> In chess, the computer just looks at the current state, and calculates every possible move from that point.
That's just not true at this point in time.
They may eventually get there, but chess AI still use alpha beta pruning and heuristic analysis to analyze a certain number of moves ahead. The computing power still isn't there to consider every possible move, especially in a given time frame of a competitive match, to calculate that in real time and still have time remaining.
Here is her chess.com profile. The game with erobb actually was her 20th game completed, so she had 19 games played before that match. Of those 19 games she only won 2 of them, so beating erobb was her 3rd chess win ever.
>while as black, it finds forcing draws.
Which is unfortunately common in high level chess.
The London Chess Classic is this week and the first 19 games ended in draws.
Because FIDE, the governing body of the world chess ratings system and organizers of the world championships, is run by a crony who only cares about the money offered for sponsorship of FIDE tournaments.
There have been allegations of corruption in FIDE under Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, and recent financials showed that they have rapidly declining assets, whilst still managing to spend over $180,000 on travel for Ilyumzhinov in 2015 alone.
Stockfish and Ethereal both found wins for white from the position.
Most of the games ended in a draw. Black won several.
These engines are stronger than Super GMs, and don't make blunders. I think we can draw 2 conclusions from this:
1) The popular opinion that were was no risk for Carlsen with black is patently false -- White can win from this position without black blundering.
2) The majority of the results are draws, and all the results from the Top 3 engines playing each other were draws.
This supports the thesis that the position is objectively drawn, even if it is better for black. Offering a draw is perfectly reasonable.
Given the first two points, and the fact that Carlsen is a stronger Rapid/Blitz player and much more favored in a tiebreak, it makes sense to leverage your time advantage to entice a draw from a player whose chances are much better in the final Classical game.
If Carlsen can't find a winning continuation, and believes Caruana can make 9 moves in 7 minutes + 30 second increments to reach time control, offering a draw before that leverage evaporates is sensible.
Caruana hitting time control would have much less incentive to accept a draw offer. The material is even and White can win in the position with more precise play, and does not require a blunder from Black to do so.
It's a shame this is being downvoted- it's an interesting problem! Here's my 41-move solution: https://www.chess.com/analysis-board-editor?diagram_id=4269760
And the pgn: 1.e4 b5 2.Qh5 a5 3.d4 Na6 4.Bh6 gxh6 5.g3 Nb8 6.f4 Na6 7.e5 Nb8 8.d5 Na6 9.d6 cxd6 10.b4 dxe5 11.a4 exf4 12.axb5 fxg3 13.bxa5 gxh2 14.c4 Nc7 15.c5 Ra6 16.Bc4 Rd6 17.Be6 dxe6 18.Nf3 Nd5 19.Nh4 Bd7 20.Rg1 Ndf6 21.Rg6 fxg6 22.a6 gxh5 23.a7 Ra6 24.a8=Q Ra7 25.Qf3 Ra8 26.Qf5 exf5 27.c6 Nd5 28.c7 Bc6 29.c8=Q Nb6 30.Qe6 Nd7 31.Qf6 exf6 32.b6 Bb7 33.Nd2 Ba6 34.Ndf3 Bc8 35.Ng5 fxg5 36.b7 gxh4 37.b8=Q Ba6 38.Qb4 Bc8 39.Qg4 fxg4 40.Ra3 Nb8 41.Rh3 gxh3
Not sure if it's possible to do it in less moves, but I'd love to see what other people can come up with.
The name Benoni Defense doesn't refer to the country of Benin in any way. It comes from Hebrew meaning 'son-of-sorrow'. Source: https://www.chess.com/article/view/attack-and-defense-in-the-modern-benoni
Full article: Gukesh Becomes 2nd Youngest Chess Grandmaster In History
Also interesting - three of these are GMs, and some of the youngest GMs of all time. Raahil Mullick is rated 2275 but isn't yet an IM.
Interesting - this is the position from the Jasper Knight tutorial (from Fischer-Spassky 1972 Game 6), but with the white queen moved from h3 to d2 and the white rook moved from f5 to b1.
"After a thorough investigation, Chess.com's Fair Play team determined that GM Tigran L. Petrosian, who played for the Armenian Eagles, violated fair play regulations during games in both the semifinal and final matches that took place on September 25 and 27, respectively. "
Wow, interesting to hear how they determined this. So much for the PIPI rematch...
He seems talented, but 10-second chess is absurd. I went to his profile and clicked on one of his recent wins:
A modern-day masterpiece, right?
Here is a link. Carlsen appears to favor a knockout tournament over the way it is now, with a qualifying tournament and then a prolonged 1v1 series of games.
