The Beauty of chess

[newbrof]

if I would have to choose a game for the desert island, it would be chess. Why?

I am playing in the 5th team of the B-class-whatever... and we have regular ladder/league games once a month. It is always a surprise, because you never know your opponent until you sit in front of him. (btw: usually I lose)

So, this Sunday it was an asian fellow with a beautiful name, La Dui or Dui La ... I had white and I went for a win from the beginning.

I built up some pressure and after 12-13 moves there was a situation, where I had to decide if I bail out like a lame duck or coward... If I would do that, I would have admitted that my attack was nothing but smoke... I could have pulled back my knight and he would have known that I know, that I have nothing. Or I could play f2-f4, compromise my king for more pressure.

I did that and lost.

After a 4 hours game you have the feeling that you know
your opponent as a person. Without even talking, but by observing...

So chess is strategy, tactics and psychology... it is quite brutal.

I hope to give you more insights into the mind of a chess player, when I have something interesting to report from the frontline

any chess players here?

[jellyfish]

I like to play computer chess. I know it is not the same thing, as computers tend to play a different kind of game than human opponents. From an artificial intelligence perspective, it is just amazing to me how well computer programs play chess. We have basically reached a point where my desktop pc can play a better chess game than all but the top grandmasters, and it even gives them a challenge. It is a real triumph of machine versus man. Brute force has a lot to do with it but that is not the whole story as recent advances in heuristics have also played a large role in improving the computer game play. It is also a amazing how top grandmasters can process just a few moves every second and be competitive against a computer that is calculating millions of moves a second. When I play computer chess I have to set the computer to play with both hands tied behind its back or I have no chance.

[Abilio Carvalho]

comparisons to go in 3... 2... 1...

[extarbags]

I'm not very good, but I love chess for the same reason. It really is amazing how expressive a game of chess is, and how much of your personality comes through when you play.

[GloriousMess]

I approach chess rather badly unfortunately, in that I rarely have patience or understanding enough to fully analyse my situation. I do enjoy the odd game, but I am a complete and utter novice. I don't use standard openings, I don't follow any established patterns, and I hardly ever use my knights properly. I also hate sacrifices that further my play, as losing a piece means losing a piece and that's a no-no in my book. I have to bring everyone back alive.

[TheTrunkDr]

comparisons to go in 3... 2... 1...
GO!!!

[Miramon]

I approach chess rather badly unfortunately, in that I rarely have patience or understanding enough to fully analyse my situation. I do enjoy the odd game, but I am a complete and utter novice. I don't use standard openings, I don't follow any established patterns, and I hardly ever use my knights properly. I also hate sacrifices that further my play, as losing a piece means losing a piece and that's a no-no in my book. I have to bring everyone back alive.

Sometimes you just have to tell that guy to take out that machinegun nest. It's for the good of the team. Then later you have to carry the letter to the widow. "But- But- He was the right rook!"

[extarbags]

I approach chess rather badly unfortunately, in that I rarely have patience or understanding enough to fully analyse my situation. I do enjoy the odd game, but I am a complete and utter novice. I don't use standard openings, I don't follow any established patterns, and I hardly ever use my knights properly. I also hate sacrifices that further my play, as losing a piece means losing a piece and that's a no-no in my book. I have to bring everyone back alive.

It might help you to realize that Chess, as reflavored when co-opted by Europeans and turned into the game we play today, is a metaphor for court politics, not war. Little wooden lives are not at stake, so go nuts. :)

[Morkilus]

I built up some pressure and after 12-13 moves there was a situation, where I had to decide if I bail out like a lame duck or coward... If I would do that, I would have admitted that my attack was nothing but smoke... I could have pulled back my knight and he would have known that I know, that I have nothing.

Isn't Chess a game of complete information? Or did you just assume that he had no idea what you were doing? Seems to me that having assumptions like that would be a good way to lose.

[magnet]

If you want to play well, you should always play as though your opponent were a mind-reader.

Chess isn't poker. Bluffing is for beginners.

[Scourge]

Isn't Chess a game of complete information? Or did you just assume that he had no idea what you were doing? Seems to me that having assumptions like that would be a good way to lose.

I agree with this.

Chess is not poker or any other guessing game. Attitudes have a little to do with objectively analyzing the position and acting accordingly. Keeping the attack on in a situation like this is really only useful when the refuting defense is hard to find and there is time pressure, or your position is already so lost that you need to gamble.

Naturally, players below high levels tend to overestimate their position and underestimate the opponent's options.

edit: doh, magnet says it.

[newbrof]

I think chess is not about complete information, because I and most players are not able to look 4-5 moves ahead. We have to interpret or parse the board. We know all pieces, but correct evaluation of the current situation is what makes a good player.

If I would have moved back my knight that would be a pretty clear signal that my attack failed, so I did not want to go into defense. btw. I don't know how he evaluated the situation...

So you define and play a strategy where the outcoming decides, if you had a valid strategy. Sometimes pressure means that an average player does not chose the best move (because in a complicated situation there is the time factor, how much time is left)...

[GlaziusFalconar]

if I would have to choose a game for the desert island, it would be chess. Why?

Because you forgot the "alone" in the "stranded alone on a desert island"?

[ReptileHouse]

I think chess is not about complete information

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what that means, which is likely playing a large role in why you lose. You always must assume that your opponent sees through your plans and understands them. Your goal is to create a plan that he can't stop, no matter how great his understanding. If you play any other way, you're doing it wrong, and it's not even close.

References you may find useful:

The Amateur's Mind (http://www.amazon.com/Amateurs-Mind-Turning-Misconceptions-Mastery/dp/1890085022/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264533260&sr=8-1).
How to Reassess Your Chess (http://www.amazon.com/How-Reassess-Your-Chess-Chess-Mastery/dp/1890085006/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264533373&sr=1-1).

Both by Silman, who's a superb chess instructor.

[Miramon]

Well, to be fair, chess and go are some of the few boardgames with any long-term solitaire interest whatsoever. But presumably Man Friday will show up on the desert island after a while, and you can teach him whatever game you happen to have....

[magnet]

I don't know how he evaluated the situation...

That's my point. Neither of you needs to look ten moves ahead. But if you've concluded that your attack has failed, why on earth would your opponent would come to a different conclusion?

[Miramon]

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what that means, which is likely playing a large role in why you lose. You always must assume that your opponent sees through your plans and understands them. Your goal is to create a plan that he can't stop, no matter how great his understanding. If you play any other way, you're doing it wrong, and it's not even close.


Though this is generally true and reasonable, I disagree with it as a universal dictum. Sometimes you need a point, and you don't have an unstoppable attack, so you've got to do something. Sometimes you can see something in your opponent's psychology, too that may make a flawed attack or an otherwise improper move more reasonable. Or maybe the opponent is in time pressure and you are creating complexity that would otherwise not be indicated if he had all the time in the world.

But yeah, returning to the OP, there is no cowardice in aborting an obviously broken attack. A draw is better than a loss. If the attack is not obviously broken, but is just chancy, then you have to balance the risk and reward, and unless you really have a deep rapport with the opponent, emotions are pretty much irrelevant.

[newbrof]

Your goal is to create a plan that he can't stop, no matter how great his understanding

of course that was my goal, I had to prove it with f2-f4. If I would have interpreted the situation correctly, the best would have been to take back the knight. Boring. The attack was good, but not enough, though... this I learned.

