/sci/ - Science & Math

you must be new here, the site /sci/ uses for chess is www.lichess.org

http://lichess.org/lpfs6grb

lets do this

>>4573461
>seeing that chess is the 3rd nerdiest game ever (right after MtG and Warhammer)
What about dungeons and dragons?

How do I get good at chess?

http://lichess.org/nmd09aw7

>>4573470
you have to memorize a lot.

>>4573473
What am I suppose to memorize?

>>4573476
tactics, strategies, endgame theory, opening theory

>>4573464
i prefer to be black tbf :(

>>4573486
why?

>>4573488
i can never decide whether to start offensive or defensive, so as black i can just see what the opponent does and then decide

>>>/tg/18701942
>thisguy.jpg

>>4573495
>Chess
>not /tg/ related

>/tg/
>not the best board on 4chan

ishyggus diggus

>>4573493
f

http://lichess.org/badbx0h6

Hey you faggots, anyone here who wants to be checkmated?
Post a link.

What are some good opening moves in chess

>>4576562
>>4576562

Grandmaster tier:
e4, d4,

International master tier:
c4, nf3

Amateur but acceptable tier:
f4, g3, b3, nc3

Patzer tier:
Everything else

Full retard tier:
f3, h3, h4, a4,

>>4576597
>God tier
1. e4

>>4576597
Well, you just stated the obvious.

http://lichess.org/pps1c307

Go.

>>4573462
Except it doesn't allow variants.

>>4578124
you stopped moving...

>>4578144
Was busy with lunch. Anybody else cares for a go?

>>4578157
gg, you're pretty good. (i dont usually lose against /sci/tards)

>>4578158
Let's see if tripfags suck as much at chess as they do at posting.

http://lichess.org/3e0styy9

>>4578166
INTERCEPTED!
(derp!)

http://lichess.org/ggrtlkhw

Go.

>>4573461
>FICS

/sci/ will be waaaaaay out of its pathetic league. If you have never been rated and/or only play as amateur you are likely to be raped savagely by anyone with a rating over 1200 or so on this server.

>2012
>not playing poker or backgammon


...I suck at chess :S

I play blindfold games at work on our chat client, all the time.

1. e4, or 1...e6 if you want to play white.

If you need a board to look at, find one.

I just got nuked from FICS because my handle was 'unacceptable', wtf

>>4578188
FICS ratings aren't that high. I'm a lower level club player rated about 1600-1700 on the longer time controls there. (I'm only 1200 on 5 minute. I really suck at blitz.) This is about what my FIDE would be.

>>4573470
Play a lot. Not blitz. 30 minute games. Don't memorize a lot of openings, because you won't understand them yet. Don't go for sacs or crazy tactics. Just play solidly, attack the centre, and look for threats against the king. Develop quality pieces, and don't move things twice in the opening. Get rooks on open files, bishops on big diagonals, and knights in the centre, supported by pawns with a rook behind.

Your queen is overrated. Don't try to do everything with it.

If you want, you can learn one or two basic openings. I really like the Dutch as Black, because it's solid in the centre and lets you attack on the kingside later on.

There is a saying in go: "lose your first 50 games as quickly as possible." Applies here too.

If you want a book, I recommend My System by Nimzowitsch. In addition to being the Bible of chess, it's also really funny. The first 7 chapters are for you now. The last half of the book is for when you master the first half, which will get you to 1500 or so.

If you want to see some high quality games, check out kingscrusher on YouTube.

http://lichess.org/14r5t7li

Anyone up for a game?

>>4578659
Yep, that mattuc guy is a prick.

>>4573470
http://www.thechesswebsite.com/
I started as Class G now I'm almost Class E, and I've only watched 25% of the strategy videos and one or two openings.
This site helps.

>>4576597
>e4, d4
>lose material before the game begins
Only retards lose material before middle game.

>>4579050
If there's one thing you won't be able to troll me about, it's chess. Stop trying.

>>4579101
What good comes from moving your center pawns up with nothing defending them except the queen, which taking out too early can completely screw you over?

>>4579107
Seriously, stop.

>>4579113
Ok, I get what you're doing now.
2/10, I fell for it at least.

http://lichess.org/ig7wtizd
Anyone?

