On December 03 2018 00:47 travis wrote: What's wrong with using computers for the months leading up to the championship? What kind of edge do they give?
What, do they have computers play the style of whatever opponent they are going to play, and then use another computer to help beat that style?
Genuinely curious here. Used to love chess when I was a kid but never play it anymore, still watch a match from time to time though.
Computers have explored all the best openings and found the exact optimal moves, which is easier in the beginning of the game when there are fewer sensible positions the players could find themselves in. All of these positions are fully mapped out by computers so by studying them players tend to fall into identical or very similar patterns of moves.
This makes half of chess the study of these computer 'mappings' of opening theory. If you want to discover a player's chess 'personality' it doesn't even come into play until the middlegame. This is why top level chess looks so different now to 50-60 years ago and the classic players.
How does this phenomenon change with skill?
Approximately how many optimal starting moves should/would be memorized by various levels of chess players?
Opening theory has always been importent in chess,computers did not realy change that they just go deeper. some players know lots of theory,others know less. There is no given amount how much one should know at a certain level. Even some club players know their favorit openings 15 moves deep,and most of the popular sub variations that can occur. You can still see difference in playstyle,for example by looking what opening and variations of it people do prefer. Some like tactical variations and others like more positionsl variations. You can go a long way in chess by just studying openings. More importent to study/practice is tactics though. almost every game at club level is decided by tactics.
For world championship i like te old system and old time controls (winner keeps title when drawn) It is very unfair to the challenger but the system did create legends. Rapid is popular though,and also more interesting from an esports perspective. Not only becaue it is faster but also because it seems to give less draws in general. I do like the rapid part in the current system but i do not like the blitz part or even worse the armageddon game. Maybe 6 or 8 blits games after the normal games and if it still is a tie then the champion will keep the title.
That's helpful.
When I played chess I sometimes got too in my head and while thinking several moves ahead fail to return to the very first one in the series I've imagined and move a wrong piece and get caught.
I imagine at masters level and possibly before that's a pretty rare issue (unintentionally/surprisingly) losing a piece and has to be intentionally set up more than a move or two in advance?
When making a move how many moves ahead do the various levels of chess players typically imagine or recall?
Also is there an online (audio visual, rather than textual) resource you guys would recommend where I could learn more about the theory behind chess and other faq's for noobs? I'd probably prefer one more youtube entertainment style over some masters having a discussion just so you all have an idea what I'm looking for.
One-move blunders are very rare at the highest level, though when they happen they are memorable. In 2006, Kramnik (who was World Champion at the time) missed a mate in one against the engine Fritz.
As for the question of "how many moves ahead do you think", the best answer is Capablanca's answer: "only one, but it's always the right one". It's not a very good question tbh (and it annoys the pros no end when the media ask them this question), since even for a top player it could vary wildly from calculating a few lines each to a depth of a handful of moves in a complicated midgame, to calculating 20 or more moves in straight-forward forcing line in the endgame. Stronger players don't necessarily see more moves than weaker players--they see better moves.
On December 03 2018 00:47 travis wrote: What's wrong with using computers for the months leading up to the championship? What kind of edge do they give?
What, do they have computers play the style of whatever opponent they are going to play, and then use another computer to help beat that style?
Genuinely curious here. Used to love chess when I was a kid but never play it anymore, still watch a match from time to time though.
That's irrelevant.
The problem with the format is that they're going back to their hotel rooms and spending the entire evening or their off day memorising as many chess engine lines as possible.
You can't memorise months in advance. There are too many variables. Plus the lines themselves are complicated. All it takes is a surprise choice of opening and WHOOPS, there's another entire different computer line you need to remember. It's overnight planning and memorisation that's the problem here, not the rest.
On December 03 2018 00:47 travis wrote: What's wrong with using computers for the months leading up to the championship? What kind of edge do they give?
What, do they have computers play the style of whatever opponent they are going to play, and then use another computer to help beat that style?
Genuinely curious here. Used to love chess when I was a kid but never play it anymore, still watch a match from time to time though.
Computers have explored all the best openings and found the exact optimal moves, which is easier in the beginning of the game when there are fewer sensible positions the players could find themselves in. All of these positions are fully mapped out by computers so by studying them players tend to fall into identical or very similar patterns of moves.
