|
I've taken it upon myself recently to gain a bit of an understanding of chess. I like strategy games, and I am better at Starcraft than the vast majority of people. (Don't let me come off as arrogant, I try to be as realistic as possible, and I still recognize that I am nowhere near as good as the guy 1, 2, or 20 ranks above me.) The main reason for wanting to learn chess was to be able to play a strategy game anywhere. Starcraft requires a good pc, with my own mousepad, mouse, and keyboard, however chess requires a board, a phone, or a crappy computer with any peripherals.
"Okay, So I suck at chess."
The first impression I got from chess was that it was difficult to understand the large amount of relationships between all the pieces on the board, so naturally like anyone else I got a chess lesson and started watching chess videos.
My first chess lesson was King vs King Rook. After two failed attempts at trying to mate my teacher, he told me the principles of moving my king (I'll be damned if I remember what they're CALLED, but I remember how to do it), I then managed to mate him, after many many mistakes of forgetting to do waiting moves at the edges of the board. Then afterwards we played an actual game, in which I got slaughtered and I felt like I had not shown anything of worth to him. However, for the first day I had no expectations whatsoever, and it seemed that neither did he.
The second lesson was learning about centre control, and what types of advantages and disadvantages exist in chess. Such as pawn structure, king protection, and development. It was not particularly fascinating, but combined with the first lesson I began to get the impression that I could learn chess.
The third lesson, was a recap on King vs King Rook, which, to my teachers delight, I had remembered just fine. Then we learned King vs King Pawn, which was learned much the same way as the previous lesson. However this time when we played versus each other, I made moves that only a stupid man would make. That day I was playing terribly. Now, I always play terribly because of my low understanding, but that day I was just making moves that only a true idiot would make. Because of the god-awful game, my teacher decided to play a 2 minute game with me, which I think was to check if I was just an idiot, in which I played terribly, but I played as smart as I could with my knowledge. At this point I felt like lessons were a waste of money, as I could probably be cowed by people online just as easily and try to learn from those mistakes. I also came away feeling like I left the impression of simply being stupid, and inadequate to learn chess.
So I began to delve into youtube videos and random internet guides. The next thing that hit me like a truck was chess notation. Fuck chess notation. When I was talking about moves with my teacher, it would be like "Knight takes Pawn on XY", but with this virtual mentor on chess.com I would make a move and receive this feedback: "Black appears to prevail after 19.Qxg7 Bxf2+ 20.Kh1 Rf8 21.Ba4 Bb5 22.Bxb5 Qxb5 23.Rf1 (23.Rd1 Qa4 24.Rf1 Qe4 25.Bxh6 Qe2 26.Rc1 [ 26. Nd2 Be1] 26...Be1 27.h3 d2 28.Nxd2 Bxd2 29.Bxd2 Qxd2 30.Ra1 Qf4 and Black should win) 23...d2 24.Nxd2 Qe2 25.h3 h5 26.b3 Be3 27.Ba3 Bxd2 28.Ra1 Qa6 29.Bb2 Qc8 and Black wins.
"
So I'm watching these videos, and playing these puzzles on the chess mentor, but I don't quite understand what I'm doing. I decided to try and figure out what my strengths were.
http://imgur.com/4crRW Pic wont show up?
Here we can see that, on average, my strategy and tactics is extremely, extremely poor. However, I remember that the endgame puzzles were very easy for me, so it makes sense that my average score on those puzzles were quite good. One of the frustrating things about doing these lessons is that I will find a move and receive feedback that it is an alternate solution, but not THE solution. I dislike the approach of a single correct way to play the game. I want to trade queens dammit.
So, my first foray into chess reveals that I suck. I suck at about 600 chess.com ELO kind of suck. However, I have taken a liking to trading pieces, and even queens to get to simpler lategames, as that way I have less on my plate to think about.
Maybe I'll learn something, or maybe I'll fail horribly, but there is only one way to find out.
  
|
Just keep playing games and you will naturally get better. I think the in-depth strategy stuff on chess.com might be a little over your head if you just learned how to mate with king and rook. Perhaps you can try there tactics simulator to start "seeing" things quickly. The tactics at higher levels usually involve some crazy sacrifice or something, but the lower level ones should teach you to be on the lookout for pins, forks, etc. Also mating puzzles are pretty fun to do and can teach you really how your pieces interact.
