Chess with friends

Anybody play? I'm terrible but trying to get more games in. Grand puba

Chess is better than poker imo

Last time I mobilized a Bishop it was in a Catholic Church.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4Dragons

Last time I mobilized a Bishop it was in a Catholic Church.

---

:facepalm

Anybody else watch the re-burial of Richard III?

Somebody crush reg's soul for me, i'm going out and getting drunk.

0-0 > 0-0-0

I quit playing and studying when i was 12 years old. I didn't see a future for myself in professional chess. Way less than a 1% of all the players ever make a living playing and if you didn't put in your 10k hours training before your early teens you likely have no shot at it.

I played a lot against my uncle as a kid. Out of 2k matches i got 1 draw. I figured he was soft playing, tired and/or had migraine. I think he was around 2k elo player in the 90s. He mostly played and studied chess for 2 decades. But he wasn't good enough to make living out of it.

Chess is a brutal game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

I quit playing and studying when i was 12 years old. I didn't see a future for myself in professional chess. Way less than a 1% of all the players ever make a living playing and if you didn't put in your 10k hours training before your early teens you likely have no shot at it.

I played a lot against my uncle as a kid. Out of 2k matches i got 1 draw. I figured he was soft playing, tired and/or had migraine. I think he was around 2k elo player in the 90s. He mostly played and studied chess for 2 decades. But he wasn't good enough to make living out of it.

Chess is a brutal game.

---

At a guess I think a player would have to be 2500+ rating to make a living at it.

It can be brutal and frustrating, but also quite fun and rewarding. It's more of a gentleman's game, doesn't attract the degen crowd because of the lack of money buy-in games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RegGaymer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

I quit playing and studying when i was 12 years old. I didn't see a future for myself in professional chess. Way less than a 1% of all the players ever make a living playing and if you didn't put in your 10k hours training before your early teens you likely have no shot at it.

I played a lot against my uncle as a kid. Out of 2k matches i got 1 draw. I figured he was soft playing, tired and/or had migraine. I think he was around 2k elo player in the 90s. He mostly played and studied chess for 2 decades. But he wasn't good enough to make living out of it.

Chess is a brutal game.

---

At a guess I think a player would have to be 2500+ rating to make a living at it.

It can be brutal and frustrating, but also quite fun and rewarding. It's more of a gentleman's game, doesn't attract the degen crowd because of the lack of money buy-in games.

---

Doesn;t get degen crowd because luck plays almost zero role in outcome. games with low variance will never get degen crowd. Wish I would have studied chess when I was younger or taken it more seriously.

I'm talking about the app and playing for fun. Not sure how being a professional got brought into this.

Fucking chess.

Lothario whats your rating these days?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4Dragons

Anybody else watch the re-burial of Richard III?

---

No, I just couldn't bear it, too soon as they say.

But I did hear about the story on Snap Judgment, another Podcast worth a listen. Very strange stuff, and maybe one for the conspiracy theorists to take a look at because the woman who was researching his story basically acted as a human bone sensing divining rod and said something to the effect of "dig here' at a parking lot and yeah well they found him.

Apparently he was dumped in or near a lavatory of sorts and then those who did the dumping kept dumping on him verbally, so muck so that his distant relatives had troubles qualifying for a credit card.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limitles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4Dragons

Anybody else watch the re-burial of Richard III?

---

No, I just couldn't bear it, too soon as they say.

But I did hear about the story on Snap Judgment, another Podcast worth a listen. Very strange stuff, and maybe one for the conspiracy theorists to take a look at because the woman who was researching his story basically acted as a human bone sensing divining rod and said something to the effect of "dig here' at a parking lot and yeah well they found him.

Apparently he was dumped in or near a lavatory of sorts and then those who did the dumping kept dumping on him verbally, so muck so that his distant relatives had troubles qualifying for a credit card.

---

Better than your conspiracy theory, when they went to dig him up, they picked a spot in the parking lot marked with a large letter R.

documentary stream: http://fullepisode.info/richard-iii-...-the-car-park/
a different doc: http://fullepisode.info/secrets-of-t...g-richard-iii/
and yet a third: http://fullepisode.info/the-kings-sk...-iii-revealed/
a stream of the burial: http://videobull.to/richard-iii-the-burial-of-the-king/

i play chess since the 80s, learned frome some books

now the technology changed it all

now everyone is solid :(

back in the day there were a handful of GMs

now there are 1000s of Grandmasters, even 12 or 13 year olds

game databases, programs and Internet people to play against

and there´s still no money in chess (for most of the players)

poker is simpler and more lucrative

but i still love chess and play in some team games (offline)

and watch some training videos of Karpov and Carlsen

by the way, i have 2040 international rating (highest was 2165)

I'm the Borispoker Othello champion

Most i hated about chess was memorizing openings and knowing there was no way around it. It's just too effective and even though i'm fairly solid in the delusion of grandeur department, i didn't think it was too likely i was ever going to come up with say a better 4th move of any known opening when players before me had collectively studied that opening for millions of hours. I could also see that the length of openings would keep inflating.

