Hello, my name’s Wits-end and I’m a crippled old bird and I play classical chess.
classical chess is for crippled old birds
Sort:
My name is insert, and I, am addicted to classical chess.
*theme song*
Apr 25, 2022
0
#124
Steven-ODonoghue wrote:
Wits-end wrote:
Hello, my name’s Wits-end and I’m a crippled old bird and I play classical chess.
Hello, my name is Hans and drinking has ruined my life. I'm only 31 years old.
Hello Hans. Welcome, it’s good to meet you.
Apr 25, 2022
0
#125
CooloutAC wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
Stil1 wrote:
llama51 wrote:
Nice post, and you know, there are some things in my life I'm not good at (or knowledgeable about) because I enjoy the (as you put it) trial and error. I don't want to study for 100s of hours, I want to enjoy discovering things on my own, even if that means I'm stuck discovering beginner level things.
I think this might be one reason people get stuck below certain ratings.
Yeah, I am the same with many things. It's arguably more fun to discover or intuit things on your own.
And studying is, for most people, a boring activity. It's tough to encourage studying in something like chess, because playing is obviously far more fun.
But studying here and there, in small, bite-sized doses, can lead to more fun in the long run. Here and there, a player wins because he tried out an idea he saw in a video, or a book. Or they run into a position that they've glanced at before, with an engine, and they get excited about knowing how things should continue from that point on.
I think studying becomes more tolerable (and even enjoyable) when the player begins seeing positive results from it.
Tony Robbins likes to say, in his motivational speeches, that people are driven by progress and results. If you see forward progress, you like it, and start to crave more - and will continue with the steps that you took to get there.
I think the hard part (with chess, at least) is fighting against the addictive quality of the game itself. Who wants to analyze or review when you can, play play play?
It's like asking a kid to eat some vegetables, when there's a whole plate full of cookies nearby.
I studied the classical game that I lost in an OTB tournament on Saturday. Today, when I faced the same defense in a 10 minute game, I beat an NM in 20 moves.
I’m still studying an endgame that I won last week.
You could of done the same thing studying a 10 minute game for the next 10 minute game with the same positions. The time control is meaningless.
You may never know the experience of defending a lost position for three hours, and then studying what led to such a position. So, you need to trust those who have such experience: it enhances learning.
On the other hand, the endgame I won was from a 10 minute game and I’ve spent quite a few hours with Dvoretsky’s Endgame Manual and half a dozen other endgame books studying similar positions. Even Silman’s tome, which I like even less. Every author draws on Capablanca — Yates, even Silman. Silman, however, is the only endgame author who fails to tell you the position is from Capablanca — Yates.
Apr 25, 2022
0
#126
My name is Kat, and I am addicted to 10+0, 15|10 , 25|d5 and 30+0
*haunted house par neoni nightcore*
Apr 25, 2022
0
#127
CooloutAC wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
Stil1 wrote:
llama51 wrote:
Nice post, and you know, there are some things in my life I'm not good at (or knowledgeable about) because I enjoy the (as you put it) trial and error. I don't want to study for 100s of hours, I want to enjoy discovering things on my own, even if that means I'm stuck discovering beginner level things.
I think this might be one reason people get stuck below certain ratings.
Yeah, I am the same with many things. It's arguably more fun to discover or intuit things on your own.
And studying is, for most people, a boring activity. It's tough to encourage studying in something like chess, because playing is obviously far more fun.
But studying here and there, in small, bite-sized doses, can lead to more fun in the long run. Here and there, a player wins because he tried out an idea he saw in a video, or a book. Or they run into a position that they've glanced at before, with an engine, and they get excited about knowing how things should continue from that point on.
I think studying becomes more tolerable (and even enjoyable) when the player begins seeing positive results from it.
Tony Robbins likes to say, in his motivational speeches, that people are driven by progress and results. If you see forward progress, you like it, and start to crave more - and will continue with the steps that you took to get there.
I think the hard part (with chess, at least) is fighting against the addictive quality of the game itself. Who wants to analyze or review when you can, play play play?
It's like asking a kid to eat some vegetables, when there's a whole plate full of cookies nearby.
