM at the U.S. East Coast Amateurs.

>>54114047
Rook vs rook and knight is a draw unless you mess something up. In this case, Neverov was doing ok until 206. Kh2 cost him the game. Black's strategy of fighting until his opponent finally made a mistake from sheer exhaustion worked, although it wasn't very nice.

>>54123003
I don't see how it's worse than all those Bill Wall games where he beats a sub-1000 opponent with elementary opening traps.

File: Untitled.png (1MB, 1101x1144px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1101x1144px

>>54122523
this looks like black advanced his pawn 2 squares forward turn before to block the threat from h1, thus it's possible to do picrel

>>54123146
It isn't, but I don't think the solution to seeing shit on a site is to post slightly less rancid turds.

File: k.png (7KB, 281x190px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 281x190px

Somebody wanna play? 5+3
https://lichess.org/h9OUOxQv

File: hqdefault.jpg (14KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 480x360px

BTW, if you ever get the pawn vs a lone king ending, it's better to promote it to a rook instead of a queen simply because you can mate easier with less chance of stalemate.

>>54122846
Rook and bishop vs rook is a win if Philidor's Position can be reached (note I say if). In that case, it's mate in about 20.

>>54119868
>Know all essential endgames (around the 100 more often reached), and the few most common fortress. Try to impose yourself over machines (3000+ elo) on hard to win endgames (Queen&King vs Rook&King

Queen vs rook is an easy win unless the stronger side plays badly.

Queen ending are the worst, they tend to be an absolute bastard to play.

>>54123909
Apparently queen vs queen and pawn is the very worst of all; nobody anywhere bothered studying this endgame until Botvinnik played it in a 1944 game. Paul Keres wrote a 20 page analysis on the ending (not like there was anything else to do in Russia back then) which was the first of its kind.

>>54123643
>BTW, if you ever get the pawn vs a lone king ending, it's better to promote it to a rook instead of a queen simply because you can mate easier with less chance of stalemate.
Explain?
I fail to see how the extra utility can be a bad thing, unless you just mean that I am more likely to make a mistake with the extra options available to me.

File: 1498096335627.png (125KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 640x640px

>>54115732
>>54115793
>>54118617
>needing to rely on others to save him from catching these hands
Wow, nice "grandmaster" you got there, LMAO.

>>54124290
>unless you just mean that I am more likely to make a mistake
That's exactly what I meant. The rook reduces your chance of blundering into a stalemate.

>>54109483

>Chess is a very difficult game and high-level players are extremely talented and impressive.

It's more like MENSA, you have some people who are legit impressive and many others who work behind the counter at the train station or something.

>>54119868
Players under 1500 should stick to e4 e5 openings and not try complicated stuff like the Sicilian Defense.

>>54118864
>Positional game is fine tuning once you reached master tactic level, and if our tactics could improve more, positional game would be just useless.
>Computers lack this positional way to judge the game, yet they are way better than humans, just with calculation.
Ah okay.
Magnus has shown to have very good recall of board states of previous games, so his tactical chess by this definition should be extremely good.

>>54112861
he's bjj black belt, 7 feet tall and weighs around 300 pounds

>>54115687
Yeh he sounds like he's not a variation player. A lot of Soviet GMs like Botvinnik, Smyslov, Petrosian, even Karpov fit that mold--they were workaday positional players who just plugged in certain variations with no real spark of imagination. That's how Bobby Fischer put it, anyway.

>>54124796
I wouldn't call Karpov a weak player, even if his style of play is too droll for a lot of people. The guy was one of the top 10 players in the world for a quarter century.

>>54124726
Doesn't stop them from trying it anyway.

>>54115555
Bent Larsen was an example of a GM who enjoyed playing unusual openings for the sake of it. He was a big risk-taker compared to someone like Petrosian, and consequently he never did well against the elite ranks of chess players, although he scored many brilliant wins against tomato cans.

In tournaments, Larsen did well because opponents would get taken by surprise when he broke out the Bird's Opening or things like that. In match play, he usually didn't do that well since his opponent could prepare for whatever weird discredited-since-the-19th-century opening he was going to use.

