Chess Thread

[Psyche]

Is this not true with basically any other hobby you could have? Isn't your question basically "why do people bother getting good at things they enjoy?"

Which seems like a pretty dumb question.

It's true. I need to learn that enjoyment is as good a justification for doing something as any other. But that's actually quite difficult.

Anyways, what sorts of books do you guys find are best? Wikibooks only gets me so far.

[Thestatusquo]

I think the list that llama posted is pretty good. There are so many out there, though. I get that its hard to figure out which ones to read. Another thing I find helpful is there is a youtube channel called thechesswebsite where he does run throughs of common openings/openings that he likes. It's not by any means a comprehensive understanding that he's providing, but it's usually a pretty good introduction to the basics.

[UberNinja]

youtube

A

lot

more helpful than one might think, whether it's studying openings, watching self-critiques, exploring middle game options, or whatever else.

[Junpei]

I don't have many hobbies. I have sports, mafia, and now chess. Mafia and chess I love because they really work my mind which is a workout I wouldn't have without them.

Say LLama and TSQ, have you ever watched Code Geass ("no I don't watch that nerd shit")?; well LeLouch, the main character, plays chess and is supposedly very good, but his play style heavily utilizes movement of the king past the baseline and for use in attacks. They don't show any of his games, so I don't know the answer to my second question: Is such a playstyle possible to competitively maintain?

[Psyche]

I'd think that would be mainly for show and only useful in certain mid and endgames. But surely not regularly...Vulnerable kings not only limit defense capacities, but hinder many attacks as well.

Still, the king is a pretty decent piece that has uses in attack formations...

[Llamarble]

I want to get better and cess and it's kne of my favorite games, but I often wonder to myself what the point of it all is...

Is it worth getting better at? After all, it's really domain specific and won't improve your capacities in other areas of life..

Actually chess is really strong on that front as games go.
Maybe not for specific skills, but the pure brain-training is great.
Memory, avoiding stupid errors, studying, will to win, visualization, strategy
And being able to play blindfolded (which a lot of tournament players can do after awhile) can be a pretty awesome parlor trick

As for using the king for attacking in the middlegame, that is definitely not something you normally want to be doing.
Most chess rules have exceptions though:

1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3 g6 5.Bc4 Nb6 6.Bb3 Bg7 7.Qe2 Nc6 8.O-O O-O 9.h3 a5 10.a4 dxe5 11.dxe5 Nd4 12.Nxd4 Qxd4 13.Re1 e6 14.Nd2 Nd5 15.Nf3 Qc5 16.Qe4 Qb4 17.Bc4 Nb6 18.b3 Nxc4 19.bxc4 Re8 20.Rd1 Qc5 21.Qh4 b6 22.Be3 Qc6 23.Bh6 Bh8 24.Rd8 Bb7 25.Rad1 Bg7 26.R8d7 Rf8 27.Bxg7 Kxg7 28.R1d4 Rae8 29.Qf6+ Kg8 30.h4 h5 31.Kh2 Rc8 32.Kg3 Rce8 33.Kf4 Bc8 34.Kg5

[Llamarble]

That game was between Short and Timman, both of them very strong GMs.

You do want to use the king in the endgame though.
One way of deciding when you've reached the endgame is that it becomes safe for the kings to come out and take on an active role.

[Psyche]

But...the mit encyclopedia of cognitive sciences...speaks of limitations on these benefits.

"For example, a chess expert displays advanced memory for arrangements of pieces on a chessboard but ordinary memory for digit strings."

I think (hypothesize that) this finding might likely extend to visualization, as well.

As for studying and will to win, I don't think these skills are developed so much by playing chess.

I'd love to study individual differences in 'stupid error' prevention, though. I do those a lot. But I'd bet that the metacognitive monitoring required to do this might also operate situationally. In other words, reduced instances of stupidity in chess games might also not equate to reduced stupid errors irl.

