chess question

[[Syl]]

The ability to "think several moves ahead" is overrated. I rarely look past three, and even then, they're only plans (good players will see through and/or confound your plans, while bad players will defy all expectations).

One of my teachers was fond of saying, "Chess is a game of errors. He who makes the lesser errors wins." Of course, I beat him pretty regularly (because really, it's 'he who capitalizes the most on his opponent's errors wins').

Mainly, it's a game of discipline, with a few simple rules that take a lot of practice to get right:

-Develop your pieces as soon as possible, in as few moves as possible;
-Take control of the center of the board;
-Don't drop your pieces;
-Don't trade down;
-Don't trade when you're behind;
-Don't trade if you lose position;
-Don't double up pawns or let a pawn get isolated;
-Watch out for forks and concealed checks;
-Keep your king out of your opponent's lines of attack (see above); and
-The king in front of the pawn wins when trying to get to the other side.

Oh, and above all, NEVER say, "Let me make it easier for you," and sweep all the pieces off the board.

My best friend, who I've played against since we were 7 years old, likes to use an ap on his iPhone to record the games. Might explain why he beats me more often than not.

[I'm Murrin]

I'm counting as low as three as several here. In fact, I struggle to even work out what my opponent's very next move might be (too many variables, the largest of which being my own self doubt. ).

[[Syl]]

I've seen you tank. You should have no problem scanning the board and seeing the threats to your guys. And you don't even have to yell at your pieces multiple times to get them out of harm's way.

[I'm Murrin]

PvE encounters are totally predictable. This is more PvP.

[MsMary]

This thread is making me want to try my hand at chess again.

[Avatar]

I'm counting as low as three as several here. In fact, I struggle to even work out what my opponent's very next move might be (too many variables, the largest of which being my own self doubt. ).

It's really not that many variables. At any given time in chess there are usually not that many possible moves. The maximum possible number of potential moves is for the first move, with..uh...36 I think, possible moves. From there, options mostly get cut down pretty quick.

Just look at each opposing piece and see where it can move. Now Go on the other hand has a potential 361 possible first moves. Reading ahead in that is hell of a time consuming. (For me anyway.)

--A

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

Probably the most annoying thing about chess is that learning opening theory is really mandatory if you're going to be any good at it. Too many novice players think they need to reinvent the wheel on the opening, but the result is a great number of games with a completely predictable outcome, from the perspective of the more experienced player. The best way in my opinion is to simply consult a theory table during the first 5 or so moves. That way you're pretty much assured of establishing an opening position without major weaknesses. The mid game is where critical thinking becomes more important.

[[Syl]]

MCO is good for playing against someone who is also reading MCO (the Sicilian Dragon was my favorite back in the day, though I love a good fianchetto). Otherwise, not so much. Well, that's not true, studying openings will give you insight into what works (hint, it's not pushing your rook pawns) or what moves will inspire what kind of outcomes.

But mainly, as I said, it really comes down to developing pieces and taking the center.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

A good and free resource: en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Chess_Opening_Theory

I don't completely agree with you Syl, simply because if you can manage to work yourself into a known advantageous line it places the other player at a major disadvantage. When presented with your favorite the Sicilian Dragon, for instance, if you don't follow one of the established lines you are going to find yourself in deep trouble in a hurry as the early development tends to be a bit counterintuitive not to mention sharp. So the study of openings is necessary both offensively and defensively, IMO. Trial and error wastes the knowledge gained within other lifetimes. And you are of course correct that the study of openings can give insight into important offensive and defensive themes in general.

[[Syl]]

...simply because if you can manage to work yourself into a known advantageous line...

The key word there is "if." As you say, it's pretty easy to mess it up yourself, and if you're opponent isn't playing by the same playbook, the chances of it working it out are slim (and most openings are pretty limited if your opponent doesn't have a structure that corresponds). If you play by the openings, you have to be able to adapt the openings. And you can't do that until you have the basics down of developing pieces and taking the center, learning that an entire game can unfold and hinge upon trying to take or preserve a single pawn.

On the other hand, if you do get those basics down and your opponent doesn't, you will win 99% of the time (the other 1% being stupid mistakes, when you don't notice some complex series of moves that your opponent is pulling together by trying to 'think several moves ahead' that ends up working simply because you didn't pay attention to it). If you do these things, you simply pick off the opposing pieces as they try to move out in the margins, and you let the inertia of your position push you into the opponent's line.

Trial and error wastes the knowledge gained within other lifetimes.

I'd argue that trial and error prepares you for that knowledge, and depending on known theory too much, especially when you're learning the game, makes you rigid.

[I'm Murrin]

All this discussion is just making it sound harder and harder to learn how to play.
The whole concept of having a strategy of any kind to my moves is foreign to me.

[[Syl]]

See what you did, Ex?

Murrin, that's why I said to just stick to the simple rules above. Follow them, and you'll beat the vast majority of most players without even having to think of strategy, combinations, possible outcomes, etc. Really, it's what most simple chess programs do and why they can beat most players; they don't make the simple mistakes that we do.

