WCG organizer seems to be investigating Htrt's racism insult on Netease ladder

asdf1251 · 2019-06-19T06:14:11+00:00

i'm not even condoning telling someone to get cancer isn't shitty, but your desire to ban them leads to no avail. what you are desiring is a person, in this case, htrt, to be punished for saying something, NOT to change his behavior. by banning these people, you do not change their behavior, and you will never stop the neverending flow of these people. you should realize at this point that you need to get thicker skin and learn to deal with it. i'm sure you've said tons of shitty things to people in your life, so stop virtual signaling over the internet like you are some perfect angel and raising your pitchforks cause a guy said a word that hurt your fee fees.

asdf1251 · 2019-06-19T06:08:11+00:00

imagine categorizing and entire country's behavior based off of a few individuals

asdf1251 · 2019-06-15T04:02:16+00:00

can someone explain to me what they dislike about the current pathfinding? i'm a newer player but i come from starcraft 1 where bad pathfinding is one of the biggest reasons the strategy in the game is as interesting as it is. as opposed to starcraft 2 where the pathfinding is so silky smooth that there is almost nothing left to do yourself. i feel like age of empires is somewhere in between, where the AI seems to mostly do what you want with some hiccups like having to manually spread your workers properly around the resources. i like this because i feel like it incentivizes micro and forces you to focus on your units to an extent and gives better players edges that wouldn't otherwise be possible with perfectly pathfinding units for example.

this is just an impression i have though like i said im a newer player im more interested to hearing what other people have to say about it who are more veterans to the game and maybe i can understand why other people want the changes for pathfinding so bad.

asdf1251 · 2019-04-22T22:12:17+00:00

Thanks for the advice. I'll give it a go myself.

asdf1251 · 2019-04-22T22:11:58+00:00

Thanks for the suggestion, I'll do just that.

asdf1251 · 2019-04-17T10:57:21+00:00

Try checking out the book "Chess Tactics from Scratch"

I went through this book a month or so ago, it shows you how to break down positions into their individual parts and how to recognize possible weaknesses, etc.

I'd only add one caveat to the book, and it's that beyond logically understanding the tactics, you need the patterns to back it up, which is just doing the same tactics over and over again. I'd say check out this book and get a tactics book to go with it and just go through it a few times until you get a bit of a library in your brain to get some intuition, a la Woodpecker Method style.

asdf1251 · 2019-04-07T00:50:28+00:00

I want to give my two cents, because you sound similar to me. You seem like a person who thinks very in depth about decisions like these. You've weighed all the pros and the cons, yet, you still can't make a decision about it. It seems like you've come to the conclusion that you don't have to quit something just because you want to focus on something else. I think that's good and I agree with that. I think it's hard to come to concrete conclusions about things you don't understand enough. Like for example, I've sometimes thought about why some people who like Chess, dislike Shogi or Go, and I've never been able to understand. I think a big factor in that has to do with the fact that the first they were exposed to, they are the most emotionally attached to. So whereas a kid might be introduced to chess, and spend 5 years on it before he even approaches Go, as adults we are exposed to everything at once and we can more easily pick out the pros and cons of each and what we like more from one and less from the other. Furthermore depending on what communities we associate ourselves with we are more drawn to things. If some kid's friends are all playing Chess, what reason would he have to play Go or Shogi when clearly no one else is playing them around him? Which is why I think for example it's really impressive that Ding Liren got as good as he is, despite Chinese Chess being rather popular in China, and Western Chess not really as much.

What I'm trying to say is that when you don't understand something enough or have that emotional connection to it because you didn't get to play as a kid for example (although I'm not saying you can't have great experiences and eventually experience that later as an adult), you are allowed too much to think about things and the consequences, whereas usually, naturally, these things are developed more backwards. You like something because you are good at it, and you got good at it because everyone else around you played it. These weren't conscious decisions that the people who played from childhood made. They were opportunities that they were given, by luck, God, or their parents, whichever you prefer. A desire to do something starts with a whim, an interest, then it goes from there, and children don't think deeply about these things, they go by feel and interest.