I studied the classical game that I lost in an OTB tournament on Saturday. Today, when I faced the same defense in a 10 minute game, I beat an NM in 20 moves.
I’m still studying an endgame that I won last week.
You could of done the same thing studying a 10 minute game for the next 10 minute game with the same positions. The time control is meaningless.
You may never know the experience of defending a lost position for three hours, and then studying what led to such a position. So, you need to trust those who have such experience: it enhances learning.
On the other hand, the endgame I won was from a 10 minute game and I’ve spent quite a few hours with Dvoretsky’s Endgame Manual and half a dozen other endgame books studying similar positions. Even Silman’s tome, which I like even less. Every author draws on Capablanca — Yates, even Silman. Silman, however, is the only endgame author who fails to tell you the position is from Capablanca — Yates.
everyone is different bud. and no I will never have that experience, indeed. lol
I am sad for you. You obviously enjoy the game. Too bad you are unwilling to experience it as a true sporting endeavor. You might be surprised how much you like it if you tried. The enthusiasm of the guy I beat in round one for postgame analysis after every one of his games was every bit as enjoyable as my own games.
Apr 25, 2022
0
#128
ur the reason why 13 yr olds in california, usa cant make a chess.com account under paragraph 3 of the user agreement (https://www.chess.com/legal/user-agreement)
Apr 25, 2022
0
#129
oh man this thread cracks me up.
Defending for 3 hours? Chess is a sport? I like the passion but it’s too extreme for me.
I will admit that I rely on the engine game analysis too much lately but it has serve me well for learning, finding critical moves and not repeating crushing mistakes. Which is probably why I do not own a book.
I also prefer counter attacking and active play over defending so may be it’s a matter of taste or personality.
Apr 25, 2022
0
#130
CooloutAC wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
Stil1 wrote:
llama51 wrote:
Nice post, and you know, there are some things in my life I'm not good at (or knowledgeable about) because I enjoy the (as you put it) trial and error. I don't want to study for 100s of hours, I want to enjoy discovering things on my own, even if that means I'm stuck discovering beginner level things.
I think this might be one reason people get stuck below certain ratings.
Yeah, I am the same with many things. It's arguably more fun to discover or intuit things on your own.
And studying is, for most people, a boring activity. It's tough to encourage studying in something like chess, because playing is obviously far more fun.
But studying here and there, in small, bite-sized doses, can lead to more fun in the long run. Here and there, a player wins because he tried out an idea he saw in a video, or a book. Or they run into a position that they've glanced at before, with an engine, and they get excited about knowing how things should continue from that point on.
I think studying becomes more tolerable (and even enjoyable) when the player begins seeing positive results from it.
Tony Robbins likes to say, in his motivational speeches, that people are driven by progress and results. If you see forward progress, you like it, and start to crave more - and will continue with the steps that you took to get there.
I think the hard part (with chess, at least) is fighting against the addictive quality of the game itself. Who wants to analyze or review when you can, play play play?
It's like asking a kid to eat some vegetables, when there's a whole plate full of cookies nearby.
I studied the classical game that I lost in an OTB tournament on Saturday. Today, when I faced the same defense in a 10 minute game, I beat an NM in 20 moves.
I’m still studying an endgame that I won last week.
You could of done the same thing studying a 10 minute game for the next 10 minute game with the same positions. The time control is meaningless.
You may never know the experience of defending a lost position for three hours, and then studying what led to such a position. So, you need to trust those who have such experience: it enhances learning.
On the other hand, the endgame I won was from a 10 minute game and I’ve spent quite a few hours with Dvoretsky’s Endgame Manual and half a dozen other endgame books studying similar positions. Even Silman’s tome, which I like even less. Every author draws on Capablanca — Yates, even Silman. Silman, however, is the only endgame author who fails to tell you the position is from Capablanca — Yates.
everyone is different bud. and no I will never have that experience, indeed. lol
I am sad for you. You obviously enjoy the game. Too bad you are unwilling to experience it as a true sporting endeavor. You might be surprised how much you like it if you tried. The enthusiasm of the guy I beat in round one for postgame analysis after every one of his games was every bit as enjoyable as my own games.
