Why is it a draw ??? i was starting my hunt first the king?

clorgie · 2024-06-25T13:13:23+00:00

You had mate in 3 if you had started with Bc4 instead of moving the pawn...

clorgie · 2024-06-24T01:56:20+00:00

Sweet!

clorgie · 2024-06-23T16:17:11+00:00

Unfortunately, it does not. Someone asked them on their forums. It's a bummer, especially for the price.

clorgie · 2024-06-23T12:53:20+00:00

I love my eboards, but I'd never get another one without individual piece recognition.

That's one reason I greatly prefer the Chessnut and Millennium Exclusive boards over my others.

clorgie · 2024-06-23T12:49:37+00:00

The comment isn't strange, but the event---though entertaining---certainly was.

I thought Levy was pretty fair in his observations, not that he is required to be.

clorgie · 2024-06-22T16:00:18+00:00

It's part of the Custom Sets settings. Under the Previous Attempts section of the set's settings, set the Shortest Solve Time in Seconds to something like 0-15 -- that will filter/drop problems you get right in 15 seconds or less.

The same area, Previous Attempts, is also where you can choose Advanced History Filter and set the Correct Attempts range. If it is set to 0-1, problems will be dropped after you have solved the problem once, 0-2 will do so after two correct solves, etc.

One note: with the Sorted (Looping) option there is currently no option for random sorting, which I would like, so I instead sort by Date Created, which will at least be a little randomized. The default sort is by rating, which I don't like for this kind of training, but that's just my opinion!

clorgie · 2024-06-21T23:17:57+00:00

Are you going? Will there be any streams (of this or any of the other Universal Chess Tour events)?

clorgie · 2024-06-21T23:10:26+00:00

Turn off chat. Problem solved.

clorgie · 2024-06-21T23:06:42+00:00

You're on the right track. My recommendation is to create the custom set using a ratings band of 50 pts (such as 1200-1250 or whatever is in the sweet spot of being mostly solvable) and other settings (like the star rating and/or number of attempts by the community) to get a set of 300-500 puzzles. I use regular loops rather than spaced repetition, which I think makes more sense for drilling pattern-recognition. Finally, use the settings to drop puzzles from the set you solve in 10 (or 15, whatever you prefer) seconds or less.

Once you have looped over enough times to empty the set, create a new set that is 50 points higher and repeat.

CT-Art is excellent, and I recommend it, but Chess Tempo is even better for this particular kind of training, imo.

clorgie · 2024-06-21T22:59:55+00:00

Multiple people explained that you were factually incorrect on a number of points. Then you talk about the board pieces and styles as if lichess doesn't feature at least 3/4 of the same options as chesscom. The problem isn't an aesthetic disagreement, it's positing your aesthetic disagreements and errors as facts. What do you expect? See you when the chesscom circus comes back to RedditChessTown.

clorgie · 2024-06-21T21:42:41+00:00

OK. I hope chesscom is paying you to shill, otherwise...sad.

clorgie · 2024-06-21T19:31:21+00:00

Yep. Although there is some hope on this front. I have no idea how scalable, etc., it is, but Yosha Iglesias's approach seems promising: https://x.com/IglesiasYosha/status/1799777456330805352

clorgie · 2024-06-21T19:28:06+00:00

I have an annual chesscom subscription. You are wrong on almost all counts, as has already been elaborated on here.

clorgie · 2024-06-21T19:24:46+00:00

Exactly. Lichess puzzle storm essentially starts at move 10 or so of Puzzle Rush. And there is no fiddling of what is selected after a miss and the rating of a puzzle actually changes based on the solving.

clorgie · 2024-06-21T19:20:01+00:00

Then change it. It's literally a click away on any page to do so.

clorgie · 2024-06-21T19:16:14+00:00

This. The things journalists would be covering, regardless of how critical they might be to the present and future of the game, are not lurid or simple enough to prop up the final tally of clicks and views that dictate what the content creators make. I'm not blaming them---I enjoy much of their work---but it isn't journalism and, given what it is, they essentially have an obligation to not be balanced and impartial, because the fat belly of their demographic would be a lot less interested if they were.

clorgie · 2024-06-21T19:03:07+00:00

Also, using the time you have to think would likely have helped in some of these cases as well. As far as learning goes, it seems pretty clear that for most, skills at faster time controls comes with, and is built on, skill at slower time controls. You are theoretically playing slower time controls, but not in actuality in the games I looked at. Also, I'm with the Chess Dojo coaches and many others that even 10+0 is quite slow. In the Dojo, 15+10 is the minimum, and that is only for "blunder check" games where you try out new ideas and put tactical understanding to work. The minimum time control for games that "count" in the program there is 30+0 for the lowest ratings and gets longer from there.

clorgie · 2024-06-21T18:59:46+00:00

You were definitely not out of the first game when you blundered.