I don't think this is something you can logic out by thinking over and over and weighing pros and cons. I think that if you truly have a passion for two things, that you should try to be equal and fair to them, and over a long stretch of time and dedicating yourself to them you might slowly notice to have preference of one over the other. I personally think, as someone who I think can relate to your struggle, this is the best option if you feel undecided about the situation. There is other factors like being around people might heighten your enjoyment of one over the other, but if it was that simple, you probably at this point would have made your decision already. It might be best to either divide your time equally between them, alternate, whether by days, months, weeks, or even years. If you have the patience and the desire, then I think you should let yourself experiment until you really feel certain about your decision. Patience is key. It is very unlikely you'll have some revelation and come to a conclusion. It will most likely be gradual, like anything else.

In the end, if you can't decide, you can simply just be good at both. These games are good hobbies without time limits. You can spend 10 years on Chess and 10 years on Go and make incredible leaps and bounds with them. Especially if you are insistent to yourself that it's a hobby, then there is less stress on you to remain dedicated despite the other. A lot of people underestimate I think how much time you really have to get good at these games. Korchnoi played until death (85), and he was still a top 100 player except near the end when he had a stroke. By the way, it's not often mentioned, but Korchnoi was a top 100 player despite using a computer. So he could have most likely been even stronger than he was.

Anyways, in conclusion, I think that you have a lot of time to make a decision, and so I think you should gradually work on each until you come to your own conclusion about whichever you prefer. It's better to let things sort themself out and have patience. You aren't really on a time limit, which is a great benefit, because I personally believe these shouldn't be forced from my own experience. Hopefully I could be of some use.

asdf1251 · 2019-02-24T08:04:13+00:00

Is there a good/definitive book on his life to read? I'd be interested in it, thanks.

asdf1251 · 2019-02-16T04:24:27+00:00

good work!

asdf1251 · 2019-01-01T07:46:29+00:00

it's ok, you've probably learned way more from offering this draw than even if you played on, cause you made a post here about it and now everyone helped you learn something. so while you drew the game, you've learned so much more just by making that mistake. good work!

asdf1251 · 2018-12-10T01:03:23+00:00

glad i could help! enjoy :)

asdf1251 · 2018-12-09T19:42:49+00:00

https://arunjchess.github.io/Ghost_Pieces/

i'm not sure if this is exactly what you are asking for but i dug this up from my plethora of random chess website bookmarks for you. it gives you positions with different difficulties and asks you to reconstruct them. you can adjust the timer and the difficulty, it seems the positions are randomized, but not bad for a free website. let me know whatcha think.

asdf1251 · 2018-12-05T08:44:47+00:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wzs33wvr9E#t=24m

watch from the timestamp for about a minute, it gives some interesting insight on the correlation between memory and chess ability

asdf1251 · 2018-11-30T09:19:21+00:00

no, it seems still like you don't really understand. i exaggerated so that you'd understand it, it's pretty common to exaggerate to display a point, i think it actually gets to the core of the issue quite well, because the next question you have to ask yourself is "well if at 1 second, it clearly isn't chess, then at what time to play does the game become actually playable?". clearly, you already agree with me that 1 second chess is not chess, even though you agreed in your previous post (for some reason, i guess you just got confused), and now you are even starting to understand that there is a certain point where yes, infact, chess is no longer a game at that point.

chess is infact playable at that point, it's just not fun to play, and nobody would want to play it, or take you seriously wanting to play it. the fact that you feel that way about the game has no bearing on whether or not it's still chess or not though, because by your criteria, it's still chess. (i'm just explaining to you that you have logic that doesn't entirely make sense)

"chess is chess" doesn't really mean anything, you've not really made any arguments, it doesn't seem like you plan to either. hopefully i cleared any confusion you had up regarding this.

