Who else likes chess?

Post Reply New Topic

I'm not sure how to change it...
It's currently at guest2 I think currently, but It still counts my scores and stuff, so quickly, I might have to add you to my MSN Messenger thingy to be able to play you...

I like chess, especially the 3D variants. I taught my son to play when he was 5, and now (20 years later) he beats me every time we play.

As far as the losing to kids bit, little kids who play in tournaments tend to be really good, and the young minds are nimbler than older ones. They learn fast, and they can be natural tactical magicians. And the energy! The aggressiveness! They don't give you a moment's rest. Bold, enterprising play, a take-no-prisoners all-or-nothing mentality which lets them tear your position apart like a hungry lion after a wounded gazelle. Though an 11-year-old I had to play in a tourney once decided to study my openings as prep and chose to force an almost immediate draw against me. He wasn't comfortable with the way I played against his usual aggressive opening, so he switched to one that is known to be dead drawish.

For the rating bit, it depends on what scale you use. 1400 would put you at a low-mediocre club player level. My rating on FICS usually hovers around 1600, which according to their conversion scale is somewhere in the ballpark of 1400 USCF. If your 1400 rating was obtained anywhere other than USCF tournaments, expect it to be noticeably inflated. Ratings given by online chess servers or by chess programs are invariably much higher than those handed out by actual chess bodies like USCF or FIDE. I can't give a good estimate of where my numerical rating should lie, because every young chess player believes themselves to be significantly underrated, and I actually am! The sequences of puzzles in Chess Life (the USCF magazine) tell me that my understanding of the game would put me around 1800 (reasonably good club player) and this is supported by games I've played against a guy around 1800- he's pointed out that I have a good understanding of the game, and I can generally hold my own against him if I don't make any major blunders. Unfortunately, I lack the mental discipline necessary to actually apply my understanding consistently, and probably tend to play more in the 1100-1400 range (mediocre amateur) depending on how focused I am.

Don't play on Yahoo chess. It's buggy, and the community there sucks. I play on FICS, or, if you're willing to pay, there's the ICC. FICS has a better community than Yahoo, it's more reliable, and you can access it through a variety of different interfaces, the best one being BabasChess (free to download for Windows, allegedly works in WINE). I'm online there as offtherook, message me if you want a match.

Ok, well, chess prodigies aren't what I was picturing! I thought you played a few regular 8-year-olds, and they all killed you. But chess is actually one of the few things in life that age has basically nothing to do with. It's just skill, that's all. If you're playing a 1800 kid, he'll be as good as an 1800 60-year-old.



Interesting. My dad was an 1800 player, and he taught me the game. So I do believe heridity allows me some expansion of my current rating. I've only taken chess seriously for 2 years of my life, and that was over 10 years ago, so I'm not playing
at my full potential. But I bought 2 chess booklets "Queens Indian Defense" and "Nimzo-Indian Rubenstein", from the Everyman Chess series this weekend, and I'll glean what I can from them, and perhaps get more books afterwards.



Absolutely! So I discovered...



Okay, that sounds cool. I would like to take you up on that, even as the inferior player. My dad often played against his 2100-rated friend, a guy who writes and publishes chess books for a living, and won against him regularly enough.
Right now, I'm on MSN.com's Chess, and haven't experienced a single bug. But ya, my Dad played on the ICC exclusively (back when it was the only internet chess option). I wasn't sure if they were still around. My wife works late tonight, so I had already dedicated this evening to online chess, and it will be cool to play someone I sort-of "know", if you're online tonight. Right now, my rating on MSN hovers right around 1450. I played 4 games yesterday, and won 2, and 3 of those games were with mid-high 1500 players.

Last edited by Ragtime on 01 Dec 2008, 10:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

I seem to be the same way. I call it "being in the zone". If I'm not mentally there, it's pointless to play.

I'm too impulsive in Chess, often leaving openings, especially against overambitious knight users. The default Chess program in Ubuntu likes to use knights alot, and thoroughly owns me 95% of the time because of it.

Not necessarily prodigies, but anyone who starts playing chess fairly seriously at a young age can be really good. I disagree, an 1800 kid is much better than an 1800 senior. The reason is that the older player will play more conservatively and the game will hinge on positional understanding, which allows a slower pace. The kid won't have the same patience and will go straight for the jugular every time. They are equally strong only if you are better than them- if you are the underdog, it is better to play against the less aggressive player because they won't punish your mistakes as brutally.

