• As part of the relaunch of Skullheart, ALL previous threads have been archived. You can find them at the bottom of the forum in the Archives (2021) section. The archives are locked, so please use the new forum sections to create new discussion threads.

Chess

and it is easily possible to make a game better for (a)spectators, (b)new players, and (c)top players all at the same time. it happens all the time, probably constantly, in the development periods of all kinds of games. maybe an easy example is the removal of items from smash. spectators and top players almost unanimously prefer this. new players with opinions on the matter tend to be split in their opinions but in fact the game is made way more accessible/less complicated by this change. it's really just not true at all to say that you can't improve a game for all three of those groups, i don't know where you're getting that idea
 
The thing is, chess rules have NEVER been immutable. It isnt some sacred shit. The queen was given a heap of power by being able to fully traverse ranks and files. This was a HUGE change and required another HUGE change... Castling. So that the queen didnt chop off the opposing kings head in the opening.

Just about any semi reasonable change to chess with the intended goal to be to keep, positional and tactical chess alive, but to throw the opening theory back on its heels, could be seen as a good change.. For everyone.

As far as decent goes for myself, i say it like..i can beat or destroy most people that dont practice the game regularly (like myself) but know all the moves and do have a bit of experience playing... Like myself...


Id get destroyed by a tournie player... But yeah, goes without saying.
 
Too lazy to read most of these posts, but everyone knows games are almost entirely subjective, so whether a change improves something or makes it worse highly depends on what the individual player wants out of the game.

I love, love, love RNG in my single player action game enemy ai (to force you to react and improvise), but I know speed running folks hate that shit. Well fuck them. They can have their boring lame route memorization and I'll have my twitchy, fun, reflex play.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: PaperBag_Sniper
Beuzer0 said:
I would like to try again someday, hoping that I would have the patience and not be frustrated by the result
Chess makes me rage harder than FGs ever did.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jimbob
Kristoph said:
the important question is 'can a designer think of things which are wrong with the game,' the answer to which is 'yes, and many already have.'
Okay, I'm a designer and I think chess has a terrible fault, which is the blatant racism of putting the player with the white pieces in a superior position over the black ones.
In my opinion, black should move first, or at least there should be a coin toss prior to every match, which determines which colour gets the first move right.

Now I'm a designer and I thought of a thing that is wrong with the game. Does that make me right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalemate#Proposed_rule_change some people think Stalemate should be a win for the one that is stalemating.
Now, would that change actually make the game a better one?

I can't follow your train of thought at all.. of course anyone can "think of things which are wrong with the game". But whether those things are actually 'wrong with the game' or they're just stupid people.. ..who calls the verdict on that?

I'm sure you'll find someone who thinks chess would be a better game like this:
mafaldaajedrez02.gif
But what is this supposed to tell me??

it is easily possible to make a game better for (a)spectators, (b)new players, and (c)top players all at the same time. it happens all the time, probably constantly, in the development periods of all kinds of games.
You did this before, too -- do you actually notice what you are writing there.

You also kind of lost me somewhere in the middle of the path..
You are dodging every question on what you think is wrong with the game, dropped the Kingwalk idea, and are now just debating whether there is a theoretical possibility of someone coming up with an idea that makes chess objectively better, but already know that even if that happened, said rule change would never get implemented..?
Yeah.. sure? If this is really all that you're even talking about anymore ("It's way easy!" - "Okay do it" - "I don't have to do it, it was done during the beta test of some video game before, so obviously it'd be a piece of cake here as well"), then uh.. yeah!! You're right!! I'll drop this conversation and hope I get to talk about chess rather than senseless theoretical constructs.
If not, I'd request some explanation what point you're trying to get across

Dime_x said:
The queen was given a heap of power by being able to fully traverse ranks and files.
Oh come on, that was in 1500 or some shit.

Just about any semi reasonable change to chess with the intended goal to be to keep, positional and tactical chess alive, but to throw the opening theory back on its heels, could be seen as a good change.. For everyone.
How many SuperGMs have you talked to that you can confidently claim this "For everyone" statement? Just like there are FG players who enjoy difficult execution and want to grind 1f links for hours, there are chess players who love sitting in their room, coming up with an opening novelty in the 26th move, uncorking it and making headlines with a spectacular win.

For spectators, I don't really see how it matters whether a move was home preparation or an OTB insight?
For lower level players, opening theory barely matters at all, since their opponent's won't know it, and you have to understand the positions rather than memorizing moves.

So, who is this "everyone" you are speaking of? The 2300 rated player who wants to take the step into IM level, but is too lazy to keep up with developments in theory?

Most people who I hear complaining about this are people who have no idea about the game at all and just read in some shitty newspaper that chess is boring, so when you ask them why, they go "Well all you do is learn 30 moves by heart and then it's a draw every match!! LOL!!!" which is.. rather far away from the truth.

btw: Openings are the main thing which really evolves over time, and will continue evolving "for ever". If you take this out, the overall development of the game starts to stumble.. maybe?

I also recommended Carlsen before :^)

Vadsamoht said:
Chess makes me rage harder than FGs ever did.
:o I never raged at chess. Why, when, how?
 
I can't follow your train of thought at all.. of course anyone can "think of things which are wrong with the game". But whether those things are actually 'wrong with the game' or they're just stupid people.. ..who calls the verdict on that?
obvs it's subjective
 
my point is: 'i think midline rule would improve chess a lot' is a valid statement to make. of course it may or may not be true. but your response has not been 'that may or may not be true,' it's been 'kristoph you must now prove to me that your hypothesis is actually true.' which is just nonsense and not how we should be talking about these things at all imo. the only reason i'd have to prove that a midline rule would be cool before even trying it is if we were assuming that chess is perfect as-is, or otherwise extremely difficult to improve. hence my repeated statements that improving chess probably isn't even remotely difficult and has already probably been done plenty of times.
 