I played f4 and checked ahead as far as I could, I kept the tension, moving back was an option, but I thought: dammit. I want a complicated, exciting match (that I had)

[magnet]

Though this is generally true and reasonable, I disagree with it as a universal dictum. Sometimes you need a point, and you don't have an unstoppable attack, so you've got to do something.

You don't always need an unstoppable attack. What you do need is a move that unambiguously improves your position. Otherwise, you've made an error. If you don't have any such moves, resign.

What you don't need is to intentionally make an error, in the hope that your opponent will also make an error.

[mkozlows]

Serious chess players are serious!

Yes, in real chess against skilled players, you have to play "right." But if you're playing against sucky players, lousy moves can work well. When I was a teenager playing with my friend, our absolute killer move was to bring the bishops out to the second rank on the long diagonal, and just leave them there until someone forgot about them and moved a piece into their path.

This will not work against grandmasters!

[Miramon]

...When I was a teenager playing with my friend, our absolute killer move was to bring the bishops out to the second rank on the long diagonal, and just leave them there until someone forgot about them and moved a piece into their path.

This will not work against grandmasters!

Nimzovitch thought it was a good idea :)

[magnet]

That is a very good move (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fianchetto)!

[ravenight]

You don't always need an unstoppable attack. What you do need is a move that unambiguously improves your position. Otherwise, you've made an error. If you don't have any such moves, resign.

What you don't need is to intentionally make an error, in the hope that your opponent will also make an error.

I don't think anyone is arguing that you should make a move that you see a clear refutation of. My understanding of the OP's situation was that it looked like the attack was shaky, especially assuming that the opponent made the best response the OP could see, but not that it was a clear mistake. There's a difference between being riskier (because you are creating a weakness that you know, structurally, is bad without getting any clear compensation) and definitively making your position worse (because you are, say, hanging a piece in the hopes that the opponent misses the refutation you see).

Yes, technically the game has complete information. It is so complicated, though, that each player's understanding of the position is different. You can't simply calculate an unstoppable strategy, and you can't wait around until your opponent does something that hands you one, especially as white. That doesn't mean you make blunders, but it does mean that you will be more successful (and have more fun) if you are willing to take a chance on something that looks promising, even if you don't see a clear path to an advantage.

[newbrof]

@ravenight

could not say it better, thanks!


improves your position

that is the hard part. Is this move better than that move. Sometimes it is very fuzzy, and then you start to build a story or storyboard in your head about what's going on.

In a recent game Short - Carlsen, Nigel Short addmitted that he had no clue what was going on in the game (he was joking). But sometimes you can't build a clear story... a really beautiful game.

[magnet]

Perhaps I misunderstood, since I was under the impression that the OP was hoping his opponent didn't know what he knew. But even if you take a risk by sacrificing material in order to improve position, you should assume that your opponent understands your motivation. In the end it may turn out to be a brilliant move or it may prove disastrous, but either way you have to assume that both of you currently have the same conception of the game, including the risks you both face. It's impossible to plan well otherwise.

[armand v]

After a 4 hours game you have the feeling that...I'm part of the MTV Generation and even if I did have the time, I do not have the patience. My best friend does play in a similar league at his work and refined the strategy I should play with, but I just don't got the patience to sit there and think "if I move here, then he can move there, then I can move over there..." and so on.
Yes I have played with the clock, but then my lack of experience overwhelms me.

[magnet]

Armand, trying playing with a clock and blitz rules. Games will be over in ten minutes or less, so you will gain experience very quickly. Even faster if you use an online matching system, since there's almost always someone, somewhere, at the same level as you.

The feeling is similar to playing an RTS online, with your favorite opening taking the place of build orders and tactical play instead of micro.

[Quitch]

I abandoned chess the day I realised that there were these thousands of openings and to play a decent game I needed to know them. I put the board away and lost my enthusiasm and have never played since.

[newbrof]

I thought the same, but you need to know these openings only if you want to get a pro. On the 5th board of a B-Team, opening theory is not that big of a deal... :-) because your opponent does not know them, too... if you have a solid understanding of chess, that's enough to get things going...

[Quitch]

Yeah, but by not learning them I denied myself the route to improvement and it all felt pretty pointless after that. Chess is just too well known and understood for me.

[Dan_Theman]

I used to play on a national championship team back in high school. Compared to everyone else on my team, I majorly sucked. However, it was fun to hang out with like-minded geeks and even though they'd routinely throttle my @$$, we had fun. I knew some basic openings - Sicilian (I enjoyed Dragon), Queen's gambit, a few Indian variants, fried liver, etc., but that was pretty much just academic. If there was someone I was expecting to face, I would try to learn their preferences and keep in mind proper counters but that was about it. I didn't have an encyclopedic knowledge, nor did I need it. What was perhaps the most entertaining were the theory discussions we'd strike up - imagine a bunch of RPG players talking about the best spells to cast or debating which is the coolest weapon set and then shift the actual game to chess.

I didn't play very much after high school. I clobbered a brother in law and an old friend, and stomped a few people in a little campus competition during college years. My son got into it for a short while, and his teacher was thrilled to find out who I was (well, more to the point where I came from) and hoped I would help him out, and I did for a time. However, my son's interests shifted and therefore so did mine. He's getting back into it now and who knows how far it will go, but it's a wonderful game.

[newbrof]

there is a nice app for the iphone :

Chess With Friends. You play by "email", so you can have a couple of games going at the same time...

Chess Elite is the same but with player stats

my handle is brof! let's go...

[baruk]

I've been playing chess regularly for a few years - I picked up the habit from playing a few 10 minute blitz games, which incidentally seems to be a good way of practicing openings.

A recent league game, notably my first win in a rated game against a 1600+ strength player (I'm about 1470):

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 g6 3. Bg5 Bg7 4. e3 O-O 5. Bd3 d6 6. Nbd2 Nbd7 7. Qe2 Re8
8. h4 e5 9. dxe5 Nxe5 10. Nxe5 Rxe5 11. Ne4 Bf5 12. Nxf6+ Bxf6 13. Bxf5
Rxf5 14. g4 Rc5 15. f4 Kg7 16. O-O-O Bxb2+ 17. Kxb2 f6 18. Qd3 fxg5 19.
hxg5 Qe8 20. Qd4+ Kg8 21. Rxh7 Rxc2+ 22. Ka1 Rxa2+ 23. Kxa2 Qe6+ 24. Ka1
Kxh7 25. Rh1+ Kg8 26. Qh8+ Kf7 27. Rh7#
{White mates} 1-0

A simple game viewer:
http://www.caissa.com/chess-tools/chess-game-viewer.php
Click "import pgn" and copy and paste in the game notation you want to view.

[magnet]

Quitch, you don't need to learn thousands to openings to enjoy chess. You can go pretty far by knowing a handful: just one for White, and two or three more for Black to counter each of the broad types of attack. If you can compete in Dawn of War with random factions, then you can handle chess openings. It's true that there are thousands of choices, but feel free to choose the one that sounds coolest - one of my friends has played the Grunfeld for years only because of its umlaut. Eventually, you'll want to learn the one that just beat you...

[Fugitive]

Here's (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/23592?utm_medium=email&utm_source=Emailmarketingsoftware&utm_content=92435605&utm_campaign=February112010issue+_+olrukk&utm_term=TheChessMasterandtheComputer) an interesting article about the current state of computer chess and the development of modern chess players, from Kasparov's point of view. (via RPS)

[Destarius]

there is a nice app for the iphone :

Chess With Friends. You play by "email", so you can have a couple of games going at the same time...

Chess Elite is the same but with player stats

my handle is brof! let's go...