As in SC2 or BW, I would suggest learning an opening for white and black that you are comfortable doing, and then just play a lot of games or go to a tournament (there are always newbies) or just play online. For instance, as black I play the French, because basically you can respond e6 to any white opening and get to the same pawn structure style etc. in most of your games (however this tends to lead to closed/positional play). If you are looking for excitement as white, I would suggest an e4 openings and would just develop naturally (these tend to be more open games).
As a life note, I think everyone has lost to K v KP at least once in their life, but afterwards you remember so you won't do it again. Keep up the practice and I am sure you will see great results.
|
I've been playing a bit recently as well. I'm not very good, ELO on chess.com of around 1000, only played 25 games or so. If you're interested maybe we could have a game sometime? My ID is oceansofpeaches. Same goes to others as well, would be nice to play some TL'ers online.
I haven't bothered to learn any openings, rather I've just been trying to apply the simple strategic principles of centre-control, basic pawn structure, rooks on open files, etc. I'm wondering whether or not it would be worth learning a few "BOs"...
And practicing with my little brother (he's 12) does wonders for my self-confidence.
|
United States24701 Posts
I too found it slightly annoying when learning chess that you would pick a move that you think is good, find out that there is a better move, but be unable to understand why the other move is better. It's obvious when your move results in you losing a pawn in 2 moves, whereas the alternate move allows you to gain a pawn. However, it is often justified by "the positioning is better this way" or something like that... kinda difficult for a beginner to benefit from. I think at your (or my) level avoiding blunders is the most important thing!
A few tips from when I was studying chess a bit a few years ago:
Keep track of material: you add up the point values of each piece you have, and compare that with the total points of your opponent. Queens are worth 9 points, rooks 5, knights/bishops 3, pawns 1. Being down 1 point isn't a big deal usually, but being down a minor piece (3 points) is bad. When you are down in points, trading equivalent pieces is bad (the person in the lead can afford to lose equal amounts of forces, giving them a relative advantage). When you are up, forcing trades are good. In fact, moves that force your opponent to respond a certain way are generally good, provided they aren't already blunders.
A slightly more advanced thing: although bishops and knights are both worth 3, the configuration of the board will often make one type of piece more valuable than another. If the board is 'open' the bishops are more valuable since they have room to travel. If the board is 'closed' there are lots of pawn structures blocking the paths of bishops so it is better to trade in your bishops to kill your opponent's knights, and keep your knights.
Center control is a good objective to work towards when you don't have something more pressing: the center four squares of the board should be attacked by your pieces as much as possible... even if there are no enemy pieces there.
Focus on learning mid/end game more than openings if you are in it for the long haul. Nothing wrong with observing some common openings... but focusing your attention on openings is ultimately a mistake. It is more important to learn how to DO things in chess than memorize a few textbook openings. As you get better studying openings will probably become a must, but for now it's more important to know how to avoid obvious blunders as well as end a game when you are winning.
Who is winning is determined by multiple factors: material, positional advantage, time (if applicable). You can be up 12 points but be 3 moves away from a forced checkmate... so don't let material be the only thing you look at when analyzing the board. Having your king trapped behind a row of pawns should be dealt with pronto regardless of if you are ahead or behind in points.
Hopefully you will find these tips helpful.
|
@SOB_Maj
I don't really care for openings all that much, I mainly just stick to my own invented principle of using a middle pawn, then making retardedly aggressive moves with them, and wanting to trade and get rid of as many pieces as possible, in as few moves as possible.
@ohsea
Perhaps tomorrow you can beat me up a bit. Make your e-penis all that much stronger!
@micro
Keeping track of material has not been a huge facet of my gameplay unless I choose to play rather defensively. A lot of the times I make an attack with the smallest justification possible (my most common reason is having 1 more avenue of attack on a certain square than my opponent) and then I love to suddenly have traded a pawn and two middling pieces. This sort of strategy seems to benefit the most from focused positioning rather than sheer force. As towards comparing bishops to knights, almost every opening has knights in the beginning simply because they are easier to get past your initial pawn wall than a bishop.
I have been having an odd amount of success actually taking the whole focus of a game slightly off center. Such a position as C3 or F5.
I think my next step is to learn about tactical moves, as they are my weakness as pointed out by the virtual chess mentor. I think there are 14 different moves, and I want to begin to force them into my gameplay until I am comfortable to employ them at any time.