For most of the chess world championship's history, the 1v1 format with challenger mano-a-mano against the champion has endured. In the 1990s the reigning FIDE champion Garry Kasparov broke away and formed his own world championship. During this time FIDE's title lost prestige and they experimented with the kind of knockout tournament format that Carlsen appears to favor. In 2006 the two world championship titles were unified once again, and the old format returned.
Queen side is more situational and usually done a little later in game (more pieces to develop). Also more aggressive.
Recently there was this game of Caruana vs Carlsen in the 8th round (the one where he shushed in the booth). Carlsen played very aggressive against the petrov castling queenside
Chess.comissa aiheesta on ilmeisesti jossain välissä keskusteltu laajemminkin.
Quorassa joku oli hämmästellyt samaa asiaa ja yksi vastaajista totesi, että käytännössä ei ole olemassakaan vain miesten turnauksia - naiset saavat osallistua kaikkiin turnauksiin, mutta miehet eivät saa osallistua naisten turnauksiin. Tällä ilmeisesti yritetään kannustaa naisia shakin pariin. Hommaan liittyy myös se, että valtaosa vahvimmista shakkineroista on ollut miehiä, syystä tai toisesta.
as has already been explained, it was only done as a temporary"verification" tag, since Chess.com doesn't yet have a verified label like Twitter does.
You can see it's already gone from his account: https://www.chess.com/member/BobbyHall
"BREAKING: FIDE Claims Ilyumzhinov's Resignation, President Denies"
Assuming this is you, I looked over a few of your games. A few recommendations:
Learn the value of the pieces. It is roughly Queen (9), Rook (5), Knight (3), Bishop (3) and pawn (1). There were times where I saw you do things like take a pawn with a bishop and then your bishop got captured. That's not a good exchange.
Learn about how many times a piece is attacked and defended. If your opponent is attacking a piece more than you are defending it, your piece isn't safe.
Capture your enemy's pieces when they are not defended.
You really don't need to study openings right now. Checkmating patterns may be useful. I strongly recommend going through Lichess's Learning content, especially the fundamentals section.
This is the game that matches the position shown on screen and also the rating. I think he actually gained 11 points (if I remember correctly chess.com's archive shows the rating after the game, and it's 11 points higher than his rating after the previous game), so it's a UI glitch.
Fischer's contributions to chess were immeasurable...it's like watching someone turn a murky drink crystal clear, that's what his games were like. There was an almost irresistible clarity and directness in everything he did, so much so that he almost never played more than one first move as White (the exceptions being at the World Championships).
I think it's somewhat fitting he finished his life in Iceland - given that was the site of his finest hour. I see him as a really unpleasant anti-Semite (despite being at least half Jewish!), but I tend to think he had a mental disorder that drove him over the edge. Even in his playing years he was famous for odd demands and outlandish complaints.
There is a really interesting article written about Bobby Fischer from the Soviet perspective here https://www.chess.com/blog/Spektrowski/quotrobert-fischer-as-he-isquot-an-article-by-alexander-kotov
when he was still playing chess; I think it shows rather clearly the madness he was already under then.
A really sad story all in all for me.
Companies generally don't make decisions based on personal feelings. Not ruling this out but its possible they just wanted people who could maximize viewership across different verticals and they already got DPAK for the politics viewers.
You can tell from the people that they invited that they went for diversity across different genres.
Also take a look at their last announcement and how they have the streamer category under each participant.
Very strange of Chess.com to release this video with a title that inflammatory and borderline insensitive.
What, just because it's a S. African guy having fun in a park he's a hustler?
They even have a different viewpoint video on their main site which names him as the real Mabusela!
I guess they just wanted to clickbait for views on YouTube, but it's honestly disgusting that they wouldn't mention Mr. Mabusela and just call him a hustler.
Here's the video from the chess.com website that proves it's Johannes and even says "Hikaru Nakamura takes on the best local player in a South African park. Can he beat this IM on his home turf?"
See here: https://www.chess.com/news/view/alphazero-reactions-from-top-gms-stockfish-author
>The match results by themselves are not particularly meaningful because of the rather strange choice of time controls and Stockfish parameter settings: The games were played at a fixed time of 1 minute/move, which means that Stockfish has no use of its time management heuristics (lot of effort has been put into making Stockfish identify critical points in the game and decide when to spend some extra time on a move; at a fixed time per move, the strength will suffer significantly). The version of Stockfish used is one year old, was playing with far more search threads than has ever received any significant amount of testing, and had way too small hash tables for the number of threads. I believe the percentage of draws would have been much higher in a match with more normal conditions.
