do you guys actually set up a board in front of you while you play on your phone or PC?
Sort:
2wise2kill
Sep 24, 2018
0
#1
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/gameplay-1
Not for love, of course. Can’t waste time!
Sep 24, 2018
0
#3
Is it not against the rules? I think I read somewhere that it counts as an "external aid" or some such nonsense
Sep 24, 2018
0
#4
I've just had a look at the rules - I can't see any mention of it so I guess it's OK. Obviously it's not OK if you start moving the pieces about, of course.
Sep 24, 2018
0
#5
I use a board for my daily games. I've not played that many different people, but so far I've always messaged them and let them know I was using a board, and trying to figure out my moves by moving pieces on the board. I'm unsure if it is against the rules, but just wanted to be up front with my opponents. I realize that calculating in your head without actually moving pieces is a necessary skill to develop. I've found that working moves out on the board is helping me learn chess, and my calculation skills without the board are definitely improving, as I can experience when playing face-to-face OTB games locally. Of course, I'm a much better player when I use the board next to my laptop. I'm 67 years old and returned to chess less than a year ago. I last played in my 20s. My mind is still active but not as nimble as it used to be. For me, using the board along side my laptop for daily games is a valuable teaching aid.
I do when i need to concentrate. It's kinda hard to visualize without a board with me, although it's not very practical for blitz.
That doesn't mean they don't look at the board when making a move, and i think that at least someone agrees with me that they can visualize better OTB, and I'm not saying I can't visualize when I play online
QueenBailey wrote:
Even players like Magnus Carlsen admit that if you play chess the board doesn't really make a difference. Playing online, on a board or blindfolded is about the same unless you are either super new or basically dumb or smth.
True but
1. I'm not even close to GM status
2. You can't visualize anything without visualizing some sort of chessboard (unless you're a computer)
3. What is SMTH?
QueenBailey wrote:
Something, and I say this as a total newbie who plays chess just fine blindfolded.
2. What I mean't was you can't play chess by pure numbers. Sure you can play chess blindfolded but you have to visualize a certain position in your head
QueenBailey wrote:
Or you could represent the same data differently. Such as with a different language. Be it numbers or variables. I prefer to think of twerking Lion-headed men for black and twerking pig-headed men for white. With assorted loincloths to denote pieces.
1. why?
2. what I'm saying is you have to represent the data in some way that isn't just numbers. Even SuperGM's like Magnus Carlsen and Vishy Anand would tell you this.
QueenBailey wrote:
A computer has the ability to represent this data as per just numbers, theoretically, a human could do the same. The human brain is much more powerful than the best computers by way of raw computations. It would however, take a little bit of skill to pilot one's mind in such a way. I also will not concede that twerking animal men constitute a board. There are no squares in my minds eye, and it isn't even a flat floor.
you are correct in two aspects, yes computers do this and yes it could be possible for humans to do this but humans are not more powerful than computers in the way of raw computations, you could argue however that humans could defeat a computer based on intuition.
Derdrieskye took the words right out of my mouth
QueenBailey wrote:
Yes, humans are capable of calculating flawlessly. We are also capable of flawed calculations. For a human to perform at the level of an engine or beyond we would need understanding. Guidelines like values or discipline. Pretty simple really, once the human has either been given such values OR done the work to pioneer them themselves. It's like this with any skill or activity within the human range. Sorry kid, I seem to be smarter than you.
i agree, ur a troll
whose case?
and I'm not a fanboy ar'ait
Sep 24, 2018
0
#16
Nope. When I play on a real board, rarely it takes me a while to get used to viewing the board in 3D.
B4CK5tABb3R wrote:
Short answer: No. Long answer: No, because I play mostly blitz and don't have time to set the board up.
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/gameplay-1
B4CK5tABb3R wrote:
Short answer: No. Long answer: No, because I play mostly blitz and don't have time to set the board up.
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/gameplay-1
DeirdreSkye wrote:
I agree with DeirdreSkye here. Stockfish is obviously better at calculating but worse at evaluating. Have you SEEN how it evaluates the wrong-colored rook pawn? Set it up, I'll wait. Put a white pawn anywhere on the h-file (except h8), a white bishop on any light square, black King on h8, and white king anywhere except g7, g8, h8, and h7 (for obvious reasons; also don't put him wherever the bishop and pawn are) and try to win. Black just moves from h8 to g7 to h8 back to g7. You win if you can force black's king out of h8 and g7.
QueenBailey wrote:
Because stockfish is better at evaluating positions than we are. GMs could beat stockfish with better ideas or they could beat stockfish by learning the same values and calculating further OR by learning better or similar values and using that language to come up with harder questions and better answers to push the fish out.
So a human can calculate flawlessly indefinitely like an engine but can't evaluate flawlessly.What a joke!
You are not just a troll and a cheater , you are also a huge idiot.
