The Student Room Group

Chess games

Scroll to see replies

Original post by john2054
we play chess to have fun. stop worrying about the games/ratings/post game analysis thanks!


Like 13 mentioned some people want to improve. If you don't want to that's fine, you seem happy with your level, which is great, but people who actually go on to play decent chess are the ones who analyse their games. 'Thanks!'
Original post by 1 8 13 20 42
lol you'd think so but I just blunder tactics in actual games because it doesn't tell me when to look for them. Oh well..
Yeah I imagine real rating is somewhere in between chess.com and lichess. At least chess.com blitz seems too low and lichess blitz seems too high. Maybe chess.com rapid is pretty accurate (although CN is like 1950 despite being around 2200 or whatever in real life, but I guess that can be attributed to computer impossible).


If you haven't seen this chess.com article it might help: https://www.chess.com/article/view/the-tactical-detector

Basically you're good at tactics, but need to work on your 'tactical detector', so knowing when to look for tactics. Obviously it is impractical to look for tactics in every position, so some practice is needed specifically in recognising 'tactical positions.'

chess.com rapid seems pretty accurate yeah. And yeah Jerry should be about 2200-2300 there but like you (and he) said, it's due to him spamming matches against computer impossible lol.
try playing against the computer on a Mac... set the difficulty to 256 and if you manage to win, then congratulations, you are the greatest player in the world
Original post by IrrationalRoot
Like 13 mentioned some people want to improve. If you don't want to that's fine, you seem happy with your level, which is great, but people who actually go on to play decent chess are the ones who analyse their games. 'Thanks!'


This simply isn't true i'm afraid. and you didn't respond to a single point i made in my last message, so i will post it again, and break it down point by point.

yes but you can learn and improve in lots of ways. talking to people, (as in more than just one) enjoying life (not just chess), enjoying chess (developing your own game style), losing some times (not just thinking it's all about rankings). teaching children (the ability to stoop down to their level is the sign of a true grandmaster, and something most internet players, are not capable of). there is a lot more to the game than computer analysis.

It may help your opening memorizations (this is the only reason you had a better position than me in our game root), and tactics (and this), but i really don't see how playing in this way can improve your strategy/long term vision or end game for that matter. (and this is why you lost) Which is more about a soft touch, and compromise, than anything else! (you clearly don't know what this means, by you response to my questions. Remember i beat you in our game, thanks.)
Original post by IrrationalRoot
If you haven't seen this chess.com article it might help: https://www.chess.com/article/view/the-tactical-detector

Basically you're good at tactics, but need to work on your 'tactical detector', so knowing when to look for tactics. Obviously it is impractical to look for tactics in every position, so some practice is needed specifically in recognising 'tactical positions.'

chess.com rapid seems pretty accurate yeah. And yeah Jerry should be about 2200-2300 there but like you (and he) said, it's due to him spamming matches against computer impossible lol.


I did read that article, but it's basic advice is "check for tactics on every move until you get a sense of when there are and aren't tactics, then you don't have to check". There isn't time. I don't see things instantly in the trainer, at least not at higher levels. I could only do this in a proper 90 minute/2 hour game. I'd need to spend like 2 minutes per move at least and you don't have that in things like 30|0 and obviously not lower.
Original post by john2054
yes but you can learn and improve in lots of ways. talking to people, enjoying life, enjoying chess, losing some times. teaching children. there is a lot more to the game than computer analysis.

It may help your opening memorizations, and tactics, but i really don't see how playing in this way can improve your strategy/long term vision or end game for that matter. Which is more about a soft touch, and compromise, than anything else!


