I don't know if this is the right board, but I'm trying to get good at chess...

I don't know if this is the right board, but I'm trying to get good at chess. Does anyone know any tips and tricks to help me improve? Or good chess books / tutorials?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=GnrplR_nLu4
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>How do I get good at X
Do X.
Play chess.
Play a fucktonne of chess.

Tactics. Everything else comes easily after that. Beware that tactics require you to work hard.

There are no shortcuts, if you want to get gud you have to put in the time.

Yes, it's a chess site called Lichess.

The advice I got in Go probably applies here as well:

Lose your first 1000 games as quickly and as well as possible.

will getting good at chess make me better at other strategy games, or just strategy in general?

if not, how do i improve my strategic skills?

Improving your strategy skills will make you better at Chess than getting better at Chess will improve your strategy skills. Chess is 90% tactics, so learning Chess tactics is the fastest way to improve at Chess. Then, when you meet some player whose tactics are on par with yours, but their strategy is better, you lose. Some Chess master once said something along the lines of "you need to see the tactics automatically, you spend your time considering strategy.". That is, the tactics are just basic patterns that you instantly recognise, strategy is something that you think deeply about, develop an intuition for.

This is better advice than you probably think, OP.

this guy has it.

if you are just awful at chess and dont know where to begin then start with the basics. find an opening you like to play, get your pieces out, and dont trade all the time.

After that it really is tactics. and as the above said, after you play a ton of games you'll just naturally KNOW that a position has them available. It'll start with pieces being pinned, and discoveries, and move into captures and unguarded pieces. Soon you'll be able to recognize the way pieces should be placed to avoid or garner these positions.

Getting good requires you to play others, and usually play people that are better than you. Review your games, figure out where you lost, where things went downhill (barring you didnt just blunder away a game.)

>Muh chess = intelligence meme XDDD

Indeed. Suppose you start a children's Chess club; on the first meeting 20 kids show up and play a game. On the second meeting, only 10 will show up. The one or two that lost at the first meeting but came to the second are the ones that will become decent Chess-players.

I doubt Magnus Carlsen can physics above high-school level. But then, Einstein was a peer of Emanuel Lasker and couldn't string two pawns together. Fish feel stupid their entire lives when they try to climb trees, but OP wasn't a faggot today, just looking for a place to discuss the noble game. No, Chess skill does not equate to intelligence, Chess players are simply intelligent at Chess, just like physicists are intelligent at physics.

This. Do a tonne of chess puzzles, watch dissections of famous matches on YouTube, read articles on chess strategy, make sure you are read up on opening theory and endgame tactics, and above all else, play a LOT of chess. I've been playing for four months and I am 1500 player right now; if you put in the time nothing is stopping you from improving.

>(((((((((((((((((((((((((Chess Master))))))))))))))))))))

Chess is a waste of time. If you were truly as smart as you think you are, then you would realize this. The only pursuit worth the time of a highly intelligent man is the study of and contribution to Pure Mathematics. (If you're not smart enough for Pure Mathematics, then physics is close enough.) If these "Chess Masters" were anything more than intellectual midgets, I would be in despair, for we have lost some of the minds we need to bring humanity as a whole toward True Enlightenment. But I'm afraid that anyone who has decided to dedicate their lives to Chess would have never been able to pursue anything else, let alone Pure Mathematics, because they have the mental aptitude of an ape. These "Chess Masters" are mere memorizers. They do not understand. They regurgitate. Therefore, nobody who chooses to play a petty game instead of contribute to the knowledge base of humanity would ever be able make any contribution to Pure Mathematics, and thus there is no loss.

>These "Chess Masters" are mere memorizers
this
Its all about who memorized more combinations. Thats why computer beat man in this game and thats that forever. Football is more challenging for processor than fucking chess. overrated bullshit

Do you realize that chess is an open problem in mathematics? You're right about chess masters being memorizers (some may have even memorized so much it becomes subconscious intuition) but "Chess is a waste of time" goes completely against what you're arguing. Maybe you meant "Playing chess is a waste of time", but really when you think about it playing any type of game is a waste of time, that's the point.

Start with the greeks

Just playing a lot of games is not Good advice. You'll probably make the same mistakes and get disencouraged. Read The Winning Chess series by Yasser Seirawan. Do the puzzles. It will help you a lot.

Pure Mathematics is a waste of time. If you were truly as smart as you think you are, then you would realize this. The only pursuit worth the time of a highly intelligent man is the study of and contribution to Chess. (If you're not smart enough for Chess, then Checkers are close enough.) If these "Math Masters" were anything more than intellectual midgets, I would be in despair, for we have lost some of the minds we need to bring humanity as a whole toward True Enlightenment. But I'm afraid that anyone who has decided to dedicate their lives to Pure Math would have never been able to pursue anything else, let alone Chess, because they have the mental aptitude of an ape. These "Math Masters" are mere memorizers. They do not understand. They regurgitate. Therefore, nobody who chooses to study a petty mathematics instead of contribute to the knowledge base of humanity would ever be able make any contribution to Chess, and thus there is no loss.

