so playing as white, youve played so well that black never equalised
so you are at a 100% win rate with white (8thMarch2023)
thats... odd
I am at a 100% win rate with black too.
thats more odd
so you have never lost or drawn at chess
you have to find people close to your level to do those two things, so far you havent?
go and try to qualify for the world championship lol
so playing as white, youve played so well that black never equalised
so you are at a 100% win rate with white (8thMarch2023)
thats... odd
That said, I don't think I ever played a game of black that white shouldn't have won.
And I am not so haughty as to claim I play white so well that black couldn't win, despite white surely being winning from the start position with enough care or expertise.
huh
just a little matter of almost everyone disagreeing with you (i would try and find that thread but i cant rn)
I am still new to chess, and not so driven, but I do hope to "break" this game as I grow and become mighty.
I enjoy playing 1.e6 as black, but It is to give white an uncomfortable game and black a comfortable one.
Really black should always lose in chess if both sides play well enough.
As soon as you start playing from prep, or education you've already fudged up.
And if white tries to use learned theory, instead of their own understanding, a good player who chooses 1.e6 is likely to smash them
Isn’t chess played perfectly a draw? Not black losing? And if white uses theory, how would a good french player smash them?
if a player always figures it out on the board, invariably they will lose time
so heres a negative byproduct of not memorising theory, directly related to chess
8thMarch2023 should give a positive byproduct, along the same lines
Ah that's true, but that's a pragmatic thing rather than chess specific.
its literally related to chess lol
not sure of other games/sports where such memorisation is useful or needed
The clock changes the game.
Kind of like how a turn based game like chess, (and especially a complete information game like chess also is) rewards , on it's face, strategy. Where a real time strategy game, like a PC RTS or a team sport might have other factors be they physical ones, pragmatic ones or even social ones.
I would agree that if you start talking about fast enough chess, that memorization becomes more and more reasonable.
all top gms use memorisation
in classical slow games
funny that no one with such a "no memorisation" thing has went to the top of chess
and yet you claim that memorisation is a bad habit to be broken...
so playing as white, youve played so well that black never equalised
so you are at a 100% win rate with white (8thMarch2023)
thats... odd
That said, I don't think I ever played a game of black that white shouldn't have won.
And I am not so haughty as to claim I play white so well that black couldn't win, despite white surely being winning from the start position with enough care or expertise.
I am still new to chess, and not so driven, but I do hope to "break" this game as I grow and become mighty.
To “break” the game you should start playing something other than correspondence
so playing as white, youve played so well that black never equalised
so you are at a 100% win rate with white (8thMarch2023)
thats... odd
I am at a 100% win rate with black too.
thats more odd
so you have never lost or drawn at chess
you have to find people close to your level to do those two things, so far you havent?
go and try to qualify for the world championship lol
Maybe If I am invited, but I am content to press play and see what the wind blows in.
And while I, as someone who has played other games, can definitely tell I am seal clubbing right now, I'm not so sure the entire chess world is going to be so inept.
I am rated 1200 ish right now, with almost 3 digit games played so far. if I had to guess, that 1200 ish rating is about what entry level SHOULD be. for a reasonable and healthy adult.
you: i am at a 100% win rate with both white and black
you: i am 1200, and have played three digit amount of games
doesnt add up, that many wins in a row should shoot anyone in chess.com way above 1200
also, apparently, according to you, in all your white games "black was never able to draw" and in all your black games "black was never able to draw"
that second statement makes little sense, given you have "won all your black games"
Really black should always lose in chess if both sides play well enough.
I hardly think so. White's first-move advantage is measured in centipawns.
The margin required to win is NOT some trifling fraction of a Pawn. Even being a whole Pawn up is TYPICALLY not enough to win if all the remaining Pawns are on the same side of the board.
I mean, sure but you mentioned before that your rating is 1200. And on your profile you are saying “first steps of my chess journey”
can you really say you are 1200 when you have only played chess.com daily? And if you are looking to improve you should probably play a normal game of chess.
if a player always figures it out on the board, invariably they will lose time
so heres a negative byproduct of not memorising theory, directly related to chess
8thMarch2023 should give a positive byproduct, along the same lines
Ah that's true, but that's a pragmatic thing rather than chess specific.
its literally related to chess lol
not sure of other games/sports where such memorisation is useful or needed
The clock changes the game.
Kind of like how a turn based game like chess, (and especially a complete information game like chess also is) rewards , on it's face, strategy. Where a real time strategy game, like a PC RTS or a team sport might have other factors be they physical ones, pragmatic ones or even social ones.