To kick off some more actual chess talk;
I'm an 1.c4 player, but currently trying to pick 1.e4 back up at least as a 2ndary option.

My White repertoire should be based on:
- 1.e4 (duh)
- Free piece play
- Varying (topical) Pawn structures
- "Solid Aggression" ie attacking yes, but trying to avoid speculative sacrifices, suicide pawnstorms and whatnot
I don't really care about whether the variations are currently seen as "giving an edge", as 1)that doesn't matter at my level 2)this isn't exactly final, but just some moves so I can get to play. I'm not gonna play unsound gambits or similar crap, though.

So far it looks like this:
- [1. ..e5 2.Nf3 Nc6]
Ruy Lopez in some Anti-Marshall variant (8.a4 sounds like the most sensible one to me? I don't dig d4 without c3, and I might be able to play without h3)
- [Petroff]
3.Ne4: d6 4.Nf3 Ne5: 5.Nc3 Nc3: 6.dc3: followed by normal development, 0-0-0 and play on the open files
- [Sicilian]
Open.
Obviously there are a million different ones, but I'm thinking of Be2 variants with Kingside castle - or, if the opponent just castles blindly, to toss g4 forward;
Aggressive Maroczy bind when allowed to;
Would have to figure something out against early ..e5 variants (Sveshnikov);
Bc4 with Kingside castle is also an option (possibly more topical due to a plethora of sacrifice ideas on e6)
- [Alekhine]
??? Literally no idea about this opening, I play like uuuh e5 d4 ed6: c4 Nf3 and then develop, which is alright so far, but I dunno whether that's a real thing or just happens to work because people in online blitz are awful
- [Scandinavian]
??? Literally no idea about this opening, I play ed5 and then Nf3 because it confuses Black and I can kick that Queen away from there at a later date, but I dunno whether that's a real thing or just happens to work because people in online blitz are awful
- [Pirc/Modern]
Not sure yet but I used to play this with Black and will probably find some ideas somewhere. Will probably end up with the 150 attack or something similar
- [Caro-Kann]
Panov; is "very theoretical", but.. really anyone who I'm gonna face that plays the Caro has no idea of any theory. Just going for an IQP position and use of the typical plans
- [French]
My first "plan" was the exchange with 4.c4, but I already got IQPs against the Caro and the french is kind of too interesting to get cheated like that. Advance is probably the line the normal club player knows best; at the same time though it has an extremely important pawn structure with very topical play, aaaand I sometimes land in this variation with Black (against Alapin), so it wouldn't hurt to learn something about this position. So yeah, currently thinking about the Advance.

Any suggestions/comments are welcome.
 
I play chess sometimes. I move pieces around. Sometimes they take other pieces. I have fun. I once played a homeless man to a game of chess when he attempted to trick me out of a dollar. If he won I'd give him two dollars, but if I won I kept my money. We decided to play in a nearby cafe with a chess board. I was winning. Before the game was over we were kicked out of the cafe for being vagrants. I decided to give him the dollar since I neither lost or won. He was happy, and told me his name. I forgot his name.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RubberyRisette, Jimbob and PaperBag_Sniper
Kristoph said:
my point is: 'i think midline rule would improve chess a lot' is a valid statement to make. of course it may or may not be true. but your response has not been 'that may or may not be true,' it's been 'kristoph you must now prove to me that your hypothesis is actually true.' which is just nonsense and not how we should be talking about these things at all imo.
Not?

Someone makes an outlandish claim on a topic he has no idea about, and rather than asking for any sort of proof, we are supposed to say "Yeah I don't know, that could be!"

"Football would be a better game if the players were forced to shove 7 inch dildos up their ass before the match" -- and then I'm not allowed to ask "Why? Do you have any actual reason for this?", but have to answer "That may or may not be true"?

I don't know how you think discussions work, but I know this formula:
- There is an established thing
- A questions said established thing and offers an alternative, with reasons as to why said alternative is better
- B look at said arguments and either agrees with them, or disproves them / puts forth counter arguments
.. Either the End (if B agrees), or A has to dismantle the counter arguments / come up with new reasons for said alternative

This is apparently yours:
- There is an established thing
- A questions said established thing and offers an alternative
- B says "Maybe"
.. The End

the only reason i'd have to prove that a midline rule would be cool before even trying it is if we were assuming that chess is perfect as-is, or otherwise extremely difficult to improve.
Okay, I can try making this easier

"Hey Mike Z, let Valentine do 15k damage off a c.LK, this would make the game better"
MikeZ: "Uh, why?"
"The only reason I'd have to prove that this actually does make the game better before even trying it is if we were assuming that Skullgirls is perfect as-is, or otherwise extremely difficult to improve."
MikeZ: "Oh damn you are right, okay I will test this"

??? That's not how a balance suggestion works

hence my repeated statements that improving chess probably isn't even remotely difficult and has already probably been done plenty of times.
Based on exactly 0 arguments/reasons and not even with any concrete examples, let alone a combination of both (of the sort "Chess issues are X,Y,Z; as evidenced by A,B,C; Chess960 solves these issues without creating new ones as you can see [here]")

Yeah I think I'm done, I'd rather talk chess than about this crap
You were better at arguments once, Kristoph
Maybe the lack of Enter hurts your logic
 
