It took me many years before I got back to where I could enjoy chess and similar games as just fun things to pass time. For a long while, I didn’t find games fun when I knew they had been “solved.” It didn’t matter whether I personally could memorize and execute on that knowledge.
This applied to video games too. If there was a perfect build or an optimal meta or a flawless strategy, the mere existence of it ruined the game for me. It seemed pointless to work on getting better when “perfect” had been achieved.
I think playing a lot of competitive fighting games helped. Realizing that “optimal” didn’t always mean flawless execution, and that there’s still fun just in seeing what you can train yourself to be capable of doing. It actually helped me a lot in understanding that if a game is fun, then that’s what matters, the fun. Strategy and optimizing and “the meta” can be part of the fun, but if they aren’t then ignore them, play at your level, and keep finding the fun.
For a long while, I didn’t find games fun when I knew they had been “solved.”
Chess is not a solved game.
That’s why “solved” is in air quotes. I didn’t want to go into a long tangent about how while chess isn’t technically a solved game, the opening and endgame databases that computers use, along with pretty powerful chess engines, essentially change the nature of the game. There’s lots to memorize in the fairly rote early and late game, in the service of reaching an interesting and tactical middle game.
(I had a similar issue with starcraft…)
I think Kasperov has it right that hybrid chess is interesting because it let’s the computer do the memorizing and give you a hand with board analysis. But i don’t think of chess as particularly sacred so I just found other games that while not as popular or sometimes as deep, offer a more thrilling, unknown challenge.
the opening and endgame databases
It is true that there are theoretically good moves, and bad moves in the opening, but this is true of the entire game of chess. The existance of the opening database, and memorizing lines really just makes it a bit easier on the chess engine, and the player – processing each move to such a great extent isn’t necessary if one knows what move is safe beforehand – but that still doesn’t necessarily mean that the opening is solved. If by “solved” you are referring to the win rate for a particular opening, then I would caution against that, as it can be rather misleading, depending on how exactly you are looking at it.
As for the endgame, I mean, there’s a pretty small set of moves that are possible – if you see a mate in 2, is that a solved game to take it?
along with pretty powerful chess engines
This point is moot – are you using a chess engine when you play against a human player? I would certainly hope not.
There’s lots to memorize in the fairly rote early and late game, in the service of reaching an interesting and tactical middle game.
Why not skip the memorization, and, instead, put your faith in your ability to strategize in every phase of the game?
deleted by creator
one of the issues with solving chess is that
one engame with 7 pieces remaining is solved provided you can memorize 549 exact moves that forces a checkmate, but there is a rule that you must capture a piece or move a pawn once every 50 moves or else it’s a draw.
the other issue is that to solve for a perfect game you need to calculate every possible decision tree. It is easier to map every single atom in every star system currently detectable by any means from the Earth than it is to map every chess move.
I read that supercomputers can solve any 7-pieces-remaining chess game, but they need a ~19TB database in order to do so.
19 TB is not that big anymore. For a company that buys storage systems, the more standard amount of useable space is going to be closer to a PB per system.
I think standard openings will get more and more moves added to them, but even at the highest level of chess there are still many valid openings, and many valid responses to each of those openings. Then, even after playing those “known openings”, it very quickly ceases to be solved.
Part of the reason why I can’t get into Rubik’s cubes, and it also lingers in the back of my mind with puzzles like sudoku or minesweeper.
I have to admit that it’s hard for me to play a game with an ending when I know I probably won’t ever win.
I got really into nonograms (and einstein-riddle style puzzles) and I found the repeat application of known rules to be kind of soothing. Maybe it’s a getting old thing? I’m still not really into puzzle cubes either but I think I get it now. When you deal with a lot of unknowns in other parts of life, sometimes its nice to work through something knowing there’s a solution and a victory somewhere at the end.
The beauty of chess is that there’s always something new to discover, like the Bongcloud Attack.
The Bongcloud Attack (or Bongcloud Opening) is an irregular chess opening that consists of the moves:
1. e4 e5- Ke2?
It is considered a joke opening and is associated with internet chess humor.
And I laughed and laughed. Ke2? How delightfully absurd!
Just read this on Wikipedia. It’s great!
On 15 March 2021, Magnus Carlsen, playing white, led with the Bongcloud in a game against Nakamura at the Magnus Carlsen Invitational. Nakamura mirrored the opening with 2…Ke7, leading to a position nicknamed the Double Bongcloud.[2] The game was intentionally drawn by threefold repetition after the players immediately repeated moves, the particular sequence they used known as the “Hotbox Variation”.
