Value

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

209 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

@Dodo I think putting the knight on g6 as a starting position might give black a disadvantage because the knight is further away from the controlling the centre. It still feels equal only because black is gonna have an extra piece developed.

The knight being on G6 means it’s gonna have a harder time controlling the centre squares so white will have an easier time taking control of the centre with its pawns, but black has an extra piece developed, so it might balance out. 

A chess engine is not gonna be good at evaluating the equality of a starting position. It’s not designed for that. 

A real test would be to have the computer play against itself for millions of games and as it figures out the optimized best possible way to play the game from that starting position.

It might discover a completely broken way for white to play the opening because it figures out how to take advantage of blacks piece being off centre.

Edited by integral

StopWork.ai - Voice Everything Browser Extension

How is this post just me acting out my ego in the usual ways? Is this post just me venting and justifying my selfishness? Are the things you are posting in alignment with principles of higher consciousness and higher stages of ego development? Are you acting in a mature or immature way? Are you being selfish or selfless in your communication? Are you acting like a monkey or like a God-like being?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, integral said:

It might discover a completely broken way for white to play the opening because it figures out how to take advantage of blacks piece being off centre.

Good point.

But there must be some good piece to give to black for pre-development.


You are God. You are Truth. You are Love. You are Infinity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Leo Gura Playing against bots is not so good for training because of how they are programed. The 2000 elo bot is programed to make some mistakes in every few moves, that means that you can exploit that by playing closed positions and waiting for their mistakes. You play a waiting game because the longer the game go more mistakes will acumulate. This works almost every time unless you play against very strong bot. And playing very strong bot is not good for training either because the playing style of the bot is so alien that you hardly can take a lessons from that and no human plays like that.

you can defeat much more higher rated bots than humans. I can beat 2000 bot and i am 800 rated in rapid againts humans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

What if black always starts with 1 random pawn advanced forward by 1 square? This would have the added advantage of making opening theory less robotic

Edited by Leo Gura

You are God. You are Truth. You are Love. You are Infinity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

20 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

What if black always starts with 1 random pawn advanced forward by 1 square? This would have the added advantage of making opening theory less robotic

I love classical chess and classic opening theory. To me theory is what makes this game thick. Every opening has an unique soul to it. For example The Sicilian Defence, Najdorf Variation in particular feels like the ultimate counter attacking warrior. I feel like every move I play with black in the Sicilian Defence is like I would punch a hole into my opponent. It feels so combative and I love it to death. Also the King's Indian Defence makes me euphoric with black because white builds his massive centre, develops all his pieces only to be totally blown off the board with a kingside counter attack by black. 

To me openings are the bread and butter of this game and without them it is just a random mess without any structure or principles. Fischer Random chess to me is like a jungle. I like my game non chaotic. I wanna be able to predict what's gonna happen not to be at the mercy of the piece place generator. And if you as a player enjoy having mayhem on the board, that's what gambits are for. Try the Smith-Morra Gambit. There you will experience MAYHEM!

Edited by Daniel Balan

https://x.com/DanyBalan7 - Please follow me on twitter! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Fischer Random is PURE chess. Classic chess is just group-think.

Edited by Leo Gura

You are God. You are Truth. You are Love. You are Infinity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Daniel Balan said:

To me theory is what makes this game thick. Every opening has an unique soul to it.

Exactly. Opening theory is one of the most interesting aspects of chess. If it didn't exist, chess wouldn't have been popular for so long.

24 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Fischer Random is PURE chess. Classic chess is just group-think.

It's really not the case. Opening theory isn't that dense until you get to a ridiculously high level of chess, and even then it's not the main thing deciding your games- it's just one aspect of the game among all the others. For example, Fabiano Caruana, one of the top players, is known for having great opening preparation which can give him an advantage against other top players. But all of that would be irrelevant if he wasn't already at that level in all the other areas of his game.
As a beginner to intermediate player, there's no obligation to study opening theory. You can if you want to, but you won't be hurt by avoiding it. One of the most fun ways to approach it is to learn some traps/ tricky lines that are objectively dubious but will score you wins against players at your level.
There are many ways to approach it, but playing Fischer random as a beginner/intermediate to avoid theory is a self-deception imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

@AtmanIsBrahman Why would a true chess player want to memorize anything? Memory is an inferior form of intellect.

I should be able to give you chess with brand new pieces and you should be able to play it. That is intelligence. If you need to run to a book to memorize a bunch of moves that is so lame that it ruins the game.

Classical chess was great 150 years ago. Before group-think killed it.