/a/ here
http://lichess.org/nxsnh4xb
time: 5+0
sides: random

Personally I am a fan of the King's Indian offense/defense.

/sci/, I had a higher picture of you. Leaving in the middle of a game?

http://lichess.org/2589ggf4
Variant: Standard
Minutes per side: 5
Increment in seconds: 0
Mode: Casual

Come at me, bro.
Post a link and I'm gonna checkmate you.

http://lichess.org/a9zokh90

Hey guys, i have a fairly high IQ(i don't think it matters how high never had a serious test but online test say >125 some even >135...) I am a CS and Physics student, but for some reason I can't play chess... I mean I seriously suck at it, like reaaaaally suck... why could that be?

God fucking dammit.

Why would you have firefox AND Opera.

>>4579202
You lack the war strategy needed for chess. See >>4579040 for a good site to learn at.

Why did lichess removed its spectator comments?

>If you want a book, I recommend My System by Nimzowitsch

Not for beginners. The best "first chess book" I would say is Logical Chess by Irving Chernev.

>>4579219
Fuck books. Learn how the pieces move then lose 50 games. Then go watch good players play, then replay and analyze their games. You're golden.

http://lichess.org/wa8dism1
Variant: Standard
Minutes per side: 5
Increment in seconds: 0
Mode: Casual

So the king can't put the other king into checkmate? Fuck that's stupid.

>>4579225
when you read books, or watch chess videos you'll see how strong players think about the game, without having to figure it out yourself. If you just learned the rules, then yes the best thing to do is to go out and lose like 100 games

http://lichess.org/kvaw4c5o
>Time: 15 - 5

>>4579202
Being intelligent means you are able to learn more quickly, you aren't immediately god-tier at everything you do. Imagine if someone suddenly put you into the cockpit of a mig fighter jet and asked you to take off. You wouldn't be able to do it because you have no knowledge/training and chances are you don't understand Russian.

>I mean I seriously suck at it, like reaaaaally suck... why could that be?
The difference between a good and a poor chess player is how they think about the game strategically. Tactics, like forks, opening moves and other tricks can give you the edge, but you'll be able to beat 99% of players (yeah; most people suck really) by just thinking strategically.

[cont.]

>>4579305
[cont.]

What is "good" strategic thinking you might ask? Strategy is about planning your moves so that you can achieve your goal. Poor players tend to employ 1 dimensional mechanical thinking ex.: "if I move my knight there he'll take it his Rook blocking my way allowing me to checkmate his king" of course, the opposing player doesn't have to take the knight very poor players will miss the pawn that can also take the knight.
You need to think ahead as far as you can, but consider all logical possibilities; consider everything your opponent can and cannot do (he cannot make illegal moves, he can not move his queen out of danger if his king is in check (a situation that occurs in a fork/discovery)), consider what advantages there are to moving your knight to the center of the board instead of the side. Practice (against people who are better than you!) this type of thinking and you'll improve, not only your chess game, but your strategic abilities in general.

I never learned any opening moves or studied top-tier players, but I've beaten players rated in the top 10 on a national level (not US) by only using good strategic principles, if you want to be god-tier you can memorize a bunch of openings and tactics, but that's just way too much time and energy to put in a game imo.

>>4579305
>most people suck really
Absolutely true. I'm class F on the elo scale and I can beat most people at my uni except my statistics professor. Jesus Christ playing him is horrifying.

>>4579305
>I never learned any opening moves or studied top-tier players, but I've beaten players rated in the top 10 on a national level (not US)

at 1 minute chess?

The thing about some top class players is that if you put them into odd situations that they've never studied they'll be as good as an amateur.

>>4579219
The first half is fine for beginners. Might as well learn good habits from the start.

Anyway, that poster only asked how to get better, with no mention of being a beginner.

>>4579307
>>4579305
Thanks!

>>4579312
I learned to play by playing against my grandfather (shit was awesome, he taught me in the gentlemanly german traditions of the game, I still warn my opponent every time one of my pieces threatens his queen).

I've never lost a game against a non-professional. I've had some good times beating boisterous teachers who think they're good at chess, I always remain apathetic in victory so the look on their faces after they've been nonchalantly beaten by an 8 year old was priceless.

