Leo, how on earth are you so good at Chess?

[Value]

@AtmanIsBrahman Yeye it's nothing remarkable but I heard the chess.com rating is about 100-200 points lower than real tournament rating. So that would be 1100 of real "tournament chess ELO" - enough to be foolishly confident in my ability to win against any random on the street, and to come up with great but illogical excuses when I lose. 

[NoSelfSelf]

27 minutes ago, TimStr said:

It's mindblowing! I recommend you give it a try.
I started playing Go about 3 years ago and I fell in love with the way it made me expand my mind. Playing Go is like having infinity on the tip of your tounge. Or on the tip of your finger, rather. It's the most beautiful game that exists.

I watched a korean movie about it but didnt understand how its played.Since you are experienced can you explain briefly?

 

[TimStr]

@NoSelfSelf

So the thing about Go is, that the rules are kind of simple.

1. Play: Each player takes turns placing stones on the intersections on the board. Black begins. Stones dont move, they only can be removed by capture. The player that has sourrounded the most territory wins.
2. Capture: If a stone is sourrounded by stones of the opponent, it is captured.
   A group of same colored stones that is connected vertically or horizontally (but not diagonally) shares their liberties, so the whole group has to be sourrounded to be captured. Captured stones are removed from the board, they add points to the score of territory. Players cannot commit suicide by placing a stone in a way that it is immediately captured.
3. Ko: No stone may be played so as to recreate a former board position.
4. End: Two consecutive passes end the game. Territory is counted by the number of empty intersections sourrounded by same colored stones.

 

The great thing about that simplicity is, that it allows for a really high complexity. Especially of you play on a 19 by 19 board, there are literally infinite possibilites for stone positions. This makes it impossible to develope a strategy by simply analyzing possibilities. Yet, in a way, each move makes all the other stones on the board change context, so its not at all random.

Edited January 5 by TimStr

[integral]

@TimStr it's so clear why GO did not catch on in the West, it's missing action, is missing speed, it's missing Glory, it's missing Blood and Guts and brutality, it's missing the art of destroying your opponent career, and it's missing the botez sisters.

It's to Buddhist.

Edited January 5 by integral

[NoSelfSelf]

8 hours ago, TimStr said:

@NoSelfSelf

So the thing about Go is, that the rules are kind of simple.

1. Play: Each player takes turns placing stones on the intersections on the board. Black begins. Stones dont move, they only can be removed by capture. The player that has sourrounded the most territory wins.
2. Capture: If a stone is sourrounded by stones of the opponent, it is captured.
   A group of same colored stones that is connected vertically or horizontally (but not diagonally) shares their liberties, so the whole group has to be sourrounded to be captured. Captured stones are removed from the board, they add points to the score of territory. Players cannot commit suicide by placing a stone in a way that it is immediately captured.
3. Ko: No stone may be played so as to recreate a former board position.
4. End: Two consecutive passes end the game. Territory is counted by the number of empty intersections sourrounded by same colored stones.

 

The great thing about that simplicity is, that it allows for a really high complexity. Especially of you play on a 19 by 19 board, there are literally infinite possibilites for stone positions. This makes it impossible to develope a strategy by simply analyzing possibilities. Yet, in a way, each move makes all the other stones on the board change context, so its not at all random.

 

8 hours ago, TimStr said:

@NoSelfSelf

So the thing about Go is, that the rules are kind of simple.

1. Play: Each player takes turns placing stones on the intersections on the board. Black begins. Stones dont move, they only can be removed by capture. The player that has sourrounded the most territory wins.
2. Capture: If a stone is sourrounded by stones of the opponent, it is captured.
   A group of same colored stones that is connected vertically or horizontally (but not diagonally) shares their liberties, so the whole group has to be sourrounded to be captured. Captured stones are removed from the board, they add points to the score of territory. Players cannot commit suicide by placing a stone in a way that it is immediately captured.
3. Ko: No stone may be played so as to recreate a former board position.
4. End: Two consecutive passes end the game. Territory is counted by the number of empty intersections sourrounded by same colored stones.

 

The great thing about that simplicity is, that it allows for a really high complexity. Especially of you play on a 19 by 19 board, there are literally infinite possibilites for stone positions. This makes it impossible to develope a strategy by simply analyzing possibilities. Yet, in a way, each move makes all the other stones on the board change context, so its not at all random.

Thanks alot for descriptive answer i just might give it a go 😄

[PenguinPablo]

On 1/3/2025 at 0:18 PM, Value said:

Did you even train a lot to reach 1600 at Fischer Random? Were you born with a talent for Chess?

I mean he is God.

@NoSelfSelf I love the aesthetic of Go so much. The black and white stones. The board looks way more beautiful than Chess. 

But God dammit I can't figure it out strategically/ intuitively like I did chess. 