Someone makes an outlandish claim on a topic he has no idea about, and rather than asking for any sort of proof, we are supposed to say "Yeah I don't know, that could be!"
no. if you believe the claim really is outlandish, then you can let its outlandishness speak for itself, you don't have to address it or care. mike z gets tons of bad complaints about his game that he safely ignores for this exact reason. so you can do that here if you want. you didn't do that though; instead you demanded weird information that isn't relevant and of course i have no access to, like 'do you know what exactly will happen to endgames.' you didn't give any evidence as to why it would be a bad change other than 'maybe white will have a bigger advantage' which as far as i'm aware is entirely baseless. this could be a good theorycraft-style discussion about what a midline rule might mean for chess, but instead you are immediately hostile in defense of a status quo which includes 50-60% draws in a game that takes hours to play, which by the way would be universally despised by any modern player of any modern strategy game if released today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dime
essentially our positions are only different because of the way we treat the status quo. you fervently defend it because you're invested in the game that already exists. so you set the bar really really high for anything that should even be considered as a change to the game. but i don't give a shit about the political side of things, or upending tradition to an extent. so i have a low bar for what i think is worth considering; that doesn't include literally every possible change ('chess on a sphere' is really just some arbitrary bullshit as far as i'm concerned, for example), but if a change seems reasonably likely to accomplish a certain positive goal (like midline decreasing draws), i think it has merit
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dime
I never played chess but, I would love to learn. The problem that I don't have anybody to teach me.
 
IsaVulpes said:
:o I never raged at chess. Why, when, how?
Losing because of time trouble, mostly. I haven't played OTB since July, and trying to get anything longer than about 10|0 or 15|3 if you're lucky online can be quite hard, and most seem to be around 5|0. After losing several games like that, I usually go on tilt and lose several more games because of stupid sacrifices before ending the session.

Klo58noa said:
I never played chess but, I would love to learn. The problem that I don't have anybody to teach me.
By learn do you mean learn how to play (as in the rules, how the pieces move) or learn how to play (git gud)? There are plenty of resources that are available, and having someone there in person isn't necessary if you just want to learn the basics.

IsaVulpes said:
<repertoire stuff>
- [Sicilian]
Open.
Obviously there are a million different ones, but I'm thinking of Be2 variants with Kingside castle - or, if the opponent just castles blindly, to toss g4 forward;
Aggressive Maroczy bind when allowed to;
Would have to figure something out against early ..e5 variants (Sveshnikov);
Bc4 with Kingside castle is also an option (possibly more topical due to a plethora of sacrifice ideas on e6)
This seems to be the part I disagree with most (obviously play what you want, etc. etc.) - If you're just starting to form a repertoire with e4 and you're already considering alternate lines in the Ruy up to move 8 you might want to take it a little easier with the Sicilian with something with a smaller tree of variations. Consider that you'd need to study different options against the dragon, Najdorf and Sveshnikov at the very least, and each of those is quite different.

You mentioned in the French section that you wanted to learn some ideas against the Alapin as black, so why not go for that as white? You learn the ideas from both sides of play and you can get into it on move 2. Even if you then drop it once you feel ready to expand on the Sicilian front, it should be useful to have at least some elementary knowledge of the positions. Another alternative would be the GPA, but that isn't as well respected at higher levels (meaning you'll likely end up dropping it as you improve) and if used often enough at the lower levels that most Sicilian players will have at least skimmed some notes on what to do against it.

- [Scandinavian]
??? Literally no idea about this opening, I play ed5 and then Nf3 because it confuses Black and I can kick that Queen away from there at a later date, but I dunno whether that's a real thing or just happens to work because people in online blitz are awful
In Australia there is an enduring fad of people playing the Portugese, because one of our few GMs uses it as Black. As a result whenever I come up against it (though keep in mind that I play at a low level, ~1400 ACF) my idea is basically to develop as quickly as possible and see if they start throwing away material, and if not then just try and dumb down the position to something relatively safe so that I at least know any chance of an unknown trap is unlikely.

- [French]
My first "plan" was the exchange with 4.c4, but I already got IQPs against the Caro and the french is kind of too interesting to get cheated like that. Advance is probably the line the normal club player knows best; at the same time though it has an extremely important pawn structure with very topical play, aaaand I sometimes land in this variation with Black (against Alapin), so it wouldn't hurt to learn something about this position. So yeah, currently thinking about the Advance.
but muh monte carlo! I've no idea about mainlines against the french, but one of the guys at my club always suggested the Winawer if people weren't sure what line to go for when starting 1.e4.

EDIT:to give a little perspective, I am an 1.e4 player, aim for a Scotch Gambit position, and play the Alapin vs. the Sicilian and the Monte Carlo against the French after getting rekt with more standard lines. Alekhine I play a line that can transpose to Alapin territory, and Caro-Kann I play the Karpov though without having any idea what I'm doing.
 
Last edited:
Kristoph said:
essentially our positions are only different because of the way we treat the status quo. you fervently defend it because you're invested in the game that already exists. so you set the bar really really high for anything that should even be considered as a change to the game. but i don't give a shit about the political side of things, or upending tradition to an extent. so i have a low bar for what i think is worth considering; that doesn't include literally every possible change ('chess on a sphere' is really just some arbitrary bullshit as far as i'm concerned, for example), but if a change seems reasonably likely to accomplish a certain positive goal (like midline decreasing draws), i think it has merit

No offense, Kristoph, but you're talking about a game that's 1500 years old. I used to do a lot of board game stuff when I was in college and I've seen a lot of chess variants. There aren't many that are terribly well balanced or do much to improve the game besides add some kitschy element such as unit strength and HP, changing the board at random or god help me...dice and cards. I think we all understand your point here but I don't think there's really much that can or should be done at this point to improve the game.
 
Vadsamoht said:
By learn do you mean learn how to play (as in the rules, how the pieces move) or learn how to play (git gud)? There are plenty of resources that are available, and having someone there in person isn't necessary if you just want to learn the basics.
I'd be interested in any resources that would help me git gud. I played chess a lot in highschool but could never really improve that much and wound up getting disheartened. I feel like I'm over my own ego enough to get back into learning and not getting discouraged by multiple consecutive losses anymore.
 