This makes half of chess the study of these computer 'mappings' of opening theory. If you want to discover a player's chess 'personality' it doesn't even come into play until the middlegame. This is why top level chess looks so different now to 50-60 years ago and the classic players.
How does this phenomenon change with skill?
Approximately how many optimal starting moves should/would be memorized by various levels of chess players?
Opening theory has always been importent in chess,computers did not realy change that they just go deeper. some players know lots of theory,others know less. There is no given amount how much one should know at a certain level. Even some club players know their favorit openings 15 moves deep,and most of the popular sub variations that can occur. You can still see difference in playstyle,for example by looking what opening and variations of it people do prefer. Some like tactical variations and others like more positionsl variations. You can go a long way in chess by just studying openings. More importent to study/practice is tactics though. almost every game at club level is decided by tactics.
For world championship i like te old system and old time controls (winner keeps title when drawn) It is very unfair to the challenger but the system did create legends. Rapid is popular though,and also more interesting from an esports perspective. Not only becaue it is faster but also because it seems to give less draws in general. I do like the rapid part in the current system but i do not like the blitz part or even worse the armageddon game. Maybe 6 or 8 blits games after the normal games and if it still is a tie then the champion will keep the title.
That's helpful.
When I played chess I sometimes got too in my head and while thinking several moves ahead fail to return to the very first one in the series I've imagined and move a wrong piece and get caught.
I imagine at masters level and possibly before that's a pretty rare issue (unintentionally/surprisingly) losing a piece and has to be intentionally set up more than a move or two in advance?
When making a move how many moves ahead do the various levels of chess players typically imagine or recall?
Also is there an online (audio visual, rather than textual) resource you guys would recommend where I could learn more about the theory behind chess and other faq's for noobs? I'd probably prefer one more youtube entertainment style over some masters having a discussion just so you all have an idea what I'm looking for.
If you'd like an example of how they think in real time, Hikaru Nakamura has a twitch stream where he plays rapid games most days of the week unless he's at a tournament or guest casting for one, and in rapid he usually seems to think about four moves ahead, and sometimes more than that. He demonstrates it by drawing lines on the board, and his verbal thought process comes out in a half-second blur that leaves the chat wondering what the fuck just happened. Then he usually gets a checkmate.
This interview is also highly informative on the subject:
This is a post-game interview on one Ivanchuk's just won, and he proceeds to talk the interviewer through the entire game, plus multiple lines he didn't play but considered, from memory. Those lines of play are usually about 8 moves long. It's crazy.
So how many moves do the top players recall? A whole goddamn lot, by the sound of things.
On December 03 2018 00:47 travis wrote: What's wrong with using computers for the months leading up to the championship? What kind of edge do they give?
What, do they have computers play the style of whatever opponent they are going to play, and then use another computer to help beat that style?
Genuinely curious here. Used to love chess when I was a kid but never play it anymore, still watch a match from time to time though.
Computers have explored all the best openings and found the exact optimal moves, which is easier in the beginning of the game when there are fewer sensible positions the players could find themselves in. All of these positions are fully mapped out by computers so by studying them players tend to fall into identical or very similar patterns of moves.
This makes half of chess the study of these computer 'mappings' of opening theory. If you want to discover a player's chess 'personality' it doesn't even come into play until the middlegame. This is why top level chess looks so different now to 50-60 years ago and the classic players.
How does this phenomenon change with skill?
Approximately how many optimal starting moves should/would be memorized by various levels of chess players?
Opening theory has always been importent in chess,computers did not realy change that they just go deeper. some players know lots of theory,others know less. There is no given amount how much one should know at a certain level. Even some club players know their favorit openings 15 moves deep,and most of the popular sub variations that can occur. You can still see difference in playstyle,for example by looking what opening and variations of it people do prefer. Some like tactical variations and others like more positionsl variations. You can go a long way in chess by just studying openings. More importent to study/practice is tactics though. almost every game at club level is decided by tactics.
For world championship i like te old system and old time controls (winner keeps title when drawn) It is very unfair to the challenger but the system did create legends. Rapid is popular though,and also more interesting from an esports perspective. Not only becaue it is faster but also because it seems to give less draws in general. I do like the rapid part in the current system but i do not like the blitz part or even worse the armageddon game. Maybe 6 or 8 blits games after the normal games and if it still is a tie then the champion will keep the title.