I would agree that if you start talking about fast enough chess, that memorization becomes more and more reasonable.
all top gms use memorisation
in classical slow games
funny that no one with such a "no memorisation" thing has went to the top of chess
and yet you claim that memorisation is a bad habit to be broken...
If that's true, then I condemn them.
I am sure that's a wrong way to go about it, and then I would suggest that chess might not yet have been taken to the heights that I would have hoped.
i add to my statement
chess engines (even stronger than all the top players) need to search for a while to get to the level of theory
so looking at chess in a analytic way, theory is stronger at the opening than the best full game players ever found yet
and btw playing perfect theory with memorisation and without memorisation should make no difference, they are the same moves (even in an untimed game)
so playing as white, youve played so well that black never equalised
so you are at a 100% win rate with white (8thMarch2023)
thats... odd
That said, I don't think I ever played a game of black that white shouldn't have won.
And I am not so haughty as to claim I play white so well that black couldn't win, despite white surely being winning from the start position with enough care or expertise.
I am still new to chess, and not so driven, but I do hope to "break" this game as I grow and become mighty.
To “break” the game you should start playing something other than correspondence
No, I think correspondence is the best format.
If I wanted a time management game, something that wasn't turn based would be more attractive. Like broodwar or Zero hour
could you explain to me why you think so?
many other people dont mind the time management, and besides, if you are actually sitting down on a board and playing, having no time limits allows insane stalling which can get annoying and tiring (just ask the top players of the time juust before time limits were added, their games went on for a few days or smth
correspondence is a completely different thing, less focus on visualisation power coz you have analysis boards
also, engines (if not on chess.com)
Yes, the dynamics of chess still apply to classical games
You can get chess while also knowing theory. It’s not like Magnus only knows theory and doesn’t get chess
And how is the former blowing the later off the board? They are both playing theory after all.
Also, if someone doesn’t know theory, I doubt they would play a 20 move line to perfection in say the winawer French or really any opening. If they did, it would be because they saw a GM game ( therefore knowing theory ), the line is extremely simple and their time is likely burnt
You can get chess while also knowing theory. It’s not like Magnus only knows theory and doesn’t get chess
If you know chess then you shouldn't need theory. You should be able to just play it as if from inspiration or divination or just drawing on whatever sensibilities a chess player can naturally have.
And I suspect that strong players don't really use memorized / theoretical learning as much as people in this thread think they do, if they do at all.
And the reason I am so sure of this, is that memory and the creative process, intuition and operational intelligence aren't actually connected.
It would be exponentially harder to use both at the same time, and being able to do that well, sounds MUCH more impressive to me, than merely solving chess and always playing it perfectly every time would be. And even THAT, I hope we can agree, is a tall order for any human or anything humans can make too I bet.
You probably haven’t seen a top player before. They play the most complex, intricate openings, with every ounce of theoretical details glued into their mind. The Najdorf Sicilian, the Sveshnikov Sicilian, the Ruy Lopez, the Grunfeld, the Queen’s Gambit etc. are seen so commonly at top level that it seems like any other opening is garbage to them.
And how is the former blowing the later off the board? They are both playing theory after all.
Also, if someone doesn’t know theory, I doubt they would play a 20 move line to perfection in say the winawer French or really any opening. If they did, it would be because they saw a GM game ( therefore knowing theory ), the line is extremely simple and their time is likely burnt
20 moves seems pretty short for a game between two supposedly strong players.
If one person learns theory, and the other person is good and just knows how to play chess which one is going to find themselves out of their depth and become helpless?
In other words, the crutch user or the one who learned how to run?
Theory is a deficit .
It can only help if the other player also needs it OR is just inefficient.
You're never going to outdo someone who is good at any skill, craft or career by teaching to the test and trying to memorize things.
I didn’t mean the game would be over by 20 moves. And to answer your second question, again knowing theory doesn’t mean bad at chess. Also, the person who doesn’t know theory has to assess every move with caution and will not know the proceeding middlegame. The person who knows theory can put pressure on the opponent and play the following middlegame with confidence.
You can get chess while also knowing theory. It’s not like Magnus only knows theory and doesn’t get chess
If you know chess then you shouldn't need theory. You should be able to just play it as if from inspiration or divination or just drawing on whatever sensibilities a chess player can naturally have.
And I suspect that strong players don't really use memorized / theoretical learning as much as people in this thread think they do, if they do at all.
And the reason I am so sure of this, is that memory and the creative process, intuition and operational intelligence aren't actually connected.
