|
Is Chess.com not a good place to play online? It kind of seems looked down upon by the teamliquid community. Or is that just a vocal minority? I want to try to play a little bit of chess from time to time, and improve. Not sure where the best place to play online is
|
The match making on Chess.com seems pretty good for noobs like me. Lots of low-level games and tourneys. I think as you get better some of the other sites might be better though.
|
Chess.com is totally fine. Huge bonus is the amount of players there. If you don't mind spending a few dollars a month you should also try out the ICC, the community is a way better and because you're behind a paywall you're way less likely to encounter cheaters.
|
On March 17 2014 04:23 Nyxisto wrote:
Chess.com is totally fine. Huge bonus is the amount of players there. If you don't mind spending a few dollars a month you should also try out the ICC, the community is a way better and because you're behind a paywall you're way less likely to encounter cheaters.
Quality of opponent seems better as well.
|
On March 17 2014 03:45 RagequitBM wrote:
Is Chess.com not a good place to play online? It kind of seems looked down upon by the teamliquid community. Or is that just a vocal minority? I want to try to play a little bit of chess from time to time, and improve. Not sure where the best place to play online is
There's nothing wrong with it. It's free and works fine.
|
Chess is chess, if you just want to play a few games here and there it doesn't matter much where you play. I pay for ICC because I like being able to casually watch Nakamura, Caruana, etc. play blitz and I enjoy all the high quality video material their GMs put out.
|
On March 16 2014 22:16 3FFA wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2014 19:48 don_kyuhote wrote:On March 12 2014 01:57 Raysalis wrote:On March 09 2014 23:12 don_kyuhote wrote:On March 08 2014 01:34 3FFA wrote:
What do you guys do to prepare for tournaments? Do you follow any sort of day to day schedule of some sort?
Is it better to relax the day before or study rather hard the day before? A mix of the two? Mang, you planning on going to a tournament soon? Because SO AM I  Local club is having a club championship next week. Gonna be the 1st over the board chess I play in about 4.5 years. The one and only chess tournament that I ever went to was 6 years ago. I lost the 1st game due to leaving a knight en prise in otherwise an even game, but fought back to win 3 in a row to finish the day 3 win 1 loss. Just have fun mang. Don't take yourself too seriously if/when you lose. It's more important to just have fun.  Haha, I just finished playing a tournament in the weekend after 3 years of chess inactivity. The TL close tourney must have been pretty inspiring :D As for advice for 3FFA, one of the biggest problems i faced was the terrible visualization and calculation skills after not playing chess for so long. I have only been playing blitz online where calculations were superficial or the online correspondence chess where one can be lazy and just move the pieces on the analysis board without visualizing anything :p. Unfortunately bad visualization & calculation = take long time = time trouble = unnecessary loss. If you think you might have this problem, i suggest going over games of masters and try to calculate and visualize the ideas and moves just to warm up the calculation muscles. Probably a good idea to use a real tournament size chess board instead of the computer screen. Also do some tactics everyday to warmup. I don't think studying any new stuff before the tournament will help too much, unless is some basic important stuff that might be lacking or you know your specific opponent and is preparing something special for him. Most of the learning will be from the games after the tournaments have finished. Well good luck to both of you and hope you guys have fun . Just got back from the chess club. Man, playing OTB chess is really something. Not like online chess at all. I shall write a blog on it in coming week. Yeah. OTB chess has a lot more elements to it that cause your normal view of the game to change due to psychological things. Online you don't care enough to let that happen to, plus human interaction isn't an issue.
Yeah it's such a huge difference. I've never been able to bring myself to care about online chess at all, I barely bother to calculate, constantly tab away and generally play appalling games. OTB on the other hand... now that feels like a true battle of minds. :D
|
The Anand-Kramnik game today is huge.
|
Where is the best place to play bughouse?
|
FICS used to be the place for online bughouse, but I'm not sure if that's still the case.
|
Wow, Aronian has sacrificed a piece for a pawn, but Svidler's King is open and in the centre. The computers give very slight edge to Peter and I feel that in the long run he should prevail, but it will be a long and tough defense for him.
Position after 28. Qb3:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JNzWMgK.png)
Oddly enough, it's that Grunfeld Exchange line where White sacrificies the a2-pawn to gain attacking and development tempi (see for example, Gelfand vs Ivanchuk, Tilburg 1990) So it seems that the piece sacrifice should've been a preparation from Levon, but it seems quite dubious to me. Let's see how this plays out...
|
Aronian gets his knight back and possibly more. (And I dare to say that I also would have found a better move 34 than Svidler, which computers seem to heavily disagree with.)
|
On March 17 2014 21:10 Mafe wrote:
Aronian gets his knight back and possibly more. (And I dare to say that I also would have found a better move 34 than Svidler, which computers seem to heavily disagree with.)