That's helpful.
When I played chess I sometimes got too in my head and while thinking several moves ahead fail to return to the very first one in the series I've imagined and move a wrong piece and get caught.
I imagine at masters level and possibly before that's a pretty rare issue (unintentionally/surprisingly) losing a piece and has to be intentionally set up more than a move or two in advance?
When making a move how many moves ahead do the various levels of chess players typically imagine or recall?
Also is there an online (audio visual, rather than textual) resource you guys would recommend where I could learn more about the theory behind chess and other faq's for noobs? I'd probably prefer one more youtube entertainment style over some masters having a discussion just so you all have an idea what I'm looking for.
I haven't watched them myself, but one of my favorite Chess Youtube/Twitch people is ChessNetwork, who is a national master. I believe he had like a 30-part youtube series titled beginner to chess master or something along those lines.
On December 03 2018 00:47 travis wrote: What's wrong with using computers for the months leading up to the championship? What kind of edge do they give?
What, do they have computers play the style of whatever opponent they are going to play, and then use another computer to help beat that style?
Genuinely curious here. Used to love chess when I was a kid but never play it anymore, still watch a match from time to time though.
Computers have explored all the best openings and found the exact optimal moves, which is easier in the beginning of the game when there are fewer sensible positions the players could find themselves in. All of these positions are fully mapped out by computers so by studying them players tend to fall into identical or very similar patterns of moves.
This makes half of chess the study of these computer 'mappings' of opening theory. If you want to discover a player's chess 'personality' it doesn't even come into play until the middlegame. This is why top level chess looks so different now to 50-60 years ago and the classic players.
How does this phenomenon change with skill?
Approximately how many optimal starting moves should/would be memorized by various levels of chess players?
Opening theory has always been importent in chess,computers did not realy change that they just go deeper. some players know lots of theory,others know less. There is no given amount how much one should know at a certain level. Even some club players know their favorit openings 15 moves deep,and most of the popular sub variations that can occur. You can still see difference in playstyle,for example by looking what opening and variations of it people do prefer. Some like tactical variations and others like more positionsl variations. You can go a long way in chess by just studying openings. More importent to study/practice is tactics though. almost every game at club level is decided by tactics.
For world championship i like te old system and old time controls (winner keeps title when drawn) It is very unfair to the challenger but the system did create legends. Rapid is popular though,and also more interesting from an esports perspective. Not only becaue it is faster but also because it seems to give less draws in general. I do like the rapid part in the current system but i do not like the blitz part or even worse the armageddon game. Maybe 6 or 8 blits games after the normal games and if it still is a tie then the champion will keep the title.
That's helpful.
When I played chess I sometimes got too in my head and while thinking several moves ahead fail to return to the very first one in the series I've imagined and move a wrong piece and get caught.
I imagine at masters level and possibly before that's a pretty rare issue (unintentionally/surprisingly) losing a piece and has to be intentionally set up more than a move or two in advance?
When making a move how many moves ahead do the various levels of chess players typically imagine or recall?
Also is there an online (audio visual, rather than textual) resource you guys would recommend where I could learn more about the theory behind chess and other faq's for noobs? I'd probably prefer one more youtube entertainment style over some masters having a discussion just so you all have an idea what I'm looking for.
Blunders happen even at the top level. How many moves ahead is difficult to tell and also highly dependent on the situation.
1600:usually they don't look far ahead,they can see tactics maybe 2-3 full moves (4-6 ply, 1 ply is halve a move) ahead. In complicated situations less. 2000:maybe 5 move tactics,sometimes deeper if the variations are relatively simple with not to many deviations. After 2000 it keeps slowly going up but it is difficult to give a general number for this.