I still have random memories from the 80's and early 90's playing against chess computers and following the most important matches from chess magazines. Being around chess players as a child also prepared me how to deal with a variety of characters. The spectrum of people that devout most of their time to studying a single game for decades tends to vary from mildly insane to bat shit crazy. Still mostly nice people.

effectively memorizing the standard openings and spending 10 minutes on middle/endgame basics will take you to a solid 1650 rating on the most popular chess sites, thats how important they are. particularly with blitz/bullet where youre under time pressure long before you hit middle game.

that said.

knowing a couple of common openings super intimately and having strong middle/endgame instincts is also the grounds for a solid 1650-1750 rating. but you'll never go higher, you cant evolve past that point really ratings-wise if you dont start to study the other opening books.

basically you can only beat very bad players if you fuck up an opening and they dont.

i studied under an excellent eastern euro IM for some time in my late 20s and was able to tread water at the 1700-1800 level but i knew, absolutely, that if i wanted to go a point beyond that, chess was going to utterly take over my life. i was already having chess dreams pretty much every single night and it was getting scary. so i bailed because if im going to get that fucking crazy about something it needed to be something profitable.

i still play and maintain about a 1750 rating for standard chess (24h+ per move), but my bullet/blitz rating can vary from 1350-1680 depending on my emotional disposition/ability to concentrate/general sense of life alignment. which is crazy fucking variance and underscores how much the game really demands in terms of mental acumen and conditioning.

I like the piece with the horse.

I was talking to a guy who said he legit went crazy obsessing over chess. It just consumed his life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Suicide King

I was talking to a guy who said he legit went crazy obsessing over chess. It just consumed his life.

---

I knew many who did the same with twinks.

http://www.chessaspc.org/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonatine

effectively memorizing the standard openings and spending 10 minutes on middle/endgame basics will take you to a solid 1650 rating on the most popular chess sites, thats how important they are. particularly with blitz/bullet where youre under time pressure long before you hit middle game.

that said.

knowing a couple of common openings super intimately and having strong middle/endgame instincts is also the grounds for a solid 1650-1750 rating. but you'll never go higher, you cant evolve past that point really ratings-wise if you dont start to study the other opening books.

basically you can only beat very bad players if you fuck up an opening and they dont.

i studied under an excellent eastern euro IM for some time in my late 20s and was able to tread water at the 1700-1800 level but i knew, absolutely, that if i wanted to go a point beyond that, chess was going to utterly take over my life. i was already having chess dreams pretty much every single night and it was getting scary. so i bailed because if im going to get that fucking crazy about something it needed to be something profitable.

i still play and maintain about a 1750 rating for standard chess (24h+ per move), but my bullet/blitz rating can vary from 1350-1680 depending on my emotional disposition/ability to concentrate/general sense of life alignment. which is crazy fucking variance and underscores how much the game really demands in terms of mental acumen and conditioning.

---

I love chess but the problems I have with it at a high level.

1. Top players have memorized almost every important game ever played.
2. Chess is mistake dependent in a lot of ways.
3. It requires way too many hours to get to a competitive level vs poker or a number of other games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abrown83

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonatine

effectively memorizing the standard openings and spending 10 minutes on middle/endgame basics will take you to a solid 1650 rating on the most popular chess sites, thats how important they are. particularly with blitz/bullet where youre under time pressure long before you hit middle game.

that said.

knowing a couple of common openings super intimately and having strong middle/endgame instincts is also the grounds for a solid 1650-1750 rating. but you'll never go higher, you cant evolve past that point really ratings-wise if you dont start to study the other opening books.

basically you can only beat very bad players if you fuck up an opening and they dont.

i studied under an excellent eastern euro IM for some time in my late 20s and was able to tread water at the 1700-1800 level but i knew, absolutely, that if i wanted to go a point beyond that, chess was going to utterly take over my life. i was already having chess dreams pretty much every single night and it was getting scary. so i bailed because if im going to get that fucking crazy about something it needed to be something profitable.

i still play and maintain about a 1750 rating for standard chess (24h+ per move), but my bullet/blitz rating can vary from 1350-1680 depending on my emotional disposition/ability to concentrate/general sense of life alignment. which is crazy fucking variance and underscores how much the game really demands in terms of mental acumen and conditioning.

