Chess

[Ron_Tomkins]

I've always liked Chess but one thing I've found out is that while I'm playing, I'm trying to predict every move the other guy might do and every possible way I could be attacked but I finally realize it's just impossible. There will always be a move or a combination of moves that will outdo anything I do and turn the tables on me. Therefore, do you know of any particular strategy to at least learn from what the opponent is doing and thus try to predict what he might do? Is there like a basic guideline, a way to reduce everything to its minimun denominator so that what seems as an infinite set of possibilities in terms of attacks and defenses, can be reduced to a basic minimal strategy where every single move is subject to this principle?


(By the way, I wasn't sure if this was the right place to start this thread. If it's not, let me know)

 

[geni]

Appears to boil down to patturn recongition mostly. In position type X the threats will be A,B,C in position type Y threats will be B,D,E.

The claim that you attempt to brute force positions isn't credible since you would never get beyond A4.

 

[m_huber]

There is always a strongest move that your opponent can make. Imagine in your mind what the strongest move he could make is, and then come up with your response. If he makes a different move, then recalculate your position. If he made a move that is not the strongest, that strengthens your position (but you have to think about what your move will be).

There are plenty of chess strategy books. I recommend the Art of Attack In Chess[/i] by Vladimir Vukovic. You can also look at the website www.chessgames.com to see an archive of grandmaster's games.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Of course, even a chess game, which is supposed to test strategy, is solvable.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Appears to boil down to patturn recongition mostly. In position type X the threats will be A,B,C in position type Y threats will be B,D,E.

The claim that you attempt to brute force positions isn't credible since you would never get beyond A4.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

There is always a strongest move that your opponent can make. Imagine in your mind what the strongest move he could make is, and then come up with your response. If he makes a different move, then recalculate your position. If he made a move that is not the strongest, that strengthens your position (but you have to think about what your move will be).

There are plenty of chess strategy books. I recommend the Art of Attack In Chess[/i] by Vladimir Vukovic. You can also look at the website www.chessgames.com to see an archive of grandmaster's games.

That's the problem. I might not be able to image what's the actual strongest move he could make.

Sometimes I also think that the not-so-strong move he could make could still indirectly lead to a deadlier end for my army.

 

[JWideman]

Prepare to defend against a strong opponent, and you'll murder a weak one.

 

[Olowkow]

I taught my wife to play chess a while back. She used to beat me regularly, but I now have begun lately to beat her. I found that I was being too aggressive, initially, and just getting whooped early on. Also, I did not really know how to win, in principle, even though I would have a great advantage, I didn't know how to mate. I read up on this recently and now I find that I can plan a strategy much better.

We had a friend years ago who was extremely good at chess. He would play us both at the same time, and I remember once I resigned, and he turned the board around and still won!

Oh yes, check the Derren Brown "Chess Game". It is very interesting.

 

[Mr. Scott]

I've always liked Chess but one thing I've found out is that while I'm playing, I'm trying to predict every move the other guy might do and every possible way I could be attacked but I finally realize it's just impossible.

That's known as "brute force" and is the strategy of the best computer chess programs.

However, the human brain doesn't work like a computer (limited memory) so we also need heuristic rules.

Such rules include:

Advancing pawns.
Strengthening pawn positions.
Not getting cramped or boxed in.
Pins.
Controlling the center squares.
Keeping knights away from the edges of the board.
Controlling diagonals.
Developing knights in the early game and bishops in the end game.
Not getting over-extended.
Not developing the queen too early.
Defending the king.
Not wasting moves.
Noticing attacks in the making.
Planning ahead.

Chess openings are generally too complex to analyze during a game, so it's better to memorize them.

The middle game is largely played intuitively. Developing middle game intuition comes from playing lots of games.

The end game is pure logic. Some familiarity with typical situations is useful, but computer-like logical analysis is critical at that stage.

In any case, "looking ahead," which is what you mention in the OP, is always needed. Pruning the tree of possibilities you learn from study and experience.

 

[m_huber]

Seriously, the best advice is to work on mating tactics and openings. Most books on openings (and they range from beginner to grandmaster level) include how to work the continuation of the opening, and after awhile, you start to recognize positions. If you know the opening, the objective of the opening, and how to get to checkmate, then you have all of the tools you need to win games.

