The Chess Thread

2456789

Comments

  • KINGKING あなたの母親の膣 Joined: Posts: 2,589 ✭✭✭✭✭ OG
    She's not that hot. She is kinda eh irl and is married to like some old Cuban guy who is 30 years older than her. Chess tournaments are not good places to meet women.
    nigga you gay.

    intelligence + hotness = FINE! :D
    "I will be kind enough to give you the hint regarding KOF though: read Iori Yagami's family name in reverse." -- Black Shroud
  • SlayerofBodomSlayerofBodom Joined: Posts: 1,093
    ^ Alright, good.....

    At least it's an opening I can work with..... not seeing that 1800 rating anytime soon.....

    Also note that you can play the London System as a solid drawing weapon that gives Black a slight edge but makes your position very hard to crack, or as a wild, aggressive, attacking set-up. If you do the latter, after moving play Ne5 at some point, you might want to play g4, h4, or possibly both.
    BullDancer wrote:
    Does anyone play on FICS?

    I used to. I play on Chess.com nowadays.
    nigga you gay.

    intelligence + hotness = FINE! :D

    This wasn't directed at me, but if you claim to like Kosteniuk's appearance, realize this is what you're arguing for;

    wch290.jpg

    Not bad by any means, but beautiful?! Get out of here.

    Besides, on the basis of intelligence, Kosteniuk is a million times worse than someone like Humpy Koneru;

    Koneru_Humpy_300.jpg
  • BullDancerBullDancer Mentos, The Freshmaker Joined: Posts: 9,381
    Wow, Chess.com is the fucking truth.....

    Playing it online just feels so..... right.....

    No temporary lag when you move a piece.....

    So far my rank is 1093..... 2 wins, 2 losses....

    So I guess my assessment of my ranking was accurate*shrugs*.....

    I blundered my Queen away when I had the upper hand in both of those losses... I guess I get nervous against higher ranked players(both were 1200's).....

    That bishop sacrifice on a castled King is the truth......

    Does that work on better opponents? Or is the loss of material not worth it as you play better opponents?
    nigga you gay.

    intelligence + hotness = FINE! :D

    You don't really have to be smart to be good at chess..... imo most of it is memorization... if anything showed me that, it's Fischer Random Chess........

    I was lost when I first tried playing it...
    "Rock abandoned Neesa there like you were gonna abandon your son and wife and live alone with your TV"~Akuma-HAX
  • EvilSamuraiEvilSamurai Joined: Posts: 2,668
    I only play on the Internet Chess Club (ICC). Playchess is free with most Chessbase products but it sucks for everything but games against engines and bullet.

    All the games in Reggio Emilia were straight up bone today.
  • Jion_WansuJion_Wansu Joined: Posts: 5,647
    Anyone else believe that chess is like a fighting game? Also, how would you compare chess to Magic The Gathering, poker, and mini baccarat?
  • PerthoPertho The Runed One Joined: Posts: 21,826 mod
    Anyone else believe that chess is like a fighting game? Also, how would you compare chess to Magic The Gathering, poker, and mini baccarat?

    You don't compare them. You accept that they have concepts that relate to each other and appreciate the fact that they all involve different skill sets.
    Ronin Chaos on Pertho:

    "Oh, Pertho. You complete me."
    jimmy1200 wrote: »
    pertho attacked me first, saying i get all my life tips from 106th and park.
  • M.D.M.D. digs older chicks Joined: Posts: 4,188
    Anyone else believe that chess is like a fighting game?

    Nah.


    There are no glitches, infinites, combos, or comeback mechanics.

    Checkers has combos though; I just don't know how to do them.
    "I'm deeeeeaaaadd!" - Williams
    UMVC3: Shehulk/Haggar/Thor
    SSF4: Seth, Gen, Zangief
    KOFXIII: Kim Team, Ikari Warriors, Hwa/98 Kyo/Raiden
  • SlayerofBodomSlayerofBodom Joined: Posts: 1,093
    Nah.


    There are no glitches, infinites, combos, or comeback mechanics.

    Checkers has combos though; I just don't know how to do them.

    There absolutely ARE combos in chess. It's funny you know that checkers have combos (although they're extremely simple ones), but not chess.

    But anyways, I would agree that fighting games and chess are dissimilar. The main reason being that chess has no execution requirements, whereas that's of such vital importance in any fighter.
  • M.D.M.D. digs older chicks Joined: Posts: 4,188
    There absolutely ARE combos in chess. It's funny you know that checkers have combos (although they're extremely simple ones), but not chess.

    Enlighten me.
    "I'm deeeeeaaaadd!" - Williams
    UMVC3: Shehulk/Haggar/Thor
    SSF4: Seth, Gen, Zangief
    KOFXIII: Kim Team, Ikari Warriors, Hwa/98 Kyo/Raiden
  • SlayerofBodomSlayerofBodom Joined: Posts: 1,093
    Enlighten me.

    Are you serious? I didn't want to call you out on your stupidity too much in my original post, but this is ridiculous. There have been thousands of books written about only combinations/tactics in chess. Little kids who have just learned the moves a few weeks ago know elementary chess combinations like the "fork" or "pin".