---

I love chess but the problems I have with it at a high level.

1. Top players have memorized almost every important game ever played.
2. Chess is mistake dependent in a lot of ways.
3. It requires way too many hours to get to a competitive level vs poker or a number of other games.

---

There is no commonality between poker skills and chess skills. None.

 

seriously, none.

Becoming a top chess player is like becoming a top mathematician in terms of commitment and energy expenditure. Becoming a top poker player = lol i read a book, have a massive roll, and run above average. #sorrynotsorry.

There are people who are great at both but usually thats because they are ferociously bright.

As for mistakes/blunders... at mid-level chess, the man who pursues the least flawed moves wins.

At high level chess, the man who pursues the least flawed theory wins. So youre not entirely wrong. Not to say the masters dont make blunders but they are rare, you get the idea Im sure.

Between this and the "Hearthstone" thread, I have to ask: Do any of you sloppy, largesse, white, nerds play sports?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krypt

Between this and the "Hearthstone" thread, I have to ask: Do any of you sloppy, largesse, white, nerds play sports?

---

Is telling your dad he needs to work through his lunch break because the urinals in the executive lounge are filthy considered a sport?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonatine

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krypt

Between this and the "Hearthstone" thread, I have to ask: Do any of you sloppy, largesse, white, nerds play sports?

---

Is telling your dad he needs to work through his lunch break because the urinals in the executive lounge are filthy considered a sport?

---

Oh look, another poster feigning wealth; mr. help desk IT support frontin like it's nobodies business yall.

:lol2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krypt

Between this and the "Hearthstone" thread, I have to ask: Do any of you sloppy, largesse, white, nerds play sports?

---

You have a point. Perhaps if I played sports the girls at alpha phi would pay more attention to me and recognize me for the supreme gentleman that I am

I like you krypt, but you're crazy.

perhaps it support was a bit harsh, but is an enterprise architect anymore admirable?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonatine

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abrown83

I love chess but the problems I have with it at a high level.

1. Top players have memorized almost every important game ever played.
2. Chess is mistake dependent in a lot of ways.
3. It requires way too many hours to get to a competitive level vs poker or a number of other games.

---

There is no commonality between poker skills and chess skills. None.

 

seriously, none.

Becoming a top chess player is like becoming a top mathematician in terms of commitment and energy expenditure. Becoming a top poker player = lol i read a book, have a massive roll, and run above average. #sorrynotsorry.

There are people who are great at both but usually thats because they are ferociously bright.

As for mistakes/blunders... at mid-level chess, the man who pursues the least flawed moves wins.

At high level chess, the man who pursues the least flawed theory wins. So youre not entirely wrong. Not to say the masters dont make blunders but they are rare, you get the idea Im sure.

---

Poker is a game of probability. On a more advance level poker is a game of probability and how different people react given their knowledge based on a limited number of facts.

Chess all the facts are on the table, it creates a vastly different game.

Those are two vastly different skill sets which I think is what you are alluding to above.

Just because the average player (or even a very good player) at poker is far less skilled doesn't mean the game is less complicated than chess. It just means we are not as far a long the progression curve of the game.

Chess is like 700 years old in modern form.

Poker is like 150 years old in modern form.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abrown83

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonatine

There is no commonality between poker skills and chess skills. None.

 

seriously, none.

Becoming a top chess player is like becoming a top mathematician in terms of commitment and energy expenditure. Becoming a top poker player = lol i read a book, have a massive roll, and run above average. #sorrynotsorry.

There are people who are great at both but usually thats because they are ferociously bright.

As for mistakes/blunders... at mid-level chess, the man who pursues the least flawed moves wins.

At high level chess, the man who pursues the least flawed theory wins. So youre not entirely wrong. Not to say the masters dont make blunders but they are rare, you get the idea Im sure.

---

Poker is a game of probability. On a more advance level poker is a game of probability and how different people react given their knowledge based on a limited number of facts.

Chess all the facts are on the table, it creates a vastly different game.

Those are two vastly different skill sets which I think is what you are alluding to above.

