Yes, it does seem obvious that being able to visualize the position that will exist after a few moves and the the extraordinary capability to remember myriad positions from past games that players like Carlsen, Kasparov, Fischer, Morphy, and their like demonstrated would be the key chess talents, but very many people think that IQ, indomitable will to win, years of hard work, etc are the main thing.
This Website Sucks For Beginners
Sort:
Jul 13, 2022
0
#243
Mr-Mudd wrote:
nMsALpg wrote:
But anyway, learning how the pieces move is something, IDK... 95% of adults can do?
And something like 95% of people who can learn how the pieces move can get to a rating over 1000, because most of the effort is checking whether your intended move instantly loses... which sounds much easier than it actually is since failing this check even once can instantly lose the game... so the level of consistency has to be extremely high.
But more than 5% of the adult population is on the spectrum. Of autism. And Downs. And gae.
And gae, lol.
Hey, if women can be attracted to men and get a rating over 1000, why not me too?
Jul 13, 2022
0
#244
A quick Google says something like 2-3% of US adults are on the spectrum... but I didn't look into it, just skimming first page of results.
In any case, mild autism wouldn't prevent you from learning the rules and e.g. getting a 1000 rating.
Jul 13, 2022
0
#245
As for you Mr Mudd, maybe a change in diet would help you. Malnutrition can have all sorts of side effects.
Jul 13, 2022
0
#246
nMsALpg skrev:
A quick Google says something like 2-3% of US adults are on the spectrum... but I didn't look into it, just skimming first page of results.
Isn't according to the usual IQ bell curve roughly 15% of population borderline mentally challenged or worse?
Jul 13, 2022
0
#247
Dmfed wrote:
nMsALpg skrev:
A quick Google says something like 2-3% of US adults are on the spectrum... but I didn't look into it, just skimming first page of results.
Isn't according to the usual IQ bell curve roughly 15% of population borderline mentally challenged or worse?
15% are below one standard deviation, yes. If the SD is 15 points then that's an IQ of 85 or lower.
Edit, "or lower" oh, well... hmm.
Jul 13, 2022
0
#248
nMsALpg wrote:
But anyway, learning how the pieces move is something, IDK... 95% of adults can do?
And something like 95% of people who can learn how the pieces move can get to a rating over 1000, because most of the effort is checking whether your intended move instantly loses... which sounds much easier than it actually is since failing this check even once can instantly lose the game... so the level of consistency has to be extremely high.
All this to say: the 800 average on chess.com is misleading.
I will say that one of the big hurdles that adult beginners have is years of bad habits. For example, suppose you learned how to play as a kid but never got any formal training and just played casually with your friends from time to time (i.e. no deliberate attempts to improve). You've developed your own habits during that time that you must unlearn before you can learn good habits.
A good example of one of these bad habits is only looking at the "happy path" of a variation: "If I take here, he has to do this, then I do this, then he must do this ... then I checkmate him". But each time you say he "has to" or "must do" something, does he really? I played a young man last night (~20 years old) and after the game we had a post-mortem where I asked why he played the losing move (it blew open the position, activated all of my pieces, cost him a pawn, and left him with a weak structure on the queenside with my pieces pressuring all of his weak points). He replied that he did not even consider the move I played in response. He expected me to do something that would have severely weakened my position and left him with a lot of activity. It is that thinking process that many adult beginners have ingrained that is difficult to unlearn. Kids (the ones that are getting coached) have that problem early and quickly learn a better thinking process since they do not have the bad ones reinforced for years.
Jul 13, 2022
0
#249
PawnTsunami wrote:
nMsALpg wrote:
But anyway, learning how the pieces move is something, IDK... 95% of adults can do?
And something like 95% of people who can learn how the pieces move can get to a rating over 1000, because most of the effort is checking whether your intended move instantly loses... which sounds much easier than it actually is since failing this check even once can instantly lose the game... so the level of consistency has to be extremely high.
