Chess

[abnaxus]

 

[Sukhāvatī]

 

[Alpan]

An interesting ESPN article about the intensity of top level chess and how GMs manage their physical conditioning and diet:
https://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/i...sen-fabiano-caruana-lose-weight-playing-chess

In October 2018, Polar, a U.S.-based company that tracks heart rates, monitored chess players during a tournament and found that 21-year-old Russian grandmaster Mikhail Antipov had burned 560 calories in two hours of sitting and playing chess -- or roughly what Roger Federer would burn in an hour of singles tennis.

Robert Sapolsky, who studies stress in primates at Stanford University, says a chess player can burn up to 6,000 calories a day while playing in a tournament, three times what an average person consumes in a day. Based on breathing rates (which triple during competition), blood pressure (which elevates) and muscle contractions before, during and after major tournaments, Sapolsky suggests that grandmasters' stress responses to chess are on par with what elite athletes experience.

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

Chess.com tactics puzzle rating. I'm working towards 2.5k.



Of course, 45h training time in what amounts to 1.5 years is piss poor effort, which explains why I suck so much at it. I should do 45 h per month at least, but I don't have time.

 

[luj1]

my favorite game, Lasker's double bishop sacrifice from 1889

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1026352

 

[Syl]

my favorite game, Lasker's double bishop sacrifice from 1889

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1026352

LOL WTF
Ends with Queen and 6 pawns vs rook and pawn. He managed to make his opponent look like an amateur.

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

After only 2,5 hours more tactics puzzles 2500 has been breached.


A milestone in the history of Chess. I will be working on the 2600, problem is of course the higher the rating the harder the puzzles become.

 

[abnaxus]

Grischuk used to be married to female WGM Natalia Zhukova. Now apparently he's married to WGM Kateryna Lagno. xDD

 

[coldcrow]

Yep. Looks like both Lagno and Grischuk divorced thier respective mates and apparently are married now. Probably also a result of UkroNazi coup, with Lagno leaving Ukroland and tensions rising between Russia/Ukr. (Zhukova is a typical blonde dyed/aryan Ukrainian).
Such gems as : "Getting rid of the parasites is always painless. Well, love cannot be forced. If she doesn't want to play for Ukraine, why do we need such people? We didn't communicate at the Olympiad, she avoided it. Cleansing is always for the better."
http://chess-news.ru/en/node/16452

 

[abnaxus]

What a bitch.

 

[abnaxus]

 

[The_Sloth_Sleeps]

Chess.com tactics puzzle rating. I'm working towards 2.5k.



Of course, 45h training time in what amounts to 1.5 years is piss poor effort, which explains why I suck so much at it. I should do 45 h per month at least, but I don't have time.

Puzzles are kind of bullshit - especially the chess.com ones. I prefer the lichess ones. However my main complaint with puzzles is that you get penalized for a good, or an OK move - and you don't get penalized for a very bad move. No, you *have* to make the perfect move and get rated on that. This is a dumb way to train. You will progress much quicker in pretty much everything by just making lots of small improvements. I also prefer Lichess because its puzzles from real games.

 

[coldcrow]

This is such a worthless statement. You practice tactics (puzzles) exactly because you want to find the forcing continuation. There are simply many basic motives which are very good to know, because you can evaluate your variations in real games more correctly. You can debate the rewards (here some elo), but training to find forcing moves is always good.

PS: You also train certain thinking and imaging techniques, which are generally good to have as a chess player.

 

[The_Sloth_Sleeps]

You missed the point (intentionally or otherwise). You probably never find the optimal move in a real game, however you insist on practing this way. In no sense are you presented with this situation in a real game, knowing that theres a perfect forcing continuation.

Therefore, as I said, its more effective to practice making good moves, not just perfect.

 

[abnaxus]

 

[coldcrow]

Edge case, but still comes up in blitz games/ zeitnot scambles not too rarely.
FIDE rules are unequivocal on this. As long as the opposing side can achieve mate through legal moves (that includes help from the side which ran out of time), the game is lost.
Firouzja was just too nervous and threw over his pieces more than once.

 

[abnaxus]

Never noticed Mikhail Tal had a lobster left hand.

 

[Country_Gravy]

I think that's his right hand. It's made for attacking chess.

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

Puzzles are kind of bullshit - especially the chess.com ones. I prefer the lichess ones. However my main complaint with puzzles is that you get penalized for a good, or an OK move - and you don't get penalized for a very bad move. No, you *have* to make the perfect move and get rated on that. This is a dumb way to train. You will progress much quicker in pretty much everything by just making lots of small improvements. I also prefer Lichess because its puzzles from real games.

You missed the point (intentionally or otherwise). You probably never find the optimal move in a real game, however you insist on practing this way. In no sense are you presented with this situation in a real game, knowing that theres a perfect forcing continuation.
Therefore, as I said, its more effective to practice making good moves, not just perfect.