PaperBag_Sniper said:
I'd be interested in any resources that would help me git gud. I played chess a lot in highschool but could never really improve that much and wound up getting disheartened. I feel like I'm over my own ego enough to get back into learning and not getting discouraged by multiple consecutive losses anymore.
Would it be fair to say, then, that you haven't done any chess study before at all? Just trying to get a handle on your level.

In general without knowing exactly what you want to work on, my advice would be to do the following:

1. Double-check to make sure you know all the rules. Sounds simple, but a lot of people who think they know the rules are missing some of the finer details. Make sure you understand en passant, castling properly, the difference between stalemate and checkmate, and the idea behind threefold repetition and the 50-move rule. I can help explain any of those if you're not sure.​

1.a. Start playing. The most important thing for a beginner is to play lots. You will learn a lot from just playing and noticing things. As you get better you substitute more time playing for studying, but at the beginner level even 10% of your time on study would possibly be excessive. You wouldn't tell a complete beginner to SG to spend 50% of their time in training mode, would you? Keep it fun.

2. Be aware of the role of openings. A lot of beginners get trapped in the vortex of learning openings, but then get disheartened when it doesn't result in too many more wins or it doesn't feel particularly fun. As a result the general advice is to ignore them as a beginner, but I prefer a slightly more reasonable approach. Learn what you should be trying to do in the opening (general principles) and generally try to follow a well-known opening for the first 2-3 moves. The reason for this is that you now at least don't feel completely aimless at the start of a game, even if you can't explain the subtleties of the exchange sacrifice on move 18 of the Dragon.

Similarly, don't fall into the trap of playing obscure openings. There are actually quite a lot of similarities between choosing an opening to play and choosing a character to play in a fighting game - it dictates your goals, strategy, strengths and weaknesses, but some are better than others. Choosing a wacky opening for surprise value is kinda like choosing a low-tier character in a FG for the same reason. Few people will actually be surprised, and the attempt to win with gimmicks instead of solid play will hurt you.

3. From there, learn basic tactics and endgames. Learn the idea behind pins, forks, skewers and discoveries, and look for them in the games you play. Take note when you get stung by them as well. For endgames, know how to mate with a K+Q, K+2R, and K+1R against a lone king. That might all sound intimidating, but most of it isn't too difficult.​

If that seems too basic and you want some recommendations for a specific area of your game, or if something in the above seems too difficult or vague, feel free to ask and I'd be happy to help. Also if you've learned about something but have questions that aren't covered in the video/book/whatever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dime
Vadsamoht said:
Would it be fair to say, then, that you haven't done any chess study before at all? Just trying to get a handle on your level.
I did some very minor study but never went much deeper than openings. I also don't have an official level but if I had to guess I'd say "not a beginner, but low intermediate". I knew enough about piece movements and basic strategy but just like my experience with Go, I lacked the ability to really create a plan and usually just reacted to my opponents movements.

In general without knowing exactly what you want to work on, my advice would be to do the following:

1. Double-check to make sure you know all the rules. Sounds simple, but a lot of people who think they know the rules are missing some of the finer details. Make sure you understand en passant, castling properly, the difference between stalemate and checkmate, and the idea behind threefold repetition and the 50-move rule. I can help explain any of those if you're not sure.
This is a given, it's been at least 3 years since I looked at a chess board and before that maybe 2-3 years so I definitely need a refresher on the minutia of the rules.

1.a. Start playing. The most important thing for a beginner is to play lots. You will learn a lot from just playing and noticing things. As you get better you substitute more time playing for studying, but at the beginner level even 10% of your time on study would possibly be excessive. You wouldn't tell a complete beginner to SG to spend 50% of their time in training mode, would you? Keep it fun.
Do you know any decent online services for chess? I used to play on Yahoo but I know that there are a bunch of dedicated chess services out there.
​
2. Be aware of the role of openings. A lot of beginners get trapped in the vortex of learning openings, but then get disheartened when it doesn't result in too many more wins or it doesn't feel particularly fun.
Basically part of what happened with me.
​
Rest of point 2 and point 3
I can work on these as well.

If that seems too basic and you want some recommendations for a specific area of your game, or if something in the above seems too difficult or vague, feel free to ask and I'd be happy to help. Also if you've learned about something but have questions that aren't covered in the video/book/whatever.
I can start with this since I usually have a really full week between classes/work so I will make an effort to play a game or two each day and check back at a latter date. Thanks for the starting point.
 
Vadsamoht said:
Losing because of time trouble, mostly. I haven't played OTB since July, and trying to get anything longer than about 10|0 or 15|3 if you're lucky online can be quite hard, and most seem to be around 5|0. After losing several games like that, I usually go on tilt and lose several more games because of stupid sacrifices before ending the session.
Oh well, I just don't give a crap about my results in Blitz at all, let alone online.
I'm like 1500 rated on chess.com Blitz and just shrug; I play it to learn, not to win.
I'd definitely recommend searching for 5/2 or 5/1 lowest though;
5/0 is a lot shorter than OTB 5/0 due to lag and not seeing what the opponents move is before it appears on the board

If you're just starting to form a repertoire with e4 and you're already considering alternate lines in the Ruy up to move 8 you might want to take it a little easier with the Sicilian with something with a smaller tree of variations.
Move 8 sounds like "a lot", but.. it really isn't? There's like, only natural moves up until that point.
This is also pretty much the only line I got this deep, as I'm aware of the Marshall and used to play themed games against my then-training-partner with it a few years back (we'd put the starting position of the Marshall on board, play a game, and then switch sides).. and yeah, I *really* don't want to face it, so I looked up how to avoid it.