I knew some people who "cheated" in such games by feeding moves into one of those old CM progs. Annoying.

[Quaro]

Here's (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/23592?utm_medium=email&utm_source=Emailmarketingsoftware&utm_content=92435605&utm_campaign=February112010issue+_+olrukk&utm_term=TheChessMasterandtheComputer) an interesting article about the current state of computer chess and the development of modern chess players, from Kasparov's point of view. (via RPS)

That's a great article.

[IkeVandergraaf]

Not Star Wars-y enough.

[Gorath]

Yeah, but by not learning them I denied myself the route to improvement and it all felt pretty pointless after that. Chess is just too well known and understood for me.

Nowdays it's understood that beginners shouldn't waste their time on openings. Read a book on general opening principles ("Knights before bishops! Move every piece only once!" etc.) and then concentrate on the stuff which actually wins games. Latest trend seems to be lots of tactics, so that you actually know how to win when your opponent blunders. Add a book about basic positional concepts (bad bishops, open lines, doubled pawn, etc.) and one newbie book about endgames (just enough to understand why "the rook belongs behind the passed pawn (in attack and defense)").

So tactics should be pushed and opening, middlegame and endgame made "good enough" to know the basics and avoid (and identify!) beginner mistakes.

A key point behind this is that games below a certain barrier, say 2000 Elo points, are almost exclusively decided by tactical blunders and big positional errors. Games below that level are seldomly won because A has the deeper concept than B, they are won because A had a decent plan and B failed to find the available adequate defense, got into an uphill struggle, had to solve difficult problems with every move and then simply cracked and made a winning tactic possible for one move. Here the tactics training comes into play. ;)

More understanding comes when you analyse your own games and look up in a book or DB how the concepts you've had on the board are really played, and try to figure out how the concrete situation should objectively be evaluated.
So more implementation and less theory. This has the advantage that the stuff you look up later tends to stick better because you are already convinced you'll get a chance to make use of it. Of course pure tactics can only bring you so far, but 1700-1800 are pretty nice for the next push.

edit:
The game posted above by baruk is a good example. The opening was relatively harmless but with ideas and a slight initiative by white. Then black missed the point to get rid of the pin on the bishop, panicked and used a tactical "solution" (16.- Bxb2+ ?) which backfired on him. In a difficult position he made a 2nd mistake (19.- Qe8 ??) by allowing white to smash a rook into his kingside. White used his chance without hesitation.

[Gorath]

I've been playing chess regularly for a few years - I picked up the habit from playing a few 10 minute blitz games, which incidentally seems to be a good way of practicing openings.

A recent league game, notably my first win in a rated game against a 1600+ strength player (I'm about 1470):

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 g6 3. Bg5 Bg7 4. e3 O-O 5. Bd3 d6 6. Nbd2 Nbd7 7. Qe2 Re8
8. h4 e5 9. dxe5 Nxe5 10. Nxe5 Rxe5 11. Ne4 Bf5 12. Nxf6+ Bxf6 13. Bxf5
Rxf5 14. g4 Rc5 15. f4 Kg7 16. O-O-O Bxb2+ 17. Kxb2 f6 18. Qd3 fxg5 19.
hxg5 Qe8 20. Qd4+ Kg8 21. Rxh7 Rxc2+ 22. Ka1 Rxa2+ 23. Kxa2 Qe6+ 24. Ka1
Kxh7 25. Rh1+ Kg8 26. Qh8+ Kf7 27. Rh7#
{White mates} 1-0

A simple game viewer:
http://www.caissa.com/chess-tools/chess-game-viewer.php
Click "import pgn" and copy and paste in the game notation you want to view.

1470? This game was much better than 1470. :)
After the opening I would have thought 1500-1600. Unambitious but healthy and with ideas. The last part of the game (after 0-0-0) was very strong though. Many 1800 players wouldn't have played it so precisely. Really an excellent game for a 1470.

[ReptileHouse]

Though this is generally true and reasonable, I disagree with it as a universal dictum. Sometimes you need a point, and you don't have an unstoppable attack, so you've got to do something. Sometimes you can see something in your opponent's psychology, too that may make a flawed attack or an otherwise improper move more reasonable. Or maybe the opponent is in time pressure and you are creating complexity that would otherwise not be indicated if he had all the time in the world.

That's a fair criticism. Later posters were more accurate in saying that every move should improve your position. That's a general enough term that it can, in my opinion anyway, encompass the sorts of things you're talking about. Playing a sharp, tactical game against an opponent you know prefers quiet positional play, for example, or intentionally moving into complex tactics when the opponent is under time pressure or otherwise would be less comfortable in that situation than you would be. Kasparov is famous/notorious for the latter, IIRC.



I abandoned chess the day I realised that there were these thousands of openings and to play a decent game I needed to know them. I put the board away and lost my enthusiasm and have never played since.

In practice, you'll be able to do very, very well with just a solid understanding of opening principles. You don't need a huge background of memorized lines. Lots of chess players love to study opening lines and memorize craploads of them because it's easier to memorize than it is to understand.

This is another great example of what Miramon refers to above, actually. When playing against a "by the (opening) book) player," it can be advantageous to make a slightly sub-optimal move early in the opening simply because it takes your opponent out of book and into having to think about his moves, which is a situation where you have a stronger understanding. You've improved your position by maneuvering the game out of your opponents comfort zone and into yours.

[ravenight]

Latest trend seems to be lots of tactics, so that you actually know how to win when your opponent blunders. Add a book about basic positional concepts (bad bishops, open lines, doubled pawn, etc.) and one newbie book about endgames (just enough to understand why "the rook belongs behind the passed pawn (in attack and defense)").

Mating nets are also really useful, especially if you plan to play at faster time controls a lot.

[Quitch]

Nowdays it's understood that beginners shouldn't waste their time on openings. Read a book on general opening principles ("Knights before bishops! Move every piece only once!" etc.) and then concentrate on the stuff which actually wins games. Latest trend seems to be lots of tactics, so that you actually know how to win when your opponent blunders. Add a book about basic positional concepts (bad bishops, open lines, doubled pawn, etc.) and one newbie book about endgames (just enough to understand why "the rook belongs behind the passed pawn (in attack and defense)").

Yeah, you see, if anyone told you to do this for any other game you'd question whether they were really talking about a game.

[Reldan]

This is another great example of what Miramon refers to above, actually. When playing against a "by the (opening) book) player," it can be advantageous to make a slightly sub-optimal move early in the opening simply because it takes your opponent out of book and into having to think about his moves, which is a situation where you have a stronger understanding. You've improved your position by maneuvering the game out of your opponents comfort zone and into yours.

It's like in Starcraft where you might decide to harass his peons with your SCV right at the beginning. It's not going to be an optimal play against someone who knows what they're doing, but if he's the type of player doing a rote opening build order it can seriously mess him up.

[Dan_Theman]

Yeah, you see, if anyone told you to do this for any other game you'd question whether they were really talking about a game.
Only if you haven't looked up strategies for RTS games, like magnet said:

The feeling is similar to playing an RTS online, with your favorite opening taking the place of build orders and tactical play instead of micro. Heck, how many MMO's or RPG's have people talking about "good builds" out there? How about their strategy books?

That said, it's not a game for everyone. It has nothing to do with intelligence, but rather with taste: chess from one vantage point is an almost fruitless endeavor filled with precious little satisfaction. The game is a constant struggle that a casual observor can't appreciate and that also effectively isolates you from everyone except for your opponent.