This has some more information. What instantly made me a Nigel fan is this:
"I want to see end of the Agon contract. It has brought little or no benefit to FIDE and I believe has cost FIDE a huge amount of money in lost opportunities. Foregone income."
Spanish tax authority is the most scummy tax agency in the world. While our politicians can get away with their corruption money to Panama they just want to squeeze as much as they can the middle and poor classes. Recently they destroyed the life of our best chess player after making him pay 500k in taxes for losing money on poker. Yes for losing: https://www.chess.com/news/view/hunted-by-spanish-tax-authority-vallejo-leaves-european-championship
How these useless guys are gonna make a good regulation on taxing cryptos after this?
As a rule, if there is an example of anything ridiculous, it probably occurred in a Korchnoi match.
> During game 14, Spassky had escalated his psychological gambit by wearing a silver visor. Later, in game 17, Spassky wore the visor, sunglasses, and diving goggles.
Hmm... it looks like he's used chess as an allegory in the past.
Chess dot com published this article about him, but didn't mention that he's using their services... something that I'm pretty sure they'd want to highlight if they knew for sure it was happening.
See source: https://www.chess.com/news/view/gm-solozhenkin-suspended-for-cheating-accusations-fellow-gms-protest
From what I read, the GM daughter went to the next door toilet and listened to the accused. Relevant account:
"I would not write this text if it were not for the episode that took place in the second match of the Youth World Championship in Uruguay. At one point, Bibisara Assaubayeva went to the ladies room. Elizaveta Solozhenkina, at a certain distance, went after her. Elizaveta was able to notice which stall Assaubayeva came in (it was the farthest stall) and sneaked into the next one. After a while, Elizaveta heard Assaubayeva asking very quietly: 'How's the evaluation?' Apparently, after receiving the answer, she also said "good" and left the ladies room."
So, the accusation is based on a whisper overheard next stall.
Referring to the story about Mikhail Tal thinking about his move sitting over the board. His thoughts came into thinking about how to pull a hippo from a marsh.
Looks like chess.com has confronted him for you:
>This account has been closed for violating our Fair Play Policy.
These rules help keep chess fair for everyone.
Here's my chess.com account: https://www.chess.com/member/klacsanzky
In my prime, I was about a 2100-2200-level player, doing well in the Washington state open against experts. I could beat 2200 rated computers but not humans at that time.
I think when I played the pilot, I was around an 1800.
Unless I'm mistaken?
edit: some other interesting chess records
edit 2: my favourite one:
>Losses on time: In 1969, Fritz Saemisch lost all 13 games on time at Linkoping.
This one just kills me, I'm imagining this poor guy falling asleep at the board and everyone just quietly playing against him while trying not to wake him up or something. Oh man.
Chess.com are holding a computer tournament right now, with the computers starting from the position that the draw was agreed upon.
The first 2 matches of the computer tournament ended in draw.
Lol it is funny how your Englund Gambit transposed into the incredibly rare Mbembe variation!
I wrote a blog post on this variation. Very werd!
Kotov vs Spassky - USSR Championship | Riga URS | Round 18
Kotov didn't realise he was forked and in check, and tried to castle long, but in that case, Spassky immediately saw the illegal move.
I found this:
>When Vladimir Kramnik first played at Linares - early '90s - he was invited as a substitute for a player who got sick just before the tournament at the urging of Kasparov. Kramnik was rated around 2600 and had no title at all - he had qualified for the IM title but they were not awarded until the FIDE Congress met back then. I think he also had two legs toward the GM title.
It's actually legal -- it's a special move called castling that you can do if you haven't moved your king or your rook yet. If you're interested, here's a better explanation.
Here you go: https://www.chess.com/live/game/2812146913
Funny thing is that he was winning, but he lost to rushing to eating pieces instead of thinking. I couldn't have planned it better!
he actually won every game
(The comment was copied from a guy in this comment thread, I put it here for people to know this image is wrong, stop reposting this wrong meme)
Here's a link to the more relevant category which she has 2304 points in.
Chess.com lists 2304 points as 99.7 percentile, which is #8,535 out of 2,665,634 chess.com accounts that are ranked in blitz.
Paragraph 6.5 of the FIDE Rating Regulations
> "Where a match is over a specific number of games, those played after one player has won shall not be rated."
I'm a dev, went to school for comp eng. majority of of fellow students make more than 80k right now, 2 years after graduation. That's junior devs.
Median is probably higher than 100k. Chess.com employs 78 devs: https://www.chess.com/about#chesscom-backend
You're right, it might be closer to 10 million.