[Thestatusquo]

Say LLama and TSQ, have you ever watched Code Geass ("no I don't watch that nerd shit")?;

I don't think you have what kind of person I am figured out very well.

but his play style heavily utilizes movement of the king past the baseline and for use in attacks. They don't show any of his games, so I don't know the answer to my second question: Is such a playstyle possible to competitively maintain?

I just don't think that such a strategy is viable under like 99.9% of circumstances. I certainly wouldn't want to make it part of my usual tactics. Though, I'm not the best person to be asking because I'm not the greatest chess player in the world.

[Nicodemus]

Another thing I find helpful is there is a youtube channel called thechesswebsite where he does run throughs of common openings/openings that he likes. It's not by any means a comprehensive understanding that he's providing, but it's usually a pretty good introduction to the basics.

I've been watching a few of this guy's videos recently, and while it is nice to see the strategies in action, the guy narrating the positions gets pretty annoying after a while. I had no idea it was possible to say "obviously", "simply", "just a simple development move", or "at the same time" so much in a 10 minute timespan, but this guy proved me wrong and then some.

[Llamarble]

But...the mit encyclopedia of cognitive sciences...speaks of limitations on these benefits.

"For example, a chess expert displays advanced memory for arrangements of pieces on a chessboard but ordinary memory for digit strings."

I think (hypothesize that) this finding might likely extend to visualization, as well.

As for studying and will to win, I don't think these skills are developed so much by playing chess.

I'd love to study individual differences in 'stupid error' prevention, though. I do those a lot. But I'd bet that the metacognitive monitoring required to do this might also operate situationally. In other words, reduced instances of stupidity in chess games might also not equate to reduced stupid errors irl.

That sounds like the study is saying chess experts don't display the level of ridiculous memory they have for chess positions on digit strings, which is certainly true.
I'd bet there is at least a correlation between being an expert and strong memory though simply because it's easier to become an expert if you have a good memory.

It looks like whether chess will increase your overall processing power is a subject of much debate, but I do feel like some of the thinking-skills are pretty transferable.
Learning chess is an interesting study problem, and chess really satisfyingly rewards good studying so I think it can benefit study habits.
And playing tournaments where you invest a lot of time in one game taught me how important will-to-win is / how to sustain focus on a particular task.
I also tend to find it very easy to think far ahead in new games I try out. Visualization / minimaxing are strong points for me in general, and I don't think that was a power I had before I got good at chess.

[UberNinja]

I have become better at non-related things by thought processes I traverse while I'm playing mafia.

Chess seems just as likely to develop those cognitive skills. So I guess you could say I'm a believer.

[Junpei]

2 questions:

1) Is it considered advantageous generally to have an expanded positioning on the board (like pushing pawns up the court as the game goes), or to consolidate your forces?

2) Will playing against yourself help improve your game at all? In theory I think it should but I don't know about in practice.

[Sudo_Nym]

2 questions:

1) Is it considered advantageous generally to have an expanded positioning on the board (like pushing pawns up the court as the game goes), or to consolidate your forces?

2) Will playing against yourself help improve your game at all? In theory I think it should but I don't know about in practice.

Generally, you want to grab as much space on the board as you can. That being said, expanding is only good if you support it- pushing your pawns up doesn't do much if your opponent can just punch through them. Plus, remember that pawn moves can never be taken back, and every pawn move inflicts a weakness somewhere. As a rule, you seize space with your pieces, then bring your pawns up to secure it, if that makes sense.

I've never found playing against myself to be particularly useful, since I always know what I'm thinking, so it's hard to do so fairly. When I'm practicing by myself, I usually prefer to find a Master game, and play through it- generally, the first dozen moves or so on the board, and then I cover up the rest of the score, and try to think through what each Master will do next.

[UberNinja]

I think I'm a little too aggressive. It works in my favor if my overall skill outweighs my opponent's, but works against me otherwise.

I'm playing my second game with Sudo a little closer to the chest; he trounced me the first time because I overextended myself.