All this to say: the 800 average on chess.com is misleading.
I will say that one of the big hurdles that adult beginners have is years of bad habits. For example, suppose you learned how to play as a kid but never got any formal training and just played casually with your friends from time to time (i.e. no deliberate attempts to improve). You've developed your own habits during that time that you must unlearn before you can learn good habits.
A good example of one of these bad habits is only looking at the "happy path" of a variation: "If I take here, he has to do this, then I do this, then he must do this ... then I checkmate him". But each time you say he "has to" or "must do" something, does he really? I played a young man last night (~20 years old) and after the game we had a post-mortem where I asked why he played the losing move (it blew open the position, activated all of my pieces, cost him a pawn, and left him with a weak structure on the queenside with my pieces pressuring all of his weak points). He replied that he did not even consider the move I played in response. He expected me to do something that would have severely weakened my position and left him with a lot of activity. It is that thinking process that many adult beginners have ingrained that is difficult to unlearn. Kids (the ones that are getting coached) have that problem early and quickly learn a better thinking process since they do not have the bad ones reinforced for years.
Hah, I've never heard it called the "happy path" -- I like that.
I've heard that from new players a lot.
"Why did you move here"
"Because if you capture then it's checkmate"
heh
In their defense, when you're new, all moves look equally good (or bad) so it's an accomplishment to find a move you like more than the others. Usually it's because it attacks something. It's a pretty big shift in thinking to go from finding reasons to like a move to what real players do, which is, after finding a move worth liking, finding all the reasons to dislike that move (and then if we still like it, we can play it).
Jul 13, 2022
0
#250
nMsALpg wrote:
Hah, I've never heard it called the "happy path" -- I like that.
I've heard that from new players a lot.
"Why did you move here"
"Because if you capture then it's checkmate"
heh
In their defense, when you're new, all moves look equally good (or bad) so it's an accomplishment to find a move you like more than the others. Usually it's because it attacks something. It's a pretty big shift in thinking to go from finding reasons to like a move to what real players do, which is, after finding a move worth liking, finding all the reasons to dislike that move (and then if we still like it, we can play it).
Happy Path comes from my many years as a software engineer. There is always the "ideal" path that must be tested, but then you have all the edge cases. Same thing in chess. Where it gets especially tricky is when you are 3-4 moves deep in a variation and there is an intermezzo that you have to see. But that is what makes it so much fun!
When I hired a coach many years ago, one of the first things he did was have me flip my thinking around. Instead of finding why a move works, try to prove it doesn't work. If I'm unable to find a reason it doesn't work, then it should be a good move (or I need to understand something new - either case, win-win). Of course, the benefit is that since I've been in project management the last several years, that same mindset comes up nicely in managing risks!
Jul 13, 2022
0
#251
PawnTsunami wrote:
nMsALpg wrote:
Hah, I've never heard it called the "happy path" -- I like that.
I've heard that from new players a lot.
"Why did you move here"
"Because if you capture then it's checkmate"
heh
In their defense, when you're new, all moves look equally good (or bad) so it's an accomplishment to find a move you like more than the others. Usually it's because it attacks something. It's a pretty big shift in thinking to go from finding reasons to like a move to what real players do, which is, after finding a move worth liking, finding all the reasons to dislike that move (and then if we still like it, we can play it).
Happy Path comes from my many years as a software engineer. There is always the "ideal" path that must be tested, but then you have all the edge cases. Same thing in chess. Where it gets especially tricky is when you are 3-4 moves deep in a variation and there is an intermezzo that you have to see. But that is what makes it so much fun!
When I hired a coach many years ago, one of the first things he did was have me flip my thinking around. Instead of finding why a move works, try to prove it doesn't work. If I'm unable to find a reason it doesn't work, then it should be a good move (or I need to understand something new - either case, win-win). Of course, the benefit is that since I've been in project management the last several years, that same mindset comes up nicely in managing risks!