Yeah I have an account on chess.com named GLORIOUS_LEADER with Kim's picture and a North Korean flag.
do you think I'm actually the North Korean dictator?
É novidade sim, especialmente a forma como ela aprendeu o jogo.
Primeiro, ela não venceu o campeão mundial humano, mas o atual campeão mundial dos computadores (Stockfish), com 28 vitórias, 72 empates e 0 derrotas.
Até aí não seria novidade, só um campeão ganhando do outro, mas o incrível disso foi o AlphaZero (nome da IA do Google) ter usado apenas 4 horas para literalmente aprender a jogar bem, partindo das regras básicas, ao contrário do Stockfish e outros engines atuais, que são extremamente carregados de conhecimento específico de xadrez, sobre qual estratégia é melhor, etc, programados diretamente no código deles.
PS: Algumas pessoas levantaram a questão do hardware do AlphaZero ser muito melhor que o usado no Stockfish, mas isso não tira o mérito do aprendizado.
Not sure why you're downvoted. ChessBomb entered a partnership with Chess.com back in Nov '18 and operates under the Chess.com URL
Pawn, Knight/Bishop, Rook, Queen. That's the order of value for the pieces. It's not like it's a secret or something. There are some systems that place the bishop slightly higher than the knight.
Yes, and the best part is in the same article that quoted Karjakin on that, they asked Aronian the same question and he gave this response:
>Currently I am analyzing with a program that is five years old! So I don't care so much, it's more about adopting the programs to suit your playing style rather than have the best computer program. At the end of the day the position you get, you're going to play, not the computer, so it has to suit human's taste.
So I'm not sure what they're spending that money on, but hopefully they at least checked with Aronian first.
Actually, some guys I saw were compiling a database of players' USCF and FIDE ratings compared to their chess.com ratings, and the trend was that their online rating was actually lower than their official ELO. I think this was either a forum post on chess.com or it might have been something someone posted here... I'll see if I can dig it up
EDIT: This looks to be it. Granted there's no shortage of people in the comments who are saying they have a higher chess.com rating than a FIDE/USCF rating, so make of that what you will. It's quite possible the OP got a skewed sample size. I haven't dove deep enough into the comments to see if someone has conducted a follow-up to his research.
EDIT 2: It appears there's another, larger, and more recent survey that shows the opposite trend for players above a 1000 ELO. Credit to /u/LaBrainwashed for the link.
"Once the individual event concludes June 19, the top eight finishers will draft their teammate for a special Twitch Rivals event which will cap a truly special month of mainstream chess content, based on how they placed in the PogChamps. Twitch and Chess.com will release more information regarding July's Twitch Rivals event at a later date."
Nepomniachtchi played but only got #25, MVL played and got #8 because he lost in the last round of the tournament (after leading it for the prior 8 rounds). Paco Vallejo also played but only ended on #52 after having some unhappy early rounds due to not being used to streaming while playing, and then having random fun afterwards. Not sure about others.
Tournament was won by some random FM I've never heard of.
They are so good, that if they give you handicap (pawn advantage or allow to use the old engine), there's still no hope of winning.
Yep, you got the details wrong though. Korchnoi's rook on h1 was under attack so he was unsure if he could castle and asked.
Yuri (another very good GM for those that don't know) called his opponent out thinking he did an illegal castle since b8 was under attack. He was of course wrong :p
You can read more on the link /u/sacundim posted:
yes they have a deal now with Fide https://www.chess.com/news/view/chess-com-fide-world-championship-broadcast
Fide maybe likes to have chess.com as their platform now. The Olympiad, Isle of Man Swiss, and Online Nations Cup were all Fide events streamed and hosted by chess.com so there is familiarity there.
What I think is baseless is your belief that I've never used chess.com... I stated clearly that my opinion is biased because at the end of the day it's personal preference. Here I am on chess.com
Not only that, but apparently FIDE signed a contract with Saudis to host the World Rapid and Blitz Championship in SA for the next three years, despite the fact that it violates one of FIDE's rules related to championship locations:
>>1.2. (...) a. FIDE events (competitions, congresses, meetings) may be hosted only by Federations where free access is generally assured to representatives of all Federations.
10 opening rules
OPEN with a CENTER PAWN.
DEVELOP with threats.
KNIGHTS before BISHOPS.
DON'T move the same piece twice.
Make as FEW PAWN MOVES as possible in the opening.
DON'T bring out your QUEEN too early.
CASTLE as soon as possible, preferably on the KING SIDE.
ALWAYS PLAY TO GAIN CONTROL OF THE CENTER.
