14672 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
How can someone intelligent be so stupid?
The IQ score must be way off. You seem to have the intelligence of a rat.
At least learn to type.
You are correct, of course. You like being right, don't you?
I have learned that you have to get an opening that will "work" for you. I've lost so many games from bad openings. I like to just come out and develop from what I see and let the opponent lose the game, which for me doesn't happen too much. I try to be sneaky and trap king sometimes. Seems like most good games are won by advancing pawns to promotion or at least making opponent lose piece to stop pawn. 8 potential queens in each of them, I like pawns more than any other piece. Chess is like a train, you have the opening engine that drives the whole thing but it would be useless without the middle freight cars and the caboose is for looking forward to see if everything is in order. Or maybe it is the other way around?
I sympathise strongly with the original poster...
I'm an intelligent guy, qualified to join Mensa (but balked at the joining fee lol!)... and I'm a "natural" with logic and information systems - a computer programmer that has designed some pretty deep and detailed strategy games with solid long-term userbases, and modelled very complex business systems...
My best friend plays chess often, and every year or two I get up the courage to challenge him again....and always fail miserably. So then I decide to start a few weeks of studious Chessmaster tournaments against the computer opponents hoping to improve my abilities....and my ranking seldom gets above 800!
In response to some of the other observations in this thread, well, although as a nerdy mathsy child I "understood" chess, I didn't ever play the game against anyone. I just didn't have any other nerdy friends. Probably played my first live game of chess in my mid-20s, and maybe another 5 live games in the 15 years since then.
I think my problem is that I just don't have a deep enough "vision" of the board to see any impending trouble....and even worse, I really have trouble mounting any sort of sustained attack. I can't remember the last time I had a close victory against a computer opponent - if I don't have a 4-5 piece advantage in end-game, I really struggle to achieve mate.
I'd love to be good at chess.....it's such an elegant game.... but I'm just not.
I think a lot of it comes down to studying.. Playing chess can be studying if one is really trying to understand what is happening and why.. Mostly people just try to win though, without much thought to how or why.
A person could be the most intelligent person that ever lived, and when he put his mind to understanding why the game is playing out the way it is, he would understand far more, much faster than an average individual.. But if he never put his mind to that, which admittedly would be difficult to accomplish in the absolute sense, he would not improve. More probably he would occasionally ask himself things like, "Wow, that knight came out of no where.. Why didn't I see it coming.." and his intelligence would enable him to quickly see the discovered attacks and forced moves that arose from some chess principles like control the center. So compared to the average person he might still improve at a good clip, without seemingly much effort.
Us lesser mortals might not grasp as much of the situation when it occurs, and forget it more readily. But even the most mundane intelligence would improve with concerted effort towards understanding the why of it.. As fun as playing chess may be for many, most still don't want to put forth much effort towards thinking about chess, winning is more interesting. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, thinking about how to win a chess game, and thinking about chess are fairly different.
I think the first obstacle most people need to overcome in order to improve, is to learn how to learn about chess. Without a mental framework to attach everything to, it's easy for the knowledge to become a jumbled mess from which no clear plan can grow.
Everyone seems to have a different opinion on what to learn first, some people suggest the endgame because that enables you to win a pawn and then trade down into a winnable situation.
Others suggest the middle game because chess is 90% tactics, and knowing tactics will enable you to win that pawn and much more while preventing your opponent from doing the same.
Others will suggest you start studying with a single opening line, since there's no guarantee the game will even make it to the middle game, let alone the endgame.
I would suggest a person start with principles, things like control the center as quickly as possible, don't move a piece more than once when developing your pieces, trade down when ahead, blockade passed pawns with knights, lead and perform jobs with your least valuable pieces first, trade weakness for strength (trade bishop for knight on closed board, bad bishop for good) etc.. While following principles blindly can lead to trouble, they serve as pegs upon which to hang ones understanding of why an opening move is best, ways to go about bringing your tactics to bear, and how a given endgame might be reached. They make it all come together.
In addition I would suggest learning ways to calculate development and board control.. (# pieces off the back rank, # of moves to connect your rooks, # of squares you control on opponents side vs # opponent controls on yours), thereby leading to an understanding of tempo and expanding your board vision to see the situation at large rather than as groups of little skirmishes on various parts of the board.
Beyond that I would suggest a balanced approach, maybe 25% endgame, 25% opening, and 50% tactics. One theme tends to build on the others, cementing your understanding and keeping it a cohesive organized unit..
Back to the OP - you were stumped as to why the computer made a certain move with a rook. I've quit worrying about it. I'm in a similar boat, picking it up after a long period of dormancy. And I'm probably doing it wrong. But here is what is working for me:
- regular but not too intensive doses of theory, when I feel stuck. Because I am so ignorant I can pick sources almost at random - from the Internet or at the used bookstore. Reading about the importance of occupying the center and keeping pieces mobile means more to me if I've already had some experience. My mistakes make the advice more relevant.
- starting out low on a computer application that probably sucks - the Chess that came on my Mac. It openings are very formulaic - at a given level it will start the same every time. So I would study a little about that particular opening, but again, not too intensively.
- when I started winning at low levels, I'd make a screenshot of the game log. Then I would play similar games multiple times, from black and white. Sometimes I'd abort after a few moves and start over. Some kind of visual or muscle memory came into play. I didn't so much memorize sequences as play a little animation in my head.
- once I was very comfortable at a level I would noodge the slider up in the tiniest increment I could manage, and start repeating the process. Again, at a given level it plays the same opening ALL THE TIME. If I was white I had more flexibility. I'd try to duplicate a game I won at a lower level and look for where the computer started branching out with better decisions.