The variations after Kf8 are ridiculously complex. It's a scary move to play without computer assistance, I highly doubt you would have been able to work it all out over the board. :p
|
On March 17 2014 21:29 Orome wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2014 21:10 Mafe wrote:
Aronian gets his knight back and possibly more. (And I dare to say that I also would have found a better move 34 than Svidler, which computers seem to heavily disagree with.) The variations after Kf8 are ridiculously complex. It's a scary move to play without computer assistance, I highly doubt you would have been able to work it all out over the board. :p
Yes, I absolutely wouldn't. It only "looked" better to me than just giving back the knight directly.
|
What it looks like is completely irrelevant in a position like that. Obviously giving the knight back is a concession, he's accepting an endgame in which he'll struggle, but that's still better than entering into the variations after Kf8 without having worked them out properly (and having little time on the clock).
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
The Mamedyarov - Andreikin game is where all the fun is at! Shame they're two no-hopers :p
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
Quite beautifully done by Aronian in the end.
But why not 27...Nxd4 by Svidler? Strange...
|
On March 15 2014 10:46 Orome wrote:Your perception of chess is very, very off. Show nested quote +On March 15 2014 09:35 fishjie wrote:
So I want to study chess, but isn't it kind of pointless memorization now? Seems like the best moves for all the openings already been calculated up to the first 20 or so moves, which would mean the real game doesn't even start until the endgame anyway. No 'best' move has ever been calculated in an opening. To do that, you would have to calculate all possible games stemming from that move, effectively solving chess, something we're not significantly closer to doing than we were 100 years ago. You're confusing a solved opening with a well understood opening. There's a big difference. One is calculated and objectively true, the other represents the current body of knowledge and experience, both of which change constantly. Theory that goes 20 moves or deeper only exists in the most popular lines. The majority of lines in what we consider the opening are unexplored. Show nested quote +And the endgame is just heavily biased toward calculation and tactics. Whereas the midgame has more room for creativity and strategy. As computers get better, pretty sure all the openings, even the unorthodox lines, will continue to get figured out. There's a lot of room for creativity in endgames. Magnus Carlsen's dominance in endgames is less based on superior technique and more to do with making very few mistakes while having an incredible sense for how to create problems for his opponents. Computers have little to do with 'figuring out all the openings'. Openings are the part of the game computers understand the least. Show nested quote +So then what's the point of even doing an opening or midgame? Isn't it basically just a formality at this point. I really hope I don't have to explain why calling the midgame a formality is ludicrous. As for the opening, it's far, far from a formality. Carlsen, the undisputed best player in the world, routinely gets outplayed in the opening. He once joked that he considered it a success to get out of the opening in an equal position vs Kramnik, even as white. This has nothing to do with memorisation. Unless you play very theoretical main lines, something most players have been shying away from, you leave theory long before you leave the opening or early middle game. Show nested quote + I guess for noobs like me, chess will be exciting because I am ignorant and don't know the best moves to make in any given situation, but that the game would get more and more boring the more knowledge one accumulates, which seems soul crushing. My favorite chess games are the ones from back in the day, when the game was still new and hadn't been figured out yet, and so guys like Morphy, Alekhine, Capablanca, Lasker and other old school legendary players could rip opponents apart with brilliant combos and sacrifices. I fondly recall as a kid reading books by Irving Chernev where he documented those chess legends in descriptive notation, which even feels more nostalgic and romantic than algebraic.
Seems like today with modern chess is more about entering the mid and end game with each player having slight subtle advantages that they then try to improve upon. This seems to be a result of the game being figured out so that huge blunders no longer exist, resulting in the inability to do stuff like sick queen sacrifices. I dunno maybe I'm talking out of my ass, but iirc Josh Waitzkin lost his passion for chess because as he became better and better at the game, it became more about cold rote memorization and calculation than creativity. Blunders exist just as much as ever. Queen sacrifices have very little to do with creativity. You don't sac a queen because your creative mind feels like it, you do it for very concrete reasons. In fact, even though you seem to dislike calculation, all the brilliancies you mention in your paragraph are mostly results of superior calculation. Unless you're an international master or higher, memorisation and opening study isn't particularly important. Yes, it helps, but there are so many aspects to the game that you can easily make up for knowing less theory. In fact, most chess instructors believe that studying opening theory is the worst way to get proficient at the game and holds many intermediate club players back.