>>4579327
No 60/60, my high-school had the best chess players in the country and I practiced against them, beat them a couple of times, but I never made the first team (played first board for second/5 teams though) mostly because I couldn't be arsed to spend so much time on a game.
>>4579337
Very true, I usually beat top-level opponents by doing something odd before the mid-game like exchanging queens/center pawns.

>I still warn my opponent every time one of my pieces threatens his queen
I love you

I used to play chess as a kid, then I stopped playing it (along with pretty much any other game) because I am quite a sore loser.

I'm a pretty romantic player. I have to really exercise restraint in order to stop myself from just rampaging into the opponent's side once I see a possible checkmate.

http://lichess.org/5rzlef6f

This isn't really fair -- there's one of me,
and only eight of you.

>>4579305
>>4579307

>Tactics, like forks, opening moves and other tricks can give you the edge, but you'll be able to beat 99% of players (yeah; most people suck really) by just thinking strategically.

This is totally backwards. If you were anywhere near as good as you say you are you'd know that 99% of games between non-expert (under 2000) level players are due to simple tactical oversights. The main difference between an 1800 level player and a 1400 is that one falls for 2-3 move combinations and the other doesn't. The first thing any beginner has to do to be able to even play game were strategy is relevant to the outcome of the game is master simple tactics.

Moreover, you don't get an "edge" from tactics. You gain a positional advantage if you outplay your opponent in the opening/middlegame. One uses tactics to execute a knock-out blow in a won position, or to cash in on your advantage. If you're trying to tell people not to play for cheap tactical tricks, and instead to play solid, logical chess then of course I agree, but the way you said that makes it seem like you've have no idea what you're talking about.

>Strategy is about planning your moves so that you can achieve your goal.

Only someone who has barely played any real chess would say something like that. Strategy in chess is immensely complicated and nuanced, and how on earth does a beginner know what his "goals" are? When you formulate a plan in chess you have to consider:

Material imbalances, pawn structure, king safety, peice activity/quality, space, time, and tactics.

Saying "oh just think more strategically than your opponent and you'll beat 99% of chess players" is just as useful as saying "just play good moves".

So you're either making shit up, or you're some kind of natural chess genius that doesn't understand the way we mere mortals think about chess

>I still warn my opponent every time one of my pieces threatens his queen

Oh well that just seals the deal. If had read that I wouldn't have even responded to you.

Most people don't even say "check" after 1600 elo, it's considered rude and condescending.

>>4579512
That's in rated game play, and saying shit like that in rated game play is rude as hell. Doing it in casual game play can be strategic. You're basically saying, "hey, I'm better than you. Oh, little boy, your queen is about to be taken! Better move it!"
You're basically taunting them, which can make them play worse.
This being said, I don't say check or anything during a chess game. Depending on how intense the game is, though, I'll try to have idle conversation with my opponent.

>>4579536
exactly,and that guy is giving chess "advice" and trying to sound as if he's some kind of chess prodigy, when it's fucking obvious to anyone who's been around chess culture for any amount of time that he has no idea about what chess is about.

1670 elo, come at me
http://lichess.org/zzk6byyg

I played someone about a week ago. He kept moving his pawns one square at a time, and I eventually stopped the game to tell him that he could move then two squares on their first move. Then I asked him if he wanted to start over.

>>4579547
>chess culture
hahaha

>>4579548
former 2100 fag here, who knows what I'm worth now

>>4579553
chess is a pretty old game, bro

>>4579327
1 minute chess is best chess. I immensely suck at blitz games (When I was rated my blitz ELO was around 1800 versus 2000-2100 in 'normal' games) but blitz are 90% of the fun you have from playing chess. That's not even mentioning bughouse.

http://lichess.org/lrr5n5bz

Do it, faggot.

http://lichess.org/r6d92tjs

>>4578689
But you're a club player. The lowest club player still plays better than the best amateur.

http://lichess.org/g0iu1lnb

Come at me.

>>4580026
>>4580026
>>4580026

Hey you faggots, I'm waiting.

Please respond.

Why u no connect to FICS though?