I should have told you this earlier: don't waste time studying openings. I made that mistake. There are places where I know the theoretical book line up through 15-20 moves into the game (sometimes even farther, and in a couple lines I've memorized theory out to the drawn game) and doing so will not help you as much as tactical training. I've got several of those Everyman books as well, and they're nice, but all the book knowledge in the world is useless when your opponent deviates from theory on move 4 and you don't know how to refute their "incorrect" play. Just play generic openings; you'll develop a taste for certain ones as you go along and learn how they go through trial and error of what works and what doesn't. If you want to get better, study tactics because tactical knowledge will help you play better in any position, not just the ones you've read about in books.

I have a friend in his 20's who plays like you describe children doing. Aggressive from the start, and unrelenting. He sucks at defensive play, but in an even match or one where he spots an opportunity its painful to play against him. He only withholds resources briefly, and so they can gain an advantage, before returning to his assault. All the above applies to any game he plays.

I bring this up because it is the exact opposite of how I play. I play for position and numbers. We used to play chess together (we were the only good challenge the other could find in real life) but I have a bit more experience with it and have been on a winning spree. Even with the addition of the rule that every time you take a piece you must take a shot of liqueur I kept winning.

The only person we know who can challenge us in chess won state tournaments as a youth, and totally decimates either of us. There is no real endgame, because the midgame is such a slaughter.

So we took to playing Go with each other instead. As we were learning the game I lost 2 of every 3 games. We both enjoy the game much more (it gives you a lot more freedom), it has forced us to each incorporate aspects of each others styles in our own. He plays the early pieces in their traditionally 'neutral' position, while I seem to do better when I play the early game aggressively and stall his attempts to build a wide, sweeping backline.

In the light of such well studied opening books of Chess (which you can consider a crutch for most players), how do you feel about the open-ended challenge that Go presents? (where games are almost always won by forfeit)

I can't play Go. I know the rules, but I really don't understand exactly what you're supposed to be doing. (Yes, yes, I know the answer is "surround territory, but I don't know how to go about doing better than my opponent at that) I've only played Go against other people who have absolutely no idea what they're doing (thus making it a level playing field) and I always end up playing as though it were chess- using purely tactics, and just trying to capture my opponents stones.

Ya, that's what I'm doing, and I definitely learn more from playing and watching games than from reading about the openings.
As I said, I'm just gleaning what I can from the books, not trying to memorize them. I already know that memorizing openings and positions is not my forte, so I'm not going to waste my time spinning my wheels in that direction.
Rather, there are tiny truths I learn here and there from various theory books which stick firmly in my mind forever, and those are what I'm reading for. I've already learned a few just from the introduction and Chapter 1. (Remember, I'm quite ignorant when it comes to chess, so all information that sticks to me is benefit -- even just the basic truths that the books mention in passing by they assuming you already know them. Those are like epiphanies to me. )

I enjoy it, definitely.

I like Chess, but I suck at it, unfortunately. I have a very hard time thinking outside the box (with pretty much everything in life as well) so I'm unable to formulate new strategies or come up with new ideas based on the progression of the game. I also have a tendency to keep using the same old moves/strategies that may have worked in the past, but not for a long time.

For anyone here which is interested. I have created a playlist in my YouTube which contains different clips regarding chess.

You'll find them here.

Enjoy!

I've played chess off and on over the years & am part of a chess club. I've been known to try a variety of openings (Chessmaster is where that comes from) but then again that also helps with other subjects as well (I have an organic chemistry book which compares organic synthesis to chess). I've been beaten by stupid moves of my own but I also over analyze the board which gets me into trouble

Heh, welcome to the All Human Chess Players.

BTW, if you or anyone else wants to kick my ass at chess, I'm doing very poorly at the moment, so feel free to log-on to http://www.freechess.org as a guest and play me. My handle is "ScottJoplin". Or, better yet, if you're into chess, create your own identity on there and challenge me. It's quite fun to play, even if you lose (if you have the right attitude, that is).

I played quite well yesterday and the day before, winning 4 games in a row and basically a 5th as well (forgot the stalemate rule right before I checkmated him, so the 5th game was a draw), but last night and today the penduluum has swung in the other direction, and I am on one blazing inferno of a losing streak. (I've won or drawn 3 today, but I've lost about 6.)

I don't care at all about my rating, so I don't mind losing over and over again, I just enjoy learning. It's not like I'm going into chess as a career or anything, so I don't have to worry about protecting my rating from plummeting.