>>54125201
Yeh I agree that he was too unstable in his choice of openings to be a serious contender for world champion. At his absolute peak in the late '60s, he was ranked #5 or #6 in FIDE's top 10 list, but Spassky, Petrosian, et al were like #1 and #2. The guy was nothing short of confident though, in 1986, when he was 51, he boasted that if given three months to prepare, he could take down Kasparov.

>>54125201
Larsen was the most prominent chess player to ever come from Denmark and he did a lot to promote the game among his countrymen, sort of like what Anand did for India.

>>54125396
Is it even fair to call him a Dane? He spent over half his life in Argentina which he moved to in the late '60s because he preferred the climate to cold, wet Denmark.

>>54125201
David Bronstein was probably right when he said that Larsen could never be a serious contender for world champion because he didn't know how to draw games, only win or lose.

Hasn't chess been solved by computers at this point?

>>54125488
Interesting, but then again Bronstein after the 1951 world championship seemed more interested in creating artistic expression on the chess board rather than winning games. He was still an elite player into the early '70s, but his desire to win seemed to slowly be overtaken by his desire to create art.

Larsen wanted to win at all costs and his style of play was far too risky against a motivated Bobby Fischer, which is why Fischer waxed the floor with him in 1971.

>>54125522
Computers can and have beaten the best players in the world, but chess has not been solved yet, no.

Larsen's writings on chess and game annotations are pretty entertaining--they're not as dry as Karpov's or choked with endless variations like Kasparov's, and he had a great sense of humor.

>>54125309
>The guy was nothing short of confident though, in 1986, when he was 51, he boasted that if given three months to prepare, he could take down Kasparov

Seems doubtful since by his own admission, he didn't follow or keep up with the current chess scene.

>>54112017
>Magnus Carslen would probably lose if he played Bill Wall.

who?

>>54125201
He did quite well representing the Danish team in the 1956 Chess Olympiad, but shortly afterwards, he was drafted into the army for two years, then he went and obtained his engineering degree. He didn't seriously begin his professional chess career until he was almost 30, and had lost a lot of valuable years.

>>54125709
Years of practice?

>>54125769
Yes.

>>54114895
what the fuck are you even talking about

Bent Larsen's last tournament was in Buenos Aires in 2008. He got planted. It was sad to watch. Either the guy had gone full-out senile or he just didn't give a fuck anymore and played totally absurd moves for the sake of it.

>>54126643
He's saying that chess was an adequate tool for the training of military strategy and tactics in ancient Persia, but that it isn't very useful for that nowadays.

>>54126958
The game originated in India.

>>54126992
Well, he wasn't terribly far off then. And anyway, maybe the Persians got it from India and then started using it as a training tool.

>>54126992
iirc
Rook = Elephants
Bishop = Chariots
Knights = Cavalry
Pawns = Infantry

back when chariots weren't a meme

>>54125396
He was pretty popular with Americans back then, probably because he was from a Western cunt and we were willing to support anyone who could potentially beat the Russians.

>>54125201
Larsen was very imaginative, but not a good technical player, which is why Spassky downed him in 1968 and Fischer in '71. In both cases, they shut down his attacking game.

File: seirawan02[1].jpg (39KB, 480x323px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 480x323px

Who is the comfiest St. Louis teacher?
Why does Mike Kummer exist and why is he such a faggot?

File: minimaurice[1].jpg (51KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 320x320px

>>54125522
>>54125564
Add to that that recently pic related got massive backlash for constantly going
>muh Stockfish
in his chess commentary, going as far as mouthing off to OP's picture that he needs to step it up because he didn't play Stockfish's correct move at some point, which is absolutely haram. Guys like Svidler are GOAT; Svidler or Polgar only consult Stockfish when necessary; Ashley, for being a pretty accomplished GM, just parrots the machine, and that's neither entertaining, educational (what's the point of pondering different moves if you're just going to MUH STOCKFISH it up all the time?) nor necessary.