But did the audience erupt in uproarious laughter?
And I laughed and laughed. Ke2? How delightfully absurd!
That’s chess humor for you. In 1975 Martin Gardner published an article (on April 1^st ) claiming that chess had been solved by a supercomputer. Where upon if a human opened e4, the computer would spin its fans for several hours, and then resign.
It’s a hoot and a half.
- Ke2 is absurd!
It would be like if you designed a play in football in which the quarterback is supposed to stand in front of his wide receiver teammates and try to physically hold them back.
Okay, but I wouldn’t call that a joke.
Bongcloud works because of how stupid it is. Your opponent doesn’t know how to respond.
Idk, a lot of pros talk about how boring chess gets at a certain level. Lots of lines are solved so deep that going to tournaments can mean learning who your opponents are, studying as many of the openings that you know they play as deeply as possible and hoping that you guessed the right openings and that they prepared the wrong ones against you.
Things like the bongcloud work once, when no one at a tournament has seen it before, then it gets solved and playing it is only ever a disadvantage again. It can work in things like rapid chess or whatever when it’s used to throw people off guard.
Just play against people at the same skill level
But they don’t let me near the ten-year-olds any more
The last time I played chess it was against a ten year old and I got my ass whooped.
Is there a chess league for babies I could join?
Still too high level for my chess abilities. Is there an amoeba league?
I just wanna put on a pair of boots and stomp around in a room full of helpless babies, is that too much to ask?
You just want to waste food and I’m disappointed in you.
It’s not about age, eventually magnus will be beaten by a 5 year old.
Just play a few games online to get your rating settled in and you will quickly start playing against people your skill level. You will likely get stomped a lot early on, but that stops after just a few games with massive elo drops.
I appreciate the tips, but I’ve long resigned myself to the fact that, like DnD and Warhammer, chess is one of the classic nerd things that I just can’t do.
ಠ_ಠ
I feel like with chess it’s always the kids that absolutely dominate everyone else.
We just only take note of the weirdos who got an early manual and obsessed over it, not the ones shoving the knights up their nose.
Some time ago I reached a point in Chess where I could go toe-to-toe with National Masters. It was around that time when I realized the game, while still tactically based, became more about assorted memorization of patterns. I still enjoy playing, yet my love was for the puzzle and finding a way my opponent hadn’t yet seen. That knowledge, and my natural desire to continue improving, actually eroded my desire to continue, and I fell off since.
Just the way it is, and it isn’t even really about winning; it’s about my own reason to improve. That end goal just seems so…predefined.
You are in good company (of sorts). Magnus Carlsen got tired of that level of memorization/preparation, so decided to not defend his world championship. He now plays WILD chess, that does not require memorization. He forces players out of their preparation. He loves the tactical side, and is attempting to force it.
My problem is that there is very limited amount of such people :/ People either don’t or can’t play chess or are really into it.
And of course there is always this one guy/gal who’s like “Let’s play, you’ll probably beat me because I’m really rookie el oh el. Yeah I’m in local chess club but there are much better players than me. It’s true that this one time I finished second in that chess championship but …”
There has to be some online chess simulators that match opponents based on skill-level. Playing IRL might be tougher to find, but if you’re in school I would look for chess clubs there.
There has to be some online chess simulators that match opponents based on skill-level.
Tried one of those once. It just opened Minesweeper for me.
And of course there is always this one guy/gal who’s like "Let’s play, you’ll probably beat me because I’m really rookie el oh el.
Oh yeah, that point in an interest where you learn just enough to realize how little you know.
I joined chess club in middle school. I lost my first game in two moves.
I didn’t go back to chess club.
Ah, the “Fools mate”. Rookie mistake! (/s i suck at chess)
That pretty much describes accurately how I felt, so maybe it should be called that.
There is a two-move checkmate that is called that, he wasn’t making that one up. 😊
hundreds
LET ME DREAM
Holy crap I’m dying over here 🤣
The frenchman’s cumsock is a classic move, or at least it should be. Although I find chess interesting (as a concept) I completely suck at playing it, so much so that I could be the frenchman in question. Growing up, whenever I played my older brother he’d always know how to beat me in 4 or 5 moves. I’m much better at solitaire games, though there’s a version of solitaire chess I’d like to try.
Yeah I could never understand that gambit. People keep playing this move but I’m just like “How do I be the sock?”