One of the things I love the about (balanced) strategy games, is that you, me, or anyone else can say "the fuck with that" and learn to do it their own way.
|
When you're just starting, I'd say that the most important things are just to keep playing and working on simple concepts like controlling the center, material, etc. Don't worry too much if you're having troubles with tactics and stuff at this point; that'll come with more experience as you get better.
|
On September 30 2012 14:37 micronesia wrote:
I too found it slightly annoying when learning chess that you would pick a move that you think is good, find out that there is a better move, but be unable to understand why the other move is better. It's obvious when your move results in you losing a pawn in 2 moves, whereas the alternate move allows you to gain a pawn. However, it is often justified by "the positioning is better this way" or something like that... kinda difficult for a beginner to benefit from. I think at your (or my) level avoiding blunders is the most important thing!
Chess isn't so simple that it can be broken down into strategic and logical principles. They help you form plans but it's important to remember tactical considerations almost always reign supreme in the short term. Any gain in material (a pawn or piece where you can't take it's equal in return, without any significant strategical compensation) is usually something that can just win you the game if you don't make any mistakes later so you should always be calculating sequences bu that takes a ot of practice to get that intuition.
I would say keep strategical considerations for when the board is fairly "quiet" as in there aren't any immediate threats around the board and you just need a plan to improve your position.
|
I think studying chess books will help you greatly. Two chess books that improved my understanding of chess greatly were by International Master Jeremy Silman. His way of teaching is so straight forward, and you can tell he has a great since of humor too, injecting some jokes to make studying seem a lot less like a chore. I actually had fun reading these books and after work was looking forward to studying again.
The first one of his books that really opened my mind was 'The amateur's mind - Turning chess misconceptions into chess mastery'. (2nd Edition/expanded)
______________________________________________________________________________
The back reads:
"The amateur's mind takes the student on a journey through his own mind and returns him to the chess board with a wealth of new-found knowledge and the promise of a significant gain in strength. Most amateurs possess erroneous thinking processes that remain with them throughout their chess lives. These flaws in their mental armor result in stinging defeats and painful reversals. Books can be bought and studied, lessons can be taken -- but in the end, these elusive problems always prove to be extremely difficult to eradicate.
Seeking a solution to this dilemma, Mr. Silman wrote down the thoughts of his students while they played actual games, analyzed them, and catalogued the most common misconceptions that arose. He then eradicated these mental traps by offering advice, rules of conduct and strategy, and penetrating the psychological insight." ---- etc.
WONDERFUL book. I found myself agreeing with the amatuers and had my thinking processes refuted and explained to me about why it's bad and what is better without two pages of mind numbing chess notation.
_________________________________________________________
After that book, I suggest you pick up his book called 'The complete book of chess strategy - Grandmaster techniques from A to Z.
The back reads:
"The complete book of chess strategy is an amateur's dream come true! Due to the overwhelming amount of strategic and tactical ideas in chess, students of the game buy dozens of chess books but still find it impossible to isolate key points. seeing the problems his students faced, Mr. Silman has created the first comprehensive strategic guide in dictionary form. now all aspects of chess strategy, tactics, basic opening and endgame ideas, and even psychology are painlessly accessible to players of all degrees of strength. Each concept is listed alphabetically, accompanied by a clear, easy-to-absorb explanation and an example." ---- Etc.
Excellent source for easy to understand explanations. I general overview of popular openings and their ideas, explanations on pawn structure, minor piece imbalances, etc.
And one small little book that is addicting and a neat little tactics trainer is 'Bobby Fischer teaches chess'. It's basically a tactics trainer book, teaching you tactical themes like removing the defender, mate in x, and discovering/ double checks and the like. Giving you a simple question like 'In diagram 1337, white to move, what move is check mate? study the whole board!'
A.
B.
I hope my suggestions help you gain some knowledge and even more appreciation for chess.
P.S. -
"I don't really care for openings all that much, I mainly just stick to my own invented principle of using a middle pawn, then making retardedly aggressive moves with them, and wanting to trade and get rid of as many pieces as possible, in as few moves as possible."
Although when someone like you and I are trying to get better at chess, it isn't recommended to spend most of your time JUST memorizing every opening variation and their sub-lines, it is important to at least have one or two openings you prefer to use for white and black. Again, that doesn't mean that you need to know every move in every opening book, but finding an opening you prefer, and learning maybe 10 or so moves in gives you a very promising position in the opening and into the middle game.