That's great
For a long time I've said that it's the best "real life" lesson chess teaches.
It was funny at first but the photo is kind of rude…
Using someone else’s photo for your own purposes is a lack of netiquette.
Using someone else’s photo for your own purposes is a lack of netiquette.
Jul 13, 2022
0
#253
CooloutAC wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
A guy spends most of his time working when work is learning and teaching history, but also has an online blitz chess addiction, likes chess books, plays OTB, and spends a little time teaching chess to kids, and he becomes someone’s example of how it is not possible to reach 2000 in his chess rating. You gotta wonder if anyone knows what they are talking about. My favorite Ronald Reagan quote was deployed, so that’s something.
http://historynotebook.blogspot.com/2020/11/what-is-ignorance.html
The claim was sans “defects”. Blitz reinforces error. That is a defect. Too much blitz before you master fundamentals and mastery will elude you.
so you blame it all on playing blitz? Thats quite the convenient excuse, and completely ignorant and out of touch when blitz is the goal and aspiration of the majority of players on this website. But I guess according to your logic you are not 2000 rated blitz, because you didn't play enough classical lmao. I think this illogical belief is the root of your problem. Playing classical is what makes you worse at blitz, especially OTB classical for online blitz, because the truth is, as I explained to Tsunami, not only are you the example of someone who has studied chess for 20 years but can't get 2000 rated on here, you are also the example of how OTB classical chess does not correlate to online blitz ratings. This should be common knowledge especially if you followed the speed chess streaming competitions and see the many examples of this in real time and the commentators pointing it out.
But what a huge deflection from the thread topic due to some posters egos. The fact is 800 rating on here is not a beginner anymore. Its slightly below average. I'm not a beginner i'm just low skilled below average player. The reason we tell players to play Rapid, is because then they will indeed be playing with other "beginners" or low skilled players and boost their morale. But for nothing more. IF blitz is their sole aspiration, then that is what they should be playing an analyzing. But like the op said, the competition is way harder on chess.com. And IMO the reason for that is the how they implement their rating system for new accounts.
You’re not reading carefully. Or you are deliberately misreading. Either way, you are wrong. Again.
Blitz hindered me from exceeding 2000 OTB. I got close. 1982.
I have exceeded 2000 blitz. On this site. In the past two years. I also have focused almost entirely on rapid in Arena for the past two years. The first month playing Arena dropped my rapid rating 200 points. It is easy for me to get over 1900 rapid if I play only open seems. Playing Arena, OTOH, pits me against too many underrated players. A few bad moves and my rating drops 12-15. Gotta win ten games against such players to get those 12 points back.
Obviously, my play is not designed to maximize my rating. I play for other reasons.
Ya keep telling yourself that. I can't do this anymore. I'm done. The community is rotten, if we are to believe everything you snobby pos's say then the game itself isn't even sporting. You can keep it. Chess is a dead end not just for you, but everyone that plays it. And for good reason apparently.
While you were blabbering on, broadcasting your ignorance, I was playing chess. OTB. Standard time control.
A battle of knowledge, wits, imagination, calculation, nerves, focus.
I spent some time considering a new move that would net me the bishop pair for the cost of a pawn, but then found myself down two pawns. I struggled to come back. I had to blockade a passed pawn, but gained one of my own. My opponent removed my passed pawn's pawn protection, while his remained intact. Nonetheless, while he was working at penetrating with his rooks on the open a-file, I managed to replace my queen with one of the bishops as the blockader. Meanwhile, his queen started doing duty blocking my pawn. I created some mate threats. Lots of ways to stop them, but my opponent opted to sacrifice the exchange. A few moves later, I created some sharp tactics swapping a bishop for two pawns. When he did not trade his last rook for one of mine to start hassling my king with his queen and bishop, it looked as though things had turned my way. Once again, my opponent made things tense the way he offered exchanges. After two and one-half hours of play, we had a four vs three pawn + one rook each endgame.
