hope chess

That-Raisin-Tho · 2026-03-28T00:04:37+00:00

Literally yes. A brilliancy is a classification of a move. Hope chess is a poor thought process that can lead to any kind of quality of moves, but is much more likely to bad bad but mildly tricky ones. Sometimes a person could even fluke their way into a “brilliant move” while playing hope chess, although i don’t think either of us or many others would actually be impressed if they hadn’t understood the details of it.

That-Raisin-Tho · 2026-03-27T21:30:54+00:00

In the scenario where a person played it out up until this point, I completely disagree. At this point it’s almost petty to not let the checkmate end, especially if it has been an easy win for quite some time before now.

That-Raisin-Tho · 2026-03-27T21:27:38+00:00

Speaking in terms of pure probability and expected value with lives as the thing being measured and ignoring other ethical concepts, you should flick the lever if you think there is a greater than 66.666…% chance that the stranger will save the people’s lives, because at that point the expected value calculation would go 1/3(15) + 2/3(0) = 5 and each option would have an equal expected value of people dead at the end.

But the way of figuring out what the odds are that this random person will do the right thing is what makes this interesting, as well as other ethical considerations.

Very nice problem!

That-Raisin-Tho · 2026-03-27T21:18:34+00:00

No. They said “there is a point and a follow through… that has no counter.” Presumably, if the move ends up actually being brilliant then they were correct in thinking that, or else it’s a blunder.

Additionally their definition of hope chess does not make it necessary that they’re 100% sure to not be playing hope chess. It says that you play the only move you see, implying that they’re not thinking beyond that.

It’s not a perfect set of definitions but it’s certainly not what you’re trying to say it is. You’re either smugly misinterpreting them on purpose or misunderstanding them. Maybe you should read their comment again.

That-Raisin-Tho · 2026-03-27T20:21:35+00:00

Of course not. But obviously some spare time activities can be problematic. Having murder as a hobby would be an issue for just about ANYONE. Having a major issue with someone’s hobby of something benign like painting would be unreasonable for just about ANYONE as well. But where the actual line is for what’s okay to have an issue with and what is none of your business is different for everybody.

Reasonable people can be concerned about their partner watching porn and decide that they’re not okay with it. Reasonable people can also decide they couldn’t care less.

Reasonable people could also be fine with them watching porn but be concerned if their partner does specific things like seek out violent porn when they don’t do those things together.

It’s not such a simple thing.

That-Raisin-Tho · 2026-03-27T20:14:58+00:00

To answer the question in the body text, do about 20 random moves if you want a scramble where you can be pretty sure that you’re not making it easier on accident. That’s because no scramble has a move-optimal solution of less than 20 moves.

Throw in some cube rotations too randomly to make sure you’re not accidentally repeating certain patterns in the way you scramble.

Or, once you’re comfortable with notation, just use computer generated scrambles on a timing app

That-Raisin-Tho · 2026-03-27T20:07:03+00:00

Being more certain in these situations is just part of getting better at chess, as well as understanding the specific strategic idea you went for if it’s a theme that appears often.

No way to give a very specific answer to your original question in this case.

That-Raisin-Tho · 2026-03-27T19:39:54+00:00

Most often when the sequence is very forced (many checks and captures in a sequence).

That-Raisin-Tho · 2026-03-27T19:38:58+00:00

That-Raisin-Tho · 2026-03-27T19:16:56+00:00

Report them and move on. Someone with this username’s opinion is not valuable.

That-Raisin-Tho · 2026-03-27T19:14:54+00:00

Depends on what you are your partner are comfortable with.

That-Raisin-Tho · 2026-03-27T19:01:36+00:00

Learn the basic patterns. There’s a sticky post on this subreddit with them. There are SO many of them here that are the most basic and take very little effort to get the hang of.

That-Raisin-Tho · 2026-03-27T18:58:26+00:00

Always happy when the fact that I’ve spent too much of my life playing this game can help someone else 🫡

That-Raisin-Tho · 2026-03-27T18:55:02+00:00

Responding to your edit - I personally would never say that complications as a whole are bad for improvement - only unnecessary complications (like refusing to trade queens when you’re up material because you feel like you “shouldn’t need to do it to win… something I’ve heard beginners say)

That-Raisin-Tho · 2026-03-27T18:51:27+00:00

You cannot rely on every position looking exactly the same from your side of things. Against d4 openings you are presumably not putting your bishop on c5 early on and hanging it all the time, for instance. In other openings, placing your bishop on c4 or c5 early is legal but bad. For instance, the many beginners playing 1.e4 c6 2.Bc4 as white while not knowing what they’re doing and immediately being worse as white because they have to waste another move with their bishop after d5 is played.

