[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 122 KB, 744x600, Magnus Carlsen breaks Kasparov's record.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5737913 No.5737913 [Reply] [Original]

How does one train to become a chess master?

Also, general chess thread.

>> No.5737917

>>5737913

by playing as many games of chess as you can

>> No.5737919

Good memory.

Download more RAMs.

>> No.5737920

>>5737917
Well that's not really mastery. Mastery includes hours and hours of studying. But I want to know the exact strategy since right now my chess study is completely devoid of any organisation.

>> No.5737925

>>5737919
Well my memory is not exactly superb but I think it's pretty good. I memorized pi to 40 places in a few days just by going over it once or twice.

But the point is, I'm asking for techniques and not technicalities.

>> No.5737935

>>5737931
How long? Which part? Do I take a course? Do I find a tutor? Can you be any less specific?

>> No.5737931

you study chess theory fag

>> No.5737932

>>5737920
I won a junior championship a few years ago, all I've ever done is play games of chess

Playing loads of games is far better practice than studying
I wouldn't know of all but 2 openings

>> No.5737940

>>5737935
Verse players better than you, that's how you get better

>> No.5737941

>/sci/ - Science & Math

>> No.5737946

>>5737932
Well yeah but can you say the same for a GM?

>> No.5737947
File: 183 KB, 800x505, there-is-the-door-get-the-fuck-out.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5737947

>>5737941
>implying chess is not science

>> No.5737948

>>5737947

it's math and science

>> No.5737950

>>5737913
>chess master
>implying there isn't a dozen algorithms that are better at chess than any human.

>> No.5737956

>>5737950
>implying chess players give a damn
The level of human play has actually increased substantially since computers started playing the game. In the chess world, computers are a blessing and most certainly not a curse.

Which kind of brings me to another question. Computers play semi-perfect moves. But since there is no psychology involved and it's simply pure mathematics and logic, I wonder if playing computer matches extensively would actually improve your play versus other players? I'm sure the skill would increase but what I'm wondering is, is it a better idea to train with real people or a computer?

>> No.5737963

>>5737947
>chess
>sciene

You wot m8?

>> No.5737967

>>5737956
Real people, definitely. You have to practice other things like capitalizing on mistakes, getting through time pressure, taking risks, making bluffs, etc.

>> No.5737974

>>5737967
Exactly. Thanks for clearing that up.

>> No.5737972

>>5737963
Seriously, computer scientists are obsessed with chess. Are you like 12 or something?

>> No.5737989

Chess at the master level is 95% study and 5% playing. Opening memorization, preparation of opening novelties against specific opponents, tactics practice, endgame study, and review and analysis of master games. Any playing you do should be against trainers and computers behind closed doors, so that your own opening repertoire doesn't leak out to your competition.

>> No.5738000

I'd argue the hardest hurdle is perfecting your reading. Practice a fucking shitton of problems.

>> No.5738064

>>5737913
>>>/tg/

Your supposed to post this post on the transgender board.