I guess my frustration is that if I don't know any opening theory past 3-4 moves (which I don't), then it feels like being a huge disadvantage. Especially if they open up something weird that is not e4 or d4. I get that there are general guidelines like knights before bishops, control the center, knight outposts in the center, don't block off your own bishops with pawns, castle early, avoid bad pawn structures, but those are just guidelines which get violated all the time. Feels like there's a best move because everything has been figured out, at least that's the impression I get reading books about the opening. I mean there are giant tomes written about the Sicilian Dragon alone, and that's just a variation.
|
On March 18 2014 05:11 fishjie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2014 10:46 Orome wrote:Your perception of chess is very, very off. On March 15 2014 09:35 fishjie wrote:
So I want to study chess, but isn't it kind of pointless memorization now? Seems like the best moves for all the openings already been calculated up to the first 20 or so moves, which would mean the real game doesn't even start until the endgame anyway. No 'best' move has ever been calculated in an opening. To do that, you would have to calculate all possible games stemming from that move, effectively solving chess, something we're not significantly closer to doing than we were 100 years ago. You're confusing a solved opening with a well understood opening. There's a big difference. One is calculated and objectively true, the other represents the current body of knowledge and experience, both of which change constantly. Theory that goes 20 moves or deeper only exists in the most popular lines. The majority of lines in what we consider the opening are unexplored. And the endgame is just heavily biased toward calculation and tactics. Whereas the midgame has more room for creativity and strategy. As computers get better, pretty sure all the openings, even the unorthodox lines, will continue to get figured out. There's a lot of room for creativity in endgames. Magnus Carlsen's dominance in endgames is less based on superior technique and more to do with making very few mistakes while having an incredible sense for how to create problems for his opponents. Computers have little to do with 'figuring out all the openings'. Openings are the part of the game computers understand the least. So then what's the point of even doing an opening or midgame? Isn't it basically just a formality at this point. I really hope I don't have to explain why calling the midgame a formality is ludicrous. As for the opening, it's far, far from a formality. Carlsen, the undisputed best player in the world, routinely gets outplayed in the opening. He once joked that he considered it a success to get out of the opening in an equal position vs Kramnik, even as white. This has nothing to do with memorisation. Unless you play very theoretical main lines, something most players have been shying away from, you leave theory long before you leave the opening or early middle game. I guess for noobs like me, chess will be exciting because I am ignorant and don't know the best moves to make in any given situation, but that the game would get more and more boring the more knowledge one accumulates, which seems soul crushing. My favorite chess games are the ones from back in the day, when the game was still new and hadn't been figured out yet, and so guys like Morphy, Alekhine, Capablanca, Lasker and other old school legendary players could rip opponents apart with brilliant combos and sacrifices. I fondly recall as a kid reading books by Irving Chernev where he documented those chess legends in descriptive notation, which even feels more nostalgic and romantic than algebraic.
Seems like today with modern chess is more about entering the mid and end game with each player having slight subtle advantages that they then try to improve upon. This seems to be a result of the game being figured out so that huge blunders no longer exist, resulting in the inability to do stuff like sick queen sacrifices. I dunno maybe I'm talking out of my ass, but iirc Josh Waitzkin lost his passion for chess because as he became better and better at the game, it became more about cold rote memorization and calculation than creativity. Blunders exist just as much as ever. Queen sacrifices have very little to do with creativity. You don't sac a queen because your creative mind feels like it, you do it for very concrete reasons. In fact, even though you seem to dislike calculation, all the brilliancies you mention in your paragraph are mostly results of superior calculation. Unless you're an international master or higher, memorisation and opening study isn't particularly important. Yes, it helps, but there are so many aspects to the game that you can easily make up for knowing less theory. In fact, most chess instructors believe that studying opening theory is the worst way to get proficient at the game and holds many intermediate club players back. I guess my frustration is that if I don't know any opening theory past 3-4 moves (which I don't), then it feels like being a huge disadvantage. Especially if they open up something weird that is not e4 or d4. I get that there are general guidelines like knights before bishops, control the center, knight outposts in the center, don't block off your own bishops with pawns, castle early, avoid bad pawn structures, but those are just guidelines which get violated all the time. Feels like there's a best move because everything has been figured out, at least that's the impression I get reading books about the opening. I mean there are giant tomes written about the Sicilian Dragon alone, and that's just a variation.
