Forums

How do you approach chess?

Sort:
AccursedChild
blackmore324 ha scritto:
AccursedChild wrote:
blackmore324 ha scritto:

You are going to open your opponents stats page, waste 3-5 minutes looking up all their different openings they have ever played, and then decide what you are going to play based on your own prep? Does anyone seriously do this? What are you going to do if the opponent plays openings you haven't prepped for (hint this is very likely)? And I guess with this approach you never intend to play blitz or bullet.

I'm sorry, I didn't make myself clear apparently. (no, i realized that I missed an s: playerS)
The stats i'm referring to, are the chess.com ones; the ones that tells you what percentage of players plays, i don't know, the london system.
In that way, if you study the most played opening, you'll have an higher chance to play against someone with that opening, and there you will have understood how to behave....
But as I said, I may be missing something; in my head, you take, i don't know, the Italian game, and then you make various different moves against a computer with both white and black, and from that starting point, you see how the computer would react and where would it bring doing so.

Do you have any Idea just how many variations can are arise form the *Checks Notes* Italian game? Do yourself a favor and look at the Italian game in the chess.com explorer or opening book (https://www.chess.com/openings/Italian-Game). The Italian game can transition into a multitude of set ups. There is the four knights, Giuoco Piano, Hungarian defense, there are the d6, h6, and e6 pawn moves, blackburne shilling and Rousseau gambits, and many more completely playable sidelines. Are you going to sit there and memorize all of this? I play the Italian, I know only know couple of moves for Bc5 and Nf6 since those are the most popular continuations but even then usually after another 5-6 moves I am in completely new territory.

No, actually I didn't, that's why I asked you to explain.
I now realize I was dead wrong about this:
"in my head, you take, i don't know, the Italian game, and then you make various different moves against a computer with both white and black, and from that starting point, you see how the computer would react and where would it bring doing so."
But, as I said to a couple of other people here, you all made quite a valid point about theory and I will give it a shot to the Italian game.
Is that your go-to opening? Or do you prefer playing something else?

blackmore324
AccursedChild wrote:
blackmore324 ha scritto:
AccursedChild wrote:
blackmore324 ha scritto:

You are going to open your opponents stats page, waste 3-5 minutes looking up all their different openings they have ever played, and then decide what you are going to play based on your own prep? Does anyone seriously do this? What are you going to do if the opponent plays openings you haven't prepped for (hint this is very likely)? And I guess with this approach you never intend to play blitz or bullet.

I'm sorry, I didn't make myself clear apparently. (no, i realized that I missed an s: playerS)
The stats i'm referring to, are the chess.com ones; the ones that tells you what percentage of players plays, i don't know, the london system.
In that way, if you study the most played opening, you'll have an higher chance to play against someone with that opening, and there you will have understood how to behave....
But as I said, I may be missing something; in my head, you take, i don't know, the Italian game, and then you make various different moves against a computer with both white and black, and from that starting point, you see how the computer would react and where would it bring doing so.

Do you have any Idea just how many variations can are arise form the *Checks Notes* Italian game? Do yourself a favor and look at the Italian game in the chess.com explorer or opening book (https://www.chess.com/openings/Italian-Game). The Italian game can transition into a multitude of set ups. There is the four knights, Giuoco Piano, Hungarian defense, there are the d6, h6, and e6 pawn moves, blackburne shilling and Rousseau gambits, and many more completely playable sidelines. Are you going to sit there and memorize all of this? I play the Italian, I know only know couple of moves for Bc5 and Nf6 since those are the most popular continuations but even then usually after another 5-6 moves I am in completely new territory.

No, actually I didn't, that's why I asked you to explain.
I now realize I was dead wrong about this:
"in my head, you take, i don't know, the Italian game, and then you make various different moves against a computer with both white and black, and from that starting point, you see how the computer would react and where would it bring doing so."
But, as I said to a couple of other people here, you all made quite a valid point about theory and I will give it a shot to the Italian game.
Is that your go-to opening? Or do you prefer playing something else?