Love how you only quote the first sentence t of my post ignoring everything else. And the sheer irony in your statement, when I seem to be one of the few who does treat chess like a sport, and my whole purpose on these forums is arguing that people like you should. To me the clock is what makes chess sporting, and without it I would not enjoy it. Sorry bud. To each his own.
You edited your message while I was replying.
It is not irony. You do not understand the sporting aspects of chess.
Apr 25, 2022
0
#131
Chuck639 wrote:
oh man this thread cracks me up.
Defending for 3 hours? Chess is a sport? I like the passion but it’s too extreme for me.
I will admit that I rely on the engine game analysis too much lately but it has serve me well for learning, finding critical moves and not repeating crushing mistakes. Which is probably why I do not own a book.
I also prefer counter attacking and active play over defending so may be it’s a matter of taste or personality.
Two bishops and a rook against two rooks and a bishop. Lots of pawns. I was technically lost, but my opponent had some work to do.
Apr 25, 2022
0
#132
Chuck639 wrote:
oh man this thread cracks me up.
Defending for 3 hours? Chess is a sport? I like the passion but it’s too extreme for me.
I will admit that I rely on the engine game analysis too much lately but it has serve me well for learning, finding critical moves and not repeating crushing mistakes. Which is probably why I do not own a book.
I also prefer counter attacking and active play over defending so may be it’s a matter of taste or personality.
actually the organization that oversees the olympics recognizes chess as a sport, just not an exciting enough sport to be on tv. google it, i dont feel like linking it rn
Apr 25, 2022
0
#133
At the end of the day, I've played more blitz and bullet than coolout, I've played in more OTB tournaments than coolout, and I don't disagree with conventional wisdom (which allows for some blitzings and puzzlerushing and etc).
So again, the burden of proof is on him, and all he does is produce loosely related GM quotes as if they're agreeing with him (when they aren't).
Apr 25, 2022
0
#134
I went though all of Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual because I'm a huge fking endgame dork (or at least I used to be). Nothing psychological about it.
It was useful. I learned the standard evaluation of many endgames, which improved my middlegame strategy, and since the endgame places a heavy emphasis on piece activity my tactics improved. My calculation also improved (but that would happen when working seriously with any book, since you sometimes visualize from the page).
Was it as useful as other things I could have done to improve? No... but I was a huge dork... because I actually enjoyed it. If I'd enjoyed something more useful I'd be a better player 
But like I said, it still helped me improve.
Apr 25, 2022
0
#135
Steven-ODonoghue wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Dvoretzky's book is what people with inferiority complexes get to feel smart.
You should try to post without making negative psychological diagnoses for the people you're talking with, this may draw away your readers. You do it alot.
FWIW I actually agree with some of what you are saying here. Particularly this post, which I feel was well said:
CooloutAC wrote:
We see it with the age of online chess. with the new and upcoming chess players. With myself personally. Even with the sentiments of the pros and commentators who are trying to move the sport forward to become more popular by general society. You got very skilled players on this website who rarely if ever play classical. I think it was Naroditzky who said during the SCC championship that he has watched the evolution of chess online and 5 min blitz is the new rapid lol. Classical is only necessary if being good at classical is your aspiration.
Quickly improving kids have profiles like yours... lots of games under lots of time controls (including variants, puzzles, etc). So it's partly a horse and cart question. A profile like that indicates passion, and it's not a surprise passionate people improve.
As for strong titled kids playing blitz, well sure, but (as indicated by their classical OTB title) they also play classical OTB games. Without knowing how much time they spend with each I wont venture a guess as to how much that helps or hurts them.
You're dissimilar in that (AFAIK) you don't play OTB. You're getting into the dark arts (or less spectacular sounding, the non-white-bread version of chess). Will that help you be better at blitz than you otherwise would have been? Hmm, maybe. I don't know. Earlier in this topic (I think it was this topic, I'm getting tired...) I criticized an IM for playing "correctly" against me when it was a bullet game, so apparently I don't consider ALL knowledge to be useful. And it seems reasonable that as long as you continue to learn and play that you'll improve.