Let's see..
Lasker PHd Mathematics
Capablanca Chemical Engineer
Alekhine PhD Law (hmmm....)
Euwe PhD Mathematics
Botwinnick PhD Electrical Engineering (his early chess playing programs were adapted to control Moscow's dam system).
Maybe I'm inclined to your point-of-view, these are some previous world-champions, not to mention the opera singers and concert pianists who were close contenders.
And your personal contribution to the knowledge base of humanity is what exactly? These guys did Chess as their hobby.
"Chess is the single most waste of human intellect, outside of an advertising agency.". Raymond Chandler.

Learn openings, often used plays and analyse them. Read books like Nimzowitschs My System. Play loads, preferably against people better than you. Analyse your games, find your strong and weak points and strengthen them. If you cant play in real life, play online. Watch game analysises. Have fun.

That should be all.

I'll agree with about half of this post... forget openings, just get your pieces off the back rank and into the game "sortez les pieces!". "Chess Praxis" is more complete than "My System", but Reti's "masters of the chessboard" is easier to understand. Study master games - from the 'golden age' around the '30's with good annotations when modern theory developed. And practice tactics every day. As some pianist once said, "If i don't practice one day, I notice; If I don't practice two days, my friends notice, If I don't practice three days, the audience notices.". Tactics to chess players are like scales to musicians.

> forget openings, just get your pieces off the back rank and into the game "sortez les pieces!"
Its not just about you knowing about how to execute an opening but also recognising an opponents tactic.

Absolutely. But if you learn an opening by rote, what happens when your opponent plays a move that's not what you memorised? Was it an improvement or a mistake? If you're playing by memorisation you don't know whether you stand better or worse, if you understand some principles, you can take advantage of the situation.

Oh no I agree completely, I do not recommend learning plays and calling it a day. I am trying to suggest using them as a crutch.

I would agree with I'm a club player and in top 10% of players on lichess (not that it's impressive, but I can play better than most). I haven't practised any openings because I'm not trying to become a pro. My opening theory is about 3 moves long in a few lines and that's it. As others have said, learning tactics in the beginning is more important. And moreso recognising tactics emerging for your opponent that you dodge before they become a threat.

After that move on to more abstract ideas, controlling space, controlling key squares in the position, outposts, pawn structure, knowing when to trade towards a winning end game, colour complexes/weaknesses (considering bishops mostly) and a load of end game concepts.

I would recommend this channel to anyone interested: youtube.com/watch?v=GnrplR_nLu4

>Play the opening like a book, the middle game like a magician, and the endgame like a machine." – Spielmann
I'm pretty average and prefer unconventional games with uncommon openings but if you want to play well for a rating that's some good advice right there.

What's the most annoying way to play chess ?

Basically tactics I could use against someone much better than me just to piss him off.

Just keep playing the queens gambit every game and get stomped to shit. Each time express hope the next game will be different.

There isn't a lot you can do if someone is genuinely better than you. You could try and perfect some opening that has a trap but they might just avoid it (by accident, just playing a move you didn't prepare for).

Learn to pay aggressively and throw pieces towards their king (literally). Play them against the clock so they have to waste time working out if there's something clever going on in your audacious moves, try and win on time.

>"Chess is the single most waste of human intellect, outside of an advertising agency.". Raymond Chandler.

kek. He's probably right.

Check out some of Nakamura's or Wesley So's games if you want to see creativity.

im probably gonna get memed

but throw in a few rounds of chess960, just so you dont spend all your time memorising openings

>how do i improve my strategic skills?
Download Chessmaster, play against Josh. He explains everything you're doing wrong and has some tutorials.

Alternatively, play with the board backwards so you can see the board from your opponent's view.

Or, pick a random piece and play a game without it. This will teach you to lace your pieces together into a network.

t. former highschool chess captain

Those are valid tactics. Masters will typically quickly take advantage of any weakness in the openings though and are tough in classical play, better off in blitz and see if you can capitalize on a blunder or mistake. Even then it's not dice, the best games will be with similarly rated players.

Take the fun pill.

Realize chess is a shit game, and start playing mahjong like true intellectuals.

>don't play that oppressive Western game, you fucking shitlord
>play this shitty Ching Chong game instead!

Back to .

Chess came from China

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess
>Chess is believed to have originated in India

Nice try, weaboo. There is no hint that chess even so much as touched ching chong land.

is the right board; they don't talk about chess a whole lot, but someone will start a general now and then, and no one will make a stink about it if you start a thread.

>Veeky Forums
Even /pol/ makes better chess threads than Veeky Forums does. Seriously.

There is an app for android called lichess. You can watch tournaments live 24/7. It's pretty fun, you can follow the top rated players from game to game. You can also use it to play against people at your skill level.

Chess is like tic tic toe. Computers will solve it like checkers and why even play?

Perfect information games are shit.