It may seem boring, but they have the opening theory there for a reason, they have been proven to be the most sound moves in a position, and studying your 'go-to' openings thoroughly, teaches you about any nasty traps that you may fall for, losing you the game sometimes outright depending on the strength of your opponent.
|
United States24701 Posts
On September 30 2012 18:04 Thaniri wrote:
@micro
Keeping track of material has not been a huge facet of my gameplay unless I choose to play rather defensively. This is sort of like saying keeping track of how many bases your opponent has in sc2 has not been a huge facet of your gameplay... it's good to not worry 100% about material, but it's very important.
. As towards comparing bishops to knights, almost every opening has knights in the beginning simply because they are easier to get past your initial pawn wall than a bishop. This is really a different thing than what I was talking about. Whether the board is 'opened' or 'closed' isn't determined until after the opening. You can use either knights or bishops early game and only later decide which ones are more valuable.
edit:
A great chess book: Logical Chess by Chernev
|
^ Let me say that while IM Silman's books are indeed absolutely wonderful, they're mostly geared towards 1400-1600 level players; you probably won't get much out of them if you're still dropping pieces left and right at 900 Elo.
For someone at real beginning levels of play, focus on very basic principlies. As micronesia said, trading pieces (while fun) benefits the player who is currently ahead, not necessarily the player who forces those moves. In the early game, get all of your pieces out on the board and active as fast as possible. Before you make a move, ALWAYS ask yourself "are any of my pieces attacked and unprotected? are any of his pieces attacked and unprotected? how does the move I'm about to make help my position (or whatever idea I'm currently trying to pursue)?".
Once you basically stop losing material for no reason, then start looking at basic tactics (forks, pins, skewers). Games at the beginner levels are won and lost almost 100% of the time on who made more game-breaking errors. Note: who made more of them, not who made one. Play carefully and avoid being an idiot, and you're well on your way to the 1200-1400 range. Once there, you're around the low end of amateur players -- games are now won and lost on missed/seized tactical opportunities. Once you're 1600+, more in-depth strategy and positional play becomes important.
If you're in bronze, trying to copy MVP's build up to 50 supply from a random BO isn't a helpful exercise. If you're <1400, learning opening lines is not a helpful exercise. Learning a few basic endgame patterns (K+R vs K, K+P vs K) right now is important, but don't worry about anything else (for example, K+N+B vs K is technically won, but it's absurdly difficult to first learn, and it will almost never come up in a real game, even though it's nice to see how N/B coordination works).
|
I just started learning too! Add me on Chess.com if you want. my username is GnozL
I'm also probably at 600-800 elo, and have no idea what i'm doing.
|
On October 01 2012 01:10 Fishgle wrote:
I just started learning too! Add me on Chess.com if you want. my username is GnozL
I'm also probably at 600-800 elo, and have no idea what i'm doing.
added!
|
Chess is a lot like Starcraft. Of course Starcraft is real time strategy and chess is turn-based strategy, but many things are similar. Macro vs micro in Starcraft corresponds to position vs tactics in chess. Both games stand on a foundation of knowledge, and more experience leads to building a larger body of knowledge and more profound understanding. In that sense both Starcraft and chess are like math. There is nothing more beautiful in chess than trying new things and seeing what works and what doesn't. I suggest not to read chess books, or try to memorize openings, or study too many endgames. The best way to get better and learn chess from the inside out is to play a lot of games, you will come to understand the dynamic relationships between the pieces and the board and the complex strategies and how you can play the endgame in your favor. After a while you just "see" the patterns on the board and you will "know" what you should be doing in any part of any game, you intuitively understand what piece you should move and "feel" when you are close to victory. Yes, at the very top level of chess, players memorize openings, but it's more important to look at the bigger picture -- the whole point of playing a good opening is to get you a good position or some kind of advantage going into the middle game, and if you can't win in the middle game then you must play well to get an advantage going into the endgame, and if the game is still basically tied, whoever plays better in the endgame can win. Endgames are so beautiful to me in the sense that there are less pieces on the board but so much room for maneuvering and coming out on top. Remember that while the object of the game is to win, and players will always try to steer the game to their advantage, no two chess players are exactly alike in terms of their play, just like Starcraft. Every player has their own unique style that works the best for them, you will eventually find your own unique voice and style that you're most comfortable with, and that level of comfort will be instrumental in your exploration and improvement. Chess is seen as being a largely objective game, but many people underestimate the subjectivity involved in many chess games as well. Chess is science as well as art. If you can get a feel for the beauty of the game then you will improve without even realizing it and hard work will only be a genuine competitive drive inside you to beat everyone you come across. Good luck!