As noted before, I will probably never get a Ruy on the board anyway, so whatever :P

You mentioned in the French section that you wanted to learn some ideas against the Alapin as black, so why not go for that as white?
Naaah, I want to learn French ideas because I sometimes land in it via Alapin moveorder :P
[1.e4 c5 2.c3 e6 3.d4 d5 4.e5] (I'm black) is a real possibility that leaves me in a position I have little idea about, so getting slightly more used to it seems like an alright idea.
I'm not gonna land in "Alapin mainlines" - or maybe I do, but if those are the mainlines I sure don't intend to to play it with White cus I think it's awful for him.

There are two main considerations for playing the Open:
1) The Sicilian is the *by far* most common opening to face. If I dodge that, why am I playing 1.e4?
2) At my current level, people don't know any theory, so even if I don't know any, just playing the game should get me playable positions and acquainted with typical Sicilian ideas. If I play some dodgy stuff now, then "get good" and try to learn the Open -having not played it for 5+ years- after I broke through the 2000 barrier, that's a whole lot more work in front of me, on positions I don't really understand.

In Australia there is an enduring fad of people playing the Portugese, because one of our few GMs uses it as Black.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Opening How would you play this as black?

but muh monte carlo! I've no idea about mainlines against the french, but one of the guys at my club always suggested the Winawer if people weren't sure what line to go for when starting 1.e4.
Winawer always looked like lots of moves on both sides which are impossible to find OTB. Advance has a topical pawn structure and basic plans for both sides (Black plays against d4 and possibly even attacks the pawnchain with f6, White uses his space advantage and e5 pawn for an attack on the kingside), is why it seemed the most sensible solution to me.
 
PaperBag_Sniper said:
Do you know any decent online services for chess? I used to play on Yahoo but I know that there are a bunch of dedicated chess services out there.
Just like anything, there are several options. The place with the most players and more social-network-y is chess.com. I personally don't use that much anymore after I read some shady things happened with their sales department, but it's free to play and has a reasonably large base of beginners you can play against. It also has reasonably active forums, but there's a lot of crap to wade through to get to the worthwhile info.

If you just want to play, though, I'd probably suggest lichess.org. It's free/open source/all that jazz, and doesn't have ads or other stuff that detracts from the actual gameplay.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PaperBag_Sniper
IsaVulpes said:
I'm really curious how you believe Capablanca "thought", and in what way your gameplan is similar to his.


This is a question that is interesting.

Capablanca from what ive seen and read had a style that was positional and space taking. His flowchart during his unbeatable period was to take spacial advantages, convert those spacial advantages into positional piece advantages (weak/strong squares, doubled opponent pawns, opposing bishops in closed positions, doubled rooks etc etc etc) and convert those piece advantages into a singular pawn advantage then trade pieces into a winning endgame and march that extra pawn down the board and make a queen and win by default.

This is more or less what my style is as well with reference to i dont really care about tactics per se except to try and avoid them and I'm always looking to take up space and squeeze my opponent. I then try to convert my spacial advantage into a material one and win by default.

My style is a caricature of capablancas by no mistake. When playing over world champs games, capablancas games were the easiest to understand for me, and he was also considered to be one of the strongest world champs ever. I would look at his games and understand the outside thinking behind most of his moves (whereas petrosian and even Karpov were lost on me in many ways). The subtle thinking i have no doubt eludes me, but on a purely surface level, i understood the man and i loved his genius.


This is also much how i play fighting games, i try not to overextend much, but rather try to control the neutral via threats of ranged attack. My favorite tactic in chess, because it is so oppressively strong, is doubling rooks, and when in the mood and given a sufficiently weak opponent i will even go so far as to triple rooks and my queen (though one generally needs a rather bad opponent to be able to pull this off) but its all basically about positional chess for me. I'll never be a great calculator. But strategic chess comes pretty easily for me and my style, in my mind at least, is like capablancas. I dont mind being defensive, but i prefer open positions because pawn storms tend to boggle my calculative abilities, and closed positions frustrate me unless i have 4th or 5th rank entrenched horses.

Mating nets are over my head in general. Not to say they were over capablancas because they certainly werent, but my combinative ability is terrible.

I'm under no illusion that I'm a particularly good player, i dont play enough to be good and i stopped studying the game over 15 years ago.

I dont even remember the ruy Lopez or the caro-kann openings. I just play a classical opening and establish the d4 e4 pawn center if my opponent lets me, then i develop all my minor pieces and castle and look to take space and make trades and try to get the rooks out at the end of the midgame and use my material advantage to trade pieces and go into a winning endgame.
 
IsaVulpes said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Opening How would you play this as black?
Will reply to the other stuff in a bit, but that's the Portugese opening, not the Portugese variation of the Scandinavian.
Here's a video, pretty low quality, but it's the guy I was talking about talking about the opening and why he plays it.
 
PaperBag_Sniper said:
Do you know any decent online services for chess? I used to play on Yahoo but I know that there are a bunch of dedicated chess services out there.
chess.com is the most commonly used one, lichess.org is apparently up-and-coming, but I never used it.
There are a bunch of other dedicated services like ICC, but most of those cost money.

It's kind of difficult to give advice based on no info of your playing level;
Do you know the goals of the opening? Can you see when a K+P vs K ending is won and when it's drawn? Are you aware what a weak square is? What is "The 7th rank absolute"? etc

Base recommendations for improvement:
- chesstempo.com; Set:Standard. Countless tactics puzzles, taken from real games (so no stupid studies), teaching you the two most important things: Tactics, and position types which allow for Tactics.
- "Silman's Complete Endgame Course". This is a 500 page tome with everything endgame, sorted how a book like this should be sorted: By difficulty, rather than theme. Most of this book will go way over your head, but you can just learn the stuff on the first 50 pages (How to mate with K+R, how to win with K+P, etc) and then put the book to the side, picking it up later again when your overall rating has improved and you are ready to tackle the next section of endgame knowledge. I got this book and just skipped the first 150 pages because I knew the stuff in there already, but am currently reading it and it is exceptional and sufficient for a "lifetime" of chess. You'll not have to buy any other endgame book after, really.
- Work through single books seriously rather than buying 50 and glancing at all of them; a good idea are annotated games with explanations for beginners, eg "Brilliancies" from Yasser Seirawan's "Winning Chess" series; if you have more concrete questions I can probably dig something out for you
- Don't bother with learning openings aside from the general rules. The reason is simple: If you play the optimal opening moves vs "okay" ones, you get like half a pawn worth of an advantage. If you see a combination in the middle game, you win a piece or more. If you understand how to handle a certain endgame, that's the difference between a loss, a draw, or a win right there. Openings just give you the least benefit for study time.