    Why don't you enlighten yourself?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combination_%28chess%29

    http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oGdXRCyw1P828AIkxXNyoA?p=combinations%20chess&fr2=sb-top&fr=yfp-t-701
  • M.D.M.D. digs older chicks Joined: Posts: 4,188
    Are you serious? I didn't want to call you out on your stupidity too much in my original post, but this is ridiculous. There have been thousands of books written about only combinations/tactics in chess. Little kids who have just learned the moves a few weeks ago know elementary chess combinations like the "fork" or "pin".

    Why don't you enlighten yourself?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combination_(chess)

    http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oGdXRCyw1P828AIkxXNyoA?p=combinations chess&fr2=sb-top&fr=yfp-t-701


    ??? Whoa man, chill out. My original post was meant to be a FG-related joke, and my response to you wasn't meant to discredit your vast knowledge of the game. I don't play competitive chess so I admit to not knowing about tactical chess terms. That's why I asked for enlightenment. The concept of chess combos is a bit different from FG combos: A series of moves that set up a situation where it's nearly impossible for the opposing player to get out of without taking a hit. I'd be more incline to call them "unblockable setups" when using FG terminology. Only thing I can think of that comes close to FG concept of combos is checkers when you use one piece to jump multiple pieces and remove them from the board on one turn (or hit-confirm, in FG terms).

    Thanks for the links though. I'll read up on those elementary chess combos.
    "I'm deeeeeaaaadd!" - Williams
    UMVC3: Shehulk/Haggar/Thor
    SSF4: Seth, Gen, Zangief
    KOFXIII: Kim Team, Ikari Warriors, Hwa/98 Kyo/Raiden
  • SlayerofBodomSlayerofBodom Joined: Posts: 1,093
    ??? Whoa man, chill out. My original post was meant to be a FG-related joke, and my response to you wasn't meant to discredit your vast knowledge of the game.I don't play competitive chess so I admit to not knowing about tactical chess terms. That's why I asked for enlightenment.

    Fair enough, heh. However, there is a glut of material on chess combos, and the stuff contained online, with multiple board diagrams, does a much better job illustrating combos than I can with mere words.
    M.D. wrote:
    The concept of chess combos is a bit different from FG combos: A series of moves that set up a situation where it's nearly impossible for the opposing player to get out of without taking a hit. I'd be more incline to call them "unblockable setups" when using FG terminology.

    I think it's quite similar, though. In each case, the "combo" forces the opponent's reply, and leads to a huge, winning advantage in each variation.

    Yeah, you can think of it as an unblockable set-up with certain chess combos, but in others, there is only one legal move the victim of the combo can play, which can be thought of as similar to the hit-stun animation for fighting games.
    M.D. wrote:
    Only thing I can think of that comes close to FG concept of combos is checkers when you use one piece to jump multiple pieces and remove them from the board on one turn (or hit-confirm, in FG terms).

    Yeah, you can think of it that way. However, I think even here the analogy isn't perfect; in checkers, many instances of multiple captures lead to an easily winning position, while in FGs, there's always the perpetual comeback factor.
  • specsspecs Excuse me, princess! Joined: Posts: 6,380 ✭✭✭✭✭ OG
    Does this thread include discussion of David Sirlin's Chess 2?
    Carlos and Dave Anime Rave is the BEST damn anime review show on the internet! AnimeRave.xyz
  • SlayerofBodomSlayerofBodom Joined: Posts: 1,093
    Does this thread include discussion of David Sirlin's Chess 2?

    No. Briefly looking at it, it's one of worst chess variants I've ever seen. In fact, even calling it "chess" is inaccurate.

    Among the different variants, "Seirawan Chess" is probably the most interesting I've seen.
  • fishjiefishjie no Joined: Posts: 4,792 ✭✭✭✭✭ OG
    wtf is a chess 2? i cannot find the rules online. do you have to pay for it?

    http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/589440/you-have-to-buy-the-rules-to-a-chess-variant
    Nicky's methods of betting weren't scientific, but they worked. When he won, he collected. When he lost, he told the bookies to go fuck themselves. I mean, what were they going to do, muscle Nicky? Nicky was the muscle
  • Jion_WansuJion_Wansu Joined: Posts: 5,647
    There absolutely ARE combos in chess. It's funny you know that checkers have combos (although they're extremely simple ones), but not chess.

    But anyways, I would agree that fighting games and chess are dissimilar. The main reason being that chess has no execution requirements, whereas that's of such vital importance in any fighter.

    Depends on the time controls. I believe that the en passant is a nerf for the people who complained about losing. You know en passant and castling have only been implemented recently when compared to how old chess is.
    Nah.


    There are no glitches, infinites, combos, or comeback mechanics.

    Checkers has combos though; I just don't know how to do them.

    There are comebacks in chess. Also, there are "poisonous pawns" and so forth. I came up with Chess 2 in mid nineties for a high school logic class. I still have the original game board somewhere...
  • M.D.M.D. digs older chicks Joined: Posts: 4,188
    There are comebacks in chess. Also, there are "poisonous pawns" and so forth. I came up with Chess 2 in mid nineties for a high school logic class. I still have the original game board somewhere...

    Yea, I could see poisonous pawns being one example, though you'd have to set it up first, and it'd be hard if you're down a ton of pieces.