Also, I suggest looking over a few high level chess games on chessgames.com, and trying to get a feel for why a player made the move he did, or maybe pick a favorite player and try to understand some of his games. Don't worry about the details but focus on the big ideas behind the moves, it's really very beautiful. After you get past a certain point you can look into details of games more, like what will work only in certain positions or situations, but when you're starting out its better to understand the big ideas behind the moves a player makes.
Remember, don't trade pieces just for the sake of simplicity. You should only make moves that will give you an advantage, so trade your queen for his queen if you think it'll bring you closer to a win. Don't be afraid of complexity, sure there are more ways you could go wrong with more pieces in the board, but there's also many ways your opponent can go wrong! With experience you will get a feel for when you should keep the pieces on the board and when you should simplify.
Just like in Starcraft, in chess there is often a fine line between winning and losing. You can play it safe and not take many risks but usually this will give you few wins and many draws and occasional losses. Or you can play extremely risky and win a lot but also lose a lot. If you play for a draw, you will usually end up with a bad position and lose, so you should always play to win but don't over-exert yourself or push too hard for victory, because ironically that can also lead to a loss. Again, thats something that comes with experience. It's all about attitude and having the right mindset going into a game. The best style for me is to play solid, play safe for the most part but take calculated risks, and my favorite player is the current world champion Vishy Anand, his style is really fluid and intuitive which I enjoy.
Edit: personally I think yahoo chess is the best place to play...so many people on all the time...I'm karate_gym and I play mostly in Moth Hotel in Table 1, there's a good group of guys there and we all know each other because we compete in 1/3 speed games (both sides get 1 minute at the start of the game and 3 seconds get added to your time after you make every move). On average 1/3 time controls equals about 5 minutes per game, so it's not super fast like bullet chess but it's not so slow that you will get bored either. We play winner stays and loser stands, so if you can keep winning games you can find yourself playing for half an hour or more without taking a break We're just a friendly group of guys so if you ever wanna go there just say you know karate_gym and they'll welcome you with open arms
|
United States24701 Posts
OP what is your chess.com ID? mine is the same as my TL ID
|
Just start playing lots and lots of five minute games. Every now and then go and look at chess puzzles in which they specifically want you to fork, etc. If you want to get really good at chess then study openings. Just don't forget that it's a game and it's something that you are meant to enjoy.
|
At all:
My chess.com ID is Thaniri, or thaniri. I am really balls terrible though.
I also find it amusing how every individual poster has their own take on advice. Read books, no don't read books. Don't learn openings, no learn openings! I have read everyone's advice and will try as many things as possible to see which one's I like the best.
Sent everyone who gave their ID a friend request.
|
United States24701 Posts
I just checked my chess.com and oh crap am I overrated now hahaha
Will play whoever wants to play but I haven't played in a couple of years I think :3
|
|
|
Anyone can get good at chess. Play a lot, try to play wild, open games at first, and your board vision will improve.
Don't make the mistake I made of trying to learn positional chess first, it's fun, but it doesn't matter how good your position is if your queen gets pinned to your king.
|
Don't worry about being balls terrible. Playing chess is like learning a new language, everyone will be terrible too initially when they don't even know the words.
Whatever route you take in learning you just got to play a lot and probably lose a lot. Its a lot like improving in starcraft, after every game you should analyse the game just like you analyse a replay. You will probably make a lot of mistakes in the game at your current level but dont fret about fixing them all at once, work on 3 to 4 things that you think are you biggest mistake/weakness. As long as you improve game by game you will start learning new things and start to improve your own principle, understanding and 'mechanics'.
Since you have taken a liking to the endgame, its a good idea to continue learning that. Most of the ideas will be at its most basic form and you will learn to see how the pieces interact with each other on the basic level.
Reading books is always good if you have time but make sure its at the right level for you aka learning something new and able to understand it.
There is actually a Team Liquid group on chess.com at http://www.chess.com/groups/home/team-liquid. Not very active but you can find players of all strength to play with you. My nick is the same as my TL one if you want to add and play some games.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/4crRW)