A while back I sent a friend on Steam a basic "Beginner Guide" which may help, here it is:
every beginner should put knight, rook, queen, bishop and king each on squares D5, E1, A1 (on an empty board) one after another and count the available squares every time (write the number down), then think about the implications

23:46 - Vulpes: okay, now for basic rules --

You play for:
23:47 - Vulpes: - Checkmate (obvious)
If that doesnt work, material gain
If that doesnt work, smaller things (tempo advantage, positional weaknesses in the opponents camp, central control, better pieces)

00:04 - Vulpes: -Opening: This is the beginning of the game and basically your resource management. The better you do here, the easier your job later becomes. What you do here is:
-- Develop (get away from the back rank) your pieces as fast as possible (don't move pieces more than once! as noted above, 2 mediocre pieces >> 1good 1bad one)
-- Control the center (as noted, your pieces ideally want to go there later!)
-- Ensure your kings safety (castle away - i hope you know what castling is xP)
00:17 - Vulpes: -Middlegame: This is the stage after pieces are developed and the kings left the center. You abuse whatever mistakes your opponent did in the last stage
-- Improve your pieces' positions (put them onto more influential squares - now that everythings out, youre allowed to move pieces a 2nd time)
-- Play what the position calls for (eg if you have an open file or the opponent has a weak pawn, pieces go there)
-- Possibly do a central breakthrough and/or a mating attack on the opponents king
00:29 - Vulpes: -Endgame: After most pieces (and some pawns) are exchanged, the last stage of the game begins. Rooks become stronger (as theyre not blocked by their own pieces/pawns anymore), the King becomes a weapon and marches towards the center (as he no longer is in the immediate danger of getting mated).
-- Create a passed pawn (a pawn which cant be attacked by opponents pawns anymore), bring it to the opponents 8th rank, win (in case you didnt know; if a pawn reaches the 8th rank (1st for black players) it "transforms" into a piece of the players choice (you'll most likely want a queen))

01:01 - Vulpes: Random general rules (note: rules are meant to be broken. guidelines is probably the better way to put it):
- If you can capture smth with two different pawns, capture towards the center
- A "tempo" in opening/middlegame is worth 0.3-0.5 pawns (so if you have the option to capture a pawn but in doing so allow the opponent to develop 3 pieces while you run away with that snatch of yours, it's a bad trade)
- Other pieces are worth (very rough estimates): Knight 3 pawns, Bishop 3.3 pawns, Rook 5 pawns, Queen 9 pawns.
- Two pieces are generally better than Piece+Pawn (so even though 2 Knights are 6 and Rook+Pawn are also 6, the former is desirable)
- Rooks are artillery, firing from afar (note that they're the only piece on the chessboard that doesn't get additional squares of influence when sitting in the center)**
- Rooks want to sit in open or at least semi-open lines (open: no pawn obstructing, semi-open: an opponents pawn is on the line, closed: both one of yours and the opponents are there, semi-closed: one of your pawns is there), and <definitely> want to sit on the 7th rank (where they attack the opponents position from the side)
- Develop Knights before Bishops (because knights almost always go to c3 and f3, while bishops have a plethora of good squares (eg the kings bishop sometimes goes to e2, sometimes c4, sometimes b5) and you dont instantly know where to put it
- ALWAYS PLAY THE MOST AGGRESSIVE MOVE!! (note: aggressive doesnt mean gazammm attack sacrifice. it means "grasping the initiative".)
- bishops are stronger than knights for two main reasons: 1) the bishop pair controls an entire chessboard (put bishops on a1+b1 and see how the two diagonals are impassable) 2) a bad bishop can often exchange itself for a good knight because the knight has to be deep in the enemies territory; a bad knight can never exchange itself for a good bishop because he can shoot from far away
- beware of knight forks! the strangely moving knight can easily attack several pieces at once, winning them in a flash (eg imagine a white knight on d5, black queen on c8, black king on g8 -- Ne7+ and wins the queen)
01:08 - Vulpes: - pawns are the only piece on the chessboard that cant move backwards. be extremely careful with pawn moves! a common beginner mistake is to "just move a pawn" in a position where they don't know what to do. This usually creates a weakness in your position which you won't be able to fix ever again.
20:08 - Vulpes: ah btw an easy way to see whether a piece of yours is properly protected (rather than being forced to calulate "he does this, i do that, he does this, i do that") is to count attackers and defenders - you need as many defenders as attackers to hold a piece; you need to attack with one more piece than there are defenders to win something.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Mr Peck and PaperBag_Sniper
Vadsamoht said:
Will reply to the other stuff in a bit, but that's the Portugese opening, not the Portugese variation of the Scandinavian.
Here's a video, pretty low quality, but it's the guy I was talking about talking about the opening and why he plays it.
Oh some stupid offbeat gambit line in an opening nobody plays already. Yeah I'm not gonna bother learning something against that :P
Just casual development while looking out for basic traps is going to work out.
 
FWIW you don't even need an account to play on lichess (but you can't play rated that way), so it's easy to try out.