It would be exponentially harder to use both at the same time, and being able to do that well, sounds MUCH more impressive to me, than merely solving chess and always playing it perfectly every time would be. And even THAT, I hope we can agree, is a tall order for any human or anything humans can make too I bet.
actually you just stop playing theory and start playing your own moves
its as simple as that. your prep ends, you start playing on your own.
prep isnt something you can rely completely on as a chess player; its something that gets you into a (hopefully) favorable position in the middlegame. its something that can augment your skill as a chess player. a 2400 IM with opening prep can probably beat a 2500 GM if the GM has no prep and plays into their opponents lines
You can get chess while also knowing theory. It’s not like Magnus only knows theory and doesn’t get chess
If you know chess then you shouldn't need theory. You should be able to just play it as if from inspiration or divination or just drawing on whatever sensibilities a chess player can naturally have.
And I suspect that strong players don't really use memorized / theoretical learning as much as people in this thread think they do, if they do at all.
And the reason I am so sure of this, is that memory and the creative process, intuition and operational intelligence aren't actually connected.
It would be exponentially harder to use both at the same time, and being able to do that well, sounds MUCH more impressive to me, than merely solving chess and always playing it perfectly every time would be. And even THAT, I hope we can agree, is a tall order for any human or anything humans can make too I bet.
You probably haven’t seen a top player before. They play the most complex, intricate openings, with every ounce of theoretical details glued into their mind. The Najdorf Sicilian, the Sveshnikov Sicilian, the Ruy Lopez, the Grunfeld, the Queen’s Gambit etc. are seen so commonly at top level that it seems like any other opening is garbage to them.
I named myself this to memorialize my introduction to chess.
So yes, I haven't seen, but surely these players are not playing from prep Or if they are, woe to them on deviation.
I hope chess isn't a game of getting people out of their prep, and that people are better than that.
I'm sure tho, that if we aren't yet, we will be.
“Surely these players are not playing from prep”
bro they are top players of course they are playing from prep! They know thousands of lines inside out in extreme depth!
You can get chess while also knowing theory. It’s not like Magnus only knows theory and doesn’t get chess
If you know chess then you shouldn't need theory. You should be able to just play it as if from inspiration or divination or just drawing on whatever sensibilities a chess player can naturally have.
And I suspect that strong players don't really use memorized / theoretical learning as much as people in this thread think they do, if they do at all.
And the reason I am so sure of this, is that memory and the creative process, intuition and operational intelligence aren't actually connected.
It would be exponentially harder to use both at the same time, and being able to do that well, sounds MUCH more impressive to me, than merely solving chess and always playing it perfectly every time would be. And even THAT, I hope we can agree, is a tall order for any human or anything humans can make too I bet.
actually you just stop playing theory and start playing your own moves
its as simple as that. your prep ends, you start playing on your own.
prep isnt something you can rely completely on as a chess player; its something that gets you into a (hopefully) favorable position in the middlegame. its something that can augment your skill as a chess player. a 2400 IM with opening prep can probably beat a 2500 GM if the GM has no prep and plays into their opponents lines
Yes.
You can get chess while also knowing theory. It’s not like Magnus only knows theory and doesn’t get chess
If you know chess then you shouldn't need theory. You should be able to just play it as if from inspiration or divination or just drawing on whatever sensibilities a chess player can naturally have.
And I suspect that strong players don't really use memorized / theoretical learning as much as people in this thread think they do, if they do at all.
And the reason I am so sure of this, is that memory and the creative process, intuition and operational intelligence aren't actually connected.
It would be exponentially harder to use both at the same time, and being able to do that well, sounds MUCH more impressive to me, than merely solving chess and always playing it perfectly every time would be. And even THAT, I hope we can agree, is a tall order for any human or anything humans can make too I bet.
actually you just stop playing theory and start playing your own moves
its as simple as that. your prep ends, you start playing on your own.
prep isnt something you can rely completely on as a chess player; its something that gets you into a (hopefully) favorable position in the middlegame. its something that can augment your skill as a chess player. a 2400 IM with opening prep can probably beat a 2500 GM if the GM has no prep and plays into their opponents lines
You can play your own moves, and play theory (or better than theory).
The difference is playing from understanding, and in an organic matter is a VERY different mindset than consulting something you memorized.
The latter is not healthy, degrades stamina and is very separate from the creative process. When both players are on their own, the person who didn't prep is going to continue to be just as good and the one who needed theory is suddenly dubious.
You should be able to chase favorable positions without any prep
By playing your own moves, how would you be able to play better than theory? You know there is a reason why theory is what it is. There is a reason some openings are popular and some aren’t. And the difference from playing and understanding, the person who knows theory would know the positions and the ideas that come from it! Nonsense!
if a player always figures it out on the board, invariably they will lose time
so heres a negative byproduct of not memorising theory, directly related to chess
8thMarch2023 should give a positive byproduct, along the same lines