    My attempt at making a FG related joke failed miserably in the context of Chess. Go ahead and disregard it if you haven't already.
    "I'm deeeeeaaaadd!" - Williams
    UMVC3: Shehulk/Haggar/Thor
    SSF4: Seth, Gen, Zangief
    KOFXIII: Kim Team, Ikari Warriors, Hwa/98 Kyo/Raiden
  • EffenhoogEffenhoog fish are friends Joined: Posts: 1,511
    I used to be pretty good at what you might call reactive chess. Basically I just make sure everything is covered by everything else and wait for the opponent to make a mistake. I guess it would be kind of like turtling or perhaps more like playing a zoning game by threatening their pieces from a distance and waiting for them to make the wrong move. I know very little about popular chess strategies, I had a couple of my own opening setups to get things going but that was it. After the first 5 moves or so it was just bait and punish

    It's a pretty shitty way to play chess but it was good enough to get me the #1 spot on my junior high chess team and I managed to win 75% of my league matches.

    I also own this game and its broken as shit http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d2/Chess_4.jpg
    They call me Gamma Ray because I'm Forward Back Forward Back Down-Back Down Down-Forward Forward Hard Slash
  • BullDancerBullDancer Mentos, The Freshmaker Joined: Posts: 9,381
    ^Closed games?

    You're fucked if you lose a knight or try that shit when you pawn structure gets messed up early on.....
    "Rock abandoned Neesa there like you were gonna abandon your son and wife and live alone with your TV"~Akuma-HAX
  • SlayerofBodomSlayerofBodom Joined: Posts: 1,093
    Depends on the time controls. I believe that the en passant is a nerf for the people who complained about losing. You know en passant and castling have only been implemented recently when compared to how old chess is.

    HAHA. Clever.

    By the way, for anyone interested in world-class chess, the Wiijk An Zee has just finished round 3. They have the best interface for tournament games that I've seen, (including high-level analysis by chess program Houdini, rated 3160+) and the chess has been exciting, since it doesn't use either a faster time control or the fucking retarded Sofia scoring. Anyways, check it out;

    http://www.tatasteelchess.com/tournament/livegames
  • fishjiefishjie no Joined: Posts: 4,792 ✭✭✭✭✭ OG
    I still can't find the rule set for sirlin chess 2. i am dying of curiosity. all i am finding off google are hints about what it is. it sounds like he turned it into warhammer.

    best chess variant i ever played is siamese chess. its a 2v2 multiplayer game, fast paced and fun. great for all levels of chess players, its more about intuition, reaction, teamwork (your buddy says he badly needs a knight so you sac a rook for it and he wins in a few turns), and fierce attacks. its not so much about intense calculation and knowledge of theory, which is why its suitable for any skill level. cause lets face it, to be really good at chess, you need to have spent years studying that shit.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bughouse_chess

    other random musings. our best chess player in high school was a girl. usually girls are terrible at chess, or if they're good they're ugly, but she happened to be kinda cute and was legitimately good at the game. obviously all the guys would hit on her. and i didn't go to some scrub high school either. we took our shit so serious we had a varsity AND a junior varsity chess club. yasser seirawan, who went to high school here, took the team to get a second place finish in nationals (he blamed himself for not getting first). he was so boss, he demanded the team get letterman jackets, AND HE GOT THEM.

    of course, i was class of 01, and our team wasn't anywhere near as good as when the future grandmaster was at the helm. but we would get second at state competitions. we'd only lose to fucking lakeside, a shitty private school whose kids were rich enough to afford ridiculously good coaches and teachers. i went to garfield, a public school in the ghetto. fuck those rich fuckers.

    i was pretty terrible at chess, wasn't even good enough to be on the varsity team, only the junior varsity lol. I tried to study, I really did, but I would go HUH whenever i'd read chess life or a chess book, and it'd talk about things that to the author were completely obvious, but to me were not. they'd mark certain moves with "?" and others with "!", and it'd be because of subtle positional things that went completely over my head.

    one book that i'd recommend to noobs is Jeremy Silman how to reassess your chess. he talks about the high level strategies and game plans, which i never had whenever i played chess. specifically, he talks about "imbalances", which are things like a knight vs a bishop or a pawn majority on your kingside vs a pawn majority on their queenside. so he teaches this simple system where you identify the imbalances in a position, and seek to make yours better. example. if you have a knight vs a bishop. generally speaking, knights are better in a closed position, and bishops are better when their pawns aren't on the same color. so you make moves to make your knight better. you can trade your knight off, but you do so to exchange it for a different advantage. IE, you trade your knight off for their bishop to cripple their pawn structure and end up in a won end-game position. i had never really played chess with a game plan or any real strategy prior to that book, and it helped my understanding. unfortunately, its not enough. you still really need to know opening theory, and you need to know endgame theory. when entire BOOKS are written on just the sicilian dragon, let alone rook/pawn endgames, you are pretty much fucked if you don't know that shit.

    so obviously i am still terrible. i had a scholastic rating of 1100 i think. the one time i played at a real chess tournament, i lost all three of my games. but at least i got an annual subscription to chess life for joining the US chess federation.

    the biggest similarity between chess and fighting games is that you can only get better through lots of practice, dedication and study playing against vastly superior opponents. chess is a little too stressful for me, because the games are hours long, whereas in a fighting you aren't as emotionally invested in a match. you lose in thirty seconds, who cares, play again. in chess, seeing your opponent pile up positional advantages is mentally devastating. i really like RTS because its a happy medium. games are half an hour long, and you get kind of emotionally invested, but its not so devastating.