Yeah but computer analysis isn't all I do. Indeed, myriad other resources are better for chess I think, and I use them. Computer analysis is just a pretty decent way of measuring how accurate your play is, as they are so strong. I recognise that it is less useful in quiet positions where many moves are not mistakes or inaccuracies as such but can still be criticised. Of course it is also excellent for tactics, as the top engines simply don't miss a trick, and often times they show you surprising moves. I lose loads lol. Simply playing games against better opponents gives you a trial by fire where endgames are concerned. I have learnt a lot about king activity and the value of particular pawns by being crushed in endings by superior opponents despite initially having a strong advantage from the middlegame.
Original post by 1 8 13 20 42
Yeah but computer analysis isn't all I do. Indeed, myriad other resources are better for chess I think, and I use them. Computer analysis is just a pretty decent way of measuring how accurate your play is, as they are so strong. I recognise that it is less useful in quiet positions where many moves are not mistakes or inaccuracies as such but can still be criticised. Of course it is also excellent for tactics, as the top engines simply don't miss a trick, and often times they show you surprising moves. I lose loads lol. Simply playing games against better opponents gives you a trial by fire where endgames are concerned. I have learnt a lot about king activity and the value of particular pawns by being crushed in endings by superior opponents despite initially having a strong advantage from the middlegame.


As i said already 13, endgames , are more about a soft touch. But once you have the basic ideas down, you can start cutting corners, and consolidating on your position. Actually chess is also a psychological struggle, not dissimilar to poker in that respect. I think in these games where you have been pounded in the end game, it is more a case of your opponent having some slight non material advantage (time say), and being able to exploit this to annihilation, whilst you were thinking about something else. Although without seeing the games, it would be impossible to say for sure!
Original post by john2054
This simply isn't true i'm afraid. and you didn't respond to a single point i made in my last message, so i will post it again, and break it down point by point.

yes but you can learn and improve in lots of ways. talking to people, (as in more than just one) enjoying life (not just chess), enjoying chess (developing your own game style), losing some times (not just thinking it's all about rankings). teaching children (the ability to stoop down to their level is the sign of a true grandmaster, and something most internet players, are not capable of). there is a lot more to the game than computer analysis.

It may help your opening memorizations (this is the only reason you had a better position than me in our game root), and tactics (and this), but i really don't see how playing in this way can improve your strategy/long term vision or end game for that matter. (and this is why you lost) Which is more about a soft touch, and compromise, than anything else! (you clearly don't know what this means, by you response to my questions. Remember i beat you in our game, thanks.)


The 'games/ratings/post game analysis' are all incredibly important. Everyone but you agrees. You said not to worry about them when they are the most important things in chess (games and game analysis in particular).

'you clearly don't know what this means, by you response to my questions. Remember i beat you in our game, thanks'
is pathetic.
You play in a very similar style to a beginner (devoid of any positional understanding); you just blunder a little less. Don't act like you know everything please. You're in no position to instruct others.

And this: "opening memorizations (this is the only reason you had a better position than me in our game root), and tactics (and this), but i really don't see how playing in this way can improve your strategy/long term vision or end game for that matter. (and this is why you lost)"
is all absolute rubbish trying to justify the fact that your position was worse for the whole game. I haven't memorised a single opening line, I am simply able to recognise terrible play. You simply play like a beginner; that's that. If you can't accept it; I can't help you.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by IrrationalRoot
The 'games/ratings/post game analysis' are all incredibly important. Everyone but you agrees. You said not to worry about them when they are the most important things in chess (games and game analysis in particular).

'you clearly don't know what this means, by you response to my questions. Remember i beat you in our game, thanks'
is pathetic.
You play in a very similar style to a beginner (devoid of any positional understanding); you just blunder a little less. Don't act like you know everything please. You're in no position to instruct others.

And this: "opening memorizations (this is the only reason you had a better position than me in our game root), and tactics (and this), but i really don't see how playing in this way can improve your strategy/long term vision or end game for that matter. (and this is why you lost)"
is all absolute rubbish trying to justify the fact that your position was worse for the whole game. I haven't memorised a single opening line, I am simply able to recognise terrible play. You simply play like a beginner; that's that. If you can't accept it; I can't help you.


No i play like someone who doesn't have machine analysis to back my games up. And i still beat you.