A lot of people say that the Tal-like aggressive chess is dead and root for underachievers like Nakamura, who has an extremely one-sided rivalry with Carlsen and who mostly earns his fandom for playing sharp, aggressive games (but he throws big tournament games a lot, never defeated Magnus). None of the chess players have a computer in their head, but training with computers makes you stronger at keeping games to a slower, more methodical place, so it might be easy of accusing Carlsen of being a robot.

Also, even if chess is solved, it's still a fun game for most levels of competitive play, and blitz and bullet chess are also still a thing and look like Starcraft compared to your regular Anand v Carlsen '14 slog

>>54127673
>A lot of people say that the Tal-like aggressive chess is dead

Like I said, Stockfish failed to find two critical moves in a Tal game I checked out. So no, I don't believe computers are necessarily superior to a human player.

>>54128240
Blame the "a lot of people", not me. I've seen quite a lot of recent dissent about chess being too methodical to play sharply anymore, but I dunno. Mostly it seemed to be people salty about constant Berlin in the last two World Championships.

>>54127673
But even back in Tal's day a lot of the chess giants like Petrosian and Smyslov were straight-up positional guys who just liked to hide behind a pawn wall and play for a winning endgame. The tactical players from the postwar period like Fischer, Spassky, Tal, and Larsen are more fondly remembered of course because their games are more exciting to look at.

>>54105900
>many average

Carlsen used to be more of a tactical guy in the beginning.

>>54127673
See, Nakamura is just the Tal or Larsen of the present day; his games are exciting to look at but he's not solid enough to be WC. As explained earlier in here, Larsen never had a real chance at the championship and Tal lost it after a very brief reign.

>>54129082
Tal lost his title in the rematch with Botvinnik in 1961. That was bullshit.

>50 year old guy who hadn't played serious chess in years spanks a 20-something contender with everything in the world to prove

>>54129585
Then again, Botvinnik got ground down by Petrosian two years later.

>>54129585
>>54130300
>Botvinnik
>Petrosian
Studying their games is a good substitute for Nyquil.

>>54130793
Well, they're not exactly for people who like crazy sacrificial combinations.

>>54130851
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1069975

An 18 year old Kasparov loses to the former world champion in this 1981 game. Fascinating to look at; Petrosian constructs one of his usual pawn fortresses and then puts the king out in the front lines leading the counterassault.

>>54114895
>Lock pawn with pawn
>Send Knight to BRRRRRRRRRRTTTT their shit up

>>54130979
Petrosian's playing style kind of goes the entire rules of chess as normal humans understand them. Everything you learned in books about castling your king, rapid piece development, targeting the enemy f2/f7 square, etc, literally none of it applies when studying his games. Guys like Fischer or Kasparov, great as they were, had a style of play that can be understood without too much difficulty. That may be one reason why Petrosian was never entirely appreciated.

>>54131685
IDK, some of Fischer's games, especially his Ruy Lopezes, are a little too complicated for me to understand. But he definitely had the prettiest style out of all world champs.

>>54131685
He's probably the least well-known WC outside Max Euwe. While he had some entertaining games, like the one with Kasparov that I linked, a lot of them were dry beyond belief. If you sat behind your pawn fortress expecting him to attack you, you would be waiting a long time. Trust me, there were players who tried. He could detect an attack like 30 moves before it happened and methodically prepare a defense.

In his defense, he was one of the all-time great endgame players, up there with Smyslov and Karpov.

>>54131788
Petrosian lost only 8% of all serious games he played in his career. He had a huge amount of draws though. An interesting thing to consider is that he won more games with e4 openings than he did with his usual queen side pawn openings, although he also lost more.

He drew roughly 55% of all serious games he played, which may be the highest percentage of any grandmaster in history.

>>54124788
>he's bjj black belt
That's Josh Waitzkin

>>54105934
Wasn't there a japanese almost completely blind archer that broke an olympic record in accuracy by training the position of his arms instead of "aiming"?

>>54118521
Wait what?

If it's that common a misconception, then I've probably got it wrong too. Doesn't it move in an L shape forward, either 2 to the side and 1 forward/backward, or 2 forward/backward and 1 to the side?