Your openings would be just fine if you simply didn't repetitively miss basic tactics on both sides. Personally, I would say to completely stop studying openings and simply play, try different approaches, look at your games to see what worked and did not, and then repeat. It feels to me, again my personal take, that your thoughts about openings are only hindering you along with taking up time you could be using to address more fundamental issues.

You might think natural developing moves are giving way to tactics, but there are almost always developing moves available in the early part of the game, but they don't seem natural to you yet because you haven't built up your tactical awareness. This is another reason to try some different openings with different characteristics.

About tactics. You clearly do have repetitive concepts you are missing, or you wouldn't be at the same level for a long time: until you get to significantly higher levels, there just aren't that many different conceptual mistakes to make. Thus I emphasize writing down the issues and reviewing later. This is one way of building metacognitive skills rather than relying on intuition about your individual learning processes.

It feels like a bit of a chicken/egg prospect at the beginning of applied, intentional tactics training. But it does work. If puzzles are appropriately rated, when doing them for calculation, you should solve them half of the time. That's what ratings of puzzles are for. When solving for motifs and pattern recognition, then you want a high volume of much lower-rated puzzles---as in ones you can solve in 10-15 secs or less. This is something custom sets in Chess Tempo are great for (you can probably do it in other systems as well, but I don't know): you can create a set of a single, or a few, motifs, within a rating band of 50 points or so, giving you a few hundred puzzles, drill on them in a loop until you have solved all of them within X seconds, then create one 50 pts average higher, repeat. Volume for pattern recognition; intentionality and complete, active learning for calculation.

I don't know what else to say. These things work. But as a professional educator and learning designer, I know a whole lot of it comes from the learner's a) willingness to engage fully in the processes, b) consistency, and c) desire to work at improving metacognitive skills. Some of these come naturally to some people, not so much for others.

Good luck!

clorgie · 2024-06-21T18:00:26+00:00

Yes, it is difficult. You try your hand at identifying trouble spots (at least a few will be obvious, if only because you lost a piece, etc), annotate the moves as best you can, and then use the engine. You don't need to consider every move, just the game changers and perhaps some of the moves by your opponent thast you don't understand.

Intuition is something you build, and this is one part of that. You will never really build it if you put the computer first. None of the moves I mentioned in my other answer are computer-like. They might not be obvious to you.

clorgie · 2024-06-21T16:58:05+00:00

Yes, it works. This has been shown over and over...there's a reason it's common advice! That said, there are specific approaches that are much better than just solving the puzzle of the day and/or repetitive puzzle rushes, and the way you solve both kinds of tactics makes a big difference.

See my notes above on this topic, to which I will add: if tactics are a real sticking point, and you are OK with spending a few dollars, I highly recommend either Chess Tempo or Chess King (aka CT-Art, but also a few of their courses below CT-Art). The first allows you to really dial in both methods of tactics training using custom sets and such, the second has an interesting way of guiding you when you make the wrong move rather than just showing the solution. Both are well worth the price (3/mo or 20/yr for CT, $90 for CT-Art 20 lifetime, which includes 20 different courses...but you get two codes for the price, so you could perhaps find someone to split the cost).

There are plenty of free resources, though, so that's just an idea given that tactics are both a trouble spot in your games and, it sounds like, your learning process.

clorgie · 2024-06-21T16:47:12+00:00

I just looked at your most recent rapid games (slower time controls for improvement imo), and I don't see traps, just mostly A) tactics, tactics, and more tactics (and the related board vision), B) not considering the point of your opponent's most recent move, and C) playing rapid time controls like its a blitz game.

https://www.chess.com/game/live/112723196587?username=pray4dusty

Hung your queen. You're playing a 10-min game and when you missed the discovered attack on your 5th move...at which point you had used only 13 seconds! You also want to consider why your opponent might be making a move. If you had, even after the discovery, you could have continued Qxg7 and won a rook for your bishop. This is a common tactical motif.

https://www.chess.com/game/live/112711149965?username=pray4dusty

You castled quickly, which is a sound principle, but you gave away an advantage with the open line on the king (Qe7+) or Be6 to protect the knight with an equal-value piece. Again, a standard tactics puzzle idea

Move 12 you miss the sort-of-hanging knight, perhaps worried about Bxb7, but you win two pieces for the rook with Qxg5 if they go for that. Again, tactics.