If my opponent lets me play an Italian then yes. I think you are forgetting that it takes two players to arrive at a specific opening set up. My opponent doesn't have to play an Italian, they can instead play a Sicilian, French, Scandinavian, Caro Kann, Pirc, Modern, Alekhine's, Nimzowitsch defense, Petrov, Philidor, Elephant and Latvian gambits, and many many more playable sidelines. Being a e5 player means being comfortable playing unfamiliar positions, because it is unreasonable to prepare for everything. At some point you just have to play the position given to you.

SocratesFTW

This may sound strange but I have often played chess "for pleasure". Foreign idea I know, but hear me out.
I play strictly book. I have often resigned games quickly if someone plays total garbage like a lot of the OOB stuff to avoid wasting my time. Playing chess helps my mind wind down and work on logic. When people intentionally play garbage, I just censor and block them. I have no clue how many more years I will live since I have already outlasted my doctor's forecast of next year (in 2018). 
Between PTSD, Severe ADHD, Bipolar, and Early Onset Alzheimer's, my doctor has no clue how I even function. I tell them I read when I can and I play a lot fo chess to veg out.

wickedNH
SocratesFTW wrote:

This may sound strange but I have often played chess "for pleasure". Foreign idea I know, but hear me out.
I play strictly book. I have often resigned games quickly if someone plays total garbage like a lot of the OOB stuff to avoid wasting my time. Playing chess helps my mind wind down and work on logic. When people intentionally play garbage, I just censor and block them. I have no clue how many more years I will live since I have already outlasted my doctor's forecast of next year (in 2018). 
Between PTSD, Severe ADHD, Bipolar, and Early Onset Alzheimer's, my doctor has no clue how I even function. I tell them I read when I can and I play a lot fo chess to veg out.

I don't play odd openings but my chess is messy garbage and sometimes I win with it.

sbrewingcompany

To method chess effectively, the center of attention is on learning the fundamentals: manipulate the center, improve your pieces, ensure king safety, and hold pawn structure. Study systems and strategies, assess basic games, exercise regularly, and analyze your video games to look for mistakes.

hfdhgfgf

I enjoy reading about chess and there is a number of blogs that I follow. And I do toy with the idea of starting a chess blog myself in a distant and uncertain future. So I want to tap your combined knowledge:

Compadre_J
AccursedChild wrote:
Compadre_J ha scritto:

You don’t understand how chess players find enjoyment copying machine moves.

Ask yourself the question:

How did the Machines find the moves for a person to copy?

Because it has a set of alghoritms that find the best move in any given situation?
I'm not understanding if you are advocating for human presence in chess alghoritms (in wich I say "you are right"), or for the fact that chess engines are imitating GMs while beating all of them with 0% chance for the GM to even draw.

Yep, you are correct.

The majority of machines were programmed by humans to play different chess algorithms.

—————

In addition, Chess Programmers throughout history paid various GrandMasters to help improve the quality of the moves of these chess machines.

For Example:

GrandMaster Bronstein was said to have been paid to help programmers design a better chess machine. These various Chess programmers through out history consulted Chess Professionals to help improve their machines.

——————

Once, you understand the above, it makes things become more clear.

You see chess players are logical.

They play moves with a logical reason behind the moves.

—————

Furthermore, It is 100% possible that a chess player can play identical chess lines similar to a Computer engine with out ever even consulting a computer engine.

This is because a person could buy books published by a strong chess player and same chess player could have been a consultant to a programmer.

————————

‘Once, you understand all the above, you can begin to understand how fascinating chess really is. A person could play a chess game played by a player in the 1500’s who had a chess idea and today we can understand and replicate that idea if we wish too.