I should add that when it comes to trading, it's easiest to use the point system:

Pawn = 1
Bishop/Knight = 3
Rook = 5
Queen = 9

Oh, also, the inverse of the rules above are things you want to do—fork your opponent, trade up, etc. And if you have no better move, push a pawn.

[I'm Murrin]

Syl, I don't even understand what half your "simple rules" mean. (Or if I do, how to accomplish them. Controlling the centre, for example, is something I wouldn't have a clue even how to try and do, and wouldn't know how to tell when I'd succeeded.)

Edit: Just played 5 games in a row against a computer, ad lost miserably each time. Like really, really badly. On the lowest difficulty setting.

[[Syl]]

Hmm, good point.

Basically, your pawns kind of get in your way when the game starts, allowing only your knights to move and being a threat to nobody way back there. But move the center pawns forward (the opening moves for the vast majority of games, usually the king's pawn for white,the other option being your knights), and you've not only freed up a bishop to move (and potentially your queen), but now your pawns are poised to take two places in the center of the board.

On the other hand, if you move the rook's pawn forward two, your pawn can only attack one space on the side of the board, it will take you three moves total to get the rook out, and the pawn is isolated, begging to be picked off as soon as that rook moves. Similarly, if you move your knight up and toward the outer edge, it can only attack two spaces instead of four if you move it inward.

Dropping your pieces means letting your pieces be taken without getting something in return, usually because you didn't look beforehand to see if it could be taken.

Doubled pawns are pawns on the same file (getting in each other's way), and isolated pawns are pawns without another pawn on an adjacent file (easy to pick off).

A fork happens when one piece can simultaneously take two others (leaving you to choose which one you want to save, if you have a choice). This is easiest to do with knights, but any piece can do it.

An example of a concealed check - you have a bishop sitting in front of a rook, and in front of both of those down the board is your opponent's king. You move the bishop somewhere else (taking a knight that might otherwise be protected, for example), putting the king in check. Your opponent has to get out of check, giving you the extra move you need to either bring your bishop back to safety or protect it with another piece (or for another example, maybe moving that bishop put it in a position to take your opponent's queen, so you can do that while your opponent is getting out of check).

For that reason, it's usually a bad idea to let your king sit somewhere where there's a rook, bishop, etc., threatening it. If your king is behind a pawn, even if you can take (with your king) a piece that takes that pawn, if your opponent lines up another piece on the same spot, you can't.

Hmm, figures -
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_strategy
Which features a section on control of the center. Wikipedia also has a good glossary of chess terminology

Anyway, my point is that the value of "strategy" and convoluted thinking is grossly exaggerated in popular conception of chess, especially when it comes to everyday gameplay. Concentration, disciplined play, and situational awareness are far more important.

[Vraith]

heh...in a way, chess at it's highest levels is like poker [though less chance]. You aren't playing the "hand," you're playing the person. [cuz, as a matter of actual fact you very likely don't know the rules/strategies better than your opponent does, you win by correctly predicting them and taking advantage...there's a reason that for the real pro's well over 1/2 the games end in draws.]
and learning to be good at it is a similar process. first you play tactically, by the rules and instants and pieces, particularly your own. Then strategically [the patterns of the whole board before, now, the possible shapes to come]. Then psychologically. At each step, the previous one becomes sort of "instinctual."
I do best at fast games...the shorter the time limits, the better I do...even a slightly deep player kicks my butt, usually without even a little stress, if they have time to think.
[at least I used to...I think it's been at least a decade since I played]

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

I do agree that Syl's basic principles are the cornerstone of most sound chess strategy (though I think the principle of development is usefully amplified by the axiom to avoid moving your minor pieces twice until you've moved them all once). So please, by all means play without worrying too much about deep strategy, and have some fun.

I think novices playing for fun but interested in developing their skills should meditate upon two other corollary principles to what Syl has said: first, victory requires aggression, and second, time and position is more valuable than material (pieces). Don't waste time sheltering behind an elaborate pawn structure, waiting for the onslaught; get out there and apply pressure to your opponent. Seize position that limits his ability to develop his own pieces, and when confronted with the option to trade or withdraw, favor the trade if all things are equal. Cultivate a bloody disposition: it will embolden your play and stymie your opponents. You can't win without attacking; attacking requires placing pieces at hazard; thus the attitude that they are expendable is essential. There is no piece that cannot be advantageously traded for position, including the queen.

Someday, though, your development as a chess player is going to be stymied unless you do some study. You'll know when you get there.

[Waddley]

xkcd.com/1112/

This is why I'll never be a good chess player.

[Linna Heartbooger]

Because you identify with the would-be chess critic's point too strongly?
Or because you know someone like him and he keeps bothering you when you try to play chess?

[Waddley]

My technique of rushing the King never seems to work.

Sorry to interrupt the discussion, I just like the comic

[High Lord Tolkien]

My biggest point when I teach other people is to get your pieces over the middle "line" (the bend in the board).
Otherwise you're playing all defense.