@PaperBag_Sniper Not disagreeing with vulpes' post, but just so you can see where our advice is in relation to each other:
IsaVulpes said:
- chesstempo.com; Set:Standard. Countless tactics puzzles, taken from real games (so no stupid studies), teaching you the two most important things: Tactics, and position types which allow for Tactics.
- "Silman's Complete Endgame Course". This is a 500 page tome with everything endgame, sorted how a book like this should be sorted: By difficulty, rather than theme. Most of this book will go way over your head, but you can just learn the stuff on the first 50 pages (How to make with K+R, how to win with K+P, etc) and then put the book to the side, picking it up later again when your overall rating has improved and you are ready to tackle the next section of endgame knowledge. I got this book and just skipped the first 150 pages because I knew the stuff in there already, but am currently reading it and it is exceptional and sufficient for a "lifetime" of chess. You'll not have to buy any other endgame book after, really.
- Chesstempo is great for studying tactics, but it's important to know what the tactics are first (obv.). So when you jump into a game make sure you can know what happened when you got hit by a fork or a discovered check, and only once you get really sick of losing to them then start studying to see them beforehand. The one thing I'd add is that you want to be able to mate-in-X problems when they appears on the board as well, and possibly before you start studying tactics problems. These are overlooked on most tactics resources, so the resource I recommend is Laszlo Polgar's '5334' book. Honestly, just doing the M1 section did wonders when I was ~1100.

- Silman's is a great book (I have it), but I wouldn't recommend buying straight away. The simple mates I mentioned above are easy to find tutorials for everywhere (youtube is a good resource), so I'd recommend starting out with stuff you can get for free at the very basic level. If you get to a stage where you want a book, though, Silman's is probably what I'd recommend as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PaperBag_Sniper
I like the book simply because it's no nonsense (no long explanations and stories about how wonderful the author was as a child) and it does cover practically every pattern. I can see how it wouldn't be for everyone, but the M1 section isn't that big and IIRC there's a google doc version of the book somewhere so you should be able to grind through it in an hour (maybe 2-3 if you're completely new to puzzles) and it's more comprehensive than randomized puzzles IMO.
 
Random note: the most common beginner mistake when it comes to choosing a move is imo that they look at things from the wrong side.

A beginner thinks like this: "my knight can go there and there, my bishop here and on that square, my queen has these potential moves,.. What does each and every of these moves accomplish? Which one should I pick?"

A more advanced player in the same position goes: "what do I want to do? What does my opponent intend to do? Which possible moves help my goal or hinder my opponent's plan? This knight and that bishop move, okay, which one is better?"

This is a crucial difference in thinking process, which makes finding the right move in a given position far, far easier.
 
Oh yeah, if you search for my name here on chess.com or lichess the you'll find me as well.
 
Vadsamoht said:
By learn do you mean learn how to play (as in the rules, how the pieces move) or learn how to play (git gud)? There are plenty of resources that are available, and having someone there in person isn't necessary if you just want to learn the basics.
By learn I mean how to play. Also, if it's not too much trouble, can you name some resources for me?
 
Klo58noa said:
By learn I mean how to play. Also, if it's not too much trouble, can you name some resources for me?
Did you read posts #61, #64, #66, #69?

Again, if you don't post your skill level / tell us what you know / play some matches with someone here so he can get a rough outlook / etc it becomes nigh impossible to help you
 
Completely unrelated to anything, I really liked these two puzzles I did today (find the best move(s), White's turn in both):

16ntkvgjj4aed.png


32132w0l4oke.png


E: If someone wants to take a shot at these: Put your answer in Spoiler tags

Bonus points if you don't just write the next White move, but also possible variations after - so we can see you actually thought about stuff and didn't just guess into the wild

Bonus Bonus points if you write down your thought process bit by bit (initial impression of the position, what you were looking for at a glance, etc) - I can then deliver mine after, which may help you understand how to look at positions and find "the right move".
 
Last edited:
The second one seems quite easy, unless I've missed something fundamental:
'Solution' (if it is one) came from noticing the mate theme with the rook supporting the bishop on g7.

1.Qxf5!
1... Qxf5?? Bxh7#
1... Rxf1+? 2.Kxf1 Bc4+ 3.Ke1 (any non-forcing move by Black allows the queen to move to safety, or else something along the lines of Qxg6, hxg6, Bxg7#) Re8+ (3...Qe8+?? 4.Qe4! Qg6(forced) 5.Qxg6 hxg6 6.Bxg7# not counting annoying rook checks) 4.Kd2 Rd8+ 5.Rd7 And everything seems safe, with White up a full rook and three connected passed pawns on the queenside.

EDIT: Just found out that the world championship match starts on the 8th and my exams don't finish until the 13th. Kinda annoyed at that.
guess whos gonna fail
 
Last edited:
Klo58noa said:
By learn I mean how to play. Also, if it's not too much trouble, can you name some resources for me?
Just to be sure, you mean you don't know how the pieces move, etc.? If so there's probably a large number of videos on youtube that will teach you the rules better than I could explain. If you want something written so that you can go at your own pace, you might want to try this page on chess.com EDIT: actually, I wouldn't start there. I'd begin with the first two sections of this wikibook, and then perhaps play with the interactive board on the previous link if you feel like it.

The most intimidating thing about starting chess is that there are all these different pieces (6 types) that move in different ways, and there's not really much you can do until you've memorized that bit. From there, it's quite easy and almost everything else is common sense.

If you have trouble with something specific, feel free to ask.
 
Last edited:
Vadsamoht said:
The second one seems quite easy, unless I've missed something fundamental:
1.Qf5: Rf1:+
2.Kf1: Bc4+
3.Ke1 Re8+
4.Kd2 Qf5:
Edited your spoiler with a sample different continuation for black, and you tell me how you win that :P

I figure the first line was an attempt for bonus-bonus points, but that's not reaaaaally what I meant.. well, in part, but not nearly as detailed as I "wished for". I'm not sure whether you need it at all in the first place, though.