>>4580026
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think white missed on a checkmate.

>>4580152
how?

>>4573488
To fuck white pawn bitches with his big dick.

>>4580157
nvm I was wrong

>>4580093
Because FICS is tough to use.

In case you didn't know:

1000: babby's first chess
1200: beginner
1600: pleb
2000: serious player
2300: FIDE Master
2400: IM
2500: GM
2600: Top 200
2700: Top 50
2800: Carlsen, Aronian, Kasparov, Topalov, Anand and Krammik. Carlsen was in the top 5 at the age of 17 btw.

I think I may be mentally challenged.

>>4580518
continuing with software ...

2900 - Hiarcs on a cell phone
3000 - Fruit, computer champ in 2005
3100 - commercial ex-champs Junior and Shredder
3200 - open source Stockfish
3300 - Houdini and Rybka, current champs

humans have been left in the dust

>>4580659
Well ,when Bobby Fisher died not so long ago, they checked his computer and discovered he had been beating Rybka several times

LIKE A BOSS

>>4580709
Was Bobby Fisher the robot that beat Deep Blue?

>>4580716
JEW CONSPIRACY YOU LOWLY DOG

>>4580709
I call BS.

>>4580716
>Was Bobby Fisher the robot

>>4580724
>yfw Bobby Fischer discovered the jewish overlord conspiracy so they were forced to destroy his life and mind through evil ancient jewish techniques and render him a 'fool and outcast' to the world, all because he was too smart and brave for his own good ;_;

>>4580736
>mfw

>>4580724
so he was a jewish praticing robot?

>>4580736
Jews are anti-social, destructive, intolerant, mean-spirited, deceitful, et cetera. They wish to destroy, rule and kill, rob whoever gets in their way. To facilitate them getting what they want, they have developed a perverted, unnatural, destructive, evil lifestyle. Even though they live off the non-Jews as parasites, they still hate them and wish to destroy them. Jews hate nature and the natural order, because it's pure and beautiful, and also because it's bigger and stronger than they are, and they feel that they can not fully control it. Nature's beauty and harmony stands in stark contrast to their squalidness and ugliness, and that makes them hate it all the more. Jews are destroyers. They are anti-humans. The anti-human Jew hates and wants to destroy all non-Jews. He will also destroy even other Jews who are less destructive and evil than he is, if they get in his way. Apparently, the wickedness of the Jew is genetically based. Jews are destroyers. They are anti-humans. By the act of circumcision, the Jew shows his hatred towards nature and the natural order. By this bloody, cruel, senseless act, he shows his cruelty and sadism, and that he will stop at nothing to obtain his ends. Surely the Jews are also behind the Islamic circumcision, which serves as an ideal cover and distraction from their own wickedness in this regard. Jews are truly anti-human and anti-nature. Jews are intensely selfish, intolerant and anti-social, et cetera. They are full of hate, greed, malice, et cetera. Naturally, other people, i.e. the non-Jews, don't like being bulldozed aside, robbed and murdered by the Jews, and will sooner or later resist. That is where the lies and deceit of the Jews come into place.

>>4580769

uhhh

>>4580728
Not very trustable however its interesting to read

http://www.bobby-fischer.net/Bobby_Fischer_Articles51.html

http://en.lichess.org/new/xizajoumlykq

http://lichess.org/921w6can

>>4580736
More like he was a complete fucking nutcase who happened to be smart, but wasted his powers of autism on a children's game.

>>4580709
>He actually believes this

Absolute bullshit. Kasparov would DESTROY Fischer, and Kasparov isn't up to Rybka standards.

>>4580827
>Kasparov would DESTROY Fischer
>This is what butthurt communists actually believe

Hey guys. I just impulsively bought My System by the Nimmeister on eBay without bothering to check at what level it is recommended.

For a player who has a basic understanding of attacking (forks, pins, etc.) and all the rules of thumbs of endgame, but knows nothing about openings (although I later discovered the openings I use are pretty much the most standard (Sicilian, King's Indian, Ruy Lopez, etc. - they're kind of obvious), will My System be too over my head?