On the other hand, it's a wonderful challenge filled with more intricacies and nuances than practically any other game out there. It's something that as you master it, your appreciation for the game can actually increase and open the door to new challenges. Not to mention, you'll wind up being able to wipe the floor with almost anyone wanting to play a simple game of checkers, which I'll admit usually gives me a little bit of sadistic pleasure. ;)

[Gorath]

Yeah, you see, if anyone told you to do this for any other game you'd question whether they were really talking about a game.

sure. Chess is both game and sport. If you do that stuff you're on the sport side. Maybe I should have made clearer that I meant a new club player, not somebody who just learned the rules.

[newbrof]

ha! a new idea submerged... I am going to fix chess: boring graphics, gameplay is like latin ... pretty dead, 8x8 is not fun, little dudes on the board don't get XP, ponys? wtf... who needs ponys?

Do you know the dinner story about Kasparov? The table had a check tablecloth... it took him 2 hours to pass me the salt.

[Miramon]

I got to around USCF 1650 or so as a kid with few memorized openings apart from maybe the first 6-8 moves of a few common ones like Ruy Lopez (exchange variation; it seems to upset people for some reason, despite the fact it's not all that great), some beginning Indian lines, and a bit of Modern. I think you can probably get at least another couple of hundred points without much memorization at all.

Study however, either in the form of deliberate analytical play against better players, or reading books on tactics and strategy, is somewhat necessary if you aren't a prodigy. I think Joel Benjamin was at my elementary school for a year, and he had already become a master before I even was a novice, at the same age.

But it is true, if you do have a line memorized (and also understand why the moves are in the book), you have an advantage over someone who has to try to think through it. On the other hand, if you have some lines memorized and don't understand why the moves are good, when the naive opponent does something superficially plausible that isn't in the book, you are screwed too.

[russellmz00]

I've been playing chess regularly for a few years - I picked up the habit from playing a few 10 minute blitz games, which incidentally seems to be a good way of practicing openings.

A recent league game, notably my first win in a rated game against a 1600+ strength player (I'm about 1470):

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 g6 3. Bg5 Bg7 4. e3 O-O 5. Bd3 d6 6. Nbd2 Nbd7 7. Qe2 Re8
8. h4 e5 9. dxe5 Nxe5 10. Nxe5 Rxe5 11. Ne4 Bf5 12. Nxf6+ Bxf6 13. Bxf5
Rxf5 14. g4 Rc5 15. f4 Kg7 16. O-O-O Bxb2+ 17. Kxb2 f6 18. Qd3 fxg5 19.
hxg5 Qe8 20. Qd4+ Kg8 21. Rxh7 Rxc2+ 22. Ka1 Rxa2+ 23. Kxa2 Qe6+ 24. Ka1
Kxh7 25. Rh1+ Kg8 26. Qh8+ Kf7 27. Rh7#
{White mates} 1-0

A simple game viewer:
http://www.caissa.com/chess-tools/chess-game-viewer.php
Click "import pgn" and copy and paste in the game notation you want to view.

what would have happened at move 30 if black had sent his queen to e1 instead of moving his pawn?

[newbrof]

there is no move 30...?

[baruk]

what would have happened at move 30 if black had sent his queen to e1 instead of moving his pawn?

That's the default game they put up on Caissa's web - I couldn't figure out how to embed my game directly, so you have to click import pgn and paste in the notation you want to look at.

Here's a league game I played in December with quite an interesting finish - I've annotated it using the Gameknot site:
http://gameknot.com/annotation.pl/edinburgh-league-over-the-board?gm=27806
nb. click on interactive to play through the game move by move.
Hopefully you can follow the link without having to make a (free) account. It seems a pretty decent chess website in any case.

[newbrof]

really nice! I think White thought it did well with 1 Rook and 2 Pawns for Bishop/Knight... but played too passive I guess.

[CustodianV131]

I've burned out on chess long ago. Was decent at it, school "champion", best young regional player, ect (Didn't really mean much, really) and the like, did a few simultaneous matches and winning most matches. Anyway chess is to limited in my view. (I know I'm not really good if i think that yada yada, i've heard them al.

I really like a game like Civ4 where there are a lot more variables and sometimes just plain bad luck with an event or so. If you can plan everything ahead is not a fun experience for me. I do that in real life, all the time and its gets messed up there (which is not so good at times :) ) I also like that unpredictability in my games.

[newbrof]

If you can plan everything ahead is not a fun experience for me

I don't think you can plan anything ahead except basic stuff... there is this vast cloud of possible (and valid) moves, you should replay some of the grandmaster games... they don't play out like a clockwork...

I love civ 4 like any guy from the street, but I think civ 4 is pretty obivious compared to chess.

But you are right, chess is life, but less fun :-)

[FieryBalrog]

I really really want to learn chess properly (as in play WELL), but have never had the patience :-/

It's one of my goals for the next few months, though.

[Foxstab]

I approach chess rather badly unfortunately, in that I rarely have patience or understanding enough to fully analyse my situation. I do enjoy the odd game, but I am a complete and utter novice. I don't use standard openings, I don't follow any established patterns, and I hardly ever use my knights properly. I also hate sacrifices that further my play, as losing a piece means losing a piece and that's a no-no in my book. I have to bring everyone back alive.

I am somewhat similar.


The reason that grandmasters can defeat a computer is because:
A. They adapt much faster.
B. They, like the computer, also memorize via (past) experience and innately/instinctively know strategies and future possible moves without needing to put much thought over probability-possibility-analysis.
C. A computer is usually predictable, even in its randomness. A human that is aware of his own predictibility is able to change it whence least expected and most unforseeably. The computer will just stand there, jaw dropped, like in a bad sci-fi movie and cry "BUT WHY? IT"S SO ILLOGICAL IT MAKES NO SENSE! THE DATA DOESNT INDICATE THIS AS A VALID TURN OUT WHAT SO EVER! HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE???" -"Because I'm human. We do irrational things".

[newbrof]

the computer will punish you if you did not understand the position completely, he will try to prove your move to be stupid. You know the Kung Fu masters practicing with a wooden doll. It is the same when playing against a computer. He will punish your errors, but the computer is still a clockwork....

when playing against a human it is more like a real dialog but with using chess pieces instead of words.

Yesterday I had a league match against a guy. We had totally different opinions about the position on the board. I thought I was winning, he did not... I was wrong - we agreed to a draw...!

[tiohn]

This seems like the least inappriate thread for this:

I've started playing goweiqibaduk again, but my rank is lower than low on the two turn based servers I used to play on because I quit in a hurry and resigned all of my games when I stopped playing last year. What's bothering me is that now I am playing people who will play their first stone on the center star, which means that I am in for many long, dumb games. Argh.

[extarbags]

I am somewhat similar.


The reason that grandmasters can defeat a computer is because:
A. They adapt much faster.
B. They, like the computer, also memorize via (past) experience and innately/instinctively know strategies and future possible moves without needing to put much thought over probability-possibility-analysis.
C. A computer is usually predictable, even in its randomness. A human that is aware of his own predictibility is able to change it whence least expected and most unforseeably. The computer will just stand there, jaw dropped, like in a bad sci-fi movie and cry "BUT WHY? IT"S SO ILLOGICAL IT MAKES NO SENSE! THE DATA DOESNT INDICATE THIS AS A VALID TURN OUT WHAT SO EVER! HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE???" -"Because I'm human. We do irrational things".

Check out the Kasparov article linked upthread. According to him, most grandmasters actually can't beat modern chess programs.