I had studied this endgame a few months ago. It is terribly difficult, often drawn, but there are ways to win in some circumstances. Even GMs, like Capablanca, who have won it, have not done so without error.
I tried everything I could think of, drawing on incomplete memory. After the 80th move, I offered a draw. He accepted. The game lasted three and one-half hours. We both enjoyed it.
That is is what chess is all about. Real people. Reasonable skill, albeit below master level. Two old men whose peak ratings just under 2000 USCF was years ago. Sharp tactics. Deep positional analysis. Taking risks, regretting them, and clamoring back into the game.
Jul 13, 2022
0
#254
Ziryab wrote:
While you were blabbering on, broadcasting your ignorance, I was playing chess. OTB. Standard time control.
When you were playing chess, I studied the blade. And now that the world is on fire, and the barbarians are at the gate, you have the audacity to come to me for help?
Jul 13, 2022
0
#255
CooloutAC wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
A guy spends most of his time working when work is learning and teaching history, but also has an online blitz chess addiction, likes chess books, plays OTB, and spends a little time teaching chess to kids, and he becomes someone’s example of how it is not possible to reach 2000 in his chess rating. You gotta wonder if anyone knows what they are talking about. My favorite Ronald Reagan quote was deployed, so that’s something.
http://historynotebook.blogspot.com/2020/11/what-is-ignorance.html
The claim was sans “defects”. Blitz reinforces error. That is a defect. Too much blitz before you master fundamentals and mastery will elude you.
so you blame it all on playing blitz? Thats quite the convenient excuse, and completely ignorant and out of touch when blitz is the goal and aspiration of the majority of players on this website. But I guess according to your logic you are not 2000 rated blitz, because you didn't play enough classical lmao. I think this illogical belief is the root of your problem. Playing classical is what makes you worse at blitz, especially OTB classical for online blitz, because the truth is, as I explained to Tsunami, not only are you the example of someone who has studied chess for 20 years but can't get 2000 rated on here, you are also the example of how OTB classical chess does not correlate to online blitz ratings. This should be common knowledge especially if you followed the speed chess streaming competitions and see the many examples of this in real time and the commentators pointing it out.
But what a huge deflection from the thread topic due to some posters egos. The fact is 800 rating on here is not a beginner anymore. Its slightly below average. I'm not a beginner i'm just low skilled below average player. The reason we tell players to play Rapid, is because then they will indeed be playing with other "beginners" or low skilled players and boost their morale. But for nothing more. IF blitz is their sole aspiration, then that is what they should be playing an analyzing. But like the op said, the competition is way harder on chess.com. And IMO the reason for that is the how they implement their rating system for new accounts.
Nono I think he has a point
Look at my blitz, and then my rapid
The quality of games goes up significantly
Jul 13, 2022
0
#256
If you have an issue with chess.com, please contact the staff instead on announcing this in forums. Thank you.
Jul 13, 2022
0
#257
ChessFlair01 wrote:
If you have an issue with chess.com, please contact the staff instead on announcing this in forums. Thank you.
Mr. sensible answer for everything.
Jul 13, 2022
0
#258
oranmilne420 wrote:
I've been playing for a bit and following all the opening principles, reading the guides, doing lessons and puzzles, and even analyzing my games when I get a chance to use a free analysis. Even still I couldn't break 500. It really doesn't help when so much of the community then turns around and says "well if you're under 1000 you're clearly blundering all the time." Like that doesn't help me at all.
I also have pretty even and well done games with people of higher scores and also tend to get knocked down by people of lower score as well. It's like I literally can't progress. And when I ask for help all I get is the same responses with a link to some blog or the opening principles or the "Analyze every game and see where you missed."
For One thing, I can't afford the analysis after every game. I don't have the money to pay for premium and I'm playing to enjoy myself and not be reminded of my financial situation. Second off It'd be nice to actually have somebody to at least guide me or try to give me some advice for where i'm falling and not just be brushed off as a "blunderfest" just because my rank is so low. And when you do get advice it always boils down to "stop Blundering" and "think 2 moves ahead of your opponent".