Basically, I play Chess, I know all the common sense stuff, but I've never actually 'studied' it. But it's a fun way to waste time without feeling entirely unproductive because of the problem solving aspects, so no guilt. I want to improve. Where to begin?

>>4580709
funny how "rybka" means "little fish" in polish and "fischer" means "fisher" in german.

>>4580884
The singularity is upon us, too bad the first upload is an insane chessplayer

>>4580916

i must say i don't really catch your drift

I know the absolute basics of the game but not much else. If anyone who is also pretty crappy at this game and won't take too long on each of their moves,

http://lichess.org/v1bbwloz

>That feel when going really well against a tough opponent
>Holy shit I'm actually getting better!
>Make one stupid mistake
>Get your shit slapped
>That other feel

>>4581076
>Playing my dad
>Always beats me
>I'm up a queen, a knight and two pawns
>Set up my mating moves
>"I got this"
>Suddenly, I get forced mate in 5 moves
>Dad then proceeds to point out exactly how I was planning on mating him
>mfw

eat shit faggot i'm glad mom divorced you

playing in dis thread
D4 is best opener

>>4581084
your dad made a very clever sacrifice or you're retarded

>>4581084
your dad isn't that good
you're exaggerating

>>4581100
What about his post seemed exaggerated?
>Sacrificing for a mate: doesn't require that much skill. Queen sacrifices are rare, but if you play against someone often the may come up
>Forced mate: Babby tier
>Identifying potential mating threads: Shouldn't even be playing if you can't do this. Try a simpler hobby like videogames

>>4581106
you really don't need to lecture me about how often successful queen+knight sacrifices lead to a forced mate in 5, even with perfect play. I'm an 1800 player that grew up with a family of chess enthusiasts, some of them 2400+ elo.

I find it much more likely that he was just up a load of material, blundered and got himself checkmated.

>>4581115
>Dad then proceeds to point out exactly how I was planning on mating him

I read that wrong, I thought he said his dad had planned a mate in 5 after sacing queen and knight.

>>4581115
>1800 ELO

Step it up, scrub

>>4581115
Could you answer:
>>4580852

>>4581283
It's scrub tier. I read it with no prior chess experience and understood everything perfectly. Then again, I read Brian Greene's "An Elegant Universe" and understood everything on the first try, so I guess I'm not an accurate representation of the general population.

>>4581286
>Brian Green
>Hard

>>4581283
Does one even need chess books these days? You've got the Internet, chess software and online chess games to play.

>>4579482
>>4579512
Dear fag.

>This is totally backwards. If you were anywhere near as good as you say you are you'd know that 99% of games between non-expert (under 2000) level players are due to simple tactical oversights. The main difference between an 1800 level player and a 1400 is that one falls for 2-3 move combinations and the other doesn't. The first thing any beginner has to do to be able to even play game were strategy is relevant to the outcome of the game is master simple tactics.
Just because YOU had to memorize tactics and openings doesn't there aren't people that can't learn it intuitively. I believe the poster I was replying to, to be one of those people. I used most tactics before I even knew what they were called, knowing how to use it/counter is more important than knowing the name of it.

>Only someone who has barely played any real chess would say something like that. Strategy in chess is immensely complicated and nuanced, and how on earth does a beginner know what his "goals" are?
I was referring to strategy in general, the "goal" in chess is to checkmate your opponent, strategy is the various plans/methods by which to accomplish this and it's much better to learn your own strategies than to just copy someone else imo.

>When you formulate a plan in chess you have to consider: Material imbalances, pawn structure, king safety, peice activity/quality, space, time, and tactics.
^Should all be taken into account in your overall strategy, how is this not obvious?

>>4582064
[cont.]
>Saying "oh just think more strategically than your opponent and you'll beat 99% of chess players" is just as useful as saying "just play good moves".
YES, YES that's EXACTLY what I said and meant faggot. The poster can go buy a book/coaching and he'll become good chess player, if he learns to play properly by THINKING about it he'll gain so much more; there's a reason that people often think good chess players=intelligent.