[Miramon]

This seems like the least inappriate thread for this:

I've started playing goweiqibaduk again, but my rank is lower than low on the two turn based servers I used to play on because I quit in a hurry and resigned all of my games when I stopped playing last year. What's bothering me is that now I am playing people who will play their first stone on the center star, which means that I am in for many long, dumb games. Argh.

Create a new account?

[tiohn]

Create a new account?
I sort of feel like this is my penance for resigning all of those games.

[Miramon]

Resigning is good in a lost position. Why waste your and your opponent's time? For unofficial rating points? it's not like you'll learn anything just playing it out, so it would be better to start a new game. This is especially true if you are black playing with a handicap, as white is somewhat obligated to play on longer than black in a handicap game because everything white does is more or less untenable anyway.

I think it borders on rude to play on in an completely lost position hoping for a blunder, unless it's in an actual tournament, and even then there is a point at which you shouldn't drag it out. Once you get to a certain point, the odds are enormously against your opponent imploding in the end game, anyway, and even if he does and you win, how great is that? Not very.....

[baruk]

Resigning is good in a lost position. Why waste your and your opponent's time? For unofficial rating points? it's not like you'll learn anything just playing it out, so it would be better to start a new game. This is especially true if you are black playing with a handicap, as white is somewhat obligated to play on longer than black in a handicap game because everything white does is more or less untenable anyway.

I think it borders on rude to play on in an completely lost position hoping for a blunder, unless it's in an actual tournament, and even then there is a point at which you shouldn't drag it out. Once you get to a certain point, the odds are enormously against your opponent imploding in the end game, anyway, and even if he does and you win, how great is that? Not very.....

My view is that if you are a novice, you will often learn more from playing on - endgames can be fantastically instructive. Only resign when you can't learn anything more from the game, or just play out the mate. It always seems a shame to me in blitz games when an opponent resigns because he lost the exchange (minor piece for rook). Never resign in blitz!

I'm drawing a distinction between playing till mate and stalling - if you're worried about offending your opponent, you can always play a bit quicker to hurry things along. I can see the sense in resigning (in casual play) because you think you'll learn more from starting a new game.

Personally I don't worry about it too much - I will play out (apparently) hopeless endgames from time to time - sometimes they have interesting little features or opportunities for swindle. Games are all too often won by the player who made the second-to-last blunder.

Anyway, here's a great and nicely explained master game (with Nimzowitsch's annotations) Nimzowitsch - Hakansson 1922:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1102392

And poor Nimmy gets a bit of a ribbing here:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1334664

AN INGENIOUS EXAMPLE OF MY SYSTEM by Aaron Nimzowitsch - Anderssen started the sacrificial style, Morphy and Gruenfeld the pure attacking style, Steinitz the positional style, Tarrasch the scientific style, Lasker the style of styles, Capablanca the mechanical style, Alekhine a style as brilliant as sunlight. But it is a generally known fact that originality and modernism were introduced by me as my own personal inventions and enthusiastically imitated (without being fully understood) by the whole world of chess. For the ridiculously small sum of ten marks, the reader can confirm all this in my monumental work, My System, published by B. Kagan. Before my time, chess was so naive and undistinguished! One or two brutal opening moves, each one involving a vulgar, obvious threat, a common, banal sacrifice, a painfully elementary, bestially raw checkmate - such, more or less, was the course of chess games before my heyday set in. Then I appeared on the scene and the chess world paid heed. The hegemony of matter was shattered at a stroke and the era of the spiritual began. Under my creative guidance, the chessmen, hitherto nothing but highwaymen, pirates and butcher boys, became sensitive artists and subtle instruments of immeasurable profundity. But why waste words!--accompany me, dear reader to the dizzy heights of the following game.

[tiohn]

I'm sorry, I wasn't clear about the resignations. I resigned from about 20 different games in various stages of play not because I was losing, in fact I was on the winning edge of most of them, but because I ran out of time/interest in my personal life to carry on even one game, much less 20. I consider this somewhat rude to my opponent.

As for resigning a lost game, if I am on the losing end, I often prefer to play it out, but I always ask my opponent if they mind first. I don't play games out just in case my opponent makes a mistake, although that is certainly a possibility, but because, especially in the early stages of learning a game, I would never otherwise see an endgame. On the other hand, I found in chess that a lot of people couldn't play a proper endgame because people were so used to having an opponent resign after a blunder much earlier in the game, and so my better than average endgame skills would often win an otherwise lost game.

But then I quit playing chess and found goweiqibaduk to be a much harsher mistress.

[baruk]

A league game I played tonight - I had black, and quickly got into trouble in a slightly unfamiliar opening. My opponent failed to fully capitalise, and I was plain sailing after my eighth move e5. The final moves were very nerve-wracking since we were both short on time.

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. e3 e6 4. Nc3 Nc6 5. Nf3 b6 6. d5 Na5 7. e4 d6 8. Bg5
e5 9. Be2 Be7 10. Bxf6 Bxf6 11. Nd2 Bg5 12. Nf3 Bh6 13. h3 Qe7 14. O-O O-O
15. b3 Nb7 16. Qc2 f5 17. Bd3 f4 18. Be2 Nd8 19. Qd1 Nf7 20. Nh2 Kh8 21.
Bg4 g5 22. Bxc8 Raxc8 23. f3 Rg8 24. Ng4 Bf8 25. a4 a5 26. Nb5 Rg6 27. Kh1
Qd7 28. Qe2 Be7 29. Rg1 Rcg8 30. Raf1 R8g7 31. Nc3 h5 32. Nh2 g4 33. fxg4
hxg4 34. Nxg4 Rxg4 35. Rf3 Rh7 36. Qf1 Ng5 37. Rd3 Rgh4 38. Kh2 f3 39. Rxf3
Nxf3+ 40. Qxf3 Rf4 41. Qd3 Bg5 42. Rf1 Rfh4 43. Rf8+ Kg7 44. Rf5 Bf4+ 45.
Kg1 Qe8 46. Ne2 Qg6 47. Nxf4 exf4 48. Qc3+ Kg8 49. Qf3 Rxh3 50. Rxf4 Rxf3 0 - 1

[Miramon]

But then I quit playing chess and found goweiqibaduk to be a much harsher mistress.

Harsh, but elegant and beautiful. Those tiny little mirror game and ko flaws in the rules are like a mole that is supposed to accentuate an otherwise perfect beauty....

Anyhow, I got you re resignations. I guess that was a bit rude, but it would be ruder still not to resign and just let the games time out, and if you played on with no interest in the games, they would be dull anyway.

[baruk]

Monday's league game - playing white I came up against the Dutch defence, responding with a somewhat botched Staunton's gambit that left me in a dubious position with knights against bishops. Not a classic, but perhaps a good example of how to fight on in an inferior position.

1. d4 f5 2. e4 fxe4 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 g6 5. Bxf6 exf6 6. Nxe4 d5 7. Nd2 Nc6
8. Ngf3 Be6 9. Bb5 Qd7 10. O-O O-O-O 11. Re1 Re8 12. c4 a6 13. Bxc6 Qxc6
14. cxd5 Bxd5 15. Rc1 Rxe1+ 16. Nxe1 Qb6 17. Nb3 Bg7 18. Nc5 Rd8 19. Nf3
Bxf3 20. gxf3 f5 21. d5 Bxb2 22. Rc2 Ba3 23. Ne6 Rd7 24. Qe2 Bd6 25. Qc4
Kb8 26. Qc3 Kc8 27. Qh8+ 1-0

[Gorath]

Interesting games. In the first one you completely outplayed your opponent out of a slightly worse position. Then he suddenly had a terrible King's Indian without counterplay on the queenside, which is practically a tough situation.