Oh yes, check the Derren Brown "Chess Game". It is very interesting.

Or you can cheat, like Derren:

 

[Bikewer]

I still recall Fritz Lieber's short story about a human vs. automaton match. (long before practical computers)
At one point, the chess "expert" who is providing exposition says something that I subsequently took to heart:
"Chess makes you crazy."

 

[Wildy]

Ahh Chess... good old chess...

When I used to play for my school I didn't do well in terms of winning, but I was always the last to finish. I guess I suffer from the curse of the Germans when it comes to war games.

It's also to the Russian Mob as Bocce is to the Italian Mafia.

I've found that I usually predict 5-6 different moves and about three moves ahead. This means I usually suck at timed games.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

That's known as "brute force" and is the strategy of the best computer chess programs.

However, the human brain doesn't work like a computer (limited memory) so we also need heuristic rules.

Such rules include:

Advancing pawns.
Strengthening pawn positions.
Not getting cramped or boxed in.
Pins.
Controlling the center squares.
Keeping knights away from the edges of the board.
Controlling diagonals.
Developing knights in the early game and bishops in the end game.
Not getting over-extended.
Not developing the queen too early.
Defending the king.
Not wasting moves.
Noticing attacks in the making.
Planning ahead.

Chess openings are generally too complex to analyze during a game, so it's better to memorize them.

The middle game is largely played intuitively. Developing middle game intuition comes from playing lots of games.

The end game is pure logic. Some familiarity with typical situations is useful, but computer-like logical analysis is critical at that stage.

In any case, "looking ahead," which is what you mention in the OP, is always needed. Pruning the tree of possibilities you learn from study and experience.

Thank you. I didn't know my approach was known as "brute force".

I'll stick to the principles you've mentioned. That's the closest to what I was looking for: a set of basic rules to keep the balance.

 

[m_huber]

Thank you. I didn't know my approach was known as "brute force".

I'll stick to the principles you've mentioned. That's the closest to what I was looking for: a set of basic rules to keep the balance.

Once you have played a lot, you get to the point where you have a "feel" for the game, if you develop it. There was a famous match between Tal and Botvinnik, where Tal sacrificed one of his pieces, and went on to win the game. Botvinnik spent 15 minutes in the game looking at the sacrifice, then after losing the game, he calculated all of the possible outcomes and told Tal that he had made the right move. Tal responded that he made the move because "it looked right."

Two different styles. I have a book by Silman, who teaches position chess. It is a somewhat more dangerous type of play, as you don't have much certainty about what will happen in the game. However, if done properly (always the key), it can make you a more efficient player.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Once you have played a lot, you get to the point where you have a "feel" for the game, if you develop it. There was a famous match between Tal and Botvinnik, where Tal sacrificed one of his pieces, and went on to win the game. Botvinnik spent 15 minutes in the game looking at the sacrifice, then after losing the game, he calculated all of the possible outcomes and told Tal that he had made the right move. Tal responded that he made the move because "it looked right."

Two different styles. I have a book by Silman, who teaches position chess. It is a somewhat more dangerous type of play, as you don't have much certainty about what will happen in the game. However, if done properly (always the key), it can make you a more efficient player.

That has actually begun happening to me already. Sometimes I will make a move just because "it feels right".

Sometimes, on the other hand, nothing "feels right".

 

[Mr. Scott]

Thank you. I didn't know my approach was known as "brute force".

I'll stick to the principles you've mentioned. That's the closest to what I was looking for: a set of basic rules to keep the balance.

You're welcome. I thought of some more rules:


If your opponent has only one bishop, try to keep your pawns on squares the same color as the squares your opponent's biship occupies.

If you have only one bishop, try to keep your pawns on squares of the opposite color of the squares your bishop occupies.

Maintain attacks on open files (usually with rooks, sometimes with a queen).

The more advanced a pawn is, the more valuable it is. E.g., a pawn at the 7th rank is almost as valuable as a queen.


In googling to confirm my nomenclature I found this web page with links to good articles on the subject of heuristic chess strategies.