    PS the only comeback mechanic in chess is the clock. i could occasionally beat the better chess players on my team in blitz, because blitz is more intuition than knowledge/strategy. kind of like siamese chess. if your opponent has a better position than you, but sacrificed too much time to get there, well you MIGHT have a chance to win if you try to run their clock down. obviously in a tournament where games are hours long, that's not gonna happen.

    you can hope they fuck up and make a blunder. at the high levels, its only going to be a small subtle blunder and youve got to be godlike enough to spot it.

    "The winner of the game is the player who makes the next-to-last mistake. - Tartakover"
    Nicky's methods of betting weren't scientific, but they worked. When he won, he collected. When he lost, he told the bookies to go fuck themselves. I mean, what were they going to do, muscle Nicky? Nicky was the muscle
  • fishjiefishjie no Joined: Posts: 4,792 ✭✭✭✭✭ OG
    HAHA. Clever.

    By the way, for anyone interested in world-class chess, the Wiijk An Zee has just finished round 3. They have the best interface for tournament games that I've seen, (including high-level analysis by chess program Houdini, rated 3160+) and the chess has been exciting, since it doesn't use either a faster time control or the fucking retarded Sofia scoring. Anyways, check it out;

    http://www.tatasteelchess.com/tournament/livegames

    I'm trying to look for any kind of commentary, but not finding any.

    without commentary, i can only vaguely understand what's going on. i see black is balls to the wall attacking white, and just sacced his rook, but i'm totally missing the combo?

    EDIT:

    referring to this game - Radjabov, Teimour vs GM Gelfand, Boris

    1.d4 Nf6
    2.c4 g6
    3.Nc3 Bg7
    4.e4 d6
    5.Nf3 O-O
    6.Be2 e5
    7.Be3 Ng4
    8.Bg5 f6
    9.Bh4 g5
    10.Bg3 Nh6
    11.h3 exd4
    12.Nxd4 Nc6
    13.O-O Nxd4
    14.Qxd4 f5
    15.Qd5+ Kh8
    16.exf5 Nxf5
    17.Bh2 Bd7
    18.Bg4 Nd4
    19.Bxd7Qxd7
    20.Rad1 Rae8
    21.Nb5 Nxb5
    22.cxb5 g4
    23.h4 b6
    24.b3 Qf7
    25.Qb7 Re2
    26.Bg3 Be5
    27.Rc1 Qf5
    28.Qxc7 Bxg3
    29.fxg3 Rxg2+
    30.Kxg2 Qe4+

    EDIT2:
    oh wait nm i see it, he forced a draw
    Nicky's methods of betting weren't scientific, but they worked. When he won, he collected. When he lost, he told the bookies to go fuck themselves. I mean, what were they going to do, muscle Nicky? Nicky was the muscle
  • SlayerofBodomSlayerofBodom Joined: Posts: 1,093
    I'm trying to look for any kind of commentary, but not finding any.

    without commentary, i can only vaguely understand what's going on. i see black is balls to the wall attacking white, and just sacced his rook, but i'm totally missing the combo?

    Yeah, Radjabov was in a worse position, so he sacrificed a rook to get perpetual check and the draw. Oddly enough, after 29...Rxg2+, the computer engine suggests the insane-looking 30. Kh1! to preserve a small edge. Also, there is analysis right after every move from the chess engine, although it's not always easy to understand everything that it recommends! You can also click on the other games on the right sidebar. Really good interface.
    fishjie wrote:
    I still can't find the rule set for sirlin chess 2. i am dying of curiosity. all i am finding off google are hints about what it is. it sounds like he turned it into warhammer.

    He goes through the rules on his forum.

    Honestly, for all I know, it could be a terrific game...it just has nothing to do with Chess, and calling it "Chess" is just false advertising. Like, it uses a chess board (then again, so do checkers and many other games) and some of the original pieces, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the game of chess. I wouldn't even call it a chess variant, really.
    fishjie wrote:
    other random musings. our best chess player in high school was a girl. usually girls are terrible at chess, or if they're good they're ugly, but she happened to be kinda cute and was legitimately good at the game. obviously all the guys would hit on her. and i didn't go to some scrub high school either. we took our shit so serious we had a varsity AND a junior varsity chess club. yasser seirawan, who went to high school here, took the team to get a second place finish in nationals (he blamed himself for not getting first). he was so boss, he demanded the team get letterman jackets, AND HE GOT THEM.