In the second you got pushed off the board when the bishops turned out better than the knights in an open position with structural weaknesses. But you somehow managed to stay in the game and gave your opponent chances to make mistakes. And so he did ... first he didn't take the hanging knight (23.- Qxe6 and you can resign) and then he found a beautiful self-mate. ;)

[baruk]

In the second you got pushed off the board when the bishops turned out better than the knights in an open position with structural weaknesses. But you somehow managed to stay in the game and gave your opponent chances to make mistakes. And so he did ... first he didn't take the hanging knight (23.- Qxe6 and you can resign) and then he found a beautiful self-mate. ;)

For his final move he picked up his king and was about to play it to a7, before putting it back on b8 - he was short on time when he decided on Kc8. Of course if he played Ka7, his Queen runs out of squares, and I trap it with Rb2. Ka8 seems to be a solution against these threats, if I play Qh8+, forcing Ka7, then after Rb2 his Queen can escape to a5.


first he didn't take the hanging knight (23.- Qxe6 and you can resign)

Now I thought that after 23.. Qxe6, I play Rxc7+ - after Kxc7 my Queen gets out of the pin with Qc2+. However, looking at it again, he refutes Rxc7+ with Kb8 (then if Rxb7+ Kxb7 Qb3+ Qb6 Qxa3 white is a rook down).

[John Many Jars]

Chess is boring; play hnefatafl.

[Gorath]

Here's a game I played with black 2 months ago. It was played in 4 player knockout team championship for clubs. I had 200 Elo more than my opponent, so I tried to keep things complex to create winning chances.

1. b3 Nf6 2. Bb2 g6 3. Nf3 Bg7 4. e3 O-O 5. c4 d6 6. Be2 e5 7. d4 e4 8. Nfd2 Re8 9. Nc3 h5 10. h3 h4 {Necessary. White has g4 in combination with 0-0-0.} 11. Qc2 Qe7 12. a3 c5 13. Na4 (13. dxc5 $11) 13... cxd4 14. Bxd4 Nc6 15. Bb2 Bf5 16. b4 Rac8 17. Nc3 Ne5 18. Nb5 Nc6 $6 (18... Nd3+ $1 $15) 19. Nd4 Bd7 20. Nxc6 bxc6 21. O-O $2 {A practical mistake. 0-0 is still too early!} c5 {Closes the center to get an automatic kingside attack. Now white is in hefty time trouble while black has a few minutes more.} 22. b5 Bf5 23. Rfd1 Qe6 24. Bf1 g5 25. Nb3 g4 26. Qd2 Rcd8 (26... gxh3 $1 27. Qxd6 Ng4 $1 {Is nearly winning.}) 27. hxg4 Bxg4 28. Be2 Kh7 29. Na5 Rg8 30. Nc6 Rd7 31. Qc2 Kh6 32. Rab1 Bh8 33. Kf1 h3 $2 $13 (33... Qf5 $1 $19 {[%emt 0:00:00]}) 34. gxh3 Bxh3+ 35. Ke1 d5 36. Ne5 Rd6 37. Kd2 d4 38. exd4 Qxe5 39. Kc1 Qf4+ 40. Qd2 Qxd2+ 41. Kxd2 Bf5 42. Ke3 cxd4+ 43. Bxd4 Ng4+ 44. Bxg4 Bxd4+ 45. Rxd4 Rxd4 46. Kxd4 Rxg4 47. Ke5 Kg6 48. Re1 Rg2 49. Re2 Rg1 50. c5 Rd1 51. a4 Kg5 0-1

This game is very complex and full of mistakes. I've only marked a few of them. Especially the complications after move 40 are nearly impossible to understand over the board.

[baruk]

Nice finish, threatening f6 mate. Interesting comment about white castling too early - I find it can often be a tricky judgement to make.

[Gorath]

Yes, I'm also often not sure about the best moment to castle.

In my game the white player correctly decided to delay 0-0 for a long time (a) because my play is on the kingside and (b) because he wants to maintain the 0-0-0 option, which is not that bad with all his pieces over there.
The position before his 0-0 was += I think, because I blundered the two tempi with Nc6-e5-c6. He still had one or two useful moves on the queenside before giving me a target on the kingside.

[newbrof]

I am almost finished with an interactive chess comic for the iphone/ipod called Magnus The Small ...

http://forums.toucharcade.com/picture.php?albumid=231&pictureid=3432

Here is a medium puzzle. Try it and let us know the answer...

disclaimer: Magnus the Small is not related to world chess player #1 Magnus Carlsen :-)

[Scourge]

[spoiler]





1.Qa5

[newbrof]

nice!

[baruk]

Tonight's league game, I was playing against a kid. Unfamiliar opening territory again, so I spent a little more time on it. Was unsure if 4.. Nc6 and 5.. a6 are best but seemed to work out ok. If anything the middle game after Qh4+ could have been better, I doubt that 16.. Nc4 was the best approach. He didn't find good defensive moves (sacrificing the exchange to eliminate my doubled pawns seemed of dubious merit) and I found a way to win soon enough.

1. Nf3 Nf6 2. d4 c5 3. Nc3 d5 4. Bf4 Nc6 5. e3 a6 6. a4 g6 7. h3 Bg7 8. Bd3
cxd4 9. Nxd4 O-O 10. Nxc6 bxc6 11. Be2 Nd7 12. Qd2 e5 13. Bh2 f5 14. f3
Qh4+ 15. Kd1 Nb6 16. a5 Nc4 17. Bxc4 dxc4 18. Qe2 Rd8+ 19. Kc1 Be6 20. Qe1
Qe7 21. Qe2 Ra7 22. Ra4 Rb7 23. Rxc4 Bxc4 24. Qxc4+ Kh8 25. Qxc6 Qb4 26. b3
e4 27. Kb2 Rb5 28. Ra1 Rc5 0-1

[russellmz00]

from a few years ago, online through a forum thread:


