Is vote chess a good way to learn?

btickler
Bramblyspam wrote:

I'm one of those strong players who leads in VC games. Yes, we end up playing my recommended move almost every time, but I still believe that the other participants help improve our performance. Even if I don't get outvoted, there are usually a couple times per game when their comments lead me to change my recommendation.

Even at my level, I find VC helps my chess. I have a tendency to get lazy in my analysis, and VC forces me to analyze more diligently and explain my reasoning.

It also doesn't hurt that I enjoy it.

Ding ding ding happy.png.  Winner.

Optimissed
btickler wrote:
Optimissed wrote:

It's a good way to learn if you're a weak player on a strong team.

It's a good way to learn whether weaker or stronger as long as the rest of the team is not rated 200-300 ELO below or above you.  If you would be paired with someone in a tournament bracket based on close enough ratings, then you can reasonably assume you could learn *something* useful from them.

Interacting with other players via avenues like votechess, or just shooting the breeze at a local club, are important learning tools.  People that play puzzle rush and blitz all day and learn completely on their own end up with a foundation of chess knowledge with gaps and assumptions.>>

I remember when I started playing and there were these players at the local club who would discuss possible moves in a game and move the pieces around and pick them up and put them down and discuss possible lines and I really couldn't follow it all. A few years later when I was probably strong enough to beat them all in a simul, I still couldn't follow them when they did that. I like systematic analysis and how can it be systematic with a bunch of people with different ideas who all have an equal input?

btickler
Optimissed wrote:
btickler wrote:
Optimissed wrote:

It's a good way to learn if you're a weak player on a strong team.

It's a good way to learn whether weaker or stronger as long as the rest of the team is not rated 200-300 ELO below or above you.  If you would be paired with someone in a tournament bracket based on close enough ratings, then you can reasonably assume you could learn *something* useful from them.

Interacting with other players via avenues like votechess, or just shooting the breeze at a local club, are important learning tools.  People that play puzzle rush and blitz all day and learn completely on their own end up with a foundation of chess knowledge with gaps and assumptions.>>

I remember when I started playing and there were these players at the local club who would discuss possible moves in a game and move the pieces around and pick them up and put them down and discuss possible lines and I really couldn't follow it all. A few years later when I was probably strong enough to beat them all in a simul, I still couldn't follow them when they did that. I like systematic analysis and how can it be systematic with a bunch of people with different ideas who all have an equal input?

Yeah, those other human beings with their different ideas and equal input can be pesky...

As for the characterizations at the start of your paragraph....you can do that with anything:

"I used to know a guy that did systematic research on his own...he would move his cheap plastic pieces back and forth, and flip aimlessly through obsolete books, and teach himself Russian just to read some obscure annotated games, and try pointlessly to refute the King's Gambit...but I really could not see any method to his madness.  A few years later I could easily have beaten him, but I didn't play him so we'll never know how much better I was/am..."

amrita1
Bramblyspam wrote:

It all depends on the players. A good vote chess team will have some strong players who are active in leading the discussion, and good discipline in the voting. For example, a team may have rules that nobody votes until 24 hours before the deadline (so there's time for discussion), and nobody votes for a move that hasn't been suggested in the discussion.

You won't learn much from VC games if your team has no discussion or discipline, but not all teams are like that. My recommendation is to look at some completed VC games, click the "archive" tab, and go through the entire game move by move, checking for the quality of the discussion. When you find a club with a VC team that impresses you, join it. 

Here's an example of what VC at its finest can look like. Both teams had great discussion and discipline, and were led by strong players who were happy to share their thoughts. Check it out if you like.

https://www.chess.com/votechess/game/120456?mv=0&san=e5&activePagination=archive


I totally agree ! I myself have learned a lot through vote chess !

yakuza_ronin

I'm not sure the question should be 'is vote chess a good way to learn?' as much as ...

'How can a beginner get into a 'good' VC group like @Bramblyspam's inner circle?' hehe

ponz111

A beginner cannot get into an "inner circle" [with the strong players] of a strong vote chess game. But

the beginner can suggest moves and will get a response from the strong players.  The strong players will give diagrams and/or  explain why they think certain moves are best.

crazypiglady
marknatm wrote:

Annotating your own games is one way to improve.   What openings do you like to play?

 Caro kann confuses me and I don't usually succeed in it. I play Scandinavian defence more often as black.

I haven't annotated my own games yet. Good idea. Thanks Mark.

crazypiglady
TacticalBlindSpot wrote:

There is a reason that virtually all Master vs World games favor the master (even when Masters are in the World group!).  The strength of the group is equivalent to the mode of their ratings.

Yes I suppose that sounds logical if people in the group don't change their mind. But even this would be useful to me as I'd be looking at all the suggestions (and crucially the reasons behind them) even if I didn't suggest a move myself. I may add my suggestions but would hopefully be learning through watching the chat as well as the decided move.

drmrboss

There are a lot of educational material on youtube .

https://youtu.be/pOjzvVVrxWw

https://youtu.be/fzGKPxJ5NYI

Some GM streamers explain moves live and let them challenge. Those are much more valuable than listening to arguments of average chess players.