    That's pretty awesome. I first became a player of respectable strength thanks to GM Yasser Sierawan's "Winning Chess" series, especially "Play Winning Chess", "Winning Chess Tactics", and "Winning Chess Strategies".
    fishjie wrote:
    one book that i'd recommend to noobs is Jeremy Silman how to reassess your chess. he talks about the high level strategies and game plans,

    Yeah, I'll second this. IM Silman is a terrific writer and I got a lot out of his books, especially the ones about the endgame. (There was one called "Essential Endgame Knowledge" just on king and pawn endings, which helped me out a bunch when I was younger)

    I've heard a bunch of great things about "Re-Assess Your Chess", but never picked it up when I was younger, although being written by Silman, I'm sure it's of very high quality.
  • El Chupa NegroEl Chupa Negro WALKING PARADOX Joined: Posts: 3,425
    Who all wants to play chess
    Jeet Kune Do was all about using what worked and discarding the crap. Fei Long is crap... discard him. A real Jeet Kune Do man plays Dudley.-xS A M U R A Ix
  • BullDancerBullDancer Mentos, The Freshmaker Joined: Posts: 9,381
    I know it's cool to talk down to checkers and all, but doesn't that too have an absurd amount of possible positions?

    It's not an easy game, and checkers strategy is surprisingly complex(not chess complex though)......

    Fred Reinfield even wrote a book on checkers strategy lol...
    "Rock abandoned Neesa there like you were gonna abandon your son and wife and live alone with your TV"~Akuma-HAX
  • SlayerofBodomSlayerofBodom Joined: Posts: 1,093
    I know it's cool to talk down to checkers and all, but doesn't that too have an absurd amount of possible positions?

    It's not an easy game, and checkers strategy is surprisingly complex(not chess complex though)......

    Fred Reinfield even wrote a book on checkers strategy lol...

    No, I definitely agree with you; checkers has quite a bit of strategy in it.

    One of my cousins, who lives in Moscow, used to play checkers on a pretty high level. Had a coach and studied tactics books and everything.

    We used to play both checkers and chess. In checkers, he would beat me like 7 out of 10 times. However, the remaining 3 out of 10 times, just from being able to calculate variations like I would in chess, I would get a draw.

    In chess, I would beat him 10 out of 10 times. Hell, I would play him with rooks odds (he starts with an extra rook), and still beat him 10 out of 10 times.

    Checkers is a fun game and has good strategy, but unfortunately, it's been completely solved by computers since the early 80s. (Back when chess computers sucked and would lose against a decent master)
  • Lazyjosh2Lazyjosh2 Joined: Posts: 1,071
    I like chess but can never win, this is the only chess game I like i saw this chess set back in the 90s chess4chessset.jpg
    You wish you were mario
  • Jion_WansuJion_Wansu Joined: Posts: 5,647
    I know it's cool to talk down to checkers and all, but doesn't that too have an absurd amount of possible positions?

    It's not an easy game, and checkers strategy is surprisingly complex(not chess complex though)......

    Fred Reinfield even wrote a book on checkers strategy lol...


    The difference between chess and checkers is that checkers has been solved/conquered by a computer already similar to how tic-tac-toe has already been solved. Computers have not found a final solution for chess. So chess has not been conquered yet.
  • Monkey D. MalcolmMonkey D. Malcolm MvC2 FTW isnt it obv Joined: Posts: 993
    I used to play chess pretty heavily in HS. I preferred speed chess when I was younger. i don't play anymore though. I'm kinda glad I didn't take chess to serious though it's crazy. How much work you gotta put into it.
    MvC2: Spiral Cable Doom
    Brawl: Wario/Zelda
    SSFIV AE 2012: Juri
    TvC UAS: MegaMan/Yatterman#2
  • BullDancerBullDancer Mentos, The Freshmaker Joined: Posts: 9,381
    Got some deep shit from a high level chess player...... I think it goes something like this.....

    "Chess was designed with a draw in mind at the highest level of play, so it is not you that wins, it is your opponent that loses"

    tl:dr

    Your opponent does not cause you to to lose the game, you defeat yourself...... it would not be your opponent that won, you simply lost......

    Let it sink in, I didn't get it at first......
    "Rock abandoned Neesa there like you were gonna abandon your son and wife and live alone with your TV"~Akuma-HAX
  • Jion_WansuJion_Wansu Joined: Posts: 5,647
    Check this out

    He says something to the effect of making his opponents suffer

    Look at the name on the bottom of the page LOL
  • BullDancerBullDancer Mentos, The Freshmaker Joined: Posts: 9,381
    Swag, my chances of getting a free chess tutor is high......

    Lesson 1= Trade the entire board off if possible to work and learn to play the endgame.....

    As a beginner, don't stare at the board and pretend that you know something, because more than likely, you don't...
    "Rock abandoned Neesa there like you were gonna abandon your son and wife and live alone with your TV"~Akuma-HAX
  • HavatchuHavatchu Joined: Posts: 4,734
    I'm actually on a little chinese checkers kick myself lately.
    Insanity is freedom
    The moment I fell in love with specs- "I believe in the Beyblader philosophy, for I am one who Beyblades."
    Shaft's posts are canon.
  • HeaTHeaT mindgames Joined: Posts: 3,245 ✭✭✭✭✭ OG
    Got some deep shit from a high level chess player...... I think it goes something like this.....

    "Chess was designed with a draw in mind at the highest level of play, so it is not you that wins, it is your opponent that loses"

    tl:dr

    Your opponent does not cause you to to lose the game, you defeat yourself...... it would not be your opponent that won, you simply lost......