AccursedChild
SocratesFTW ha scritto:

This may sound strange but I have often played chess "for pleasure". Foreign idea I know, but hear me out.
I play strictly book. I have often resigned games quickly if someone plays total garbage like a lot of the OOB stuff to avoid wasting my time. Playing chess helps my mind wind down and work on logic. When people intentionally play garbage, I just censor and block them. I have no clue how many more years I will live since I have already outlasted my doctor's forecast of next year (in 2018). 
Between PTSD, Severe ADHD, Bipolar, and Early Onset Alzheimer's, my doctor has no clue how I even function. I tell them I read when I can and I play a lot fo chess to veg out.

I'm sorry for your current situation.
But I play chess for pleasure too; i was just curious how others approach chess; what OOB stands for? never heard that acronym.

Hoffmann713
AccursedChild ha scritto:
I can tell for experience that there are kids out there that have PERFECT technique of playing the piano while lacking any kind of expression or talent: they play pieces in a boring way, and that's why they don't go far.
d.

This is a bit of an exaggeration.

What do you mean by "perfect technique"? If you mean the technique necessary to just perform relatively simple pieces, ok, it can be achieved with exclusively-mechanical training. But the more complex the technique becomes, the more it is inextricably linked to musical expression. It is difficult to train a person like an automaton to play complex repertoire pieces, without him having a minimum of expressive skills. To master an advanced technique you need to have the passion to play, you have to "feel" the music. Maybe you don’t have the expressiveness of Martha Argerich or Christian Zacharias, but still you can't be without it. You can't leanr to do it on command, like a circus seal.

In any case, even referring to simple repertoire, no serious European-level competition jury ( like the one you participated in ) awards a fifth prize to a pianist who does not have a minimum of expressive ability, considering the long line of very gifted young people, both technically and musically, who participate in similar competitions.

I think that you necessarily possess these musical skill. What you have learned to do with music is not just due to forced training ( if I didn't misunderstand what you're saying about yourself ) : it's just that for understandable psychological reasons you tend to reject it .

AccursedChild
Hoffmann713 ha scritto:
AccursedChild ha scritto:
I can tell for experience that there are kids out there that have PERFECT technique of playing the piano while lacking any kind of expression or talent: they play pieces in a boring way, and that's why they don't go far.
d.

This is a bit of an exaggeration.

What do you mean by "perfect technique"? If you mean the technique necessary to just perform relatively simple pieces, ok, it can be achieved with exclusively-mechanical training. But the more complex the technique becomes, the more it is inextricably linked to musical expression. It is difficult to train a person like an automaton to play complex repertoire pieces, without him having a minimum of expressive skills. To master an advanced technique you need to have the passion to play, you have to "feel" the music. Maybe you don’t have the expressiveness of Martha Argerich or Christian Zacharias, but still you can't be without it. You can't leanr to do it on command, like a circus seal.

In any case, even referring to simple repertoire, no serious European-level competition jury ( like the one you participated in ) awards a fifth prize to a pianist who does not have a minimum of expressive ability, considering the long line of very gifted young people, both technically and musically, who participate in similar competitions.

I think that you necessarily possess these musical skill. What you have learned to do with music is not just due to forced training ( if I didn't misunderstand what you're saying about yourself ) : it's just that for understandable psychological reasons you tend to reject it .

