Printable View
USCF, FIDE, ratings, champions, openings, rules, anecdotes, online play, chess databases, human vs. computer, training, software, Fantasy, 3D Chess, Bughouse, Ultima, Blitzkreig, QuickChess, 4-hand, Suicide, Circular Chess, etc...
I guess I know a lot about chess. I'm not so active these days, but I used to play in a club regularly, and have played in a number of tournaments. I was rated 1830 USCF, and was rising when I stopped playing rated games.
Why is it considered a strategic game, as if it's using real strategy, when all it is is a brain-wracking competition on who can keep the most possibilities of the opponent's moves in mind?
Heh, not to sound hostile, but I just highly dislike the association of chess with the Art of War and whatnot. :P
Maybe because your conception of war is two flying guys battling each other with oversized swords?Quote:
Originally Posted by Merlock
Thanks for making that utterly baseless and insulting deduction... :eh:
That's an excellent question. I'll do my best to answer it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Merlock
Since the 60s, programmers have been trying to get a computer to play a good game of chess. It doesn't seem like it would be that difficult to produce a monster that would defeat all comers, regardless of strength. After all, can't a computer just look further ahead than a human, and beat him by shear brute force?
It turns out the problem was much more difficult than thought. In fact, it took more than 40 years to produce a computer that could defeat Kasparov in a regular match. Even then, most of the games were drawn. Why is this?
First of all, there are an enormous number of positions to evaluate on each move. If you consider that on average, there are about 30 moves available at each ply (half turn), that's about 729 million different positions to evaluate after just three turns. And what about that evaluation? No matter how far ahead you look, you still have to know which side stands better at that point. The position is clear if you see a checkmate, but if you don't, you still have to evaluate.
The best chess grandmasters can probably see 15 moves ahead during optimal conditions, but they don't really need to see deeper. It turns out that seeing wider is better than seeing deeper. That is, being able to truly evaluate each position based on open files, ranks, imbalances, king safety, pawn structure, piece activity, control of the center, and other factors. That's why the best chess programmers today concentrate more on position evaluation than on search ply depth.
So knowing this, let's get back to your question. Where is the strategy? Generally, there are two main strengths of a player; tactical, and strategical.
Tactics are easy to understand, if somewhat difficult to master. They involve recognizing a pattern on the board as having certain features, and taking advantage of that recognition by aggressive moves (usually captures and exchanges) to win material or positional advantage. For example, a tactic may take advantage of a weak king position to win material, giving an oponent the unsavory choice of losing a piece or losing the game.
Strategy, on the other hand, has to do with controlling squares, files, and ranks, as well as knowing the best positions for the pieces, and how to get them there. A strategy is a plan to optain an advantage, whether it is material or positional. It can not easily be "computed" because it involves many possible contingencies, and can easily encompass a percieved advantage that may not be readily apparent for many moves to come.
Until the programs got much smarter, a grandmaster could easily beat them. Not by looking further ahead, but by knowing that a good strategical position would win in the end. They played for long-term advantages, using speculative sacrifices for a positional edge.
Which is better? A pawn, or an open rank with an unopposed rook on it? Well it depends... how many and which type of pieces are still on the board? Can the file be easily contested? Are there good outposts for the knights? How open is the board for whichever bishops are left? This is heavy duty stuff for a computer, especially if it needs to evaluate this for each of tens of millions of positions each turn.
This is what strategy is all about. Even if a computer is ever able to "solve" chess (probably more than 50 years off at least), humans will never be able to, and must rely on position evaluation and instinct as well as tactical knowledge.
Sorry :P, but is it true?Quote:
Originally Posted by Merlock
I find that chess emulates the ideas of war quite well, well at least in a medieval setting.
There are many war strategies that translate to chess. Here are a few off the top of my head.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
Mobility
Rooks need open files to become more powerful. Bishops need open diagonals. Knights can take advantage of these pieces if they are trapped or have limited mobility. A player needs to open roads for his pieces so they can easily travel to where they are most needed. Controlling the center of the board means you are more likely to have an easy way to get pieces from one side to the other.
Communication
Pieces "communicate" by protecting the squares their comrades occupy. Forcing a piece to abandon this protection weakens the piece it was supporting.
Maintaining Outposts
Just like conquering a central hill in battle helps in war, setting up an outpost on a square that is not easily attacked is very important. Even moreso if it is deep in enemy territory.