Edited January 6 by PenguinPablo

[NoSelfSelf]

18 minutes ago, PenguinPablo said:

I mean he is God.

@NoSelfSelf I love the aesthetic of Go so much. The black and white stones. The board looks way more beautiful than Chess. 

But God dammit I can't figure it out strategically/ intuitively like I did chess. 

in this movie they play blindfold Go with clear pieces looks cool.

Well the more i play chess the more i dont understand it,probably would never figure it out as human. 

 

[integral]

@Leo Gura Game 6 is your most impressive game by far, the computer played solid until it made one insane move 23...e5 and self-destructed (a move no human would ever make). Overall your good at positional chess and thats rare for someone who played for less then 1 month. 

[Dodo]

11 minutes ago, integral said:

@Leo Gura Game 6 is your most impressive game by far, the computer played solid until it made one insane move 23...e5 and self-destructed (a move no human would ever make). Overall your good at positional chess and thats rare for someone who played for less then 1 month. 

He played fischer random for less than a month. And ye computers alwaays play engine moves and if its lower rated it will still do engine moves and then blunder on purpose, as if to say "i can beat you but here you go". Thaats why i dont like playing vss computer,  not natural gameplay 

[Consept]

Highest rating ive had is 1750 but I only do 3 min games really. Never tried the fischer random but let me know when youre ready @Leo Gura Id be up for a couple games 

[LambdaDelta]

I've been solving lots of Sudoku lately and found that it also improves my chess. The similarity in grid structure helps ln pattern recognition, particularly the rapid eye movements for quickly assessing the position. I've drastically reduced getting my pieces forked and other blunders. Getting burned by filling in a single wrong number and ending up redoing several of them later on has taught me to consider my moves more carefully and also check whether I can actually execute my preferred strategy before the opponent can prevent it, or I'll fall short and have to look for an alternative. Plus eliminating untenable continuations is basically the same principle in both. 

AlphaZero games have quickly become some of my favorite along with Nezhmetdinov, Tal, and Morphy. Good things can be learned from its play, such as prioritizing piece mobility over material advantage, suffocating the opponent's movement, and controlling long diagonals with adjacent bishops. After all, you need as few as 2 pieces for a checkmate, the rest are expendable. 

 

 

Next up is learning notation, which is a must for visualizing. I can calculate decently well, but quickly get lost without pointers like arrows, and have to start over. 

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, LambdaDelta said:

Good things can be learned from its play, such as prioritizing piece mobility over material advantage, suffocating the opponent's movement, and controlling long diagonals with adjacent bishops.

Very good.

[integral]

4 hours ago, LambdaDelta said:

I've been solving lots of Sudoku lately and found that it also improves my chess. The similarity in grid structure helps ln pattern recognition, particularly the rapid eye movements for quickly assessing the position. I've drastically reduced getting my pieces forked and other blunders.

On Chess.com you can play XXL chess. And the result is similar to what you're describing where when you play a couple of games it expands you vision when you switch back to regular chess.

Edited January 7 by integral

[trenton]

@Leo Gura good job improving at chess.

Have you considered playing games against yourself? I had some really cool games that way. I keep getting draws because my opponent is an equally powerful human who knows exactly what I'm thinking.

While doing this you can map out exactly how you think and then look for improvements in how you calculate and plan.

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, trenton said:

Have you considered playing games against yourself?

Interesting idea. I have not tried. Seems too solipsistic. I have more fun against a bot.

[Whitney Edwards]

Chess is so boring. No offense 

Edited January 7 by Buck Edwards

[Carl-Richard]

18 minutes ago, Buck Edwards said:

Chess is so boring. No offense 

What games do you play? 🤔

[Whitney Edwards]

3 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

What games do you play? 🤔

Pool. 

[EternalForest]

On 1/3/2025 at 8:01 PM, Leo Gura said:

I expect that real elo rating is harder to maintain than beating a bot.

I am slowly working my way up to 2000-rated bots.

3 weeks ago I was struggling against 1500 rated bots. Now 1700 is pretty comfortable. Once I can beat 2000-rated bots then I will be ready to play some humans.

When the bot uprising comes, they will eat me last.

Yeah, real experienced players are way harder, at least on the lower levels. I can breeze through most of the free bots on chess.com but my ELO playing real players is 400 at best, which doesn't make much sense.

[TheEnigma]

On 1/3/2025 at 8:01 PM, Leo Gura said:

I expect that real elo rating is harder to maintain than beating a bot.

I am slowly working my way up to 2000-rated bots.

3 weeks ago I was struggling against 1500 rated bots. Now 1700 is pretty comfortable. Once I can beat 2000-rated bots then I will be ready to play some humans.

When the bot uprising comes, they will eat me last.

1400s OTB should be able to defeat 2000 rated bots. bot ratings are just for a bit of fun. They're just trying to make lower level players feel good.