>So you're either making shit up, or you're some kind of natural chess genius that doesn't understand the way we mere mortals think about chess
The same principles can be applied to any game. When I started playing SCII I literally didn't know controls, but I progressed from bronze league to platinum league in less than 80 games (currently diamond, but I took a year off in between). Is it because I'm sort of natural SCII genius? Not at all, also in general I would estimate that I have a fairly low IQ, but I progressed easily because I had learned to think strategically and I could apply it to this game while most players above me didn't have a clue after I their memorized cheese/rush/push tactics failed. My post was intended to convince the addressed poster to learn valuable strategic skills and principles instead of memorizing things that can only be applied to a single game.

>Most people don't even say "check" after 1600 elo, it's considered rude and condescending.
What kind of sub-par, grade school tournaments are you playing were you're allowed to say ANYTHING during a game?
I was, of course, referring to casual play and it's not rude/condescending unless your tone is like that, I also let my opponent replay a move if he commits a blunder (the game's more fun/challenging like this anyway) and give advice if he is a particularly weak player, it's not all about winning every game you know.

Sincerely
Anon

>>4582064
>>4582065
NERD RAGE.

I bet this fag doesn't even lift.

>>4582064
>to learn your own strategies than to just copy someone else imo.

Wrong.

Chess has gotten to a point where everything has been discovered. You will be a much better player if you just study the works of others than try and achieve anything on your own. Fewer and fewer people are capable of contributing anything to chess.

>>4582066
I do actually, gb2/fit/.
>>4582067
>Chess has gotten to a point where everything has been discovered. You will be a much better player if you just study the works of others than try and achieve anything on your own. Fewer and fewer people are capable of contributing anything to chess.
Did you even read my post? The whole point I'm trying to make is to NOT get better at chess, but to learn how to think strategically and also enjoy chess for it is, a game. The poster I was replying to wants to beat his Uni mates, not become a pro chess player, he has to much research to do and not enough time for both. If you want to waste hours of your life just so you can compete with the top players then go right ahead, some have us have real work to do.

To answer a question:

"My System" by Nimzovich is still considered a classic for learning chess strategy. It is pretty old, though, so you'd need to know how to read descriptive chess notation instead of the more modern algebraic notation.

Really, if you are below a master, you can't go wrong with most general chess strategy books. And of course tactics, tactics, tactics. Besides, solving chess problems is fun!

Bump with new game.

http://lichess.org/18k44k58

>>4582724
P-p-please respond ... ;_;

>>4582739
>>4582724
gg

I prefer Shogi over Chess mostly because it represents actual combat strategy and units can be converted when you capture them.

>>4582797
>Weeaboo

Why doesn't 4chan have a kgs Go server?

http://lichess.org/bsd1q464

Hey, guys

How about a game idea:

Chess: WITH FOG OF WAR

>>4584086
That sounds kind of cool...

>>4584086
i can see some interesting things coming out of this for sure

Ok, ok, one game.
http://lichess.org/g67g6iw4

>>4582064
>>4582065
>Just because YOU had to memorize tactics and openings doesn't there aren't people that can't learn it intuitively. I believe the poster I was replying to, to be one of those people. I used most tactics before I even knew what they were called, knowing how to use it/counter is more important than knowing the name of it.

You told him not to worry about tactics, and to "just play strategically". This is the mark of a retard who's just spouting chess related terms pretending to be in a position of authority. It is contrary to the advice of every strong chess player, who suggest mastering simple tactics before anything, other than maybe giving a few general principles of advice. (occupy the center, use all your pieces, etc). Here’s an example from of the best chess coaches and authors, Jeremy Silman:

>After someone first learns the rules of chess, he needs to concentrate on just a few basic things:
>1) Develop ALL your pieces.
>2) Master a few “overkill” endgames (K & 2 Rooks vs. long K, K & Q vs. long K, K & R vs. lone K, etc.).
>3) Seek to grasp basic tactical themes.
>After this initial phase, I pretty much insist on tactics, tactics, and more tactics

>>4584452

Also, I don’t memorize openings (I used to solve tactics problems though), or even study chess seriously. Memorizing is one of the most useless things a beginner can do. Unlike you, I know I’m not hot shit at chess, but any mediocre club player can tell that shit like this:

>I usually beat top-level opponents by doing something odd before the mid-game like exchanging queens/center pawns.