[Llamarble]

'distrust a pawn move; examine carefully its balance sheet'

Having control of more of the board means better / more relevant squares for your pieces and worse squares for your opponent's pieces. If your pawns are far advanced they also start to threaten promotion. With a lot of space to work in, it will be easier for you to do things like attack a pawn forcing it to be defended, then move your attacking pieces across the board rapidly to attack something else. The defender's pieces will have a hard time moving to defend the new threat because with less space their other pieces / pawns will likely be in the way. It is generally desirable to exchange pieces if you have less space than your opponent to ease this cramping effect.
So in general it is useful to gain a lot of space, and typically you attack on the side of the board where you have a space advantage because it's harder to defend where you're cramped.

You generally don't want to advance the pawns immediately in front of your castled king though without pretty specific reasons ('I can't let his knight stay on such and such square' or 'The blocked center means my king won't come under attack even though I'm moving the pawns away from it') as having your king exposed makes it much easier to attack. Enemy pieces can sit on the squares your pawns used to be guarding, and long range pieces can deliver checks along the lines that the pawns were blocking.
And sudo is right that you want your pieces to be on good, useful, supportive squares while you're pushing pawns.

The trouble with playing against yourself is that it's much harder to find your own mistakes than for somebody else to.
I prefer to play against a computer over playing against myself, and to play against another person over playing against a computer.
Time that I would spend playing against myself is usually better spent on book-study.

[Max]

I've never found playing against myself to be particularly useful, since I always know what I'm thinking, so it's hard to do so fairly. When I'm practicing by myself, I usually prefer to find a Master game, and play through it- generally, the first dozen moves or so on the board, and then I cover up the rest of the score, and try to think through what each Master will do next.

It's only worth playing against yourself if you're looking through an opening or a specific position. A full game? Not worth it in my opinion. It's *reasonable* for positional play, as long as you are willing to go back through the game and seeing where the side you lost as made errors, then replaying from different points and trying different move sets. I wouldn't say it makes you improve massively but it does give you an understanding of your own weaknesses against yourself and your own lack of foresight.

I like going back and looking through games immediately after playing them, more so than the game tbqh.
My old chess computer consistently gave me a rating of about 1400, but I'm not sure what rating system they used (it was a British machine I think, so FIDE?) and I don't really know what it really means. I won the college tournament last year, they didn't have one this year but regardless I'm not a very strong player, chances are most people on MS can beat me.

[Nicodemus]

Anyone thinking about going to the Chicago Open? I'm kinda considering it at the moment, because I could play in the U1100 section even though I think I'm quite a bit stronger than that now. It would be $120 just for registration though, and then I'd have to find someplace to sleep. Idunno, probably not worth it.

[Thestatusquo]

Not going to play because I don't have a spare 120$ lying around, but I would almost certainly be willing to let you crash on my couch.

[Nicodemus]

Thanks! I'd say the chances of me going are less than 10% at the moment, but if I do the chances that I'll need a place to crash are about 90%, so that is really appreciated. Oh, and the registration is only $85 if you're rated under 1100, but I'd have to pay for USCF membership as well. If you're over 1100, it would actually be $200. Here's the info page I'm looking at if anyone else is interested.

[Thestatusquo]

I dont think I've ever played a sanctioned tournament in my life, though at a guess I'd say llamamarble will probably play in this. If I have a new job by then, I'll consider going to this.

[Isa]

Spoiler: What Tumblr spewed in my face when I searched for "chess"

[Nicodemus]

Just got back from the Chicago Open. Did pretty well, although I lost one game I definitely shouldn't have. Ended up getting 5 points out of 7, good for a nine-way tie for fifth and a check for $66.67. Also, I made a seven year old kid cry and you really can't put a dollar amount on that, so I came out well ahead this weekend.

And a big thank you to Shea (pronounced Shay) as well for letting me crash on his couch and not even trying to rape me or anything.

[Junpei]

Oh, and the registration is only $85

Sounds like you lost a solid 7 or so dollars plus whatever else you spent to get there. But 7 dollars for a day of fun is a steal so good job.

[Nicodemus]

Yeah, I actually had to use my birthday money from my parents to cover entry, gas, and food for the weekend, but I'm still happy I went. Haven't played in a tournament for a long time, and this was a great one to get me back into the scene.