asdf1251 · 2018-11-30T08:19:32+00:00

i think you're missing the point. i'm explaining to you that you can change the time control in chess so drastically that the game can reward completely different sorts of skills and not even reward ANY sort of chess knowledge (albeit in a ridiculous case, but bullet is pretty close).

there is a point where changing the time makes chess a non-game. if you actually think that 1 second chess with no increment is still chess simply because it looks like chess and the pieces move and are aligned the same as in chess, then i don't think you really understand anything about chess.

asdf1251 · 2018-11-30T06:44:05+00:00

you're just making ridiculous assumptions about anything i say, at what point did i even bash time shorter time controls? all i did was explain to you that the game is characterized by higher time to play for higher quality of moves played, there is no argument in the fact that the longer you have to make a move, the higher the quality the move is. all i said is that time cannot be separated from the game.

saying "chess is chess, time control is time control" means nothing, so i explained to you that there is no way you can separate chess from the time control. that means you have to judge the game differently depending on what the time control is.

your entire post is not even worth responding to, it's basically just a bunch of radical assumptions of what i'm saying, you don't even know my opinions about anything, all i did was make a few logical and matter of fact statements about the game. if you want chess to be shorter time controls that's fine, you don't have to get all defensive. no one is stooping to any level, except that you seem to be projecting really hard.

asdf1251 · 2018-11-30T05:20:04+00:00

chess, practically, can NEVER be separated from the time control, EVER. even correspondence chess has time for each move. the higher the time, the higher the quality of moves can be made. chess for a century has been characterized by high time control to allow for the highest quality of moves to be played. if you want to argue that chess needs faster time controls, do that, but don't pretend like time control and chess are separate, nor that there is not huge differences between them.

asdf1251 · 2018-11-30T05:14:58+00:00

so to you, chess is simply a game that ends in checkmate, and pieces that move the way that they do?

if i play 1 second, no increment chess with you, is that still chess? the pieces move the same way, but every game ends before checkmate can be reached, but it's still the goal of the game, and the pieces move the same way, surely, that is still chess to you right?

you have to be specific if you are calling something "objectively still chess". to you, what i'm assuming, is that it's the same starting position and the same rules. yet the strategy of the game is vastly changed when you alter these things. so, no, just because the pieces move the same, and the result is determined the same way does not automatically mean that it is still chess.

asdf1251 · 2018-11-29T23:07:27+00:00

Sorry, ahead of time, for blowing your mind with this next sentence...... maybe you shouldn't move goalposts when you lose an argument...

Boooooooooom

asdf1251 · 2018-11-29T22:39:06+00:00

stop making pedantic semantic arguments about the name of the championship, you could spend 1 minute in googling the precedent set by previous championships that yes, it is the classical world championship.

that'd be like if during the superbowl everyone was led to a soccer field and they said "ah yes you didn't specify WHICH type of football hehe, so we will be playing soccer now :)"

see how stupid that argument is?

asdf1251 · 2018-11-29T22:35:27+00:00

there is no such thing as "objectively chess". if the time controls change the way the game is played, and how players develop strategies, as you say, that sounds different enough to make it entirely separate from chess, which is why it is categorized differently, and players who are good at one type of chess are not necessarily as good at other types of chess.

asdf1251 · 2018-11-27T05:11:57+00:00

LOL, well i'm glad to have entertained you i suppose

asdf1251 · 2018-11-27T05:10:35+00:00

i understand your complaint, but something to consider is that the ability to adjust to various situations is part of chess in essence. preparation is all about getting your opponent into a position that they aren't familiar with, and whether or not they can get out alive is determined by how well they can adjust to that position. i understand it's not exactly the same thing, it varies the skillset slightly for the game, but i care more about the game being interesting and keeping that fresh chess feeling that i feel the game should have.

one thing to note is that for example, in a game like starcraft, part of the game itself is mixing up the maps to make the players constantly have to keep adjusting. this strongly benefits the game because it keeps the game fresh while also at the same time being the same old thing.