I disagree, it happens frequently in practical games that I find the best move. It happens even more often that I find a good move (2nd or third best option etc). The problem are those times when the move was utter shit. The frequency and severity of those errors is what influences the outcome of the game the most. Finding the best move in a given position is a skill like any other and can be trained like any other skill. if you train to find the best move, you will get better at finding the best move. Shocking.

 

[The_Sloth_Sleeps]

Puzzles are kind of bullshit - especially the chess.com ones. I prefer the lichess ones. However my main complaint with puzzles is that you get penalized for a good, or an OK move - and you don't get penalized for a very bad move. No, you *have* to make the perfect move and get rated on that. This is a dumb way to train. You will progress much quicker in pretty much everything by just making lots of small improvements. I also prefer Lichess because its puzzles from real games.

You missed the point (intentionally or otherwise). You probably never find the optimal move in a real game, however you insist on practing this way. In no sense are you presented with this situation in a real game, knowing that theres a perfect forcing continuation.
Therefore, as I said, its more effective to practice making good moves, not just perfect.

I disagree, it happens frequently in practical games that I find the best move. It happens even more often that I find a good move (2nd or third best option etc). The problem are those times when the move was utter shit. The frequency and severity of those errors is what influences the outcome of the game the most. Finding the best move in a given position is a skill like any other and can be trained like any other skill. if you train to find the best move, you will get better at finding the best move. Shocking.

There's a deeper truth to my point that you aren't understanding. I'm assuming (from your judgment) you are not a titled player.

If you are a higher titled player then maybe that's effective to always seek the perfect move. However I bet most times if you analyse your game where you did make the best move (and I too, often do make the best move), you will notice there is a horizon effect. While you and I may play "best" moves sometimes we often completely and utterly miss the point behind that move.

Now this "perfect" move you play is a bit delusional a claim because often its simple luck if you pull it off. Usually a perfect move is only presented in 2 situations. 1) a book move, 2) a simple tactical solution.

In a real game, its not always clear *if* there is a best move. Its totally suboptimal to waste time searching for the perfect move when there is none. In these positions you must try to find some kind of plan and play a move that works according to the plan (i.e. a good move).

Yes, yes, I realize puzzles are for improving calculation. And here is my gripe with this kind of isolation training. Its often not realistic. Which is, as I said, why I prefer lichess puzzles. But even then, if I get a +2 or a +2.5 from a move WHO CARES in real life? Its still a good move, especially if under time constraints.

 

[abnaxus]

 

[abnaxus]

I like Short, he just doesn't give a fukk.

 

[Citizen]

 

[underground nymph]

God I love this review.
chess schesss shets shit more like shit

 

[coldcrow]

Puzzles are kind of bullshit - especially the chess.com ones. I prefer the lichess ones. However my main complaint with puzzles is that you get penalized for a good, or an OK move - and you don't get penalized for a very bad move. No, you *have* to make the perfect move and get rated on that. This is a dumb way to train. You will progress much quicker in pretty much everything by just making lots of small improvements. I also prefer Lichess because its puzzles from real games.

You missed the point (intentionally or otherwise). You probably never find the optimal move in a real game, however you insist on practing this way. In no sense are you presented with this situation in a real game, knowing that theres a perfect forcing continuation.
Therefore, as I said, its more effective to practice making good moves, not just perfect.

I disagree, it happens frequently in practical games that I find the best move. It happens even more often that I find a good move (2nd or third best option etc). The problem are those times when the move was utter shit. The frequency and severity of those errors is what influences the outcome of the game the most. Finding the best move in a given position is a skill like any other and can be trained like any other skill. if you train to find the best move, you will get better at finding the best move. Shocking.

There's a deeper truth to my point that you aren't understanding. I'm assuming (from your judgment) you are not a titled player.

If you are a higher titled player then maybe that's effective to always seek the perfect move. However I bet most times if you analyse your game where you did make the best move (and I too, often do make the best move), you will notice there is a horizon effect. While you and I may play "best" moves sometimes we often completely and utterly miss the point behind that move.

Now this "perfect" move you play is a bit delusional a claim because often its simple luck if you pull it off. Usually a perfect move is only presented in 2 situations. 1) a book move, 2) a simple tactical solution.

In a real game, its not always clear *if* there is a best move. Its totally suboptimal to waste time searching for the perfect move when there is none. In these positions you must try to find some kind of plan and play a move that works according to the plan (i.e. a good move).

Yes, yes, I realize puzzles are for improving calculation. And here is my gripe with this kind of isolation training. Its often not realistic. Which is, as I said, why I prefer lichess puzzles. But even then, if I get a +2 or a +2.5 from a move WHO CARES in real life? Its still a good move, especially if under time constraints.

... you train "puzzles" exactly to separate solutions from common sense moves. If you don't do that you lose your ability to actually calculate forced moves. If you keep making "good" moves you fall into the first and largest chess trap: stereotyped play. Chess is always concrete. Of course stereotyped play has its merit and should be employed in thinking and execution. But to reduce your play to it is limiting and will lead to stagnation.