Kamikaze Attacks
Often a king tucked away in its fortress has his protection blown away by the sacrifice of material. The enemy pounces on opportunity by seemingly giving away his pieces for the sake of making the king more vulnerable. After all, what does it matter how many men are lost so long as the war is won?
I would've thought the fact that I mentioned the Art of War would have shown that I have some knowledge on the topic. Serious knowledge, not delusional banter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
Seriously, don't generalise. The wisest and most highly achieved still have all the right in the world to enjoy fiction and anime, as is present in my signature, is just as much a fantasy as any other work of fiction, for the enjoyment of those that come across it.
As for the various aspects translating into the game...I can see that you see them in there but I don't. Not sure why. But even with all those examples above, I don't see them as relating to the way chess is played. *shrug*
I'm curious as to your level of chess. How much have you played? Have you studied strategy?Quote:
Originally Posted by Merlock
Usually when learning chess, it is best to learn tactics first, with just a small amount of very basic strategy. One doesn't usually go very deep into positional study until they've been playing for awhile.
Well, I think that's why I don't see the likeness...chess is chess...while reality is reality. The game of chess is predetermined in every way aside from the moves the players make. Everything else is static. Where as reality is everchanging and colourful in many ways.Quote:
Originally Posted by skysaw
Like that, for instance...do you mean studying strategy as a whole or studying strategies, in the sense that when you study chess, you study various possible strategies to use?Quote:
Originally Posted by skysaw
In reality there are no set strategies, everything is original every time. Only the basics are present.
Hrm, a tough thought to explain, I guess. But thanks for the answer.
I understand what you mean, and have had the thought myself. But let me put a different perspective on this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Merlock
There is a point after which a number is so large, that for all practical purposes, it is infinity. Let me give you some examples:
Music is a creative field. The possibilities are infinite, most would say. So how many discretely different 3-minute songs can you write and record on a CD? The number is extremely large, but it is not infinite. Each second of sound is stored as 44,000 samples. Each sample is a 16-bit number, or one of 65,536 possible values. A little multiplication tells us that there are just over one trillion possible distinctly different 3 minute songs that can be put on a CD. Does knowing there is an upper boundary mean that creative music writing is futile? A question for philosophy.
What about computer art? There are a finite number of possible images that can be projected on your computer screen at its current resolution and bit depth. Does that mean that computer artists can't be creative? Are they merely selecting one of the possibilities, and displaying it as if it were their own? Another philosophic question.
So back to chess. Take a look at this article on what is called the Shannon Number. This is the estimated number of playable chess games of about 40 moves in length (a typical length, though they get much longer!). The number calculated was 10^120. As a comparison, the number of atoms in the Universe, is estimated to be between 4x10^79 and 10^81.
It bears emphasizing this point: The number of playable chess games is greater than the estimated number of atoms in the universe!
Now if creativity can be found in the scant few (by comparison) variations in a three-minute CD recording, or a piece of computer art, is it that difficult to imagine it being applied to the many possibilites of chess?
Being able to analyse a situation, plan ahead well enough to predict and be able to counter your opponent's moves, and to eventually win the game, is something that is easily applicable to real life situations like war.
There are differences, like the numerous variables and factors that you can't predict in real life, and so on, but the basic principles and thought processes remain translatable.
The medieval setting is somewhat argable, you could play chess in pretty much any context and it would have no effect on the game, surely?
Weren't there two topics in ask/tell about chess already?
The game obviously does not change. But psychology plays a big part in chess. Especially if by "context" you include time settings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sindred
Haha I'm almost as good as you. Although I don't play chess at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by skysaw
Are you USCF rated? If so, what's your rating? Computer or online ratings don't count.Quote:
Originally Posted by M-Cat
1800. I played at a tournament a long time ago, after destroying everyone in my town in a local chess-off. But the game bores me so I don't ever play.
How is reality any different? What we do is determined by the actions we take. The only difference is life has many factors while chess has only two, you and your opponent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Merlock
I found a good place to learn chess strategy: http://illogicopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Chess
Fair enough, and as for chess' relevance to war, you have to keep in mind that all that in-depth strategy and probabilty memorization stuff only started around the 19th century. Before that, strategy wasn't so rigorous and planned, people thought stuff up as they played.Quote:
Originally Posted by Merlock
Actually strategic thinking in chess only started gaining ground late in the 19'th century with Lasker and Steinitz and only made its breakthrough in the early 1900s.