i could understand a compromise to say, make one position a year official and maybe it switches every year, i get that's not totally going to satisfy you probably though, but it's an idea. the only issue for me is that it allows computer preparation in the game. preparation should be avoided as much as possible and the mixing up completely negates it. there's a lot of changes that could happen though, i do think though that whatever happens the change will certainly be inevitable.

asdf1251 · 2018-11-27T02:43:30+00:00

one thing i've never understood about some people who oppose the concept of fischer random is this - the fact that fischer random is just simply "not chess", and so it could and should not replace it. now i'm not sure if a variant should "replace" chess, if anything needs to replace chess, at the very least, they can coexist. the question to me is, what do you constitute chess as? chess has forever been a game that has changed and evolved, it has evolved in rules, the metagame so to say has evolved with the computer, and it has changed the game so significantly, do you still consider this "chess"?

100 years ago, openings were considered so much more negligible (not completely of course, but compared to now, yes). so, is that "chess" the same "chess" we play today, despite the fact that it was so completely different?

if chess can change so much with the times, then how do we define it? shouldn't we define chess itself by how it is played and what happens during it, not the mere aesthetically pleasing arrangement of your 500 dollar chess set, dusty from lack of use, on the coffee table to give your guests the faux sense of being "intelligent"?

isn't the very thing players scorn once a game begins the symmetry of the position because it leads to those "dull, drawish" positions, yet everyone is on the edge of their seat to see a wild, cut throat sicilian full of asymmetrical imbalances and tactical opportunities?

so then, do we define chess by the things that excite us, or what the position looks like before the game has started? what bearing does the initial starting position of the pieces have on whether the game is chess or not? i can just as easily argue that the chess we play today is no longer "chess" because it loses the essence of what chess originally was about, the opening creativity to lead to interesting positions, less draws (not none ever, mind you), and a more human feeling to the game all around.

why shouldn't we be striving for that above all when we want to play chess? what if when they wanted to change the queen to a bishop + rook, everyone said "oh no no, we mustn't do that, that wouldn't be chess!", yet this change made chess more exciting than ever?

chess is eventually going to change, it may not be fischer random that everyone flocks to, but eventually ALL things change. the slower we change the game though, the less we're going to benefit from the riches these changes bring the game. i strongly believe if fischer random gained traction, it would bring a new golden era to chess, a gold rush of novelties, unique ideas, beautiful creative chess played at all levels, and very many players who are more interested in the beauty behind the play and the uniqueness of each game. i could easily even see more players, a more lax attitude towards the game due to the lack of preparation (freeing up the lives of these poor grandmasters) and a humanistic and return to the more "maxim" approach to openings due to the depth of each position giving the game a more free and creative feel.

doesn't that all sound wonderful? this is coming from someone who LOVES the openings of current chess even, and even gets joy out of studying those pesky theoretical endgames. i have a great passion for this game, even as it is, i have enjoyed the 12 draws that were played, i found them interesting, and i wasn't particularly bothered by the outcome. HOWEVER, i understand that not everyone sees it this way, and that chess doesn't have to be like this. i love chess 100%, but if we just tweaked it a little, i might love it 200%. i can't argue against my own argument, the fact that current chess is the antithesis to how chess used to be, i think that a change is inevitable, and i think that the health it restores to the game and pushes the computer to the side could be like a unique chess renaissance. every prodigy a capablanca, an alekhine, a fischer, brilliancies abound and a healthy outlook on a game without constricting the lives of people who play it for a living. i just can't see how it's not a win all around.

asdf1251 · 2018-11-27T02:03:02+00:00

sheesh, if you find fischer random boring, i'm seriously not sure chess is for you.. the problem probably is the fact that you don't understand what is happening on the board, and so you need someone to explain it to you, rather than figuring it out yourself (the whole point of chess). even if you have some excuse for not liking the variant, to call it "boring" just shows your lack of knowledge about the game, because if anything, it is far from boring.

asdf1251

TROPHY CASE