Game 1 -- Slapdragon vs russellmz
1. white pawn: e2-e4
2. black pawn c7 - c6
3. white bishop f1 - c4
4. black pawn d7 - d5
5. white pawn feasts on black pawn flesh e4-d5
6. black pawn treats white pawn like the bitch he is. c6 - d5
7. white bishop retreats after issuing fatawa c4-b3
8. black pawn e7 - e5 move forward at cowardly bishop
9. white pawn charges d2-d3 into battle, naked and screaming, just like the ancient celts
10. black knight g8 - f6 threatens white's tisdale manuever before russsel even figures out what that is.
11. white bishop skates along c1-g5, mocking the black knight, and its ancestors
12. black knight b8 - c6 in utter oblivion to threat of bishop, much to chagrin of other knight.
13. white knight gallops g1-e2 into the fray, playing "flight of the valkeries" over its loudspeakers
14. ashamed black bishop sneaks from f8 - e7 and cowers behind knight.
15. white king slides over two spaces e1-g1 in violation of the rules of war and man, then the ten-story castle disengages from its very foundations. madness!
16. in a stupendous show of originality, black king castles rook e8 - g8 rook h8 - f8, while king wonders when other wankers will start playing the game.
17. white knight takes his b1 vitamin pill before going to see d2: the mighty ducks
18. tiring of playing around, black bishop moves c8 - g4 and begins to preach holy scripture to cowering pawns.
19. white pawn comes up f2-f3 and shoves a copy of skeptic magazine into black bishop's face while singing broadway showtunes (preachers hate showtunes)
20. Black bishop g4 - e6 arranges for some tasty alter boys to come visit neverland ranch
21. white pawn goes to f3-f4 and gets all up in black pawn's face, saying "yo queen so dum she heard it was chilly outside and ran out with a spoon." (OH SNAP!)
22. Black knigh f6 to g4, go ahead, make my day
23. white bishop g5-e7, because on a clear day you can see the black bishop get a sound beating
24. Black queen d8 - e7 arrests bishop for blowing the choir, nahhh naaahhh
25. white rook does f1-f3, because he wants to blow up the choir too
26. Black pawn e5 - e4 pees on castle's gate
27. white pawn performs an act of defenstration on the black pawn d3-e4, because that aggression will not stand and that dog won't hunt and he needed killin'
28. Black queen e7 - c5 check... pay pal accepted
29. white king g1-h1 ruh roh...
30. Black rook a8 - d8, causing wonder and astonishment at the unorthodox move.
31. white queen d1-e1 (points at above comment, and says "s'true!")
32. black pawn d5 - d4, the mystery continues
33. white bishop invades b3-e6, and as the wmds fall, the black bishop can be heard to scream, "ze goggles! they do nothink!"
34 Black pawn f7 - e6 trading is a loosing proposition Mr. Whatley.
35. white queen e1-h4 they call me mister tibbs!
36. black queen takes puny pawn c5 - c2 and threatens western civilization.
37. white rook f3-g3 because a good plan tomorrow will take more effort than a bad plan today
38. black knight g4 - f2 says Czech.
39. white king h1-g1 as it was foretold in the prophecies
40. Black Queen c2 - b2 taking pawn in honor of the now arrested king of chess
41. white rook a1-b1 tells black king to sit his ass down and calls black queen over for a booty call
42. Black Queen b2 - a2 get back, jack (takes pawn)
43. white rook b1-b7, because four tuna favor the bold (or something like that)
44. Black queen a2 - d2 takes knight and makes big Raspberry at ill conceived white plan.
45. white rook g3-g7 cause the check is in the mail?
46. black king retreats in order g8 - h8
47. white queen h4-(edit-h7) you go, girl! checkmate

[newbrof]

I had a league game on Sunday. And sometimes chess can be really maddening...

It reminded me of a chess short story by Patrick Süskind. In that story there was this old man, the best chess player in town. He was challenged by a nobody and every chessplayer in town wanted to see the old guy losing. The young guy played like a madman, sacrificing left and right, and lost. The old man played very cautious and all sympathy went to the young man. After the match, the old guy gave up on chess, because his win tasted like a loss to him...

That happened to me somehow on sunday. I won, but it was nothing good about it. I used up almost all my time (I used 90 minutes) and my opponent used 10 minutes of his time, basically he was playing blitz. And his position was strong most of the time. If he would not have made a big mistake at the end, he could have won. This win did not feel good, crap. I hate those guys...

[Miramon]

Would you have felt better if you'd played carefully and then lost?

If someone is playing blitz chess with a long timer, either they have no respect for you as a player, they are trying to psych you out, or least likely, that's the only way they can bear to play at all.

Two out of three of those options should piss you off, not dismay you. And even in the last case, that's the way he chose to play. You didn't force him to make a casual mistake he could have avoided if he played with more care for the game. Too bad for him. Maybe next time he'll take a minute off from time to time to actually think about the position. Of course, maybe next time he'll be rated 500 points higher....

[newbrof]

losing would have been a nightmare against a blitzer :-) He could be a very well player, but I think that's his way, he probably would make the same moves after long consideration (except blunders). When playing against a blitzer, you know that their game might not have too much depth...

Computers are good at using the opponents time for their brute force method... maybe he was good at using my time too...

Are there any QT3ers on www.gameknot.com playing correspondence chess? My handle is brof...

[tiohn]

I challenged you to a game a gameknot, brof. A handful of us used to play on chess.com as well.

[Miramon]

I still have account Miramon on chess.com, but lately I've only used it to look at their lame chess problems.

[newbrof]

Gameknot has some nice chess puzzles... tjohn, challenge accepted!

What I like about league games is that you do not know your opponent usually. How strong is he, what's his style.... I am looking forward to see what kind of player you are, tjohn.

[newbrof]

I had the idea for a chess comic for at least 2 years... but I did not know what to do with it. I think I've found an interesting form to publish this comic as a game mixing comic and chess puzzles in an interesting way. If you have an iphone/ipod, let me know and I will provide you with a promotional code... or you can enter the contest below

looke here
http://forums.toucharcade.com/showthread.php?t=47444

[tiohn]

Hey, guys. I played this game as black recently:


1. e4 b6
2. Bc4 g6
3. Qf3 Bb7
4. Qxf7#

I have learned that the ability to make a move using my phone leads to extreme carelessness.

[newbrof]

Hey, tiohn. If you beat me in our current gameknot game you get a promo code for Magnus.

Btw. do you know the nickname of Magnus the Small? No? well he is called Blunder, James Blunder... I will use your game as an example, I think I own 50 % of the moves :-))

p.s. don't use a computer!

[newbrof]

tiohn, great game! I thought I did pretty well until I lost... do you have an iphone/ipod?

[Krebmart]

Ah, this brings back memories!

I used to play chess at a fairly competitive level (~USCF 2300 was my top rating), and I sure do miss it.

The fun thing about chess was discovering first the power of pattern recognition as a heuristic for making good choices, and then later realizing that the combination of pattern recognition with brute force analysis was the path to mastery. I.e., all players above a certain level know certain patterns/structures are advantageous or disadvantageous, but the master-level player gets them by finding the exceptions to those patterns with deep analysis. This is how you get players to go for positions that "look" good based on the patterns, but actually aren't good.

[tiohn]

tiohn, great game! I thought I did pretty well until I lost... do you have an iphone/ipod?

You played a great game. I was sweating towards the end and nearly wet myself when I saw that last fork.

I do not have an iphone or ipod, but I appreciate the offer.

[newbrof]

and then later realizing that the combination of pattern recognition with brute force analysis was the path to mastery
yeah, that sounds fun... ahh, the fun days of combination and pattern recognition, I miss them too :-))

[ReptileHouse]

Ah, this brings back memories!

I used to play chess at a fairly competitive level (~USCF 2300 was my top rating), and I sure do miss it.

The fun thing about chess was discovering first the power of pattern recognition as a heuristic for making good choices, and then later realizing that the combination of pattern recognition with brute force analysis was the path to mastery. I.e., all players above a certain level know certain patterns/structures are advantageous or disadvantageous, but the master-level player gets them by finding the exceptions to those patterns with deep analysis. This is how you get players to go for positions that "look" good based on the patterns, but actually aren't good.

That's a really good way to describe the strategic game. Thanks for that!

(and a very humble description of your rating,too :) )

[Nixxter]

I read the thread - a lot of it's over my head obviously.

Put yourselves in my shoes. For some odd reason I'd like to learn to play but I admit I have a lot of competing interests going on right now (other games, for instance).

Is there a good either PC, or Iphone (heck even PSP or DS) game that would teach a newb like me the rules, and also allow me to ease in to the game by playing against the AI in the program?

I did some searching on my own, but ran into quite a few comments about how the Iphone games were crashing, or wouldn't save, or a call (multitasking) would blow the game up you were playing.

I don't want to read about it yet - I'd like to learn by playing. Think of me as a child, really, I know a lot of kids learn the game, probably in the womb!