The classic move involves tipping the chessboard out the nearest window and then leaping into your opponent’s unguarded lap before he realizes what’s going on. Isn’t the object of the game the first to be able to “mate” the other?
It’s like playing Smash Bros. You only play with people at your skill level. That one friend who likes the game a little too much and watches competitive events? Yeah, you’re not going to have fun playing against them. Just play with other people who don’t really know what they’re doing, and maybe consider throwing items on to even out skill with randomness (someone needs to invent random item drops for chess).
This is why I think Go is actually significantly more approachable than chess. With chess, you really need someone of very similar level; if one of you is a little better, that person will almost always win, and that’s often kinda boring for both of you. But Go has a handicapping system built in that makes it way more forgiving of differences in skill, so that you can both play a pretty challenging game. I think it’s contributed a lot to the culture around the game being more open and focused on teaching others, too.
That said, there are still a lot of things that high-level players memorize. But it seems like there are a lot more folks just playing for the joy of the game, and at the low levels, those folks will often outplay those who get very into the memorization too early.
My only problem with Go is that it can literally take days or weeks. That’s just more patience than I have with a single game. I love the concept, but the time required for a single game is just too much for me. Even played in chunks.
It’s possible to play games like that, but most folks don’t. Even professional or tournament games are mostly played over the course of an hour or two; there are just a few extremely high level tournaments where the games are split over a few days. I’ve played a couple of postal games that went on like that, but people do that with chess too. All my in-person games have been under two hours, including in tournaments, and most under an hour.
I’d encourage you to find a local Go club and check it out. As I say, the folks are very friendly and eager to teach newcomers.
You start with a piece handicap. It’s interesting for both because it makes it competitive, but also completely destroys the better player’s knowledge base because they’re missing important pieces, making it more about intuition.
I play this way with a friend that I’m like a thousand points higher rated than. With a rook+knight handicap, it’s very competitive, we probably each win about half the time.
“Hey guys, I have an idea! Let’s play Smash Bros with items on! I got my Wiimote!”
I refuse to play against those sweaty final destination no items 1v1 people. I went with my girlfriend to one of her friend birthday party and they pulled up smash, I was sorta excited because there were like 8 controllers and a bunch of people who wanted to play aaaaand fucking 1v1 final destination no items. I just politely refused to play even though apparently my girlfriend had been talking me up as a pretty good gamer. I just want to have casual fun, I have enough salt and sweat ranking in league.
That’s it! You think you’re checkmating me? Think again with a Pokéball in your face!
deleted by creator
To be fair Frenchman’s cumsock is a winning play in 87% of chess matches
Kind of also something that changed with the advent of the internet.
Chess was popular for most of its history as a game where you basically only got better by playing and genuinely trying to work out better strategies. At best, you had some chess club or a book at hand.
Now, you could spend every day just reading up on different strategies and counters, and there’d still be someone more serious about it.
I guess, on the flipside, that makes it easier to not take it as serious anymore and we have ELO-based match-up systems now as well, so you’ll more easily find someone on your level.
we have ELO-based match-up systems
I don’t know, they look a little mismatched what with all the different instruments.
Really dude. I love chess, I used to play with my grandfather when I was like 8. So I have too good of a grip for most of my friends to want to play, but I’m not playing like it’s a job to compete with people who read chess websites.
That’s why you gotta stay solid and either go for the Jerome or the Bongcloud. Best 2 openings for beginners IMO.
A while ago I was grinding through the ranks of bots on an app and would only go to the next level when I could smash the current bot opening with bongcloud.
Someone from my local chess club has an account on Lichess where he only uses Bongcloud-like openings. He has reached a rating of over 2000 and crushed some 2200’s (that’s almost professional level for those who aren’t familiar with ratings).
Absolute Chad.
Coca-Cola gambit for the slightly more advanced (even though I have invented a brilliant countergambit against it). For black the fried fox defense is pretty OP too.
I joined a Chess Federation sponsored chess club in Omaha in my late 20s. Nothing is more humbling than getting beat by a 12-year-old.
Try Go.
Well, Knooks haven’t yet become mainstream. Someone coded up a mod for chess where Knooks are pieces that move like Horseys and Rooks.
https://github.com/PossibleEmuWrangler/AnarchyChess-DreamyDesktop
If it helps, geniuses in very narrow fields with immediate feedback, like chess, aren’t the smartest most of the time. They are just optimised for solving a particular problem with a closed feedback loop, much like an artificial neural network in machine learning.