You clearly still don't have a clue about any of the stuff i was talking about, now leave me alone.
(edited 7 years ago)
I didn't read your reply; you're on my ignore list now. Enjoy your stay ok? thanks
Original post by IrrationalRoot
I didn't read your reply; you're on my ignore list now. Enjoy your stay ok? thanks


you've got no respect you know?
When folks get greedy and take a pawn before castling in bullet..
Yeah I missed mate in 1 but it's one minute lel https://www.chess.com/live/game/1723200446
Original post by 1 8 13 20 42
When folks get greedy and take a pawn before castling in bullet..
Yeah I missed mate in 1 but it's one minute lel https://www.chess.com/live/game/1723200446


Lol rekt
Original post by IrrationalRoot
Lol rekt


typical bullet trash talk
just won a 10|0 960 tournament...but only 3 games and two were against...well, less than stellar players, who I mated before developing all pieces. I quite enjoy 960. It is fun because you are forced to think about the opening.
Original post by 1 8 13 20 42
typical bullet trash talk


?

Original post by 1 8 13 20 42
just won a 10|0 960 tournament...but only 3 games and two were against...well, less than stellar players, who I mated before developing all pieces. I quite enjoy 960. It is fun because you are forced to think about the opening.


Might try 960, seen a few games (by Jerry and some top GMs) but never actually played. Yeah it's nice that it's immune to theory/memorisation.
Pwease can i pway cheess wiv you?
Original post by IrrationalRoot
?



Might try 960, seen a few games (by Jerry and some top GMs) but never actually played. Yeah it's nice that it's immune to theory/memorisation.


Just reminds me of the sort of stuff certain bullet players will say after victory. The faster you go, the more trash talk there is..

I find it more fun to play than watch for some reason. To be honest I don't see what particular advantage chess has over chess 960...a lot of games seem to be staler as a result of theory rather than richer. But it is also nice in a way to have established systems.
Original post by 1 8 13 20 42
Just reminds me of the sort of stuff certain bullet players will say after victory. The faster you go, the more trash talk there is..

I find it more fun to play than watch for some reason. To be honest I don't see what particular advantage chess has over chess 960...a lot of games seem to be staler as a result of theory rather than richer. But it is also nice in a way to have established systems.


I think it makes a lot more sense to enjoy playing more than watching lol. I only enjoy watching a lot more because of the stress of online chess games. I don't know why they stress/drain me so much but they do. OTB I'd be fine though which is strange, but oh well at least then I'll be able to play lots without having this odd... hindrance.

Chess960 is theoretically a better game but I still prefer regular chess, probably for the reason you described.
Original post by IrrationalRoot
I think it makes a lot more sense to enjoy playing more than watching lol. I only enjoy watching a lot more because of the stress of online chess games. I don't know why they stress/drain me so much but they do. OTB I'd be fine though which is strange, but oh well at least then I'll be able to play lots without having this odd... hindrance.

Chess960 is theoretically a better game but I still prefer regular chess, probably for the reason you described.


I'm kind of the opposite. Well, slow games can be quite relaxing and meditative. But OTB blitz stresses me out like mad lol. There is something to be said for actually moving the pieces though. And the more involved process makes you think more. There's less...commitment so to speak in online chess. You're just moving things around with your cursor. In real life, you feel more foolish actively plonking a piece down and being met with mate in one.

Yeah I suppose chess is complex enough without additional chaos. Opening theory brings some structure.
Played a two hours each game against Houdini with ELO capped at 2000 (whatever that means..) I was mainly doing other stuff because I'm not going to sit staring at a chess game for four hours if there's no real opponent, but eh. Basically it pretty much played the opening cluelessly, leaving me a winning game, which it saved, before winning material tactically to equalise, then gradually built up a winning advantage itself as it played perfectly and I made several poor choices. The lesson I've tried to take away, given my earlier failings to capitalise on a big advantage, is that always looking for some kind of great knockout blow, or a strong "attack" is silly. If the opportunity to convert your advantage to something concrete, material in this case, arises, might as well take it. I ignored a hanging pawn for ages trying to find something more spectacular, and ultimately everything fizzled out. Be2 is a nice shot; I saw it as soon as b4 was played, but I hadn't thought of b4 in that particular instance, that was the problem. Then I think it is still pretty equal but I have to play accurately. My knight is beautiful but it is not enough, and in the end the queen controls the important diagonal and the endgame will be lost, with the knight's support pawn soon to be hunted down and its power destroyed (if I don't take the queen it would seem even worse).

https://www.chess.com/analysis-board-editor?diagram_id=3132522

Quick Reply

Latest