Is coming straight from the mouth of an amateur. You think trading center pawns is unusual? Trading queens isn’t unusual, and neither is trading center pawns, it happens all the time in countless different openings at all levels of the game. And if anything trading queens and trading center pawns releases tension and tends to make the game more symmetric and less imbalanced and sharp, and therefore harder to win. Go out and actually play chess against some real “top level opponents”, learn and thing or two, and you’ll realize how obvious it is to even a mediocre chess player that you’re full of shit.

>^Should all be taken into account in your overall strategy, how is this not obvious?
This is only obvious to natural chess geniuses. However I can see how it might be “obvious” to people who never played or observed chess at a level were the game’s outcome is influenced by subtle strategic maneuvering or by meticulously exploiting tiny positional advantages, and therefore have no idea how difficult chess strategy is. Each of those elements of strategy I outlined took about 130 years to develop into a somewhat coherent system of “basic chess strategy”. The best players from 100, and even 50 years ago were getting this shit wrong. That you say he should figure it out on his own is ridiculous and telling.

>>4584458
>YES, YES that's EXACTLY what I said and meant faggot.

>I need some help solving this physics problem
>JUST FIND THE ANSWER.

>I’m having trouble understanding this proof
>JUST MAKE CORRECT INFERENCES FROM YOUR HYPOTHESES UNTILL YOU ARRIVE AT YOUR DESIRED CONCLUSION

>>4584465
You are a colossal faggot.

>>4584931
Le powned.

What exactly is the difference between a pin, skewer, and x-ray? I understand pins and skewers, but x-rays seem like the same exact thing to me.

>>4584940
That's because it is.

>>4584465
>JUST FIND THE ANSWER.
This is what any good Professor will tell you actually, it's much better for your development to find the answer on your own rather than having him hold your hand. Do you want an answer to the problem or do you want the ability to solve problems, because if it's the former, you won't make it far in Science/Engineering.

You Americans are so fucking spoon-fed in everything it's ridiculous.

>>4584458
>You think trading center pawns is unusual?
It is for players who aren't expecting it because it usually doesn't happen in the opening scenarios they studied, especially if it actually puts me in disadvantageous positions/makes me lose material, the less familiar the board position becomes the less they know what to do, by "top level" in this instance (to which both I and the other anon were referring to) I meant top level for amateur chess players that studies the occasional chess book (i.e. "top" that he'll actually play against), not serious players.
I realize I haven't been explicit about anything in this thread, but that's because I'm trying to teach an anon that doesn't know the first thing about chess, I'm not trying to impress you, of course everything I say will sound amateurish, that's what I intended. Like teaching a layman scientific concepts; you don't use complex explanations/terminology/math.

>This is only obvious to natural chess geniuses
No it's not, do you even know what strategy means?

http://lichess.org/y10yiv9n

>>4584940
X-ray has your own piece in the way. You threaten to move the piece, making a discovered attack which must be defended, while hopefully also creating a threat (or making a capture or whatever) with the piece that was moved.

>>4586899
come back

>>4586921
nvm then

>>4580659
> humans have been left in the dust
Sort of. Each engine has some known flaws which can be exploited through appropriate (strategic) play, and probably some more which haven't yet been discovered. I wouldn't pick Kasparov to win a long match against Rybka, but I think that with adequate prep he could still take a few games off it.

I was analyzing a position from a blitz game the other day that Rybka (a slightly older version) took nearly 10 minutes to find the best move for. I found it in the game, in about 10 seconds. It had to do with the way the game tree was pruned, and how branches aren't all searched to the same depth. Rybka didn't even want to consider the correct branch of the tree, only finding the correct evaluation after I made the first couple moves.

>>4580852
Your rating will initially go down 100-200 points as you start to play strategically. Don't get discouraged. It's learning a whole new way of thinking, and will pay off in the long run.

My System is a great place to start for someone at your level. You don't need to know specific openings if you can think strategically, because in most cases the best moves will seem completely obvious.

Starcraft is nerdier than MtG.

Hey guys.

I am looking into getting My System and Jeremy Silman's Complete Endgame course.

My intent is to read My System followed by Silman's and start solving daily chess problems and analysing online games. Is this a good approach, or am I taking too much on at once?