Going deep itself is not that hard,it is about calculating the relevant moves and being able to see key moves several moves ahead with the position only inside your head. To new players this looks more difficult then it actually is. If you play a lot of chess and are concentrated while playing then most people with some basic intelligence can reach that point but it will take time. Chess is not a game you learn fast unless you are talented somehow. There are 2000 players who can play blind chess for a whole game,sometimes even more then 1 game at same time. It is not as difficult as it looks to non chess players. Even most 1800 players will be able to remember the full game after it has been played. Calculation is important but also very important is being able to judge the position. This mostly comes with experiences. I once lost a game to a youth talent player who was around 2200 (I was around 1900 at the time). He sacrificed a piece early in the game and I lost without a change. After the game I did ask him the same question:how much of all this did you calculate when sacrificing the piece? The answer did surprise me,he said only 2-3 moves and then he imagined my position was that bad that it was lost and that he would easily be able to find all the follow ups,which turned out to be true. He didn't have to calculate further because his judgement was very good. In analysis after the game we didn't find any way to safe my position either. Best way to learn I think is starting with tactics. Either puzzles (there is "puzzle rush" on chess.com) or books wich analyse many tactical situations from historic games (https://www.amazon.com/Chess-Sacrifice-Technique-Risk-Sacrificial/dp/4871878201 is the book I did use a lot,sitting down with board and pieces and trying to follow it all but this is more for players who have some experience already). Some newspapers also have weekly or daily chess puzzles. For example 1 puzzle for starters and 1 puzzle for more experienced players. Analysing your own games is also important,irl people usually do it together after the game. You can now do it with help from computer but that might be a bit overwhelming. I don't know about online stuff,i have not studied chess for a long time. In general I think it is (much) better to sit down with a book and board and pieces though puzzles you can do well online and once you have a bit experience you can do a lot inside your head without needing the board and pieces. For positional play there are also many books that analyse games with comments,you can replay them while trying to understand why certain moves where made and what strategic goal they had. Most chess sites like "chess.com" or "icc" (icc=internet chess club,it used to be the only big chess club online and it is not fee, but now there are a few different ones) will have free courses and study material ranging from starters to experienced players.
A bit chaotic and somewhat random information in this post lol,i hope it still helps a bit. If questions pls feel free to ask. I do agree with below,analyzing own games is very important to improve.
Analysing your own games has always been my best way of improvement. You learn so much, especially with computers which then can tell you which moves were the strongest
On December 03 2018 00:47 travis wrote: What's wrong with using computers for the months leading up to the championship? What kind of edge do they give?
What, do they have computers play the style of whatever opponent they are going to play, and then use another computer to help beat that style?
Genuinely curious here. Used to love chess when I was a kid but never play it anymore, still watch a match from time to time though.
Computers have explored all the best openings and found the exact optimal moves, which is easier in the beginning of the game when there are fewer sensible positions the players could find themselves in. All of these positions are fully mapped out by computers so by studying them players tend to fall into identical or very similar patterns of moves.
This makes half of chess the study of these computer 'mappings' of opening theory. If you want to discover a player's chess 'personality' it doesn't even come into play until the middlegame. This is why top level chess looks so different now to 50-60 years ago and the classic players.
How does this phenomenon change with skill?
Approximately how many optimal starting moves should/would be memorized by various levels of chess players?
Opening theory has always been importent in chess,computers did not realy change that they just go deeper. some players know lots of theory,others know less. There is no given amount how much one should know at a certain level. Even some club players know their favorit openings 15 moves deep,and most of the popular sub variations that can occur. You can still see difference in playstyle,for example by looking what opening and variations of it people do prefer. Some like tactical variations and others like more positionsl variations. You can go a long way in chess by just studying openings. More importent to study/practice is tactics though. almost every game at club level is decided by tactics.
For world championship i like te old system and old time controls (winner keeps title when drawn) It is very unfair to the challenger but the system did create legends. Rapid is popular though,and also more interesting from an esports perspective. Not only becaue it is faster but also because it seems to give less draws in general. I do like the rapid part in the current system but i do not like the blitz part or even worse the armageddon game. Maybe 6 or 8 blits games after the normal games and if it still is a tie then the champion will keep the title.
That's helpful.
When I played chess I sometimes got too in my head and while thinking several moves ahead fail to return to the very first one in the series I've imagined and move a wrong piece and get caught.
I imagine at masters level and possibly before that's a pretty rare issue (unintentionally/surprisingly) losing a piece and has to be intentionally set up more than a move or two in advance?
When making a move how many moves ahead do the various levels of chess players typically imagine or recall?
Also is there an online (audio visual, rather than textual) resource you guys would recommend where I could learn more about the theory behind chess and other faq's for noobs? I'd probably prefer one more youtube entertainment style over some masters having a discussion just so you all have an idea what I'm looking for.
