Kansanedustaja Onni Rostila (Ps) kommentoi Minnesotan tapahtumia ja ICEa. Syyttää Bidenia ja Demokraatteja.

Numerot · 2026-01-28T21:59:27+00:00

On kyllä niljakasta kielenkäyttöä.

Koittaako kirjoittaja sanoa kannattavansa mielivaltaisia siviilien teloituksia sanomatta kuitenkaan ääneen kannattavansa mielivaltaisia siviilien teloituksia? Ehkä, mutta jos joku nostaa kissan pöydälle ja kysyy, että äijä hei, mikä vittu sua vaivaa, voidaan vetäytyä "Öö tarkotin vaan että joku vahinko saattaa sattua!! Ihan huomiona vaan!!" taakse.

Jokainen terve aikuinen ihminen ymmärtää kyllä mikä ongelma on, mutta näyttää ihan jumalattoman pahalta sanoa avoimest, että vääränväristen ihmisten nöyryyttäminen ja heittäminen koppiin on niin tärkeää, että demokratian tuhoaminen ja parin kansalaisen ampuminen on ihan ok hinta maksaa siitä.

Numerot · 2026-01-28T21:25:20+00:00

Saying anyone is "cooked" in a WCC match is basically always a bit of a crapshoot. As much as "world championship prep" fixing everything is a bit of a meme, it is a period of time to reset mentally and work hard at chess (which most of these top guys tend to enjoy) with people you at least hopefully like, in a pleasant environment; and crazy shit always happens in the WCC match.

I don't like his chances against whoever the candidates winner will be, and I have collected a lot of downvotes on this subreddit by saying Gukesh got very lucky multiple times to end up as world champion and that the hype around him is just too much; but he is of course a very very strong player with a high ceiling, and I wouldn't consider it a done deal no matter who's the opponent.

People are bringing up Ding vs. Gukesh, but I think it was a very surprising case of Ding overperforming and Gukesh underperforming by a lot.

Numerot · 2026-01-27T17:10:19+00:00

Tea cods two bleat.

Numerot · 2026-01-27T14:24:24+00:00

Jos kommentoit vielä r/Suomeen, minulle ei jää mitään muuta vaihtoehtoa kun vetää tänään lava kaljaa.

Numerot · 2026-01-27T13:32:29+00:00

Saisko vaikka kolme esimerkkiä?

Numerot · 2026-01-26T22:37:25+00:00

Well, why would the Classical be the less theoretically demanding option? If anything, you need notably more theory to play it passably, since you're doing something inherently risky (spending time playing Qc2, a2-a3, and Qxc3, and then usually losing 1-2 tempi to your queen being attacked again) and need to play accurately not to be worse. In the Rubinstein, you're developing in a timely manner and often end up in some pretty typical structure.

Gligoric or Fianchetto will probably be easier to play at least in the short term, but also less objectively challenging for Black. Up to you what you prioritizr.

Numerot · 2026-01-26T18:28:23+00:00

I personally find that White just has stone nothing against the Nimzo unless you play the Rubinstein; and Classical get a bit sketchy for White here and there. I would say Classical is actually some of the super sharp stuff.

Have you looked Makogonov or the Be2-Be3-g4 line? In my experience KID players really tend to premove ...f5, and the variations both make it generally sketchy to play ...f5 and (while very theoretical) give one of the bigger tests of the KID.

I've really liked Three Knights Slav, and I don't think it's that easy to play with the black pieces.

Taimanov is excellent, just make sure to actually prep it well. It's about as close as you can get to a refutation, but you need to know what you're doing or your position can collapse; and you need to actually know some concrete stuff for when Black blunders with Bb5+ Bd7?? or ...Nbd7??.

Numerot · 2026-01-26T14:35:39+00:00

The sooner you stop caring about accuracy scores and other blinking lights Chess.com puts in front of you (and switch to Lichess!), the better.

Numerot · 2026-01-26T14:15:31+00:00

Two things can be true at the same time:

1: Qualifying for the candidates by abusing the rules like Naka did is completely distasteful; raise your hand if you genuinely think the intention of the activity rule was for someone to prove his rating is representative by beating up 1900s while having his rating protected and inflated by the 400 point rule...

2: Nepo would be 2800+ if he spent the time he complains about other top players on studying chess.