Try to maintain at least ONE PAWN in the center.
DON'T SACRIFICE without a clear and adequate reason.
Rule 11: Don’t hang your pieces
Records: https://www.chess.com/leaderboard/rush?type=all_time [#1 is Hikaru at 55 as of 20190416T1836Z].
Ray Robson: https://www.chess.com/stats/puzzles/spicycaterpillar?type=puzzle-rush#recent [record: 58]
What?? There's a rule re: no anons for the top lists?
What's the deal with Hikaru "leaking" that it was Jeffery Xiong? Did he really believe it was Xiong, or was he intentionally trying to mislead?
"Magnus hasn't lost a tiebreak since 2006"
Chess.com recently released CAPS ( Computer Aggregated Precision Score ) statistical analysis - predicting that Magnus has an 85% chance to win if the match is decided by tiebreaks. Currently Carlsen has a ~90 point lead in rapid, and a ~170 point lead in blitz.
So this means that Carlsen has a clear incentive to play for a draw right? What stops him from deliberately choosing theoretically drawish / super safe boring lines?? It almost sounds like despite being the underdog, Caruana NEEDS to win the in the classical section - a draw will likely lead to a loss in the tiebreaks.
> don't analyse games of other people
Wait, isn't that what GMs and most of the players do when they walk around playing hall during the game? Remember that https://www.chess.com/article/view/an-argentine-nightmare
>The Marshall Attack is undoubtedly the most acute and dangerous line for Black in the Ruy Lopez opening.
>Ruy Lopez opening is one of the most famous of all time. Since the sixteenth century to the present, has never ceased to play. Today is still in the repertoire of many GM, despite being analyzed ad nauseam.
>One of Black's more aggressive alternatives is the Marshall Attack: 1.e4 e5 2. Cf3 Cc6 3.Ab5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0-0 8.c3. Here Black plays 8...d5!, sacrificing a pawn.
This thematic tournament starts in this position.
>The Marshall Attack was developed by the American chessplayer Frank James Marshall, one of the last romantics of the early twentieth century
The 10 Commandments of Chess You Need to Know (courtesy of /u/danielrensch)
Protect the King
Use All Your Pieces
Know the Value of Your Pieces
Control the Center
Make a Plan
Watch for Checks and Captures
If You Find a Good Move, Look for a Better One.
Don't Play Hope Chess
Learn From the Masters
Consider Your Opponent's Plan
I feel like your point is really tangential. Chess and Rubik's cube solving are fundamentally different in that Chess is oppositional and Rubik's Cubes are not. They are both exploring a finite state space, but that's pretty much where the similarities end. It's also ironic to me that you are browbeating OP saying they don't understand competition when you haven't shown you know much about Rubik's Cube competitions and just shown you're familiar with Chess, which as I said isn't terribly relevant.
Also, top chess competitors are generally not happy with the fact that Blitz and others are used as tie breakers. With regards to the recent Norway Chess tournament where an Armageddon format was used to break ties, Vishy Anand said
>[Anand] had a hard time calling it a win though, because he felt that Grischuk had to commit suicide on the chessboard because of the Armageddon rules.
> Anand went as far as saying that there are no victories in Armageddon unless White wins. “Because White is playing under this pressure he is often taking quite unjustified risks, so it’s not a normal victory in any sense.”
>The five-time world champion argued that the scoring system used for the Armageddon system is not perfect:
>“I think it’s slightly unfair that the tournament ranking is plus-one, plus-one, 50 percent, plus-two," said Anand. "My whole life, you think: If you work for four hours that should count for more than if you work for 20 minutes. For me, my scales are a bit confused, let’s say.
>“Having said that, if this is a better format for television or something, then fine. But I am used to seeing it as some kind of injustice. It feels wrong that Ding is in fourth place, with plus-two. Then again, I am not saying it’s unfair, because we knew what we were getting into, but something feels wrong," Anand said.
(emphasis mine) Source
Someone tell me how then this happened, which decided a spot for Canada in the recent World Cup:
> With six seconds remaining, Noritsyn played ...d1, scrambled to find a Black queen, and with none in sight, grabbed a captured rook. He announced "queen" and turned it upside down on d1 before pressing his clock with four seconds remaining.
> That's when the onlooking Chief Arbiter IA Pierre Dénommée intervened by waving his hands and stopping the clock. He declared the move to be legal, but for the piece to be played as a rook ...
> But was there one there? The arbiters didn't have the benefit of the video, but go back and watch the climactic moments again. The Black queen was not in the captured pieces pile when Noritsyn played ...d1. She came from Sambuev's left hand after the move was completed. Sambuev does not appear to have taken her in the final moments; she had been cradled in his left hand for more than three minutes and well before any pawns were close to promotion.
