Chess

    • NotD

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Anybody play?

      I've always had a fondness of the strategic implications of chess, but I like to hear others' perspective of the game. Some offer curious or interesting perceptions of the pieces, their representation, and their corrected implications. Possibly one of the oldest board games still in existence, I just wonder if it's made it into anybody's life at one time or another.

      Trouble wrote:

      Sounds like an expert clicker to me :D

      Doc Brown wrote:

      I have read several of your posts elsewhere over a number of years. I find your mental state to be disturbing and you probably need professional help.
      What you write in the spam section doesn't have much impact on the game as a whole ... But I don't like to see you attempting to influence normal players in universe 1.
    • Used to play. Played Go even before chess, an even better game. Gave up both due to lack of motivation. Could play chess again at around 1300-1400 rating.
    • 1300-1400? What circuit is that part of? Is that the Elo rating? Never meant anything to me; which none of the ranking systems do. Also, careful with that opinion; it's cool if you like Go more than Chess, you can't compare the two by any empirical means.

      Did you ever have a preference for any of the pieces? Do you prefer black or white?

      Trouble wrote:

      Sounds like an expert clicker to me :D

      Doc Brown wrote:

      I have read several of your posts elsewhere over a number of years. I find your mental state to be disturbing and you probably need professional help.
      What you write in the spam section doesn't have much impact on the game as a whole ... But I don't like to see you attempting to influence normal players in universe 1.
    • Fair enough,let's say complex rather than better,that's empirical.
      Now that you asked, I've realised how biased I was. I never had official rating, can't really vouche if Chess.com corelates with FIDE.
      Elo rating from League of Legends? If that's your reference,then yes,chess ratings are quite comparable to LoL.
      I reached 1550 at my peak,that would be,what,gold 4-3? I played it a lot back in the highschool,a friend taught me so we joined chess club together. Competitions were fun, grinding games online wasn't. Without peer-pressure,it boils down to self-motivation. I've enjoyed the exposure,not the game itself.
      Prefered black. I find the first move to be a shot in the dark,and the second a choice.
    • Elo rating refers to the USCF rating, which was the only bracket your initial posed rating would have fallen under. I don't know anything about League of Legends other than it basically being a revamped Dota.

      Trouble wrote:

      Sounds like an expert clicker to me :D

      Doc Brown wrote:

      I have read several of your posts elsewhere over a number of years. I find your mental state to be disturbing and you probably need professional help.
      What you write in the spam section doesn't have much impact on the game as a whole ... But I don't like to see you attempting to influence normal players in universe 1.
    • You´re right. I wasn´t informed of the differences until doing the research just now, 1400 USCF definitely sounds appropriate for my level.
      What´s your take on the matter? Played or still playing?
    • I partake in a game here and there, purely for leisure and mental stimulation; conversations are always a plus. I displayed strong capabilities for chess around the age of eight or nine, however my school district didn't offer a chess club of any kind. It is a game though, and I've found myself without reason to care for competition, regardless of prizes or accolades. One of my favourite books turned out to be an analytical chess manual (odd, I know).

      I too prefer to start off as black, though I prefer it for reactionary and leading purposes.

      Trouble wrote:

      Sounds like an expert clicker to me :D

      Doc Brown wrote:

      I have read several of your posts elsewhere over a number of years. I find your mental state to be disturbing and you probably need professional help.
      What you write in the spam section doesn't have much impact on the game as a whole ... But I don't like to see you attempting to influence normal players in universe 1.
    • It´s a great game without a doubt. My fondest memory of chess is playing at a tournament. I was a sub and was playing someone who knew just as little as I did.
      We were in a situation that seemed like a draw, and I almost offered it to him. Decided to risk it and he ended up making a mistake. My team won first place by half a point.
    • I have no idea what your second paragraph meant, but it's cool you won that. Did any of the pieces symbolize anything to you?

      Trouble wrote:

      Sounds like an expert clicker to me :D

      Doc Brown wrote:

      I have read several of your posts elsewhere over a number of years. I find your mental state to be disturbing and you probably need professional help.
      What you write in the spam section doesn't have much impact on the game as a whole ... But I don't like to see you attempting to influence normal players in universe 1.
    • My oldest chess memories go back to when I was 4-5 years old, and my dad had this book Kasparov Vs. Karpov that he kept next to his handmade wooden chess set. I always found the set curious, so my dad began teaching me the rules of chess. When I learned that, we started using the book and going through every game move by move, which was the best way to learn different tactics and try using them in later games.

      I was very excited when couple of years ago I went to see Gary Kasparov playing a simultaneous chess game.

      I never played in tournaments or anything, but I still enjoy a friendly game now and them. I even bought an amazing wooden chess set last year for Christmas.