Blunders happen even at the top level. How many moves ahead is difficult to tell and also highly dependent on the situation.
1600:usually they don't look far ahead,they can see tactics maybe 2-3 full moves (4-6 ply, 1 ply is halve a move) ahead. In complicated situations less. 2000:maybe 5 move tactics,sometimes deeper if the variations are relatively simple with not to many deviations. After 2000 it keeps slowly going up but it is difficult to give a general number for this.
Going deep itself is not that hard,it is about calculating the relevant moves and being able to see key moves several moves ahead with the position only inside your head. To new players this looks more difficult then it actually is. If you play a lot of chess and are concentrated while playing then most people with some basic intelligence can reach that point but it will take time. Chess is not a game you learn fast unless you are talented somehow. There are 2000 players who can play blind chess for a whole game,sometimes even more then 1 game at same time. It is not as difficult as it looks to non chess players. Even most 1800 players will be able to remember the full game after it has been played. Calculation is important but also very important is being able to judge the position. This mostly comes with experiences. I once lost a game to a youth talent player who was around 2200 (I was around 1900 at the time). He sacrificed a piece early in the game and I lost without a change. After the game I did ask him the same question:how much of all this did you calculate when sacrificing the piece? The answer did surprise me,he said only 2-3 moves and then he imagined my position was that bad that it was lost and that he would easily be able to find all the follow ups,which turned out to be true. He didn't have to calculate further because his judgement was very good. In analysis after the game we didn't find any way to safe my position either. Best way to learn I think is starting with tactics. Either puzzles (there is "puzzle rush" on chess.com) or books wich analyse many tactical situations from historic games (https://www.amazon.com/Chess-Sacrifice-Technique-Risk-Sacrificial/dp/4871878201 is the book I did use a lot,sitting down with board and pieces and trying to follow it all but this is more for players who have some experience already). Some newspapers also have weekly or daily chess puzzles. For example 1 puzzle for starters and 1 puzzle for more experienced players. Analysing your own games is also important,irl people usually do it together after the game. You can now do it with help from computer but that might be a bit overwhelming. I don't know about online stuff,i have not studied chess for a long time. In general I think it is (much) better to sit down with a book and board and pieces though puzzles you can do well online and once you have a bit experience you can do a lot inside your head without needing the board and pieces. For positional play there are also many books that analyse games with comments,you can replay them while trying to understand why certain moves where made and what strategic goal they had. Most chess sites like "chess.com" or "icc" (icc=internet chess club,it used to be the only big chess club online and it is not fee, but now there are a few different ones) will have free courses and study material ranging from starters to experienced players.
A bit chaotic and somewhat random information in this post lol,i hope it still helps a bit. If questions pls feel free to ask. I do agree with below,analyzing own games is very important to improve.
That makes sense. That actually answers several of the other questions I had. Right now I think my biggest shortcoming is having virtually no sense for relative positions beyond just manually running through as many possibilities as I can but can rarely see multiple piece-multiple move plays coming let alone have any idea how to counter them.
It reminds me of martial arts where the more of a feeling (based on a familiarity with technique/theory) vs a conscious thought your moves are the more effective. Classical seems to lend itself to more cerebral players while rapid would favor players who have better trained instincts. Carlson (from what little I know) seems to excel at both but isn't the most cerebral (in the sense of memorizing).
I'm certainly much better in person because I've realized in a couple online games that reading the player across from you can be far more influential than I initially thought, especially after reading some players thoughts on the game.
ok so at the end of the year i have a tactics rating of 1800 (up frmo 1300) on chess.com and a daily chess of 1646 (up from 1550). improvement has been slow. the daily chess rating has fluctuated around 1600 all year long, so even though i've gotten better at tactics, it hasn't exactly mapped to improved regular chess rating
Hikaru nakamara,s stream about chess is absolutely awesome. He plays vieuwers and analyse some of his own games as well in a way that it is very easy to follow for the vieuwers. Very educational and also very fun and chill stream. He really does so much good for the chess world in general. (Coming from someone who was a bit sceptic about it all at the start).
On January 05 2019 22:53 pmh wrote: Just a random remark.
Hikaru nakamara,s stream about chess is absolutely awesome. He plays vieuwers and analyse some of his own games as well in a way that it is very easy to follow for the vieuwers. Very educational and also very fun and chill stream. He really does so much good for the chess world in general. (Coming from someone who was a bit sceptic about it all at the start).
