Personal Chess algorithm

Chess is an amazing game, we can all agree on that. We all can have games where we feel like the reincarnation of Bobby Fischer, or some other chess genius. We can read book after book, but where, in all of the staggering wealth of chess books do we found our own personal chess algorithm? 

My chess at the moment is more like a 12 year old school boy that has just discovered chess for the first time. However, I know, absolutely, positively, that I have felt ' in the zone '  on quite a few occasions whereby I felt I was in full control of the game I was playing at the time. 

We read books of past chess geniuses and current ones too, but what we are reading is their account, their perspective of the game and looking through their games; and wondering if we could ever do the same. 

I am now on a quest to find my own chess algorithm. The chess playing style that works for me; the chess playing style that compliments my train of thought; my thought process is the key! 

It is said that if you were to line up thirty pianists and asked them to play the same piece of music; they would all play the same exact piece of music, but in their own style, in their own way, unique to how they thought and behaved in life. If that's the case; that same exact premise should indeed work for playing chess too. 

I have read on a few occasions that chess isn't a game for those with weak constitutions. That it isn't a game for those who don't have the ' killer instinct! ' 

What would happen if you put two people together to play chess that didn't possess that ' killer instinct? ' Two people that were as mild mannered as Clark Kent ( Superman's alter ego, or vice versa )? If these two people playing chess wouldn't say ' boo to a goose? ' If they were the type of people to carry a ladybird a thousand miles to be with it's in-laws in Mexico? 

Who would win? Would they both play the first two pawns then take a break for a nice cup of tea? No - of course they wouldn't! One of them would win and the other would presumably lose; or at least walk off looking for his mummy. 

What happens when you pit two people against each other that do possess that ' killer instinct? ' In fact, better still; two inmates ' doin time ' for some serious crime. You can't get more of a killer instinct than that; right?  

Of course; all of this is ' poppy-cock. ' It depends hugely on the person you are playing ( to a deep degree ) and which style they themselves present to you. Or does it? 

In the past I have played the same person 5 times; and subsequently lost 5 times. Then on the 6th occasion of playing that person; ' beat him to a pulp! ' Beat him so severely that he needed sedating after the game. In fact he called the medics to allow them to administer a sedative... Ahem! 

Anyhoot; what changed? I felt like Bobby had come back and was playing through me; like he had found a muse in me and was articulating and wielding his mighty sword of a chess playing mind to ' open a can of royal whupp arse ' on my opponent. Sadly, it was a ' one off. ' The very next game, the same guy destroyed me psychologically and whilst I was locked up in a psychiatric ward; I pondered my latest defeat. 

So then; personal chess algorithms...

When I find mine I will surely let you know. 

I see chess as a military operation, where:

the Queen is a witch with supernatural powers,

the Rooks are chariots (like the ones used in Roman gladiator fighting) that ride into battle,

the Bishops are snipers killing the enemy pieces from a distance in the bushes,

the Knights are the kung-fu masters that excell in close combat with other pieces,

the Pawns are the walls of a fortress, as well as large battalions of infantrymen (depending on assigned roles).

and...

the King is a cowardly idiot who is so unreliable that the other pieces decided to pass his authority onto humans like me.

I play passive openings to give me time to get my pieces ready. Then, I commence an attack, using each piece's strength and exploit its power while covering its weaknesses with other pieces as much as I can. 

After eating dumplings with hot sauce, I play positionally to execute my plans, reserving my tactical prowess only for special occasions and for getting out of dilemmas. 

Is that what you wanted?

If that particular algorithm works for you Vulpes, then so be it. And an interesting perspective on how your pieces work; although I am still working out where the dumplings fit in... 

Humor. 

.

1

Daz, your hilarious pseudo-philosophical musings are the epitome of avuncular inanity, indeed you are already let down by the badly chosen title which demonstrates that you do not even comprehend what an algorithm is.

e4,

if e5 then nf3, if nc6 then d4

If c5 then c3 if d5 then exd5

if d5 then exd5 then probably something like d4

if e6 then d4 if d5 than Nd2

If c6 then d4 if d5 then Nc3

If anything else, then just try to control and over protect the center.



That's my algorithm for the first 2 or so moves while playing white.

Dat is geen algorithm Vivinski, met een algorithm kan je een random factor invoeren, en chess is niet random.

it's pretty close to an algorithm

I am still assembling my own chess algorithm. Parts of it are already clear to me, though:

1) Knights should move forward. You can hear a Knight coming, so it should take the shortest available route.

2) Bishops can be used sideways. Bishops are sneaky... you can't hear them coming.

An example, from one of my own games, of using a Bishop sideways:

I have had some time off and away from chess.com; life sometimes just controls one's ability to get involved with the things we like doing. 

I shall be trying to find a suitable playing partner pretty soon me-thinks. 

My own personal chess algorithm is no where near the starting marker; I am finding it particularly difficult to find a rhythm. I have by far too many ideas on how I would like to play, but certainly not enough time to put those ideas into progress. A shame really, because I think it's important to find time for the things we find fascinating and chess is certainly a fascination of mine and also my nemesis! Grr  

So here goes once more; another attempt at ' breaking the back of the chess monster. '