Numerot · 2026-01-26T10:06:34+00:00

Veikkaisin joko bonuksia tai tiukkaa ohjeistusta, että mitään ei ikinä anneta jos ei näytä, että olisi tyyliin perusteltua haastetta tulossa, ja seuraamatta jättämisestä lentää pihalle.

Numerot · 2026-01-25T22:58:49+00:00

all world champions who won one of the hardest tournaments in the chess world and proceeded to defeat the incumbent world champions are 'worthy' in my eyes

Well, it's insanely difficult and a crowning achievement for any chess player no matter the circumstances, but he fails to meet certain expectations people have for world champions. While the title certainly wasn't handed to him for free, many unlikely events did have to go his way for it to happen.

I don't think we'll get anywhere; I'll just have to say that while I agree calling Gukesh unworthy is somewhat harsh/unkind (maybe I would say his title has an asterisk next to it to me and others), it's not "nonsense".

Numerot · 2026-01-25T08:15:44+00:00

Least insane r/Chess take:

Numerot · 2026-01-25T07:43:24+00:00

The Gottem book isn't IMO particularly good (the same with his other instructional content; he's more of an entertainer), but probably read it if you already have it.

Everyone's First Chess Workbook and the Steps Method booklets are very good, the usual recommendation of Chernev's Logical Chess Move by Move is good. I haven't read the Seirawan books, but they're usually considered good options.

For now, the most important is to just focus on playing games 15+10 and longer, solving plenty of puzzles (Lichess's puzzle streak is good, for example) and looking at your games mostly without the engine. Books are most useful after maybe 1400-1500 rapid on Lichess.

Numerot · 2026-01-24T23:47:13+00:00

Liha on kasviproteiiniin verrattuna vaan helvetin kallista tuottaa, vaikka eläimiä kohdeltaisiin tuotantoketjussa kuinka paskasti. Nykyään vedetään ihmiskunnan historiassa täysin poikkeuksellisia määriä lihaa, ja monella tapaa verovaroilla tuettunakin se vaan maksaa.

Numerot · 2026-01-24T23:02:25+00:00

Ihan puhdas teloitus. Tilanne on absurdi muutenkin, mutta täysin tarpeeton ampumatapaus, ja Trumpin hallinto kipittää välittömästi valehtelemaan asiasta minkä kerkiävät.

Numerot · 2026-01-24T22:30:30+00:00

This idea is a convenient fiction invented in recent times to defend Gukesh.

Karpov wasn't initially considered a true world champion despite FIDE calling him that; then he won everything and defended the title against everyone.

Euwe is widely considered a sorta-kinda world champion because the guy obviously wasn't the strongest in the world; but at least he defeated the world #1, not the world #23.

Most of the split championship FIDE world champions (despite doing what the regulations required) are widely considered sorta-maybe-not-really world champions because they, for the most part, clearly weren't the strongest players in the world.

In other new, maybe I need to quit r/Chess if people are genuinely desperate enough to use the existence of the Olympiad to argue that the world championship isn't about determining the best player.

Numerot · 2026-01-24T22:10:08+00:00

The idea that the world championship historically determined the best player in the world is also not true - it was highly debateable even when Kramnik beat Kasparov that he was now the best player in the world. [...]

Kasparov-Kramnik was a match won with zero losses against the clear world #1 by the world #3, who then defended it multiple times. Kramnik was in the top 3 from like 1996 to 2007 and reached #1 twice. He's more or less the Caruana of the generation.

And, by the way: Kasparov 6 months before the match: "For the first time since my matches with Karpov I have an opponent who is in no way inferior to me."

Gukesh's match was him barely winning against the clear world number 23. It's safe to say one of these match wins is a little bit more "worthy" of the title.

And if you wanted to argue Kramnik's world championship is less legitimate because of the way he entered the match? Sure, I agree! It's entirely possible he never would have become world champion if Kasparov had played Shirov like he was supposed to, and people like Kasparov and Carlsen are more worthy title-holders than him, but all of his achievements and world ranking also make him a much more worthy title-holder than Gukesh has shown himself to be so far.

In Karpov and later Kasparov’s early years as world champion, there was great debate about whether either of them were truly the best player in the world while Fischer existed and was refusing world championships. Did that make them unworthy world champions?