      You asked about the pieces. The queen is probably the best piece because of the movement possibility. But I always liked the pawn because of the possibility to pass unnoticed.

      "Let me be clear as I can be: In politics and in life, ignorance is not a virtue. It's not cool to not know what you're talking about."
    • Awesome, it's cool you have those memories. Not too many people within my family are savvy on the game. My father taught me the basics, but when I consistently beat him he never played again. (Roughly age 8 or 9)

      The queen is certainly powerful, hence why it has an assigned value of '9'. It has full mobility and technically infinite range, which makes it perfect for precision attacks. Just as well it proffers the greatest versatility in terms of both defense and offense.

      Pawns are assigned a value of '1' due to their limitations in mobility and full-term usage. They're structurally the strongest piece in terms of defense, though that truly only applies in the beginning game. (To me pawns symbolize infantry)

      I suppose my favourite memory of chess was a game I played at the age of 22, when a 41 year old man challenged me to a game. His declaration was he could use bishops better than anybody else, and that it had been a while since he taught a "young buck" like me a lesson. I ended deliberately baiting and switching my queen and both knights in order to securely capture both of his bishops. When he realized my actual goal, (eliminating his bishops) he cried. He got pissy, and even when I outnumbered him a queen, 2 rooks, a pawn, and a knight to his one king + pawn he stated, "I'd rather lose with honour than concede defeat." That of course being completely unethical, as any other circumstance would have dictated a resignation of play. He refused to play against me after that... :| .. :D

      Trouble wrote:

      Sounds like an expert clicker to me :D

      Doc Brown wrote:

      I have read several of your posts elsewhere over a number of years. I find your mental state to be disturbing and you probably need professional help.
      What you write in the spam section doesn't have much impact on the game as a whole ... But I don't like to see you attempting to influence normal players in universe 1.
    • The King has infinite value, and yet he´s tactically the least useful piece on the board. Strategically, he can Castle, but even a pawn can take him down.
      A value of a piece is determined by its importance, and importance is determined by its role. The role of pawns is to buy time. They are ment to be sacrificed, and therefore come in large numbers and have the lowest value. However, one pawn has a value of one, but nine pawns have equal value as a queen. The loss of one pawn could be compensated, the loss of many is a huge blow. Unless you sacrifice them with a higher goal in mind of course. Then a single pawn could be more important than a queen.
      Bishops and Knights have a similar role. They are ment to support pawns in their advance, to prevent unnecessary loses and sacrifice their tactical presence for a strategic benefit. For instance,
      exchanging a week Bishop for a strong Knight. Knights are my favorites, because it takes the most skill to utilize them to their full potential.Not that I´m good at using them.
      Rooks are the last line of defense before the Royal family. They offer long range influence to support the mid-tier pieces and provide protection for the King through the potential to Castle. However, their strategic importance makes them a prime victim of double mid-tier sacrifice. (i.e. exchanging two bishops to prevent Castle, or to destroy long range support on one side of the board.)
      The Queen is the Kings bodyguard. Using her at the beginning is a huge risk, because too many pieces can overcome her tactical presence. She has a value of 9, and combines Rooks and Bishops influence, but is essentially a liability until the smaller pieces do their work. When the King is under attack, the enemy must say "Check", but if the Queen is under attack, the enemy prays you don´t notice.
      For this reason, the early game is spent mostly developing the end game and protecting the Queen, while the King can sip margaritas. During this time, she offers similar role as a Bishop, but holds value disproportional to her low influence. She is an investment - a piece that grows in usefulness as the game progresses. Obviously, one could use her more aggressively earlier, that´s where ones character comes out. I prefer letting her mature, if I´m forced to use the Queen early, it means I´m losing control.
      That´s my take on it. It´s strange how Chess showcases life in all it´s aspects - good moments, bad moments, value, influence, roles, sacrifice... Great game.
    • Exactly, premature use of the queen is actually considered uncouthe and typically looked at with disfavour.

      The king is assigned a value of 'infinity' because it's purpose is to serve as the game ender (winner takes all). However, while it may be the technically weakest piece on your side, your opponent's king is your strongest piece. If you are able to forcibly manipulate your opponent's king, you control their strategy, you control their response.

      Chess is all about control, hence why it's predecessor was probably invented by Indian royalty. You want to control the center of the board because it offers the most strategic vantage point. You want to control your opponent's king, because it forces them to respond and protect rather than develop a counter-strategy.

      Trouble wrote:

      Sounds like an expert clicker to me :D

      Doc Brown wrote:

      I have read several of your posts elsewhere over a number of years. I find your mental state to be disturbing and you probably need professional help.
      What you write in the spam section doesn't have much impact on the game as a whole ... But I don't like to see you attempting to influence normal players in universe 1.