    Let it sink in, I didn't get it at first......

    that's how nadal plays tennis.

    im outi

    Roberth
    I stream games - twitch.tv/heatzgaming
    Youtube channel - youtube.com/heatfury
  • Jion_WansuJion_Wansu Joined: Posts: 5,647
    A lot of people actually replied

    EDIT: Wow, even the chess scene has it's trolls

    Regarding thread "Will chess ever be popular":


    nocab said:

    Arne W. Moll says "No"


    Smythe Dakota said:

    I certainly hope not. Chess would have to be dumbed down, probably eliminating promotion, en passant, and castling, before it could become popular.

    Bill Smythe
  • BullDancerBullDancer Mentos, The Freshmaker Joined: Posts: 9,381
    I thought chess was already one of the most popular board games or at least one that alot of people know the rules to.......

    EDIT: Speaking of which, I haven't gotten to play Chess in a minute.......

    I love chess, but live games are my favorite......

    I got hooked on live games, and haven't had the opportunity to play them lately......

    Online just isn't the same to me.....

    DOUBLE EDIT: People even rage quit on chess websites....... it's their fault that they lost the game, not mine......

    You have to make a bad move in order to get taken advantage of.....
    "Rock abandoned Neesa there like you were gonna abandon your son and wife and live alone with your TV"~Akuma-HAX
  • presidentialcandidates2presidentialcandidates2 Joined: Posts: 63
    I guess chess isn't as popular on SRK. Chess should be the basis in the fighting game community, especially for Street Fighter franchise
  • presidentialcandidates2presidentialcandidates2 Joined: Posts: 63
    Who will be the next world chess champion?
  • Las Vegas PimpLas Vegas Pimp XBL: Da Big Punisher Joined: Posts: 3,568
    That bitch Anand unless Magnus quits being a little bitch and enters.
    Still have that SRK OG mentality.
  • VulpesVulpes No. Joined: Posts: 3,678
    Who will be the next world chess champion?
    Depends on whether Carlsen participates or not. There's noone even halfway close to his level.
    Why.
  • SlayerofBodomSlayerofBodom Joined: Posts: 1,093
    Depends on whether Carlsen participates or not. There's noone even halfway close to his level.

    People need to understand that match and tournament play are completely different.

    Gelfand was "not even halfway to Anand's level" when it came to his tournament results before their world championship match. Guess what? It turned out to be irrelevant, and they played the match itself on totally even terms.

    Carlsen is the best tournament player alive by a considerable margin, but what will it matter when he is playing against someone over and over, and the champion is perfectly happy to just draw each game?

    Honestly, I'm unsure that Carlsen could beat Anand in a long match, even now. The reason I write this is because Carlsen has the worst opening play of any top 10 (maybe even top 20) player in the world. And so much of match play comes down to high-level opening preparation, something that by Carlsen's own admission, he hates doing.

    Meanwhile, it's something that Anand absolutely thrives upon.
  • presidentialcandidates2presidentialcandidates2 Joined: Posts: 63
    Speaking of which. Look at how far behind in rating the 2nd highest chess player is in the world, never mind everyone else.

    rating
  • SlayerofBodomSlayerofBodom Joined: Posts: 1,093
    Speaking of which. Look at how far behind in rating the 2nd highest chess player is in the world, never mind everyone else.

    Yeah, a whopping 33 points. In other words, you would expect a guy rated 33 points higher than his opponent to score 51%. A different that is less than the natural variance over a match that is 24 games long (classic), let alone 12. (Anand-Gelfand)

    Top chessplayers are more closely matched than they have ever been in the past. And there are more incredibly strong players than ever before. The difference between the 5th best player in the world and the 20th is razor-thin.

    As recently as the late 90s, Kasparov was ranked 80-100 points higher than his closest rival.

    Oh, and he ended up LOSING his world championship title to a guy ranked a good 90 points lower than him on that list...Vladimir Kramnik. Oh, and Kasparov also lost that match without winning a single game.

    Thus, the idea that 33 points is some giant advantage is comical, especially since matches are so different than tournaments. And even in tournaments, I have to play to the best of my abilities to beat guys rated 200 points less than me. (My rating is 2029)
  • VulpesVulpes No. Joined: Posts: 3,678
    The reason I write this is because Carlsen has the worst opening play of any top 10 (maybe even top 20) player in the world. And so much of match play comes down to high-level opening preparation, something that by Carlsen's own admission, he hates doing.
    Funny, I think he has the 'best' opening play by any player by far - in his own way.
    Carlsen has created an entirely new way of playing openings that only works for him at that level - happily going into "equal" but unexplored openings with white and just winning by being the superior player.. it's a path that 1800 rated club level players generally take, and Carlsen makes it work at 2800 level.
    I'm fairly sure no opening prep ever is going to help, since Carlsen can choose out of literal busloads of openings as he doesn't mind the theoretical evaluation whatsoever..
    I'm confident he is capable of steering the game into unfamiliar waters with black (again, something no amount of opening preparation ultimately helps against), holding to the draw either way in what is theoretically a worse position - and grinding out a win here and there with white.

    Carlsen has managed to ridicule Bobby's claim of "Soon, chess will be nothing but opening prep", which seemingly became truer and truer with each passing decade.