Just spam the newb forum and get banned already.Quote:
Originally Posted by M-Cat
Very mature Spartiate.
I should probably mention Morphy, who was ahead of his time. He played mid-1800s and is considered the first strategical genius, however he wasn't as methodical as Steinitz would be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by M-Cat
M is correct. Of course strategy has always been important, but this was somewhat of a turning point in the game. Positional considerations were not deeply appreciated until these guys appeared on the scene.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
I don't know where he's copying that from, but all it takes is a quick look at his recent posts to find out that he's a troll.Quote:
Originally Posted by skysaw
Edit: Also he pretty much says exactly the same thing as in my post above.
Ugh...who had that brilliant idea? What fun is there in turning the game into a rigorous, monotonous, mentally exhausting to no end competition of foresight and memorisation?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
Down with modern chess, up with medieval chess!
M-Cat, no one is amused. Enjoy your time here on DV. I have a feeling it will be short.
Skysaw, what is a grand master, how do you become one and who determines who is a grand master?
Someone who wanted to win :P.Quote:
Originally Posted by Merlock
what is on passon
The title Grandmaster is awarded by FIDE (Federation International Des Echecs). FIDE is the worldwide federation for chess (vs. USCF, which is just for the US). I believe you have to have a FIDE rating of at least 2500, but you also must qualify by winning certain tournaments. By ratings, the titles go like this:Quote:
Originally Posted by 27
2500 Grandmaster
2400 International Master ("Senior Master" in USCF)
2200 Master
2000 Expert
1800 Class A
1600 Class B
1400 Class C
1200 Class D
100-1199 Class E
Master and below are earned by rating alone (at least in US... not sure about FIDE). Ratings are determined by a fairly complex system involving your rate of success vs. other players using the current rating of each as a guide. If you consistently beat someone with the same rating as yourself, your rating will go up. Until you play 20 rated tournament games, your rating is "provisional" and jumps around a lot. Provisional ratings are not a good measure of strength.
I believe you mean the "en passant" which is French for "in passing."Quote:
Originally Posted by Carôusoul
This is a capture of a pawn by another pawn under very strict conditions. The captured pawn must have just moved two squares from its first position. The capturing pawn captures the pawn as if it had only moved one position. This move is legal only if done immediately, and is no longer possible on the next turn.
It may be a little hard to visualize, so I recommend taking a look a the wikipedia entry here.
Hey skysaw.
I did not know you were into chess. I have a few threads about it myself.
I'm sure you heard Fischer died? :?
I have some Qs that have pondered.
I used to play online. Aside from idiots giving games for rankings and all that crap, do you feel that chess can only be experienced to it's best when played in person?
The reason I ask, I'm sure you have done both. I find that Chess has a comparison to poker that is never mentioned. Body gesture, hesitation, eyes, etc. etc. All the same things that good card players use can also be used in chess. Do you think that it takes something away when played online?
What are the rules for timed/untimed games? I have played in some small local chess clubs in my area. The games are not timed. But we kind of have an understanding that you just do not take too long. I don't know how too long is. Does that make any sense? Does a game with no time clocks make it illegitimate? Is that a requirement for professional tournaments?
Thanks.
En passant?Quote:
Originally Posted by Carôusoul
Not something you get to use to often but damn good when the situation does arise. Then you usually have to argue that it really is a rule.
Skysaw could explain it more concisely. :)
Never mind --he already did.
I messed up the quotes, sorry.
I heard about that. I guess they all have to go sometime. An awesome player in his prime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Howie
Quote:
I have some Qs that have pondered.
Without a doubt. Actually, it's not really "never mentioned," a lot of players emphasize the psychological aspects of chess. There was this GM named Mikhail Tal who was famous for staring down his opponents, breaking them down. He played great, but dubious, sacrifices that worked only because his opponents were scared shitless by him.Quote:
I used to play online. Aside from idiots giving games for rankings and all that crap, do you feel that chess can only be experienced to it's best when played in person?
The reason I ask, I'm sure you have done both. I find that Chess has a comparison to poker that is never mentioned. Body gesture, hesitation, eyes, etc. etc. All the same things that good card players use can also be used in chess. Do you think that it takes something away when played online?