You can get some good practice online at yahoo, where you can play against people from around the world who are of similar skill level. I had some good experiences there with polite, honest players, but eventually had too much of the rude people and cheaters*.

* Players cheat online by playing themsleves at first but invoking a chess program when they start losing.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

You're welcome. I thought of some more rules:


If your opponent has only one bishop, try to keep your pawns on squares the same color as the squares your opponent's biship occupies.

If you have only one bishop, try to keep your pawns on squares of the opposite color of the squares your bishop occupies.

Maintain attacks on open files (usually with rooks, sometimes with a queen).

The more advanced a pawn is, the more valuable it is. E.g., a pawn at the 7th rank is almost as valuable as a queen.


In googling to confirm my nomenclature I found this web page with links to good articles on the subject of heuristic chess strategies.

You can get some good practice online at yahoo, where you can play against people from around the world who are of similar skill level. I had some good experiences there with polite, honest players, but eventually had too much of the rude people and cheaters*.

* Players cheat online by playing themsleves at first but invoking a chess program when they start losing.

Thank you so much. I am actually going to write these rules down.

I had trained at the yahoo chess boards for a while. It was a good training. I didn't understand that thing you said about cheaters "invoking a chess program when they start loosing". You mean they use some kind of Computer program to help them pick the next best move?

 

[quixotecoyote]

Thank you so much. I am actually going to write these rules down.

I had trained at the yahoo chess boards for a while. It was a good training. I didn't understand that thing you said about cheaters "invoking a chess program when they start loosing". You mean they use some kind of Computer program to help them pick the next best move?

Not that I would ever do this you understand (not even after losing 12 games straight and wanting a real chess set to shove down some throats, so it would be completely excusable even I did) but if you run a chess game against an AI at the same time you're playing against a person all you do is play your opponents move against the computer and copy the computers response against your opponent. Given that chess programs can consistently beat average to above average players, it's an annoying form of unstoppable cheating.

 

[Mr. Scott]

I didn't understand that thing you said about cheaters "invoking a chess program when they start loosing". You mean they use some kind of Computer program to help them pick the next best move?

That's right. I figured it out after two experiences:

1) A player I was beating started accusing me of using a chess program.

2) A player who played really poorly, after I started beating him badly, suddenly started playing excellently.

Here are some rules about castling I just recalled:

- Best time to castle is when there's a pause in the game (your pieces are developed and you're not under attack).

- Castle on the king side if you can, preferably behind pawns the have not yet advanced.

More tidbits (I had some really good teachers):

- Try not to have more than one pawn on the same file.

- Forks are very powerful moves. Look for opportunities to fork your opponent, keep guard against your opponent forking you. Sounds obscene, but that's how we say it!

- A powerful position for the bishop is the fianchetto. BTW, there's lots of good chess advice on wiki.

Hey, perhaps if we set a time we can meet on Yahoo and play. Send me a PM if you're interested.

 

[Nero]

I imagine the majority of us play a mixture of pattern recognition, limited move analysis (I can only really analysis three-or-so moves ahead) and basic rule following. The rules that Mr. Scott posted above seem to pretty much cover my play plans.

A little story. I played chess for my school team, I usually played from the second board I was a good strong player but not great. A lad called Dan usually played board one, he was clever, bright, likeable, and always beat me when we played (b’stard). We ended up playing at a tournament, and as the games progressed I was drawn against him for a place in the semis. I knew I had to play a really tight game, if I made any mistakes I would be immediately toast. As the game progressed we ended up in a really tangled mess of pieces attacking, defending, and threatening, with as far as I could see absolutely no way I could win. I ended up in a position that to me looked hopeless, every move I could make would have an overall negative impact on my position. So rather than looking for an advantageous move, I started to look for the least damaging move. Eventually I found a move that at the best looked neutral, but I figured would lead to my losing as it was a wasted move.

By this stage we had quite a crowd of other, already finished, players around the table, I made my move. The crowd gave a very audible intake of breath, “bugger” I thought I must have missed something, my move must have been even worse than I thought. At this stage my opponent looked up, glared at me and knocked over his king. To this day I have absolutely no idea how I won the game.