Vadsamoht said:
EDIT: Just found out that the world championship match starts on the 8th
I really don't like the current cycle :/

P.S. Curse you for playing that French line /\
 
IsaVulpes said:
Edited your spoiler with a sample different continuation for black, and you tell me how you win that :P
by
Bxg8#?

I figure the first line was an attempt for bonus-bonus points, but that's not reaaaaally what I meant.. well, in part, but not nearly as detailed as I "wished for". I'm not sure whether you need it at all in the first place, though.
I wasn't in the mood for writing my whole thought process - it was just to let you know that I was basing the calculations from the mate threat and the observation that with the queen ties to defense of g7, the knight is essentially hanging. Most of the variations I only worked out as I was typing.

I really don't like the current cycle :/
Why not? Just don't like the playstyles of Carlsen/Anand?

P.S. Curse you for playing that French line /\
I honestly didn't know that was what you were talking about - that was my normal book move. If you want avoid a d5 push from white you might be better off with 2.Nc6 and playing against the IQP that will likely result.
 
Last edited:
Vadsamoht said:
by Bxg8#?
I presume you mean Bg7:#, but that's not mate since I can play 5. ..Kg8 (played 2. ..Bg8-c4, remember?)

Why not? Just don't like the playstyles of Carlsen/Anand?
Nah I like the match, but I don't like that there's a WC again already. Carlsen hat just been WC for a year!
Will there be a WC match every year now? Completely downgrades the title IMO.

The cycle as a whole seems off to me.
Svidler got into the Candidates as "Organization committee's wild card". What the crap does a wild card have to do in the candidates?
Qualifying for the candidates via ELO points is almost just as bad.. etc

I think the whole WC qualification process needs a huge overhaul. And the WC match, too. Come on, Tie Break Rapid? This isn't the world blitz championship.

I honestly didn't know that was what you were talking about - that was my normal book move. If you want avoid a d5 push from white you might be better off with 2.Nc6 and playing against the IQP that will likely result.
The actual "normal book move" (at least that I know) is ed5: followed by dc5: later, and Black is the one with the IQP.

The problem with stuff like 2.Nc6 is that lines like that often don't transpose properly after [1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.c3].. and really, I just like my variation :p

And nah it's perfectly fine, I was just poking fun that I post in here about the issue of accidental transpositions into French Advance, noting that it's my currently worst opening, and then we play and you hop into precisely that line :>
 
IsaVulpes said:
Did you really need to open the spoiler?
Will have to rethink this.
Kh2 to escape checks
seems like a possibility, but I'd rather re-examine the problem sometime instead of trying to endlessly guess answers.


Nah I like the match, but I don't like that there's a WC again already. Carlsen hat just been WC for a year!
Will there be a WC match every year now? Completely downgrades the title IMO.

The cycle as a whole seems off to me.
Svidler got into the Candidates as "Organization committee's wild card". What the crap does a wild card have to do in the candidates?
Qualifying for the candidates via ELO points is almost just as bad.. etc

I think the whole WC qualification process needs a huge overhaul. And the WC match, too. Come on, Tie Break Rapid? This isn't the world blitz championship.
Completely agree with the format, timing and qualification all being off. I liked the system that was used in the 60s-70s with a RR candidates seeded from interzonals, and then a two-year title makes more sense because you can have candidates one year and the match the next (means a lot of work for the challenger, though).

Tie-breaks is interesting. The format I'd personally like to see implemented would be that if a game is drawn, the players then play a rapid (say, 15|something?) game the same day. The results of these rapid matches are used as the tiebreak if the classical games result in an equal score, and if the rapid games are drawn then the title remains with the previous champion.

This would also have the benefit of meaning that there are less draws (rapid being what it is), and will stop people complaining about WC matches being boring because there are so few wins these days.

EDIT: Also, wild-cards are something that helps bring in ad revenue for sponsors, and that is something the chess world has always had trouble attracting. Not saying that I approve of it, but I can live with it so long as the wildcards is a player that is somewhat credible as a potential challenger (say top 20 or so).
 
Last edited:
Vadsamoht said:
Will have to rethink this.
More spoilers would be nice too! What if (as if) someone reads your stuff~

Tie-breaks is interesting. The format I'd personally like to see implemented would be that if a game is drawn, the players then play a rapid (say, 15|something?) game the same day. The results of these rapid matches are used as the tiebreak if the classical games result in an equal score, and if the rapid games are drawn then the title remains with the previous champion.
Can't exactly follow.. you mean like this;

12 Game-Match
#1 Win A - Nothing
#2 Win B - Nothing
#3 Draw - Play Rapid after, A wins, add +1 to A Tiebreak score
#4 Draw - Play Rapid after, B wins, add +1 to B Tiebreak score
#4 Draw - Play Rapid after, draw, nothing
And then at the end, in the event of match draw, you pull out the accumulated Tiebreak scores?

*I* would just do it extremely classic - slightly lengthen the match (say, 15 instead of 12 games) and in the event of a draw, the WC retains his title, as the challenger was unable to prove superiority over him.

I like a 3-year-cycle.

EDIT: Also, wild-cards are something that helps bring in ad revenue for sponsors, and that is something the chess world has always had trouble attracting. Not saying that I approve of it, but I can live with it so long as the wildcards is a player that is somewhat credible as a potential challenger (say top 20 or so).
Imagine some Top20 player was a billionaire and spent 1mill during every WC cycle to get a sure seed into the candidates
Does this sound good to you

I get the idea behind it, but it's rather awful.

At least have the organizer name 5 different people and then draw one of them
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back