Thanks for your help and suggestions!

[bandidoquest]

I believe that Chessmaster: Grandmaster Edition is what you're looking for. The game features some very good tutorials hanging from the absolute beginner topics (teaching how to move the pieces) to some more advanced stuff (tactics, strategy and so on). There are also lots of AI opponents for you to play against so that you can learn by playing as you said.

[Ultrazen]

I was on a big chess binge for a few years of my life. Had a regular playing partner. At one point we used to play about 8 hours a day, pretty much every day, and drink a lot of coffee. That abruptly ended when I read "Bobby Fisher Teaches Chess" and never lost another game to him lol.

That book is amazing, so simple, and so perfect, I learned a ton and it made me view the game completely differently.

I also love 'watching' replays of old game moves on my computer. There are some really amazing sacrifice games in the Morphy era.

Yah, I like chess.

[Staff Sergeant]

2v2 chess is actually pretty fun if you have 4 players of equal skill (or 2 pairs of players of equal skill). Of course it can lead to a fool's mate if your partner happens to be a girl who didn't even know she owned a chessboard, but having to appraise a brand new situation every time it's your turn (because you don't control what your partner is doing other than stopping them from making fatal errors) is kind of cool.

[SuperAdventurer]

Is there a good either PC, or Iphone (heck even PSP or DS) game that would teach a newb like me the rules, and also allow me to ease in to the game by playing against the AI in the program?

I did some searching on my own, but ran into quite a few comments about how the Iphone games were crashing, or wouldn't save, or a call (multitasking) would blow the game up you were playing.

If you're looking specifically for an iPhone app, there are free chess apps of course and you might as well try them first to see if they offer what you want. But if you're willing to spend $8 give tChess Pro a look (there's also a Lite version for $1, I think the main difference is it's limited to the lower skill levels and that won't matter to you right away if you're just learning chess). Simple, clean interface and I've never had it crash since you mentioned that as a concern. It also features a tutorial for learning the rules + basic strategy though I haven't used that part.

What I like to do is play rated games against the AI. Whether the rating is accurate or not doesn't matter to me so much, the point is that once you've played a few games to establish a rating you get matched up against AI opponents of similar playing strength so the games will be competitive. And it plays reasonably on lower difficulty levels which a lot of chess programs get wrong (a sequence of master level combinations too deep for the average player to find, followed by an essentially random blunder to compensate (as if there's a "blunder frequency" parameter and that's how the algorithm lowers the difficulty), is not a good way to approximate how a weaker player would actually play but it seems like that's all some chess programs do on the lower levels - I haven't run into that sort of weirdness with tChess).

[Chris Nahr]

I just saw that Shredder Chess is on iTunes as well, and the Lite version is completely free. Will have to try that one.

[newbrof]

on the DS I have Chessmaster (by UBIsoft) for my kid. It has many chess related mini games,puzzles, tutorials and opponets from weak to strong... For learning chess it is great...

[krayzkrok]

On the PC I'd recommend Chessmaster 9000 which is available for a few pitiful bucks from GOG. It's basically the same thing as the Grandmaster edition - less content, but it does have a great set of tutorials to teach the basics, and it also plays well on lower levels. On the iPhone I'd go with the recommendations above. You could also try getting an account at chess.com and playing some online games there - it's usually a fairly friendly community, although you really need to learn the basics before you start on that.

[Dan_Theman]

I was on a big chess binge for a few years of my life. Had a regular playing partner. At one point we used to play about 8 hours a day, pretty much every day, and drink a lot of coffee. That abruptly ended when I read "Bobby Fisher Teaches Chess" and never lost another game to him lol.

That book is amazing, so simple, and so perfect, I learned a ton and it made me view the game completely differently.

I also love 'watching' replays of old game moves on my computer. There are some really amazing sacrifice games in the Morphy era.

Yah, I like chess.I have to agree on that book - I'm surprised I haven't pimped it here, earlier. It's the perfect intro to chess.

[Nixxter]

Thank you all for the recommendations, and, as luck would have it, Chessmaster 9000 is one of the (many) Ubisoft games on sale at GOG this weekend.

That's a sale!

And, once I get the hang of playing a little, I'll read up about this Bobby Fisher chap : )

[baruk]

A good league game, felt like posting it up. Perhaps I could call it A rook gets trapped behind enemy lines, but attains immortality.

1. e4 d6 2. g3 e5 3. Bg2 g6 4. d3 Bg7 5. Nd2 Nh6 6. Ngf3 O-O 7. O-O f5 8.
Re1 Nc6 9. c3 f4 10. Nf1 g5 11. N3d2 Be6 12. Nb3 Qc8 13. f3 Bh3 14. Qe2
Bxg2 15. Qxg2 Nf7 16. g4 Qe6 17. Bd2 Ne7 18. Red1 Nh8 19. Be1 Nhg6 20. Nfd2
Kf7 21. Rac1 Rh8 22. h3 Ng8 23. Nf1 Nf6 24. Qc2 h5 25. Nh2 hxg4 26. hxg4
Rh7 27. Rd2 Rah8 28. Rg2 Rh3 29. Qe2 Nh4 30. Bxh4 gxh4 31. Kh1 Rg3 32. Rcg1
Nh7 33. d4 Ng5 34. d5 Qd7 35. Nc1 Bf6 36. c4 Bd8 37. Nd3 c6 38. Nf2 Bb6 39.
Rf1 Ke8 40. Rb1 Qh7 41. Rd1 h3 42. Rgg1 Rg2 43. Rdf1 Qh4 44. dxc6 bxc6 45.
c5 Bxc5 46. Qa6 Kd7 47. Qb7+ Ke6 48. Qxc6 Rxg1+ 49. Rxg1 Qxf2 50. Qd5+ Kf6

[Staff Sergeant]

How is that a complete game?

[baruk]

I left off the result - I thought it might be more interesting to play through without knowing the outcome from the start. The final position is fairly decisive.

[jellyfish]

I left off the result - I thought it might be more interesting to play through without knowing the outcome from the start. The final position is fairly decisive.
That was a good move.

[Gorath]

Nice game, although the difference in playing strength is quite obvious. (or the other guy had a very bad day)

[newbrof]

Baruk, do you play on Gameknot.com? My handle is Brof, if you want a game to play... 3 days per move or something.

[tylertoo]

I thought the same, but you need to know these openings only if you want to get a pro. On the 5th board of a B-Team, opening theory is not that big of a deal... :-) because your opponent does not know them, too... if you have a solid understanding of chess, that's enough to get things going...

Yes, I believe a strong knowledge of 2-3 openings will suit you well at the amateur level. When I was playing regularly, that's all I had up my sleeve.

When I was playing regularly.... sigh. For a few years back in the 00s I played this guy once a week. We met at a local coffee shop and played for hours. And after a while I got better, not formally competitive of course, but better to the point where I would visualize games in my mind days later. I could see the board in a different way. And, like any game, I came to realize that to get better at chess requires tons and tons of practice.

[baruk]

Baruk, do you play on Gameknot.com? My handle is Brof, if you want a game to play... 3 days per move or something.
I've sent you a challenge - my handle is tonylemesmer.

[peterb]

Anyone up for a game at chess.com?

Fair warning: you will beat me.

[peterb]

I abandoned chess the day I realised that there were these thousands of openings and to play a decent game I needed to know them. I put the board away and lost my enthusiasm and have never played since.

I know I am necroing something terribly, but: hello, let me introduce you to Chess960 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess960).