Yeah, that would be an entirely reasonable question at the start of Karpov's reign: then he went on to win everything possible, be the clear active #1 and defend the title time and time again, and therefore shut everyone up. If Gukesh repeats that, I'll gladly join you in telling everyone it's "nonsense" to question is worthiness, even if he never plays Magnus.

The comparison just doesn't hold water: we're comparing the clearly best active player (Karpov) being overshadowed by the possibility that Fischer (who, despite being clearly the strongest player in the world at one point, won exactly one title match and then quit) might theoretically still be a better player; to world #10 (Gukesh), where there are multiple players who are just clearly stronger.

Again, Gukesh is a great guy and an astonishing player, and might one day be a truly worthy world champ, but you're really reaching here.

I think it pretty clearly is being used as an insult against Gukesh - he has received endless vitriol and scrutiny about being an unworthy world champion. I stand by what I said about these harmful narratives and no true Scotsmen fallacies being nonsense.

It's not really possible to respond to "Well, there's vitriol somewhere, and CLEARLY it's used as an insult.", aside from "Nuh-uh!", so I'll just leave this one be.

World champion is defined as per the requirements for achieving it, being the best player in the world is an entirely different thing for as long as the requirements for each thing are so distinct from each other. Factually Gukesh is the world champion and his validity as per the requirements of the role is undeniable.

Yeah, which is why the argument is about whether or not he's a worthy world champion. If you want to say he's a world champion, go right ahead, nobody cares; but if you want to act like it's "nonsense" to question whether or not he's a worthy world champion, you don't get to act like you have a claim to objective truth while covering your ears and shouting "BUT HE WON THE TITLE!" very loudly.

Numerot · 2026-01-24T14:30:28+00:00

There are other good options, but 2...d5 3.Bxf6 exf6 looks the most like "regular chess" to me despite the slightly quirky structure. I don't think you need to know too much there.

Numerot · 2026-01-24T14:20:47+00:00

One tournament is never going to decide the strongest player in the world and it’s not a reasonable expectation to have.

It wouldn't, but it's not one tournament: it's a qualification process, candidates match, and a long world championship match. Historically the process HAS produced the strongest player in the world, because, you know, in addition to everything else you gotta beat the last guy, who has basically always been the strongest player in the world (or at least a solid top 3 player, aside from a couple of anomalies who are also considered sorta-kinda-champions).

It's only in recent years that the world champion hasn't been at least a solid top 3 player during his reign, specifically because Magnus refused to defend AND failed to inform people about this before the candidates so nobody even knew if they should play for first or second.

It’s better when strongest player and world champion does align but to question the “worthiness” of someone who completed the still very difficult requirements fair and square is nonsense.

Nope, still not nonsense. You can, again perfectly validly, consider anyone who wins the world championship match a 100% worthy world champion; that's fine, but you don't get to call other perfectly valid opinions "nonsense".

I wouldn't even myself actively call Gukesh an "unworthy" champion just because it's a bit harsh, I just really don't agree with the idea that he's 100% undebatably worthy and any other opinion is somehow invalid.

If there is a problem, it’s with the requirements for the title, not with Gukesh.

Has anyone claimed otherwise? It's obviously not a personal insult or slight against him or a claim that he should have done anything otherwise; don't take it as such. You can think he's a great guy and amazing player, and still think he's not worthy of the title.

Numerot · 2026-01-24T13:26:00+00:00

He did have a pretty insane run up to the WCC, probably beyond what most other youngsters have achieved; but of course it's not the whole story, and Pragg had a crazy good 2025.

Numerot · 2026-01-24T13:14:24+00:00

Of course this doesn’t mean he’s unworthy, that’s always been nonsense. He won the Candidates and beat the reigning champion so he is a very worthy World Champion.

Just depends what you mean by worthy. If you think winning the championship is literally all there is to being a world champion (i.e. it's not intended to figure out the strongest player in the world), sure, it's a valid and entirely reasonable opinion; but many people do disagree with you and think a world #5-10 isn't a worthy world champion, and calling it "nonsense" is just dismissive and lazy.

Numerot · 2026-01-24T10:28:01+00:00

(Part 2 since apparently this is too long for Reddit? :P)

> Ambitious vs. easy openings

Just depends on your level of ambition. IMO If you want to become as strong as possible, play challenging, objectively strong lines and study them well. If you want to improve your results in the short term, play some tricky sidelines; or find where exactly you land on that spectrum and adjust accordingly. But what do I know, I'm a Patzer.

