Do you like Soda Bread ?
Upon seeing the picture for Irish Soda Bread, I'm sure I've never had it before. The soda part I feel conflicted about being that it is bread, but perhaps it could be worth a taste test.
It is made with baking soda and not actual soda (soft drink). Give it a try.
Ah, that makes a lot more sense 
How did you get into chess? I can share my experience too if you want
I thought about making a blog post on this years ago (never got around to making an in-depth blog post on that), but perhaps in the future (now that I stream chess) I could turn this into a video instead. 
26 now; yes I was born in 1996, the same year Yugioh came out. One more cool connection to the Kaiba profile picture I use on chess.com
Kesetooooo
how to not mouse slip
Try to not be nervous when playing and try to not rush; by doing so, you'll be less likely to mouse-slip; we can't eliminate mouse-slips 100% (we are all human after all), but we can at least minimize the probability of it happening to us.
If you are playing a time control too quick for "not rushing" then mouse-slips just become part of the game and part of the strategy (as bullet chess strategy has revealed with plans sometimes based on how fast it is to move or how long reactions take such as throwing in a check just so the opponent must take time to move the King etc.)
No. I think what you are intending to ask is if I currently have a girlfriend (as in one and not plural; refer to the cheating discussion earlier in the thread). Answering the question in singular, no I currently don't have a girlfriend. Of course, I'm okay with this. I'm open to a relationship if the right person comes along, but so far I haven't found that "right person" and that is okay; it gives me time to focus on other things like school, hobbies like chess, or answering questions in forum threads 
No. I think what you are intending to ask is if I currently have a girlfriend (as in one and not plural; refer to the cheating discussion earlier in the thread). Answering the question in singular, no I currently don't have a girlfriend. Of course, I'm okay with this. I'm open to a relationship if the right person comes along, but so far I haven't found that "right person" and that is okay; it gives me time to focus on other things like school, hobbies like chess, or answering questions in forum threads
Good answer, I feel the same way, if the right person comes along then maybe, but I'm not "looking" for it. ....Alright time to go play some Chess ahahahhaa......was watching some videos I'm in the mood to play ...........some blitz!
May you guys will find the love of your life right here on Chess.com! Do not just go by the profile picture though.
May you guys will find the love of your life right here on Chess.com! Do not just go by the profile picture though.
lol You never know, but since chess.com involves everyone in the world, it is unlikely most would even meet in person. It would be nice to meet some chess.com friends at otb chess events etc. (I have for several ), but statistically most chess.com friends will probably never meet me in person and you know what, that is okay. In fact, without chess.com and technology like the internet, we wouldn't even meet online so it is really more of a blessing that we even have these resources to communicate despite being halfway across the planet in some cases
Any other chess video topics or ideas anyone would like to share? I don't mind the "AMA format" but ideally I'd like to keep it more aimed at potential chess topics for future videos
Kesetooooo
how to not mouse slip
Don't use mice, they wriggle about too much
Lucena position
philidor position
endgame fortresses
idk, ideasssss
Yup, these are all good endgame concepts to know I might eventually create videos on these topics if people want me to do so.
I don't own any chess courses (online), but I do own several chess books (like most chess players xD). Of course, it isn't how many resources one has, but how many of those resources they have thoroughly studied and learned from. Here are the chess books I own and read cover to cover:
- Playing 1. d4 The Queen's Gambit (Schandorff)
- My 60 Memorable Games (Fischer)
- Pawn Power In Chess (Kmoch)
- How To Reassess Your Chess 4th Edition (Silman)
* Currently reading, Playing The Caro Kann: A Counter Attacking Repertoire (Schandorff)
In addition to this, I've also read a little from free pdf books (online) and read a little of chess books from friends, but these are the only books I own and read cover to cover.
Any other chess video topics or ideas anyone would like to share? I don't mind the "AMA format" but ideally I'd like to keep it more aimed at potential chess topics for future videos
Here is a rather broad/subjective question, at what rating do you start feeling competent at Chess, because I know mostly every game I play I'm like wait what do I do here? lol
Any other chess video topics or ideas anyone would like to share? I don't mind the "AMA format" but ideally I'd like to keep it more aimed at potential chess topics for future videos
Here is a rather broad/subjective question, at what rating do you start feeling competent at Chess, because I know mostly every game I play I'm like wait what do I do here? lol
Really good question because it isn't so clear cut. No rating probably feels "competent." I'm not saying to doubt yourself (confidence in your playing ability is very important), but whenever I learn new things, improve and increase rating...I'm constantly coming across things I didn't even imagine; never mind understand. Perhaps a beginning player only uses opening principles at the start of the game, but then they discover the world of tactics and realize that tactics could potentially occur in the opening too. Maybe that same player then tries to become a tactical genius, but then lots of work later they discover the value of holes and weak squares...next thing you know, this same player now begins to adopt positional chess concepts they didn't even conceive of before...
this process continues indefinitely to some extent and even titled players are always learning and coming across things they never knew or things they thought they knew, but didn't understand to the same extent.
If you interpret "competent" differently than how I answered above (if interpreted as what rating level seems to be more understanding in most every given position "competently"), then I'd pick 1600 (chess.com rapid) as the rating number I'd say the chess player tends to understand any given chess position competently for the most part. By this I mean that their chess knowledge and ability is at the point where they can now recognize weaknesses of both positional and tactical nature and design plans in the moment to try and exploit these to decent success. It was also around 1600 chess.com rating I more formally got introduced to concepts like outposts to the level where it could decide a game.