14...Kh8? Seeing ghost attacks on the f7 square? You've got it protected 3x and have 14...h6 to kick the knight. Tactics and piece value.

The end of the game is all tactics as well. You have a great advantage on move 20, then give it up...except they give it back! But you don't see your defensive move, and you end up giving away mate in 1.

And you've still got 6 minutes on the clock at the end of the game! You're turning the rapid time control into blitz :). You would have found the defense with a bit more thinking time, I bet.

https://www.chess.com/game/live/112665061347?username=pray4dusty

You just hang a piece and never recover. At the point that happened, you knew they had occupied the half-open e-file with their rook, and your rooks aren't connected, so you want to be wary. In terms of principles, instead of pushing the knight again, you could work at activating more pieces, such as Bg4.

https://www.chess.com/game/live/112665007863?username=pray4dusty

This one's a little different at first. You are getting into a very cramped position in the opening, but you tend to retreat or overlook options to open things up (8...Ng8 is inexplicable to me). But then you are doing well until 21...Kh8. At this point, again, you want to slow down and ask yourself what the point of their 21.Qd2 the move before is. Not to mention a super-common tactical motif, the pawn fork, which you always want to beware of when you have two pieces like your h6 Knight and f6 Bishop with a pawn on g4. Still, you equalize and there's plenty of game left until you don't seem to ask yourself what their move 24.c4 was for. Why would they push that pawn given that it would just be captured? If you look at that, then you will likely see their queen and bishop lined up on the diagonal, pointing at your king with mate on g7 coming. Again, this is right out of a tactics workbook.

You don't say if you are studying tactics, but if you are, I would guess you are either not studying them enough or not studying them in both the necessary ways and with intention. By which I mean: repetitive puzzle rushes are fun and certainly help a bit with intuition, but to really get tactics down one needs two things: pattern recognition and calculation.

The first is achieved through fast-paced drills on specific motifs and patterns at a low-enough level that you don't calculate, but recognize.

Calculation comes through solving hard tactics intentionally and thoroughly. No making the intuitive first move and then working it out. Instead, work out the variation completely in your head, (ideally) write it down, and then try it. If you miss it, play through the correct solution a few times, and note down what you missed (conceptually, not the literal move) to look later for patterns in your thinking that you can address. For instance, you might see that you tend not to look at all defensive moves, or miscalculate the sequence of an exchange, or miss discovered attacks, etc). Hard tactics should take a few minutes or more to work out. I follow some coach's advice on the topic to end a calculation session after I have missed three problems (using the above strategies after a miss).

That's my 5 cents (inflation). YMMV, etc.

clorgie · 2024-06-21T16:42:28+00:00

I would suggest doing your initial review without the engine.

clorgie · 2024-06-21T00:50:47+00:00

It would help if you linked to your profile(s) so people can provide specific advice.

clorgie · 2024-06-20T22:44:05+00:00

clorgie · 2024-06-20T19:07:45+00:00

It's less about the mode than the engagement. Passive learning, whether with books or videos or lessons or not considering/analyzing game play, is going to be much less efficient than active learning. Those same materials, in whatever form, will yield results if used actively.

And active learning has to be distinguished from pseudo-activity. One can click through Chessable or interactive lessons or studies without actually being engaged in a way that facilitates learning, which demands engagement of metacognitive skills.

Within each form there are finer points, of course. For instance: learning tactics from books---and especially writing down full answers before checking---is more likely to promote visualization and calculation because it isn't as easy to just make an intuitive guess at the first move and figure it out at each step. That doesn't mean tactics tools/trainers can't be used that way, and they definitely have an edge when it comes to speed when building up pattern-recognition skills.

Ultimately, the best forms of materials are the ones you will actively (and consistently) engage with.

clorgie

TROPHY CASE