Apr 25, 2022
0
#136
CooloutAC wrote:
Chuck639 wrote:
oh man this thread cracks me up.
Defending for 3 hours? Chess is a sport? I like the passion but it’s too extreme for me.
I will admit that I rely on the engine game analysis too much lately but it has serve me well for learning and not repeating mistakes. Which is probably why I do not own a book.
I also prefer counter attacking and active play over defending so may be it’s a matter of taste or personality.
true. I don't think you really need a book. But for some of us its enjoyable to pass the time, especially us old birds that are use to learning things that way lmao. Getting the books can be nostalgic and make you feel intellectual. Analyzing your games is what is most important.
I have noticed that as a beginner I tend to be way too aggressive. I also am not good at defending. One thing that helped me a bit is gotham chess video on how to defend against queen attacks. I mean people use to smack me all up and down with just their queen. lol. I mean in this day and age we have many tools on the internet that replaced alot of these books imo.
I have to do way more puzzles, its what all the modern coaches encourage. You have to do your daily puzzles like a chore.
Everybody learns differently and hopefully progresses at a different rate. We also have different goals. Those goals also include a timeline. As an example, most of my friends have over 3000+ rapid games and me; 300 (I was forced to play 100 in the last 3 months under a training program and it was the worst chess experience ever!) and we started around the same time.
I like to take my time. If you can stay engaged and enjoy the learning experience; that’s what’s best for you.
Apr 25, 2022
0
#137
CooloutAC wrote:
llama51 wrote:
I went though all of Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual because I'm a huge fking endgame dork (or at least I used to be). Nothing psychological about it.
It was useful. I learned the standard evaluation of many endgames, which improved my middlegame strategy, and since the endgame places a heavy emphasis on piece activity my tactics improved. My calculation also improved (but that would happen when working seriously with any book, since you sometimes visualize from the page).
Was it as useful as other things I could have done to improve? No... but I was a huge dork... because I actually enjoyed it. If I'd enjoyed something more useful I'd be a better player But like I said, it still helped me improve.
Robert Hess makes fun of people for saying they read that book. Most people who own it just have it collecting dust on their shelves including most GM's. Its the whole reason Silman wrote his endgame book, because Dovoretzky is just painful to read. And I think you meant intellectual, not psychological lol.
But hey if you enjoyed it thats cool man, even more amazing that you finished it.
I mean psychologically pathological I suppose.
Anyway, yeah, I spend about 80 hours with it IIRC. The rook chapter stretched on forever. That actually tested my patience.
Silman said it's more of a reference book, so you shouldn't actually read it like I did. Meh. Whatever. That was ~10 years ago.
Apr 25, 2022
0
#138
CooloutAC wrote:
Chuck639 wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Chuck639 wrote:
oh man this thread cracks me up.
Defending for 3 hours? Chess is a sport? I like the passion but it’s too extreme for me.
I will admit that I rely on the engine game analysis too much lately but it has serve me well for learning and not repeating mistakes. Which is probably why I do not own a book.
I also prefer counter attacking and active play over defending so may be it’s a matter of taste or personality.
true. I don't think you really need a book. But for some of us its enjoyable to pass the time, especially us old birds that are use to learning things that way lmao. Getting the books can be nostalgic and make you feel intellectual. Analyzing your games is what is most important.
I have noticed that as a beginner I tend to be way too aggressive. I also am not good at defending. One thing that helped me a bit is gotham chess video on how to defend against queen attacks. I mean people use to smack me all up and down with just their queen. lol. I mean in this day and age we have many tools on the internet that replaced alot of these books imo.
I have to do way more puzzles, its what all the modern coaches encourage. You have to do your daily puzzles like a chore.
Everybody learns differently and hopefully progresses at a different rate. We also have different goals. Those goals also include a timeline. As an example, most of my friends have over 3000+ rapid games and me; 300 (I was forced to play 100 in the last 3 months under a training program and it was the worst chess experience ever!) and we started around the same time.