I am a big fan!
I CAN see where he gets his reputation for being a bit of a dick though.
It's common in movies/media (less so than it used to be) for leaders to play chess and use it as parable for life, in practicing chess have any of you found it to change the way you approach real world situations outside of chess? (sorry if this doesn't fit the thread)
Also I've enjoyed watching bits of Hikaru nakamara and it's fascinating to watch him play from a total noob perspective.
Having played the game for 15+ years now, it definitely taught me to think things through before I move, and to "see the whole board" aka "consider all options". My teacher used to tell me to sit on my hands once I had a move I wanted to make, and then to look through all the follow ups again.
I found that chess really helped me with taking tests. When you play with long time controls you learn to take your time and be thorough rather than jump to answers that seem right and rush on. It pays to use up your time rather than make a critical mistake.
It also taught me the teaching value of losing. If you're winning all the time then you're probably not learning much and need to play stronger players. And the advice that almost all strong players give is to go over your losses to identify your mistakes so that you can avoid making them in the future. Unless you're a world class player, your games will always be full of mistakes on both sides. It comes down to who can make less or at least less catastrophic ones, and who capitalizes better on their opponent's.
On January 07 2019 09:34 GreenHorizons wrote: It's common in movies/media (less so than it used to be) for leaders to play chess and use it as parable for life, in practicing chess have any of you found it to change the way you approach real world situations outside of chess? (sorry if this doesn't fit the thread)
Also I've enjoyed watching bits of Hikaru nakamara and it's fascinating to watch him play from a total noob perspective.
Maybe not entirely an answer to your question, but the most interesting real-life parallel to me is that chess is an excellent example of how large systems of knowledge tend to develop. You have the pre-theory era (19th century 'romantic' chess), the first dogmatic systems of knowledge (Steinitz, etc.), the challenging of those dogmas (the hypermodern school), the dogmatic fights between the different schools of thought and their subsequent synthesis, and finally the disconcerting deconstruction of our remaining narratives of knowledge by the computer (the 'whatever works works' computer era).
It's an excellent demonstration that truth and usefulness do not always go together. Our knowledge of chess, the system of strategic rules we've come to build over centuries remains integral for us. We would be lost without them. That they do not always lead to correct play is of secondary importance to human play and human thought.
All fantastic answers, especially interesting is Orome's observation about it's parallel to human investigations and practices in general over several generations. I appreciate you guys for indulging my curiosity.
On January 08 2019 00:38 GreenHorizons wrote: All fantastic answers, especially interesting is Orome's observation about it's parallel to human investigations and practices in general over several generations. I appreciate you guys for indulging my curiosity.
As a writer I find chess games to be very instructive on the pacing of stories, and structuring battles in particular. You can easily construct an epic battle just by watching a pro game (the ones with lots of twists and turns) and just arbitrarily pinning character names to each piece on the board. Every move is metaphor, but the game structure paces out the scene step by step. And of course, every chess game has a distinct beginning, middle, and end.
So that's one of my takeaways from lots of playing chess over the years.
Try it. Don't know if you watch GoT, but if you do pin the characters from one 'side' of one of its big wars to each of the white and black pieces and think through the series of dramatic ends they come to as those dastardly Frey pawns slowly hem in the Stark Bishop for the Lannister Knight to kill, before he in turn falls to a Targaryen Queen.
I don't think playing chess can help with irl or has connections with irl at all. There are some general things like concentration,dedication,memory but playing chess is such a specific activity for the brain that I find it difficult to see that carry over and being usefull for other things irl. Like you get good at patern recognition,but it will be chess patterns that you recognize. You get good memory and visualization (most 2000 rating players can play a full game completely blind and will be able to remember complete games even from several days and games ago) but you get good memory and visualization for chess,it doesn't automatically carry over to other things. If anything I think playing chess has negative effects irl,because to get to a decent rating does actually take quiet a lot of effort for most people. That time is then not spend on learning other things that might be more usefull. Its kinda easy to get lost in chess.
Sry if all this sounds a bit negative,its not meant to be negative more as a sort of warning. Don't expect additional benefits irl from playing chess. And if there are any then that's a nice bonus.
EPT