Don't study openings. You won't really profit from it until you're 2000+. I'm sitting at around 1900 DWZ and I still make so many terrible mistakes in my mid- and endgames that minor opening inaccuracies are negligible. Many newer players have the feeling that it all goes wrong in the opening for them. But that's just a misperception. If you feel like you went wrong in the opening I think it's a good idea to check the game with an engine, for me it helped a lot.
|
On March 18 2014 05:11 fishjie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2014 10:46 Orome wrote:Your perception of chess is very, very off. On March 15 2014 09:35 fishjie wrote:
So I want to study chess, but isn't it kind of pointless memorization now? Seems like the best moves for all the openings already been calculated up to the first 20 or so moves, which would mean the real game doesn't even start until the endgame anyway. No 'best' move has ever been calculated in an opening. To do that, you would have to calculate all possible games stemming from that move, effectively solving chess, something we're not significantly closer to doing than we were 100 years ago. You're confusing a solved opening with a well understood opening. There's a big difference. One is calculated and objectively true, the other represents the current body of knowledge and experience, both of which change constantly. Theory that goes 20 moves or deeper only exists in the most popular lines. The majority of lines in what we consider the opening are unexplored. And the endgame is just heavily biased toward calculation and tactics. Whereas the midgame has more room for creativity and strategy. As computers get better, pretty sure all the openings, even the unorthodox lines, will continue to get figured out. There's a lot of room for creativity in endgames. Magnus Carlsen's dominance in endgames is less based on superior technique and more to do with making very few mistakes while having an incredible sense for how to create problems for his opponents. Computers have little to do with 'figuring out all the openings'. Openings are the part of the game computers understand the least. So then what's the point of even doing an opening or midgame? Isn't it basically just a formality at this point. I really hope I don't have to explain why calling the midgame a formality is ludicrous. As for the opening, it's far, far from a formality. Carlsen, the undisputed best player in the world, routinely gets outplayed in the opening. He once joked that he considered it a success to get out of the opening in an equal position vs Kramnik, even as white. This has nothing to do with memorisation. Unless you play very theoretical main lines, something most players have been shying away from, you leave theory long before you leave the opening or early middle game. I guess for noobs like me, chess will be exciting because I am ignorant and don't know the best moves to make in any given situation, but that the game would get more and more boring the more knowledge one accumulates, which seems soul crushing. My favorite chess games are the ones from back in the day, when the game was still new and hadn't been figured out yet, and so guys like Morphy, Alekhine, Capablanca, Lasker and other old school legendary players could rip opponents apart with brilliant combos and sacrifices. I fondly recall as a kid reading books by Irving Chernev where he documented those chess legends in descriptive notation, which even feels more nostalgic and romantic than algebraic.
Seems like today with modern chess is more about entering the mid and end game with each player having slight subtle advantages that they then try to improve upon. This seems to be a result of the game being figured out so that huge blunders no longer exist, resulting in the inability to do stuff like sick queen sacrifices. I dunno maybe I'm talking out of my ass, but iirc Josh Waitzkin lost his passion for chess because as he became better and better at the game, it became more about cold rote memorization and calculation than creativity. Blunders exist just as much as ever. Queen sacrifices have very little to do with creativity. You don't sac a queen because your creative mind feels like it, you do it for very concrete reasons. In fact, even though you seem to dislike calculation, all the brilliancies you mention in your paragraph are mostly results of superior calculation. Unless you're an international master or higher, memorisation and opening study isn't particularly important. Yes, it helps, but there are so many aspects to the game that you can easily make up for knowing less theory. In fact, most chess instructors believe that studying opening theory is the worst way to get proficient at the game and holds many intermediate club players back. I guess my frustration is that if I don't know any opening theory past 3-4 moves (which I don't), then it feels like being a huge disadvantage. Especially if they open up something weird that is not e4 or d4. I get that there are general guidelines like knights before bishops, control the center, knight outposts in the center, don't block off your own bishops with pawns, castle early, avoid bad pawn structures, but those are just guidelines which get violated all the time. Feels like there's a best move because everything has been figured out, at least that's the impression I get reading books about the opening. I mean there are giant tomes written about the Sicilian Dragon alone, and that's just a variation.
As a relatively weak player myself, I don't know any deep opening theories either, but I think not knowing the theory goes both ways. Say someone memorized the best move and the best response to the best move and the best response to the best response to the best move up to 10+ moves. If his opponent plays a suboptimal move (a la out of book move) in move 4, does he know how to "punish" him? Because even though there may be an objectively the best move in every turn, a move is only as bad as his opponent makes it.
I guess better is to understand the plan and themes of the opening than the lines of move itself. Because then, even if the opponent "goes out of book", you can still navigate your way forward.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