Edited by Leo Gura

You are God. You are Truth. You are Love. You are Infinity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Leo Gura Lol, whenever I watch Hikaru play in these Fischer Random tournaments, it always feels and looks the same he sticks to the same old classical strategy, developing his pieces first and creating threats with tricks and patiently waiting for his opponents to blunder. The thing that differentiate the 2 is the starting position of the backrank pieces but the plan to best your opponent or play better never changes... Anyway I guess it all boils down to what flavor one prefers a sandwich or bread with butter pick your poison. To me Fischer random is also one form of group think but limited to few just like we have new agers with lots spices in their spiritual perspective and the dry old ancient christian perspective where only one flavor is shared but coming in different sizes, trying them both is where all the juice is 😁

20 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Fischer Random is PURE chess. Classic chess is just group-think

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

8 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@AtmanIsBrahman Why would a true chess player want to memorize anything? Memory is an inferior form of intellect.

The reason practically speaking is that it gets you an advantage because you will get a better position or even win out of the opening, and otherwise you know some basic plans to use once you're out of theory. Keep in mind chess is a competitive sport.


I assume your point of view is more of enjoying the aesthetic beauty of chess as "Mind." For that purpose, I guess there's no reason to memorize anything, but you might find beauty in understanding opening ideas, which will eventually lead to some memorization anyway. 
Either way, there's no way around memory in chess. It's a game of pattern recognition, and the more patterns you know and can apply well, the better you'll play. It's not a game of pure intellect, nor could it ever be.

Edited by AtmanIsBrahman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

5 minutes ago, AtmanIsBrahman said:

The reason practically speaking is that it gets you an advantage because you will get a better position or even win out of the opening, and otherwise you know some basic plans to use once you're out of theory. Keep in mind chess is a competitive sport

Of course I know why they do it. That's the thing I dislike. It's an arms race to memorize moves. This ruins the spirit of chess.

Which is why Bobby Fischer agrees with me and invented Fischer Random. Fischer was a chess purist.

Edited by Leo Gura

You are God. You are Truth. You are Love. You are Infinity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listen to the master:

 


You are God. You are Truth. You are Love. You are Infinity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Leo Gura You have your opinion. But me personally I never memorized anything, I just studied the main principles of a certain opening. Besides, there are like 50 sub variations within a particular opening.. who in the right mind memorizes them all? Opening theory is about general principles and lines of attack and defence for black and white, not literal memorization of 30+ moves of theory. Although at the professional level they do that, they memorize crazy 30+ sequence of moves, but that is no longer chess it's a memorization contest. 


https://x.com/DanyBalan7 - Please follow me on twitter! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read what I said in the last paragraph about pattern recognition. Chess is a game of pattern recognition, and opening theory is just one facet of that. Pattern recognition itself is what intelligence is in a certain sense.

Bobby Fischer is known to have kind of lost it in his later years, and he was talking about top level chess anyway, which proves my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Fischer was a chess purist.

Fischer was more of an opening theory addict than anyone back when he was still playing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

"The truth is chess is no good any more." 

-- Bobby Fischer

He is the only one with the lucidity and balls to say it.

Edited by Leo Gura

You are God. You are Truth. You are Love. You are Infinity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, AtmanIsBrahman said:

Fischer was more of an opening theory addict than anyone back when he was still playing

Opening theory addict? He played like 3 openings his entire career. The Najdorf Sicilian, The King's Indian Defence, and the Ruy Lopez...


https://x.com/DanyBalan7 - Please follow me on twitter! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can all agree that it invites the mind to be more creative compared to the former, but I guess that mostly applies to GM who knows their way around various openings that's why Bobby thinks it's boring but for us below GM level it all looks the same and always enjoyable to play, that's why I always play bullet chess or 3+0 blitz and the thrill of playing again and again against an opening theory u are not familiar with that's the most joy I get out of playing chess. So all I can say is Bobby s view applies mostly to the elites in chess. What's your take on bullet chess?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

7 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

"The truth is chess is no good any more." 

-- Bobby Fischer

He is the only one with lucidity and balls to say it.

Fischer was a miracle for the chess world. Never in history will there ever be such an unparalleled warrior of this noble sport. He played chess with such a devastating violence that made you see literal war over the board! With one sole objective.. TO CRUSH the opponent's mind!

Edited by Daniel Balan

https://x.com/DanyBalan7 - Please follow me on twitter! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

3 minutes ago, Daniel Balan said:

With one sole objective.. TO CRUSH the opponent's mind!

Well, actually, that part I think is stupid. That's a terribly egoic way to play a game.

It should be played for the creative intelligence and beauty, not to dunk on people.

Edited by Leo Gura

You are God. You are Truth. You are Love. You are Infinity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now