    I just noticed the next Chess WC is in 2013 .. .. .. oh FIDE, way to ruin a title.
    Why.
  • SlayerofBodomSlayerofBodom Joined: Posts: 1,093
    Funny, I think he has the 'best' opening play by any player by far - in his own way.
    Carlsen has created an entirely new way of playing openings that only works for him at that level - happily going into "equal" but unexplored openings with white and just winning by being the superior player.. it's a path that 1800 rated club level players generally take, and Carlsen makes it work at 2800 level.

    Yes, and he sometimes gets into far inferior/borderline losing positions as Black...only to outplay his opponent and draw, and occasionally, even win.

    Honestly, I don't think there is much thought behind it. Carlsen just hates the 5+ hours of opening prep per day that is the bane of a chess professional's existence. (I don't blame him, either) He has stated as much in numerous interviews.

    Carlsen doesn't necessarily go into equal but unexplored openings, either. For instance, take this brilliancy over Radjabov from earlier this year;

    http://chessbomb.com/o/2012-tal/05-Radjabov_Teimour-Carlsen_Magnus/

    The game is a dead, boring draw after the opening. Carlsen is one of the few players in HISTORY that could actually manage to beat a player as awesome as Radjabov there. It's not any kind of "approach" so much as it is "Carlsen is so fucking amazing that he wins IN SPITE of (relatively) horrible opening play".

    From that same tournament, Carlsen practically lost straight from the opening here;

    http://chessbomb.com/o/2012-tal/02-Morozevich_Alexander-Carlsen_Magnus/

    only to be saved by some unbelievable blunders by Morozevich.
    Carlsen has managed to ridicule Bobby's claim of "Soon, chess will be nothing but opening prep", which seemingly became truer and truer with each passing decade.

    The problem isn't with opening prep. The problem is just the ridiculously high level of play so many different GMs now possess.

    Seriously, take a young player who is currently ranked "only" 40th in the world, and doesn't have particularly good opening preparation, Le Quang Liem. Send him back as recently as the late 70s, and he is at worst the 3rd best active player in the world, behind only Karpov and Korchnoi. And even then, he might beat either of them in a long match.

    Credit computer preparation in general (which is awesome for game analysis, endgame study, and tactics, among other areas) for that, not just the study of openings.
  • VulpesVulpes No. Joined: Posts: 3,678
    I'm not really sure why you disagree with me, seeing that you agree with all my points :looney:

    8th move of the Radjabov game, comment by GM Miton:
    8. Nc3 Qg6 Probably anyway we will see the endgame which always is more pleasant for white thanks to the worse black structure on the queenside.

    That's pretty much exactly what I was stating.

    No amount of opening prep ever will help you if your opponent happily steers the path into = waters with white and =+ waters as black.
    Carlsen doesn't care about any theoretical evaluations and just plays positions which he is confident in his opponent not knowing too well -
    I'm fairly sure he wouldn't have half as good results if he ran through 40 moves of Najdorf theory into endgames every GM has seen a million times over.

    Magnus is incredibly proficient at winning dead drawn endgames. This is not something one can specifically prepare for, and as such it won't change at all in a match setting.
    He plays innumerable amounts of openings which are all 'incorrect' and it doesn't matter because he wins/draws either way. Again, that's not something one can really prepare for.
    Who exactly would expect the best player in the world to play the KIA on a 'regular' basis? How do you prepare for 20 different variations in each opening, all of which are 'bad'?
    The GMs know why the things are bad in their tourney matches against him. They handle the opening well and get into a proper position - an endgame with drawing tendencies. And then Carlsen wins. That's not something you can avoid or find a plan against. And as such, again, it's not something that would change in a WC match.

    I do think it's the ideal "opening path" for him to take. Theoretically better openings are also better explored up until and including the following endgames, making it harder for him to play to his strengths.
    Why.
  • SlayerofBodomSlayerofBodom Joined: Posts: 1,093
    I'm not really sure why you disagree with me, seeing that you agree with all my points :looney:

    I disagree that Carlsen playing worse in the opening is some incredibly deep, reverse psychology ploy. It's not. It's just that he chooses to focus his efforts elsewhere.

    I noticed that you passed over the Morozevich-Carlsen game above in silence, too. Not surprising, since it's a clear-cut example of Carlsen losing straight from the opening. No amount of rationalizing and excuse-making would change that.
    Vulpes wrote:
    8th move of the Radjabov game, comment by GM Miton:
    8. Nc3 Qg6 Probably anyway we will see the endgame which always is more pleasant for white thanks to the worse black structure on the queenside.

    That's pretty much exactly what I was stating.

    It's absolutely nothing like what you were stating. You were making a ludicrous claim that Carlsen playing (relatively) poorly in the opening, including some straight-up lost positions, actually means he is the BEST opening player.

    Do I really need to point out why this is stupid?

    And for an example of how high-grade opening preparation works, look at Aronian's (world no. 2) stunning result in winning Wiijk An Zee this year. (A tournament where Carlsen struggled to get anything out of the opening, and suffered for it)

    Does any sane individual actually think that if you combined Aronian's openings with the rest of Carlsen's game that wouldn't have an even stronger player than Carlsen currently is?
    Vulpes wrote:
    And then Carlsen wins. That's not something you can avoid or find a plan against. And as such, again, it's not something that would change in a WC match.