There's a number of easy articles to read if you just Google it.
Seriously they just repeat the same stuff over and over. It's like an open book test researching their claims.
Great question. The time control is 15+2. Here's an earlier announcement that covers tons of details not in this teams announcement. https://www.chess.com/news/u-s-chess-league-becomes-pro-chess-league-5789
I would politely but strongly disagree that we do nothing :) That said, online cheating is definitely a challenge in the modern chess world. Here's some information about our efforts: https://www.chess.com/article/view/online-chess-cheating
If you see a member that you are suspicious of, please do use the report button on the member's profile page.
They use the Chess category only when they get embedded on Chess.com for their sponsored streams (see https://www.chess.com/tv). They get viewers from people on the Chess.com homepage through the embed, not because they're in the Chess category.
It was an event designed to promote chess in the USSR, allegedly it attracted an audience of 8,000, according to user batgirl of chess.com.
> It seems to me there are quite a few players (on chess.com) that turn on the engine only at crucial positions.
How do you know they're not just finding the best move after a deep think?
Cheat detection is a dark art - there are ways to determine who is likely cheating over x games through statistical analysis and other voodoo, and it's probably best that not everyone knows how it works.
I have no idea how Chess.com does it, but they probably use "algorithms": https://www.chess.com/article/view/chess-com-fair-play-and-cheat-detection
And here's a talk by the Lichess founder that covers everything you didn't realise you wanted to know about Lichess, including some aspects of cheat detection: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHP5AdRlRNY (sorry; no timestamps - if you're truly interested, you'll watch it all)
If you follow through to the GitHub profile for one of the contributors listed here, you'll find a GitHub repository of the anti-cheating part of Lichess - there's graphs and algorithms and stuff; it's more sophisticated than you (or cheaters for that matter) realise: https://lichess.org/thanks
eh... kind of. here is the game (warning: some really bad chess). mostly, I think it was the fact that neither I nor my opponent realized there was a triple attack on my knight.
If it's ambiguous you put the file piece starts at before the destination square https://www.chess.com/article/view/chess-notation#avoiding-ambiguity
Aron Nimzovich. It is cool to downplay him nowadays, especially with his pompous nature and silly antics, but he had a huge impact in the way chess is played.
He was a man who praised his own moves a lot while calling his opponents idiots (even when he loses) and his analysis are full of mistakes but this was before computers.
And yet he was extraordinarily creative and saw a new way to play the game. He may not be the only hypermodern GM or the earliest one, but he was its strongest advocate and hyped it till it became mainstream. (At which point ppl dissed Nimzo cos come on all these ideas are "obvious", i.e Yasser Seirawan.)
One of the soundest and strongest defences to 1.d4 (the Nimzo Indian) is named after him. Many other lines also bear his name (Nimzo-larsen Attack, Nimzovich Defence, Nimzovich variation, etc).
Nimzovich was nuts; but you kinda have to be one to challenge the mainstream.
A well-known example is the puzzle presented on this page: https://www.chess.com/forum/view/fun-with-chess/where-is-the-king-retrograde-analysis
The white king can only exist on a single square on the board. Any other square and we have an impossible position.
There's an Italian FM on chess.com who uses a move-order trick to sidestep the Philidor (and the Petroff). He plays 1.e4 e5 2.d4 first. Then on 2...exd4 he plays 3.Nf3 (he could of course play in Gambit style with the Danish 3.c3). Then if Black plays 3...Nc6 he finally plays 4.c3 (4.Nxd4 would arrive at the Scotch Game) arriving at the Goring Gambit for which the normal move order is 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.c3.
You haven't told us your cool gambit but if it involves an early d4 I hope the above helps. Something to note for the Black defenders who use 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6. You can kill two birds with one stone by using the same system against both the Goring Gambit and Ponziani's Opening (3.c3) by declining the Goring Gambit with 4...Nf6, or against Ponziani's by responding with 3...Nf6 4.d4 exd4. On 5.e5 you have either 5...Nd5 which I think was played by Carlsen, or the sharp 5...Ne4
I know far too much about openings ;)
I always thought of it more like chess. There are certain situations in chess where any attempt to improve your position will accomplish little more than giving your opponent more to work with, which can set off a chain reaction. So in the article series linked above, GM Serper suggest "the art of doing nothing".
"Try not to make your position worse, and more importantly not to make it better."
Or, in the words of Sun Tzu:
"If you wait by the river long enough, the bodies of your enemies will float by."