Just because the average player (or even a very good player) at poker is far less skilled doesn't mean the game is less complicated than chess. It just means we are not as far a long the progression curve of the game.

Chess is like 700 years old in modern form.

Poker is like 150 years old in modern form.

---

Im just saying, poker is straight fucking retarded.

Chess, on the other hand, is basically Satan worship.

its pretty much everything you people are talking about that deters the average person from wanting to play/learrn chess. It seems pretty stupid to just be able to memorize a million different moves to win a game. I feel like chance should always play a part, but the way you guys are talking is that you memorize moves/counter moves to be great. I get that it takes an absolute genius to be able to do that, but I'm sure you can see how that makes the avg person not want to play.

I don't play chess often, but I do know how. I would probably get pulverized by anyone who has a clue to what they're doing. I enjoy playing beginners because I've never invested an extra minute of my life into chess other than when sitting at a chess board. So I don't know anything about opening moves etc. I just know the horse makes Ls and the pointy guy goes diagonal. Protect your queen etc etc blah blah blah

That is all

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JUSTIFIEDhomicide

its pretty much everything you people are talking about that deters the average person from wanting to play/learrn chess. It seems pretty stupid to just be able to memorize a million different moves to win a game. I feel like chance should always play a part, but the way you guys are talking is that you memorize moves/counter moves to be great. I get that it takes an absolute genius to be able to do that, but I'm sure you can see how that makes the avg person not want to play.

I don't play chess often, but I do know how. I would probably get pulverized by anyone who has a clue to what they're doing. I enjoy playing beginners because I've never invested an extra minute of my life into chess other than when sitting at a chess board. So I don't know anything about opening moves etc. I just know the horse makes Ls and the pointy guy goes diagonal. Protect your queen etc etc blah blah blah

That is all

---

average people should skip chess and pitch in to help krypt's dad with those urinals.

chess is for people with a natural drive to exercise certain parts of their brains. same with crypto wizards or math freaks.

ive never in my life met a pothead who legit cared about chess on any meaningful level; its not for lazy people, there are no shortcuts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonatine

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JUSTIFIEDhomicide

its pretty much everything you people are talking about that deters the average person from wanting to play/learrn chess. It seems pretty stupid to just be able to memorize a million different moves to win a game. I feel like chance should always play a part, but the way you guys are talking is that you memorize moves/counter moves to be great. I get that it takes an absolute genius to be able to do that, but I'm sure you can see how that makes the avg person not want to play.

I don't play chess often, but I do know how. I would probably get pulverized by anyone who has a clue to what they're doing. I enjoy playing beginners because I've never invested an extra minute of my life into chess other than when sitting at a chess board. So I don't know anything about opening moves etc. I just know the horse makes Ls and the pointy guy goes diagonal. Protect your queen etc etc blah blah blah

That is all

---

average people should skip chess and pitch in to help krypt's dad with those urinals.

chess is for people with a natural drive to exercise certain parts of their brains. same with crypto wizards or math freaks.

ive never in my life met a pothead who legit cared about chess on any meaningful level; its not for lazy people, there are no shortcuts.

---

not really sure how you have the audacity to even make such ridiculous statements. It's not for lazy people? No shortcuts? It's not running a marathon. You're literally sitting on your ass reading. Yes, it takes discipline, but not sure why you felt the need to throw the word lazy around. I guess I'm lazy in that I would rather focus my time elsewhere than sitting at a fucking chessboard to measure my braindick against some other nerd.



Lazy, GTFO of here with that high and mighty bullshit

and yes i am speaking for the pot heads

high and mighty?

kinda sounds like youve turned intellectual stagnancy into some sort of proletariat sacred cow.

ill be sure to tell all the braindick swinging nerds running hedge funds, plumbing the depths of organic chemistry, curing cancer, and taking us to the the moon that they fall short of your standards i guess?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonatine

high and mighty?

kinda sounds like youve turned intellectual stagnancy into some sort of proletariat sacred cow.

ill be sure to tell all the braindick swinging nerds running hedge funds, plumbing the depths of organic chemistry, curing cancer, and taking us to the the moon that they fall short of your standards i guess?

---

please do, as I'm sure you know at least one person and have one more story to tell us about your personal experience in each field.

Calling peeople lazy because they don't dedicate their lives to being ranked in chess, simply because they were born without the math genius gene is fucking absurd.

That I refer to them as people at all is a sorely undeserved kindness, you shiftless drug addict.