Ti scrivo in italiano che faccio prima (because I suppose your speak italian).
Ho sentito persone suonare "La Campanella" di Listz in maniera perfetta (lo so perché la suono anch'io, ma al contrario di queste persone la mia tecnica è assai più becera), ma che sembrava letteralmente una traslitterazione in MIDI; o comunque, che facevo i piani ed i forti da spartito e fine: sembrava regolassero il volume con un telecomando remoto.
Ora, io sono arrivato quinto perché ho avuto una sfortuna particolare che è lunga a raccontarsi, ma tra i presenti e gli insegnanti che mi avevano sentito suonare non al massimo delle mie capacità, mi dicevano che per la condizione in cui mi sono trovato e per essere comunque arrivato quinto con quello che avevo suonato, sarei anche potuto arrivare terzo (se addirittura non primo) se non fosse stato per quella cosetta.
Questo per dire che non è che rigetto il fatto che potessi essere bravo (perché lo ero, a 10 anni presi il massimo dei voti ad un esame di ingresso al conservatorio, cosa che non accadeva da una decina d'anni in quel posto anche con gente all'epoca più grande di me), ma il fatto che ritengo la mia bravura tecnica frutto dell'educazione mia familiare, e la mia "bravura interpretativa" (se vogliamo) frutto che era quello che potessi fare per rendere 6 ore di esercizio giornaliere più tollerabili: perlomeno, provare a divertirmi comunque.
Sono sicuro che ci sono miriade di altri enfant-prodige nel campo della musica, che fanno quello che era il mio stesso ragionamento: se proprio devo starci 6 ore al giorno, che perlomeno provi a divertirmici.
Com'è che faceva quella frase di Beethoven?
"Suonare un pezzo senza tecnica è un errore, suonare un pezzo senza passione è inaccettabile" o qualcosa del genere.
Mentre attualmente, percepisco il pianoforte come una parte di me che esiste al posto di qualcos'altro...non so come spiegarlo, ma è come se creassi un personaggio in un videogioco (facciamo Dark Souls, lo conosci?) e sebbene volessi fare una build particolare (facciamo Forza), ti trovi una statistica che non ti interessa (facciamo Destrezza) e sei costretto a fartela andare bene...magari poi ti diverti, però ogni volta che ci pensi, ti rendi conto che esiste al posto di qualcos'altro, che nel mio caso è stata un'infanzia molto sola.
Comunque ti ringrazio del tuo volermi supportare, lo apprezzo assai!

Hoffmann713
AccursedChild ha scritto:

Com'è che faceva quella frase di Beethoven?
"Suonare un pezzo senza tecnica è un errore, suonare un pezzo senza passione è inaccettabile"

Ce n'è un'altra altrettanto carina, sempre di Beethoven : "I virtuosi sono persone che perdono ragione e sentimento man mano che acquistano velocità nelle dita".

Confesso di aver letto sommariamente il thread e molte cose mi erano sfuggite, ma comunque avevo capito il punto. Me ne dispiace, ma comprendo bene che anche una cosa bella come la musica, se somministrata senza tener conto della sensibilità e delle aspirazioni di chi dovrebbe fruirne, può essere vissuta come una imposizione. Con le conseguenze che ne derivano.

I miei migliori auguri per tutto.

Trokly34

Hey there! I totally get where you're coming from. Chess should feel like a creative battle, not a memory contest. That's why I dig ChessMood. They're all about understanding the principles behind the moves, not just regurgitating lines. It's like learning the art behind the game, not just the moves. Keeps things fresh and exciting!

Link to ChessMood: https://chessmood.com/?r=NationalChessBlasters

Good Luck,

Trokly34

HonoringStar40
Trokly34 wrote:

Hey there! I totally get where you're coming from. Chess should feel like a creative battle, not a memory contest. That's why I dig ChessMood. They're all about understanding the principles behind the moves, not just regurgitating lines. It's like learning the art behind the game, not just the moves. Keeps things fresh and exciting!

Link to ChessMood: https://chessmood.com/?r=NationalChessBlasters

Good Luck,

Trokly34

I agree with Trokly. Thanks to ChessMood, I've learned to recognize and defeat certain trappy principles and overall just improved my understanding on how to play moves in play! The rating increase I saw happen as a result (700->1200 on Rapid) is a testament to how useful this is! Come try it and see how you can be just like me!

ChessMasteryOfficial

Use theoretical knowledge as a base while still making room for personal creativity and exploration.

BigChessplayer665

Here's how I opproach chess

"Me see free peice me take free peice "

" Me see no free peice me go attack " or build up the podion so you can attack if there isn't one