I'll probably just play for a few weeks before I actually touch the textbooks (I've always played on and off at work/during assignment breaks, but never seriously, so I want to get 'into' it a bit more before I start reading text books), so I'm not planning to dive headfirst into it.

Also, I know I'm supposed to avoid dedicating any real time to openings, but is that to say I shouldn't learn them at all, or just learn the reasoning behind the most common openings and move on?

>I don't intend to become a tourneyfag, but I love playing and would actually like to progress skillwise just for the sake of it. No real goals beyond generally improving my game.

Quick question: Are Morphy and Fischer considered to be more dominate than the players of their time than Kasparov is of the players of his time? Would this be a good way to compare Fischer and Kasparov? Because looking back on their games, Fischer, at his prime, seemed to be leagues ahead of the other players in his bracket, while Kasparov was just sort of better.

I ask because there seems to be a lot of debate of whether Fischer could beat Kasparov is they both reached their peak at the same time, as well as just how good a modern day Morphy would play.

>>4587023
The fuck are you talking about? Fischer was alive when Kasparov was alive and Kasparov said Fischer wasn't even playing all that well. The Kasman > Bobby "Amerifat" Fischer

>>4586921
>>4586926
Sorry

lost power.

>>4587031
>Kasparov said

Playing talks, Bullshit walks.

Source please.

>I ask because there seems to be a lot of debate of whether Fischer could beat Kasparov is they both reached their peak at the same time, as well as just how good a modern day Morphy would play

Don't read those debates, they are completely pointless. They are just Fischer fanboys vs Kasparov fanboys, each defining chess skill in a way that makes their favorite player look good. Just go and study their games.

>>4586999
That'll probably work well. Problems are a good way to get used to combinations, and they'll definitely win you some games... but in the long run, strategic thinking is more important. Really, you need both.

Analyze your own games. Pro games aren't so important unless there are specific teaching points associated with them.

> I know I'm supposed to avoid dedicating any real time to openings, but is that to say I shouldn't learn them at all, or just learn the reasoning behind the most common openings and move on?
The problem with "learning" openings is that until you become a GM, you'll never really understand all the implications. What might be the optimal opening for someone with a 2400 rating is not necessarily something that's within your ability to play.

The best way to learn how to play well in the openings is to pick a *system*, rather than any specific move order. For example, I really like the Dutch Stonewall as Black. When I started learning the Dutch, I tried to memorize move orders and just got slaughtered on the kingside every time someone deviated from the main line. (And at lower levels, this is all the time.)

>>4587152
So I gave up on the Dutch main lines and forgot everything I learned, and then just started playing 1. ... f4. I tried dozens of different move orders, fell into a lot of traps, and lost a ton of games. But with that came understanding of why I don't push the g pawn (too soon), why an open f file is good (unless the centre can be opened), when I can be greedy and when it's too dangerous. I didn't explicitly learn the Stonewall. It just developed naturally from the idea that I wanted to lock down on the e4 square, because I found myself using that square all the time, and I want to encourage a knight exchange to open the f file.

I don't even play the main lines now, even though I have the experience to understand more of what's going on. I'm more comfortable with the move orders I have developed, because I understand them as a result of my own development. These moves are suboptimal for a grandmaster, but I'm nowhere near that level, so they work well for me.

>>4587154
There's an American LM named Brian Wall. He advocates playing unconventional openings even against high rated opponents. He's actually won pretty high rated games with every legal opening move.

Also, he made this cool video which involves Rambo. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exGSXjvKej0

Anyway, the point is that openings aren't that critical. More important to spend that training time figuring out what you want to be doing strategically.

>>4587152
>>4587154
fuck of, i have a 1700 elo and even i thought my system was too advanced to understand. no scrub is going to understand it

>>4588067
>of

>>4588137
Suck a dick scrub.

>>4588212
I'm not going to bother having this argument with you if this weak shit is the best burn you can come up with.

>>4588836
good now you can fuck of

>>4587023
>Morphy
>Good

Everyone else was just retarded back then.

How do I get as good at chess as Sherlock Holmes or Moriarty?

Wow, this thread is ancient...am I only one still lurking in it?