In this sense, I feel that OP's description of this as a victory is entirely appropriate. Of course, with Ns (especially emotional vampires) "the bodies of your enemies" will usually consist of them getting furious that you're not giving them their fix, which is a pretty bad result. But sometimes less so than the options, barring LC/NC.
Great feature. Before we all start shitting on Chess.com (for whatever reason...), though, I'd like to add that Chess.com has had a very similar feature like this for a very long time.
Edit: Lol. I have no idea why I'm being downvoted. I guess it's a sin to say that everything Lichess does might not be the most innovative creative groundbreaking thing of all time
Hey man. I think you should look at this distribution graph. http://en.lichess.org/stat/rating/distribution/blitz
Basically, the average player on lichess is around 1600 rating in most game types, so obviously 1200 on lichess is a decent amount under average.
If you look at chess.com, the average player is much lower https://www.chess.com/livechess/players?type=Standard - around 1100 - 1200.
So, to be average in either of these distribution pools, you need 1600 in lichess and 1200 in chess.com. Achieving 1200 in lichess is much easier than in chess.com because you're still 400 below the average pool of players.
I think with some casual playing you won't struggle at all to get a 1200 rating in lichess, but also if youre playing casually ratings shouldn't matter much anyway - either way have fun, and if you wanna play lemme know (I'm still very much a beginner).
I think he already played his games. If you look at his chess.com profile he already played the dude he was going to play today (cizzorz).
Pretty much, it just means the engine only finds it after a certain depth. I've had one before in the game below:
However chess.com gives Qxf2 as the brilliant move in my case whereas really Bh3! is the move you had to find.
Thanks for the reply again Sam. Could you help clarify this further?
In the opening book, he looked up that it's important to play f6 and then plays f6 later in the game https://www.chess.com/live/game/4897912539?username=iminthewings
He has clearly received a helpful concept from the opening book, as it says "play f6 as soon as possible", and had not yet done so.
I also disagree that move 14 is "long past any opening theory". For many openings, move 14 is still very much opening theory.
I'm not understanding why it's fine for him to do it here, even though it influenced his play, but not okay elsewhere. The rules are now becoming confusing. Is it really because he's a diamond member?
Practice and knowing a lot of different positions.
Some coach would tell you "When you have an outside passed pawn, you want to trade rooks and queens, because those are the pieces who has the easiest time controlling those pawns". I don't think like that. I just calculated some lines, and thought f3-g4 was annoying, because white get attacking chances. If I trade the queens, they disappear. And the rooks come quite naturally (especially since I traded the d-pawn for the e3-pawn, creating a great square for the knight on d5). Knowing that the endgame with knight vs bishop is just winning comes from experience.
Aagaard sees the same from his work with Gelfand. Gelfand quickly traded rooks in some game, not giving it any thought. Aagaard asked why, and the answer was: "Obviously, when you have more space, rooks need to be traded". Not at all obvious to me, but when you got 2700, that is just random knowledge you use.
Jeremy Silman recommends in his "How to Reassess your Chess" to think of imbalances. I kinda use that method (combined with looking for worst-placed piece and my opponent ideas) to play positional chess. Always try to improve the worst-placed piece, and if there is an imbalance (in my example knight vs bishop and pawn structure), try to make the knight better than the bishop. I did that by creating a beautiful square on d5 (and my opponent failed by not playing f3 and either g4 or e4, making the knight unhappy on f6).
This is why looking at games are very important. Inventing new ideas in a lot of positions seems to be fun at club level, but knowing the good ideas just gives more points. Sad but true. Luckily, g4 in random positions is now a classic https://www.chess.com/article/view/the-shabalov-shirov-gambit .
In the old days, Spassky and Korchnoi perpetrated this:
> The psychology of the match showed a public face in game 10 when Spassky stayed in his relaxation area or box, except to make his moves at the board. Spassky followed the game on a demonstration board in his private space.
And then Spassky took the match to the twilight zone:
> During game 14, Spassky had escalated his psychological gambit by wearing a silver visor. Later, in game 17, Spassky wore the visor, sunglasses, and diving goggles.
I'm not overly familiar with chess rules but would the game be valid if you set up the board wrong initially?
Edit: According to this thread it doesn't invalidate the game. However one shouldn't even begin the game with an incorrect set up. If one does, then both players are responsible, and by some rules, must continue the game.
The original thread on chess.com has been edited by the mods.