Quote:
What are the rules for timed/untimed games? I have played in some small local chess clubs in my area. The games are not timed. But we kind of have an understanding that you just do not take too long. I don't know how too long is. Does that make any sense? Does a game with no time clocks make it illegitimate? Is that a requirement for professional tournaments
All professional games have some time limit. The limits are getting faster nowadays, since everyone is in a hurry to get a lot of games in. You know the deal - more players, less space. Anyway, long time limits might be 120 minutes for the first 40 moves (something like that), 40 minutes for the next 20 (something like that). It really depends on the tournament. Some only give you half an hour for the whole game. Others give you five minutes (blitz rounds).Quote:
Thanks.
There is correspondence chess if you don't like time limits, where people play by mail and you usually have from a day to a week to make your move and send it.
Quote:
En passant?
En passant comes up rather rarely. It's a must-know move though.Quote:
Not something you get to use to often but damn good when the situation does arise. Then you usually have to argue that it really is a rule.
Skysaw could explain it more concisely. :)
Never mind --he already did.
OK let's put you in your place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
I'm not copying my info from anywhere. Hard to believe that I know things you don't?
I'm not a "troll," if I am that just makes you look even worse.
And your edit is wrong.
What's the best first move or first two moves?
I've done a lot of both online and over the board. Online can be annoying with the wrong opponent, and it definitely misses something from a face-to-face encounter. And of course you always wonder if you're really playing only against a human, or if they're getting "help."Quote:
Originally Posted by Howie
Tournament games are always timed. USCF assigns two different ratings: one for quick time periods (30 min. per side or less) and one for standard time periods (anything longer). Titles are always based on standard time periods. A typical standard tournament game might have something like 90 minutes per side for the first 40 moves, and another 60 sudden death, though there are many ways to set up the time structure.Quote:
What are the rules for timed/untimed games? I have played in some small local chess clubs in my area. The games are not timed. But we kind of have an understanding that you just do not take too long. I don't know how too long is. Does that make any sense? Does a game with no time clocks make it illegitimate? Is that a requirement for professional tournaments?
The longest tournament game I've ever played was four and a half hours. That can really tire you out!
En passant may be played rarely, but its influence is felt in many, many games. Just knowing that the possibility is there changes strategy in many positions. It's a rule that often is felt mostly in the "lines that weren't taken."Quote:
Originally Posted by M-Cat
There is no best first move, but some are certainly better than others. In the early game, the best plan is to control the center and activate your pieces. The easiest ways to do this are:Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevehattan
1. e4 --> This occupies a center square and controls another (d5). It also opens lines for the King's Bishop and Queen. The most common reply is e5, though d5, Nc6, and Nf6 are not too rare either.
or;
1. d4 --> This occupies a center square and controls another (e5). It also opens lines for the Queen's Bishop. The most common replies are d5 or Nf6, though many other replies are also good, including c5, e6, g6, b6, and others.
Many players spend time learning the ins and outs of an opening, and try to remember common moves as far as they can. This is probably not the best course of study until you get highly rated. It's always best to first learn why certain moves are often played, and the principles behind good early development.
Other common opening moves:
1. c4
1. Nf3
Less common:
1. d3
1. g3
The worst opening moves would probably be:
1. a4
1. h4
1. f3
1. Na4 or;
1. Nh4
Very contrary to good development.
Uh huh, funny how the staff hates you then.Quote:
Originally Posted by M-Cat
Oh, and so I can add something constructive here... What do you find more valuable, a bishop or a knight?
Thanks for the info on the time limits.
Yes, "help" Having played chess vs my computer program I know exactly what you mean. Sometimes an online opponent will show a striking similarity that you see with the systematic computer's moves.Quote:
Originally Posted by skysaw
How the hell would you ever get any gratification out of that?
anyways.. that brings me to another question.
How do you get over loosing. In some games like you describe -hours long, in defeat there is a pit in my stomach that is horrible. :P
I mean that's what I have heard. ;)
Probably more calories burned than had you been walking. Shit jogging for that matter.Quote:
The longest tournament game I've ever played was four and a half hours. That can really tire you out!
:tomato:
I'm not the one with inferiority issues here, Spartiate. Now cease your pointless, immature flaming.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
Depends on the situation. Overall though, bishops generally are worth slightly more.Quote:
Oh, and so I can add something constructive here... What do you find more valuable, a bishop or a knight?