I like to take my time. If you can stay engaged and enjoy the learning experience; that’s what’s best for you.
take those number of games with a grain of salt. Most people tend to have multiple accounts. lol I insist on playing only on one account including playing rated matches except on occasion. Just to stay honorable for myself within the system. It is my belief that e-sports in general will never be respected by general society because of how easy it is to undermine.
Also i have a tendency not to take a break. And when you play blitz you have a much greater chance of going on crazy long tilts and trashing your rating. Which because I am an emotional player I tend to do. A solution to that is sometimes to take a day off or play a relaxing classical match.
We play chess for different reasons.
My story is funny because I tore my MCL from doing MMA and took up chess again as a drinking game. So it’s funny to me when people say “chess is a sport”.
The other thing, I am not a person who can grind rapid games back to back to back and so on, otherwise I would of experienced burn out as I have witnessed with others.
OTB, for some reason the games go by fast!
I have gone on tilts in bullet, blitz, rapid and coincidentally, they always occurred when I was taught something new and sober.
Apr 25, 2022
0
#139
Chuck639 wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Chuck639 wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Chuck639 wrote:
oh man this thread cracks me up.
Defending for 3 hours? Chess is a sport? I like the passion but it’s too extreme for me.
I will admit that I rely on the engine game analysis too much lately but it has serve me well for learning and not repeating mistakes. Which is probably why I do not own a book.
I also prefer counter attacking and active play over defending so may be it’s a matter of taste or personality.
true. I don't think you really need a book. But for some of us its enjoyable to pass the time, especially us old birds that are use to learning things that way lmao. Getting the books can be nostalgic and make you feel intellectual. Analyzing your games is what is most important.
I have noticed that as a beginner I tend to be way too aggressive. I also am not good at defending. One thing that helped me a bit is gotham chess video on how to defend against queen attacks. I mean people use to smack me all up and down with just their queen. lol. I mean in this day and age we have many tools on the internet that replaced alot of these books imo.
I have to do way more puzzles, its what all the modern coaches encourage. You have to do your daily puzzles like a chore.
Everybody learns differently and hopefully progresses at a different rate. We also have different goals. Those goals also include a timeline. As an example, most of my friends have over 3000+ rapid games and me; 300 (I was forced to play 100 in the last 3 months under a training program and it was the worst chess experience ever!) and we started around the same time.
I like to take my time. If you can stay engaged and enjoy the learning experience; that’s what’s best for you.
take those number of games with a grain of salt. Most people tend to have multiple accounts. lol I insist on playing only on one account including playing rated matches except on occasion. Just to stay honorable for myself within the system. It is my belief that e-sports in general will never be respected by general society because of how easy it is to undermine.
Also i have a tendency not to take a break. And when you play blitz you have a much greater chance of going on crazy long tilts and trashing your rating. Which because I am an emotional player I tend to do. A solution to that is sometimes to take a day off or play a relaxing classical match.
We play chess for different reasons.
My story is funny because I tore my MCL from doing MMA and took up chess again as a drinking game. So it’s funny to me when people say “chess is a sport”.
The other thing, I am not a person who can grind rapid games back to back to back and so on, otherwise I would of experienced burn out as I have witnessed with others.
OTB, for some reason the games go by fast!
I have gone on tilts in bullet, blitz, rapid and coincidentally, they always occurred when I was taught something new and sober.
You can now get “verified” with a check mark if you are worried about chess being undermined!
NervesofButter wrote:
m9829018 wrote:
blitz is a bit more doable but bullet, it is simply based on premoves which you can't actually do on the board. it's fictional.. an imaginary thing.
blitz is mostly based on time management, traps and other tricky things.. still it is 50-50 chess imo. but blitz players are also %50 chess players according to this.
two names comes to mind at master levels. Magnus and Nakamura.. Naka is well known twitch/youtube speed chess entertainer (?) and still has no chance against Magnus on classic chess.
Nakamura isnt even in the top 10 anymore.
well this aged well.... tbf tho i feel like he probably could break the top 10 if he wanted to
I studied the classical game that I lost in an OTB game on Saturday. Today, when I faced the same defense in a 10 minute game, I beat an NM in 20 moves.
Bingo. The power of studying. Nicely done.