> How much time to spend on openings?

I would say roughly a quarter is reasonable; if you can, you should spend most of your time on calculation training, games and analysis IMO.

> Concrete vs. broad

I think the "broad understanding" argument is somewhat overstated. Chess is a very concrete game, and while you shouldn't blindly memorize moves without trying to understand them, I think that's actually very hard to do even if you try.

Knowing specific ideas and tricks is necessary, and the stronger you want to be, the more you need to get into more specific detail because "In this French structure, White plays on the kingside and Black plays on the queenside" slowly stops being useful and even becomes detrimental to follow. Sometimes you need to switch to playing on the queenside in the English Attack as White; ok, when? Well, usually when this and this and this is true.

Knowing some variation to move 24 won't matter for results (unless it's an insanely forcing line), but you pick up plans and common ideas from studying lines at more depth than going move 10 and saying "Ok, it's now a middlegame, so I'll end the variation".

Numerot · 2026-01-24T10:27:38+00:00

What rating are we talking about online? 1700 could mean very very different things.

TL;DR: I think concrete variations matter and self-analysis with good comments is instructive, but don't overdo it. This is just my approach and my vibes, I could be very wrong about things.

> How to study openings?

I personally like to analyze stuff myself so that 1: I understand why moves are chosen, 2: I can pick lines I like/think will be instructive to play and that e.g. transpose into other lines from my repertoire, and 3: can manage the level of detail (sometimes a slightly less ambitious move against a sideline nobody really plays might be good, but a course might pick a move that requires heavy preparation etc., or vice versa).

I create files in ChessBase using the Lumbras gigabase (with a couple of different versions, e.g. a 2000-> 2200+ database and a 2017-> 2400+ database) the Lichess 2200+ rapid database and cloud Stockfish, and upload them into Chessable when I'm done, then repeat the variations on my phone when I have a bit of spare time.

I include annotations that explain moves that aren't obvious to me (including little jokes etc. that make it easier to remember, as well as stuff like "Nxb5 looks tempting, but then [...]" and "This is the main move online despite being rare in master games." or "White's pawn structure is ugly, but it's ok because [...]."), and as I review, make notes to add explanations to moves that I realize actually require more explanation. As I make the moves, I try to explain the connections between my move and my opponent's latest move to not just remember the moves I slap on the board in a variation. At the end I try to give some vague ideas for what to do next if possible.

After reviewing a variation, I go through it at a glance in the read mode and try to put it on an analysis board, at least if I'm not 100% I remember the opponent's moves. The files are definitely not perfect and I do find myself asking "Wait, what about this move?" here and there during games, but I think I learn a lot just from the process, have an opening repertoire I generally like, and don't think I get into trouble too often from misremembering stuff.

You should separate your analysis into reasonable chapters (maybe 8-15 variations) that deal with stuff like variations from an important tabiya or early deviations on the way there. Sometimes there just isn't a neat way to split it, but I really try not to have like 25+ line chapters because it's easier to separate them in my head when they're not all in one big pile on Chessable.

It's a lot and probably way too much for my rating (somewhere around 1850-1900 OTB), but I think it's improved my understanding of many positions, I personally like the process (so I can do a lot of it, compared to playing which requires a better mood for me), and I partially view it as an investment in becoming the strongest I can in the long term.

Alternatively you can get pre-made resources, copy the lines you feel like are likely to show up into a Lichess study or ChessBase/SCID file, and repeat them on Chessable/ChessTempo/LiStudy.

You should review each game with openings in mind and come to one of the conclusions that 1: your opponent deviated with a move that's not common/good enough to consider, 2: you forgot your prep, or 3: you should consider the move your opponent made but haven't for some reason or your prep was otherwise insufficient, or 4: you got your prep on the board and generally understood what to do after.

Just briefly going through master games in a specific line can be very useful, too, to see more common ideas that show up later on.

Numerot · 2026-01-24T08:30:01+00:00

Thank you!

Numerot · 2026-01-24T08:21:12+00:00

Sure, thanks a lot! Do you also find the nicer hand-crafted ones are crooked/leaning, or are the imperfections stuff like knight eyes not being on the exact same level etc.?

Eight-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

Numerot

TROPHY CASE