Sometimes I think I beat the computer because my moves are irrational, from its point of view. But the stakes are low. If something turns into a bloodbath I just start over, riffing a little on the sequence. Once I've done that the theory sticks better.
So I go back and forth a lot, reading, puzzles, playing slowly, playing fast. I haven't been playing people, online or OTB and I worry a little that the few skills I've developed will have to be redeveloped, when dealing with a board and actual pieces as opposed to a bird's-eye view on a keyboard and a real person.
It seems to help that usually I am not consciously trying to memorize. It also helps to be underemployed.
Finally, I'm just accepting my level of play, for now. I used to play tournament Scrabble and won lower-seeded divisions - "the cream of the crap." Other people worked much harder at it. I found a level where I made a decent sparring partner for a better player. So that's pretty much where I am with chess, but the basic deal is, having fun and staying loose seem to help me, and the computer doesn't care how often I start over or retract a move. My reward comes from getting better, not from being good.
"in five months ive played or studied 50+ hours a week:"
This doesn't give enough information -- HOW did you do that? What did the studying entail? How much passion did you put into it? How enthusiastic were you about the logic of the positions you were looking at? When you were learning a complicated position, where you fascinated or frustrated by its difficulty? If you were reading a chess book, were you actively involved, trying to guess the moves, or were you just passively reading the material without testing your understanding of it? It's not just about how much time you spent on it, it's about what you were actually doing during this time.
People often use the idea that one can spend a large quantity of time and not get better as an argument for the "talent or not" theory. What they often don't consider, is the quality of that time for those who failed.
Forget what I said about getting 'better' - all this is premised on the idea that slider-to-the-right = stronger. My Mac "Chess" program - different from MacChess, I gather - must be very weak. At .75 strength I'm getting mate in 19 moves of often reckless play. It may be good for my confidence, but overall strategy and tactics? Pshaw.
However I stand by the experience of making mistakes and analyzing afterward. It's amazing to see how the other player's pieces can keep him/her essentially immobile. An opponent's weak pawn, stuck in a file, uncaptured, can be your best friend. I'm sure yards of theory have been written on this, yet the (virtual) "real world" experience makes it real for this recreational player.
Do it for fun, for love of the game, and improvement will come - but my experience is apparently of very weak software.
I literally can't post without emoticons. Long story. Just remember: There's always a chance you're are a prodigy at something you've never tried.
I'm definitely having a good go at it.
Wish I were in England. It's very hot where I live. I decided it wasn't a good year to visit, what with the Olympics and Jubilee. But I love the UK.
"Having a good go" sounds like fun. To the OP, don't take it too seriously. It really is a game, and there are people posting new threads that know a lot less than you do.
In theory should have some capabality at chess but likely jumped-up-opinionated imbecile at everything else.
A strong chess player is just that.
Intelligence has really nothing to do with chess.
A child prodigy might excel at the piano and fail in the field of science.
Bobby Fischer did not have a IQ 0f 180 as some sites claim. He barely read anything besides chess books.
Overall, his life revolved around chess. His obsession and deep hatred for losing is what made him a World Champion.
His pathetic comments about 9/11, Jews, and the World Government just happened to reinforce that view.
Fischer was intelligent. Sociopaths often are. But maybe we can agree he was a special case. "Intelligence" doesn't help much if you can't distinguish between reality and fantasy (he was delusional, as well as being a sociopath). A potent combination for winning, in his prime. After that he quickly wore out his welcome except in Iceland IIRC.
To the OP, put any effort in and you'll probably win pickup games in some venues. And if you lose, no worries. In my competitive Scrabble experience, it made me popular, as long as I could offer credible opposition. It would be inetersting to know the toughest public pickup venues. Washington Square? I don't know, someone might.
Still more armchair psychiatry. Sociopath now?
I agree most sociopaths are highly intelligent
For the OP if you want to improve STOP PLAYING BULLET CHESS
I find most people who engage in psychological warfare have mental and or emotional problems. What is your excuse Grub?
As everyone else said, stop with the bullet/speed chess for now. I believe that form of chess can represent your abilities but tends to not really improve them.
The brain holds onto information that is thought about hard for a period of time. With bullet chess you don't have time to think long on the moves so your brain isn't gaining long term knowledge. With regular length chess you can spend time thinking over any given move and your brain will hold onto some of that knowledge and overtime you will get better, learn and improve.
You could do the same with bullet chess if after each game you spend a good 30 minutes going over your games and thinking about each move and what else you could have done and why. Are you analysing your games? Have you posted any games in the Analysis forums to have others look over your analysis and let you know where you are thinking right and wrong?
I have been thinking about your question. No, you cannot suck forever, although I wish Chrisr2212 woul try. The reason you cannot suck into eternity is because you are going to die.
That's contrary to what bullet players claim.
They claim that by playing bullet you get better in longer games because your mind is thinking much faster in a much slower game, thus resulting in far better positions.
اخر بازی شاه وپیاده-2جواب
by Roholla-r a few minutes ago
What is you favorite thing about Carlsen?
by superking500 a few minutes ago
Fact: All posts beginning with Fact: continue with a false statement.
by nameno1had a few minutes ago
Is there anything like chess or more complicated
by McLachlan a few minutes ago
12/8/2013 - Boxed In
by SomeoneRandom22 2 minutes ago
Is this end position winning?
by ponz111 4 minutes ago
Do you think chess online is harder than State tournaments?
by harryz 4 minutes ago
What would you play here as white?
by TheGreatOogieBoogie 6 minutes ago
King + 2 Bishops question!
by JMB2010 7 minutes ago
Small December Simul - Free but limited!
by MSC157 10 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!