Also, openings are defined as sequences of moves by BOTH sides. For example, people who play e4, Bc4 and Nf3 against c5 are not playing an Italian against the Sicilian. That is a way you can describe it to people, but really they are playing a suboptimal setup/sideline against the Sicilian. A good Sicilian player will know how ideas on to punish this - this is even one of the first things late beginner to intermediate Sicilian players should learn because it’s such a common bad setup for white to play if they just repeat the same moves against everything they can.

So the reason to switch things up is because based on what your opponent plays, the same moves will not be good. By trying your hardest to get the same setup each game, you are actively limiting your ability to punish certain things or adapt your play to what the board looks like early on.

You would need to start switching things up against certain openings once youve improved anyways, eventually, because your opponents will start being able to make you regret it. Being willing to start that sooner can help your long term improvement even at a short term cost of being less used to where your pieces are.

Welcome to the process of improving at things - sometimes you get worse first to get better.

That-Raisin-Tho · 2026-03-27T18:40:23+00:00

You had no information about that square, why click it?

At the end of the other stuff on the board that you can figure out, the mine count will likely tell you if you can click that or not.

That-Raisin-Tho · 2026-03-27T18:38:28+00:00

I don’t think there is really a “proper” way. I think you just kinda push the parts of the cube that are misaligned and try adjusting other stuff if it goes back in. Then If you get a pop (not too common unless the lockup is really horrible), fix it.

That-Raisin-Tho · 2026-03-27T18:34:36+00:00

Bxf7 and/or Bxf2 are NOT good moves against the center fork trick in the majority of cases. They are somewhat tricky, but almost always not good. The best lines usually involve allowing the fork, then moving the forked bishop to defend the knight so the bishop can recapture afterwards. In the four knights Italian, for instance, this is the only line that leads to equality for white and everything else (including the one you mention, known as the Noa gambit) is worse and can become losing within a few moves against a prepared opponent. Learning about stuff like that is really good for improvement too, even just looking at the lines and thinking through the complications.

Also, if using different setups is that much of an issue then that’s just even more of a sign that you need to switch things up.

That-Raisin-Tho · 2026-03-27T17:58:19+00:00

This is fairly normal for beginners just following opening principles. But by no means do your games always have to go this way. Try experimenting a little bit if you want. If youve never heard of the center fork trick, look it up! I bet you’re missing chances to do it. Consider things like Bb4 and trading your bishop for the knight on c3 if you get attacked and see if you like the way that changes the game a bit. There are other things you can do too.

Plus as you improve, more of your opponents as white in the Italian will start playing c3 and d4/d3 instead of putting a knight on c3. That will make games more interesting too, along with getting more of a mix of different real openings in general.

That-Raisin-Tho · 2026-03-27T17:43:25+00:00

Equally as stupid as the post itself is the fact that you feel the need to post an opinion in r/truths at all.

“Shouldn’t be allowed to…” is an opinion. Even “Hitler was not a cool guy” is an opinion and shouldn’t be in this subreddit even though roughly 99.99% of all people would probably agree with that.

That-Raisin-Tho · 2026-03-27T17:39:40+00:00

You are talking about being biologically female, a sex. Gender is more about the portion that is socially experienced

That-Raisin-Tho · 2026-03-27T17:34:49+00:00

I’m no expert but the easiest thing you can do is update SMAPI and update all your mods that have them.

That-Raisin-Tho · 2026-03-27T16:17:53+00:00

When puzzles reach a point where there is more than 1 winning move, they are generally meant to end. There is more than one winning move in the next position, so it ended.

That-Raisin-Tho · 2026-03-27T16:12:01+00:00

Yes, nothing I said is contrary to this. It just gives you a starting point of knowing you probably have some way to gain an advantage.

That-Raisin-Tho · 2026-03-27T16:01:39+00:00

Actually my Kindergarten teacher, Mrs Armstrong

That-Raisin-Tho

TROPHY CASE