EDIT: Found another one from the thread - https://twitter.com/mmehdikhani70/status/1006911145549225985
https://www.chess.com/news/view/google-s-alphazero-destroys-stockfish-in-100-game-match This article says alphazero analyzes far fewer moves than "stockfish" system. The procedure to determine alphazero's next move is a "radical" departure from the chess software techniques we all know and love. Superiority in this case appears to spring from elegance and efficiency rather than raw computing power transferring ultra high capacity crunching into every conceivable form of "cognition".
I also found the lichess AI to be really difficult. Playing real people at a low rating is the best way to go.
If you want to play an AI in a browser, try Chess.com's AI. If you're on iOS, I recommend the Shredder app, as it also has an Elo scaling AI.
Other than that, practice tactics. There's a free Chess Tactics app for iOS that I enjoy. There's also ChessTempo.com.
That's an underrated video, should be posted more often.
Aside for David Pruess' guide, this here is very useful: https://www.chess.com/blog/CharlyAZ/a-hardcore-guide-to-analyze-your-chess-games
Don't use engine unless as your last resort.
Chess.com doesn't use Elo: it uses Glicko (or Glicko-2).
A key feature of Glicko is RD (Rating Deviation). RD measures how accurate your rating is, with a high RD meaning "inaccurate" and a low RD meaning "accurate".
When you first join Chess.com, your RD is high, because a new player's strength is unknown. For this reason, your rating will vary a lot after each game. As you start to play regularly, your RD gets lower and your rating is considered more accurate. At this point, your rating changes less after each game.
DOTA and SC2 both do more granular ranking, and they both have a bell curve.
Hell, let's go to the great granddaddy of competitive gaming, the game for which ELO was literally invented, Chess. Bell curve. https://www.chess.com/echess/players
There might be something special about LOL but I highly doubt it. And unless you can pull stats showing that everyone in bronze has the same skill, it's more likely than not that LOL has a bell curve too.
Chess.com (which itself will only have a fraction of the Chess playerbase) has >1m daily players, and FIDE has over 360,000 active tournament players in its member database, and YouGov says 605m people play Chess 'regularly' (that is probably over-inflated, but even if it's 10x less than that it still dwarves any esport). I think you vastly underestimate how popular chess is, especially on an international level.
so what youre saying is you didnt look at the link?
Starting on June 5, the inaugural 2020 Chess.com PogChamps will kick off, featuring 16 of Twitch's most followed streamers. Over two weeks, top streamers like Boxbox, Voyboy, and yassuo will compete for their share of $50,000 in prizes. With so much on the line, GM Hikaru Nakamura, WFM Alexandra Botez and Chess.com's IM Danny Rensch will be providing commentary throughout the event's two weeks, with Nakamura and Botez providing lessons for each of the competitors. The
Launched in tandem with Twitch, the event will be the precursor to a Twitch Rivals finale, set to take place in early July. The team event will be Twitch Rivals' second-ever chess event, <em>after hosting Komodo Boss Rush in early 2019</em>.
the point is simply that chess is getting hyped on twitch right now, and with chess hype people are going to be more likely to check out chess games, including 5d chess.
I know, I know, there were 14 moves by the book. I still feel really good though XD.
It was a Ruy Lopez, Marshall attack.
This gonna get parodied at r/anarchychess isn't it.
The record is an astonishing 48 blindfold games played simultaneously, accomplished by Timur Gareyev in 2017.
He won 35 games, drew 7 and lost 6 against 'decently strong' (avg 1700 rating) opposition.
I was curious so I looked up the game, unsure what your upset about. First of all your opponent was winning and is the one who blundered the draw. Second your you got checked and then played 10 moves after that, you played the best move 3 times in those 10 moves. Third, this is chess, stop whining and geaux agane.
10 knights each should be possible; 18 queens is definitely possible. Just in my head, to pass all the pawns, you can just stack each pair of pawns (8 captures total), then promote two pawns per file.
This is from chess.com's description of the Carlsen-Kajarkin match
> Carlsen selected the box containing his name, allowing him to draw first. Inside his second box was a white king, and so even before tomorrow's opening move, he seems to be making all the right ones already.
So it looks like a "choice" was made (Carlsen chose between two boxes each containing an unknown color), it just didn't mean that the choice was between color preferences. If it was done the same way this time, the report was not exactly false, but the wording should have been more precise.
He practiced playing chess in a synagogue but he looks like a jew as well
facial structure says jewcel https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/caruana-has-lost-weight
chess.com rating, which uses glicko see here.
As a side note it is Elo, since it is named after the creator Arpad Elo, and not a acronym or abbreviation.
That's because you haven't seen what the good blogs used to be like.
Are recent examples, but 1-2 years ago these kind of blogs used to be everywhere and updated weekly.