Like how? If I knew how to stop blundering, I wouldn't be asking you how to stop blundering. And I wish I had the psychic power to know what my opponent is going to do 2 moves ahead. I guess that's just something Chess players can do that I haven't picked up yet or something.
And the worst response is "Keep playing, you'll learn from playing." That's what I've been trying to do but the more I play, the more I lose. I find I'll go on, have a good couple games, then start dropping in quality and getting my butt kicked shortly after out of nowhere. The only thing I've learned from this is that people like to taunt you into resigning when you start losing, and nobody is actually willing to help you unless you pay them or subscribe to their youtube channel.
There are many things beginners can do to improve. When you ask for help in this manner, you get help. Pay special attention to the comments by @pfren. He is a titled player and quite generously took a look at your games and made some perceptive observations.
It is quite possible that you are not implementing opening principles as well as you think. I looked at your most recent game over 30 moves and saw that you inflicted a lot of weaknesses on yourself. Your opponent took advantage. It is an opening principle to reduce your vulnerabilities, not create new ones. Specifically, when your opponent puts a bishop on g2, you want to be careful what you do on that diagonal. In order to protect a bishop, you exposed your rook.
As for blunders, these do decide almost all of your games. Some blunders are hanging pieces. Some are weakening a diagonal where you have a rook and your opponent has a bishop.
My games, too, are decided by blunders.
A coach would do you some good, but if you cannot afford a premium membership that’s not going to happen. Do what lessons that you can. I think you get a couple per day with a free membership. Find a video series that you like aimed at beginners. There are lots of them on YouTube. I prefer books myself, and if that is your approach to learning, I can make some recommendations. One of my top recommendations is available free online: https://chesstempo.com/chess-books/chess-fundamentals/book/165 and also at https://www.chessable.com/chess-fundamentals-by-jose-raul-capablanca/course/66428/
ChessTempo presents his book as he wrote, but silently correcting one error, as did Batsford when they issued the book in algebraic notation. Chessable seems to have altered it a bit.
Jul 13, 2022
0
#259
Ziryab wrote:
It is quite possible that you are not implementing opening principles as well as you think.
I still look at my games and spot these sorts of basic errors (moving a pawn when it was better to move a piece).
Not so much in the opening, but one nice tip is, at least in some sense, the ideas behind the opening principles last all game long. Unless the position is closed and move order doesn't matter at the moment, then if everything else seems equal, it's worth favoring pieces over pawns.
Not to hijack your comment with tangential advice... more to agree that yeah, people are definitely not following the opening principles as well as they think. I think many different ratings will benefit from challenging themselves to squeeze more out of the fundamentals than they're currently getting.
Jul 13, 2022
0
#260
nMsALpg wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
It is quite possible that you are not implementing opening principles as well as you think.
I still look at my games and spot these sorts of basic errors (moving a pawn when it was better to move a piece).
Not so much in the opening, but one nice tip is, at least in some sense, the ideas behind the opening principles last all game long. Unless the position is closed and move order doesn't matter at the moment, then if everything else seems equal, it's worth favoring pieces over pawns.
Not to hijack your comment with tangential advice... more to agree that yeah, people are definitely not following the opening principles as well as they think. I think many different ratings will benefit from challenging themselves to squeeze more out of the fundamentals than they're currently getting.
Sometimes when I play the Sicilian Kan, I think about how many hours I’ve spent teaching beginners to mobilize their pieces and I look at how many of mine cannot yet move.
But anyway, learning how the pieces move is something, IDK... 95% of adults can do?
And something like 95% of people who can learn how the pieces move can get to a rating over 1000, because most of the effort is checking whether your intended move instantly loses... which sounds much easier than it actually is since failing this check even once can instantly lose the game... so the level of consistency has to be extremely high.
All this to say: the 800 average on chess.com is misleading.