Well, that's not really a chess question, more one of psychiatry. It's best to try to learn from the loss. Always go over your game and analyze it afterwards... best if you can actually do this with your opponent. Learn where you went wrong, and work that kink out of your system. Our losses are more beneficial to us than our wins in terms of becoming better players.Quote:
Originally Posted by Howie
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
Actually, it depends only on the situation. To say the bishop is slightly better simply shows a preference for one over the other. Most people have a slight preference for one, and the bishop is easier to understand, which is why you get this opinion sometimes.Quote:
Originally Posted by M-Cat
The first factor to look at is the pawn structure. If your pawns mostly sit on the same color as a bishop, that bishop often has limited movement. The situation can get very bad if the two walls of pawns completely block in a bishop trapping it and keeping it away from the action. In this sort of situation, the knight reigns supreme, since it can hop over the wall.
The rule of thumb is that open boards favor bishops while closed positions favor knights. But this isn't always the case either. The knight is at its strongest when you can find an unassailable outpost in the center or in the enemies territory. The bishop gains in strength when few pieces are left and there are pawns on both sides of the board, because it can zip back and forth to support/threaten them.
Another thing to consider is the "bishop pair." Since each bishop is confined to one color square on the board, the two together can be quite a powerful team, since they cover all the squares. One bishop can only cover 50% of the board by the nature of its move. It is often considered an advantage to maintain the bishop pair if your opponent does not.
The most important thing is to know which positions favor knights and which favor bishops. When trading one of your bishops for an opponent's knight (or vice versa) you should first consider what sort of position will result. The best strategies often are to foresee a possible condition that favors one or the other, then trade and press on to create that board. For example, trade your bishop for your opponent's knight, then promptly close off the board with a sealing pawn move or two.
I think officially speaking the knight and the Bishop are worth the same point value. 3 or 4.
They're both worth 3, but the point system can only be used as a rough guide. Sometimes you can have a positional advantage, like say a passed pawn, which makes up for a loss in material. And though three minor pieces may, according to the system, be worth as much as a queen, they actually are more powerful than a lone queen. Understanding the point system is as important as understanding its limitations. And remember, points don't win - checkmate does :)
Once I played someone for several hours because we got in a complete gridlock,I won in the end.
Would you say it is best to avoid gridlocks or try to form them?
Depends on your playing style. If you are a slow positional kind of player go for "gridlocks" but tactically-minded people like open, volatile positions.
Actually, gridlocks sometimes are interesting, and sometimes they're not. A completely blocked position where no one can do anything may seem dull to a novice, but good players know there's a lot of strategic, subtle maneuvering going on. The position doesn't even have to be blocked - an invaluable chess strategy is "maintaining the tension," where players forego making trades or hasty decisions and instead try to keep the balance in the position.
The simple answer is to form them if it helps your position, avoid them if it hurts. Forming blockades may be a good strategy if your opponent has an advantage, to make it hard for him to crash through and win.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barns
That is always a tense position in imo. You know the shit is going to hit the fan.
You wait and wait for the opponent to make that one mistake. Whomever makes the mistake at that stage, middle to end game? - develops into a slaughter.
This actually ties into the conversation about tactics vs. strategy. Usually a closed off "slow" position will favor the player who has a solid strategic plan. An treacherous open position with lots of potential blood usually favors the player with stronger tactics... all other things being equal, of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by Howie
Quote:
Originally Posted by skysaw
What do you mean when you say - "An treacherous open position with lots of potential blood." ~Like protecting the middle of the board?
An open position is one in which the pawns are not blocking play and bishops, knights, and queens (sometimes rooks) can enter the play actively. Usually open positions result from an early trade of central pawns, like 1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4. because so many pieces are in play, these kinds of positions are notorious for tactics, simply because there's so many opportunities for tactics.
Ok here's my question.
I love chess and I enjoy it, but it is really frustrating. I started more about 8 months ago, and have improved from about 700 to 1200ish (Chess.com approx rating).
I just find I cannot improve any more, and even though I probably play at about a 1400 level, but I make the most dumbest blunders ever. I just find that I over think the situation. How would you say I could improve? Theory is easy to learn, but not blundering can't really be found online.
Thanks,
TMN
Why my skill is much higher when I play with an actual wooden chess (touchable) but I suck online? I won tournaments, beat many people, went to chess school... been playing since I was eight.
Give me a physical chess, I'll be your nightmare, make me play on a computer, I become a noob.
Thread is very old and OP wasn't online for ages, better to start new thread if anyone wants to continue discussion.
*locked*