Of course, even this 1600 level misevaluates and misses a lot. I said "competent" and not "perfect." A 1600 player probably lacks "real" pawn structure knowledge generally speaking whereas an 1800 is usually beginning to learn this (by "real" pawn structure I mean things like utilizing pawn majorities and seeing value in minority attacks etc. simply identifying a backwards pawn or an isolated pawn is much more introductory [maybe 1000-ish rating level as the player expands their knowledge base] and assessing the pawn structure yet altering it to your advantage by things like a well-timed pawn sacrifice is more advanced [maybe 2000 or 2100-ish]).
These ratings are merely estimates and generalities; every chess player is unique. Even in these few examples though we can see how knowledge and ability often layer in such a way that learning new things reveals other things the player barely knew at all previously.
The other observation should be that if "competent" chess is 1600+ chess.com rating (and based on how one defines "competent" that rating number might be several hundred points higher or lower than 1600), then this means that roughly 95% of chess players are not "competent" at the game; rephrasing this in a nicer way, chess is so complex that even advanced players often miss lot. It literally becomes a case of: you don't know what you don't know.
Hope my in-depth posts are valuable
TL;DR version Chess is complicated and no one really feels they understand it enough because as they learn more, they realize all the things they didn't know and this process never stops. By 1600 rating, I'd say the player is more balanced into understanding everything on a basic level, but "competent" is subjective based on how it is defined.
Any other chess video topics or ideas anyone would like to share? I don't mind the "AMA format" but ideally I'd like to keep it more aimed at potential chess topics for future videos
Here is a rather broad/subjective question, at what rating do you start feeling competent at Chess, because I know mostly every game I play I'm like wait what do I do here? lol
Really good question because it isn't so clear cut. No rating probably feels "competent." I'm not saying to doubt yourself (confidence in your playing ability is very important), but whenever I learn new things, improve and increase rating...I'm constantly coming across things I didn't even imagine; never mind understand. Perhaps a beginning player only uses opening principles at the start of the game, but then they discover the world of tactics and realize that tactics could potentially occur in the opening too. Maybe that same player then tries to become a tactical genius, but then lots of work later they discover the value of holes and weak squares...next thing you know, this same player now begins to adopt positional chess concepts they didn't even conceive of before...
this process continues indefinitely to some extent and even titled players are always learning and coming across things they never knew or things they thought they knew, but didn't understand to the same extent.
If you interpret "competent" differently than how I answered above (if interpreted as what rating level seems to be more understanding in most every given position "competently"), then I'd pick 1600 (chess.com rapid) as the rating number I'd say the chess player tends to understand any given chess position competently for the most part. By this I mean that their chess knowledge and ability is at the point where they can now recognize weaknesses of both positional and tactical nature and design plans in the moment to try and exploit these to decent success. It was also around 1600 chess.com rating I more formally got introduced to concepts like outposts to the level where it could decide a game.
Of course, even this 1600 level misevaluates and misses a lot. I said "competent" and not "perfect." A 1600 player probably lacks "real" pawn structure knowledge generally speaking whereas an 1800 is usually beginning to learn this (by "real" pawn structure I mean things like utilizing pawn majorities and seeing value in minority attacks etc. simply identifying a backwards pawn or an isolated pawn is much more introductory [maybe 1000-ish rating level as the player expands their knowledge base] and assessing the pawn structure yet altering it to your advantage by things like a well-timed pawn sacrifice is more advanced [maybe 2000 or 2100-ish]).
These ratings are merely estimates and generalities; every chess player is unique. Even in these few examples though we can see how knowledge and ability often layer in such a way that learning new things reveals other things the player barely knew at all previously.
The other observation should be that if "competent" chess is 1600+ chess.com rating (and based on how one defines "competent" that rating number might be several hundred points higher or lower than 1600), then this means that roughly 95% of chess players are not "competent" at the game; rephrasing this in a nicer way, chess is so complex that even advanced players often miss lot. It literally becomes a case of: you don't know what you don't know.
Hope my in-depth posts are valuable
TL;DR version Chess is complicated and no one really feels they understand it enough because as they learn more, they realize all the things they didn't know and this process never stops. By 1600 rating, I'd say the player is more balanced into understanding everything on a basic level, but "competent" is subjective based on how it is defined.
First of all thank you for the in depth answer, I can't help but feel like you're talking about me in those first 2 paragraphs there, I do agree with you whole heartedly, Chess is a very complicated subject.
I just feel that I'm not a very good player and there are alot of things I don't understand, and there are other other things I discussed with you privately, which I'm not going to reiterate here on this public forum. I think all of those things combined make me feel like I don't really understand this game, in alot of ways, some concepts I understand well enough though I think, like Opening Principles, which, will get one out of the Opening.
I forget if it was McDonald's book or Chernev's book, the author goes, "If Black has castled in the opening it means it wasn't a disaster....yet" lol haha, I'm paraphrasing but it went something like that. However I get in the middle game and I'm then scratching my head saying, what the heck do I do here, I guess it's like you said, when, IF, I get a higher rating, I can learn how to take advantage of more of the positional concepts that I see in my games. It's like I told you KesetoKaiba, Chess is very very................slow! *sighs*. (I say that in terms of Chess improvement mainly but playing games as well, well you know my feelings on blitz/bullet lol)
How did you get into chess? I can share my experience too if you want
I know you was talking to KesetoKaiba but I'd like to share how I got started, nothing special really, just one day some of my friends did a so so job of telling me how the pieces move and that was it. I forgot about it for a long time, a friend of mines lent me a basic little manual of chess and u know how it is lol I did a so so job of reading that and probably forgot about it after that too. I played a few friends locally and lost most of those games but knowing them and how they were, I knew they weren't good and I was just learning how the pieces move, yeah this was about 2005 or so.
Any way I started buying books the next year in 2006 and yes they hit the shelf and collected dust lol but I thought to myself one day, I said to myself "Wow this is something I want to be good at" ....and it's been over 15 years later and I still feel the same way today in 2022!