    Yeah, too bad every single GM who has written about the subject believes the exact opposite of this. For instance, GM Yermolinsky (at one point, a top 15 player) wrote in The Road to Chess Improvement that one thing that often dooms once-great players is not doing a sufficient amount of opening preparation, and accepting equal positions as White. (And keep in mind, this was before the whole opening preparation revolution with Rybka)
    Vulpes wrote:
    I do think it's the ideal "opening path" for him to take. Theoretically better openings are also better explored up until and including the following endgames, making it harder for him to play to his strengths.

    It's the ideal opening path for someone that doesn't like and doesn't want to do hours of opening preparation a day, per his own admission.

    It does not, however, indicate that Carlsen's openings are the best, your original (ridiculous) assertion.

    By the way, spending more time on opening study would not limit any of Carlsen's amazing gifts. It might, however, keep him from having to rely on a couple of Morozevich blunders to stave off defeat only 20 moves in.
  • BullDancerBullDancer Mentos, The Freshmaker Joined: Posts: 9,381
    Yo, Chess bros........

    How do you develop a stronger endgame...... for a weaker player, I can keep up with even 1400-1500s(irl) in the middle game, but everything falls apart after that..... how can I fix that?(still hate theory, but I don't have to learn that quite yet, right?, I don't play Sicilian on black and against the Sicilian, I play the Smith-Morra gambit everytime)
    "Rock abandoned Neesa there like you were gonna abandon your son and wife and live alone with your TV"~Akuma-HAX
  • VulpesVulpes No. Joined: Posts: 3,678
    I noticed that you passed over the Morozevich-Carlsen game above in silence, too. Not surprising, since it's a clear-cut example of Carlsen losing straight from the opening. No amount of rationalizing and excuse-making would change that.
    Actually my sentence to that disappeared and I don't know where it is. :sweat:
    Guess it was midpost and I wanted to copypasta it to the end, then forgot to paste it..
    I wrote something along the lines of "And yes even Carlsen blunders, and this looks horrible horrible in the opening, but it's not like him sitting in a -1 position by move 10 is a regular occurence, so I don't think this tells anything meaningful".

    It's absolutely nothing like what you were stating. You were making a ludicrous claim that Carlsen playing (relatively) poorly in the opening, including some straight-up lost positions, actually means he is the BEST opening player.

    Do I really need to point out why this is stupid?

    Is a good opening one that gives you the (currently viewed as) best theoretical position, or the one that gives you the best chances to win?
    This seems to be the base thing we disagree on. In my opinion, the now 50 years old way of openings, openings, openings is past it's prime.
    I'm almost sure that Carlsen's example will 'spawn' a new generation of chess players which follow his approach rather than sitting on chesspub and trying to edge out a .1 pawn advantage in the 38th move.

    I'm not saying he gets a "theoretically" better out of the opening than his peers
    I'm saying that his way of playing the opening (going for safe, 'strange' positions which lead to unfamiliar, complex middle-/endgames, rather than searching for that one move which turns the Najdorf into more than a draw and which will get refuted two days later) is the current future of chess - because ultimately, this is more likely to lead to a win.
    And for an example of how high-grade opening preparation works, look at Aronian's (world no. 2) stunning result in winning Wiijk An Zee this year.
    I'm not sure what to make of this statement ?.? Of course highlevel opening prep (of Aronian's "I will dig into this so deep it will plead me to stop" kind) 'works'. We can also look at pretty much any known player of the last 50 years and get to the same solution?! The question is for how long will this continue to work, and whether there isn't a different solution altogether that's actually more effective.

    And I do think Carlsen is on a good path there.
    Yeah, too bad every single GM who has written about the subject believes the exact opposite of this. For instance, GM Yermolinsky (at one point, a top 15 player) wrote in The Road to Chess Improvement that one thing that often dooms once-great players is not doing a sufficient amount of opening preparation, and accepting equal positions as White. (And keep in mind, this was before the whole opening preparation revolution with Rybka)
    This book is from 1999!! What does this even have to do with anything? Capablanca stated Chess was 'soon to be unlocked', Bobby said opening theory was nearly the only thing deciding Super GM games.. yeah this was "before the whole opening preparation revolution with Rybka" and oh wonder it was also "before the whole opening preparation revolution by Carlsen":looney:
    I'm sure you'll find a GM Post-Carlsen who seriously states it's not possible to win at a high level without extensive opening prep (though hey, I guess 50 openings all 10 moves far is also a sort of prep :B ).. if you search long enough?

    But again, what the HECK does this even have to do with what I'm saying?
    My statement was:
    - Carlsen is winning (I'm sure you won't argue on this)
    And:
    - Nothing about Carlsen's style is bound to suddenly be defeated in matchplay (because one can't actually 'prepare' for it)

    Being an opening specialist is actually something that can be super effective in tourney play,
    but then get overthrown by the extra time your opponent takes to analyze your games etc.
    (and as such, it's rather vice versa: Carlsen would be even stronger in a match scenario)

    You answered my claim of "One can't prepare against Carlsen and thus his tourney and match strengths are the same" with "What often dooms once-great players is not prepping openings"; what does that even have to do with each other..? (and for that matter, what the heck does this have to do with Carlsen?)
    Why.