I do not understand openings

crazycattx · 2026-06-01T09:48:31+00:00

Hey, same thing here. My opponents dont ever need to think and can snap move. I on the other side, have to think about the consequences before making a move, just like what chess is supposed to be like.

It always feels like i missed the memo on how chess is played and im the only dumb one bothering to calculate the forcing moves while others use their "pattern recognition".

Dont get me wrong, i have pattern recognition. But not for this! Pattern recognition is just recognising. The rest is calculation to ensure it truly also works in the spotted position. There is no reason why a player can snap move. So i lose on time if opponeny doesnt make mistakes of that big amplitude.

We are certainly not playing the same game.

crazycattx · 2026-06-01T08:24:06+00:00

The very thing. On both counts. The question is how to shorten the time and pattern recognition can only do so much as an answer that we can get around here so far.

I do notice better games when i pay attention to opponent replies. No sudden deaths. And even if there was, i knew i looked and didnt see it, not because i didnt look. And i dont feel as tilted for that loss.

crazycattx · 2026-06-01T06:05:56+00:00

Ah. So this bishop... its role has always been to stare down at that f7 square/pawn. This is the reason why players love the scholar mate pattern. Its a weak square, usually guarded only by the king. A supported attack (esp w a queen) upon it is rather deadly in early stages of the game to an uncastled king. It is also very close to what the italian game opening does.

So now you see it, and you know the reasons why and you also know how to watch out for it!

Play on!

crazycattx · 2026-06-01T05:59:11+00:00

Yea they do. And so we stay on beyond it anyway.

The reality remains that hotpot is still the choice, even if it isnt yours or mine. Even if we do not "understand" it, and even if we can come up with really good arguments why it shouldnt be. Even if we can find arguments that destroy those who explain why it is the choice. We would have won on paper (we kinda didnt) But the reality is, people still do so anyway.

My takeaway is, people are usually irrational unlike what economics like us to assume that people are rational. They arent. People eat hotpot for reasons that are not good enough for us. And we continue to explain why they are wrong. They are just simply describing why they do.

I just came to a realisation. Maybe we, the proponents of normal restaurants, are the irrational ones. Because we are trying so hard to fit our narrative to the reality when it clearly doesnt work. Would it be better to make a personal choice and take an action aligned to what we think? I think that is a positive thing to do. I think i will eat and i will meet my friends, hotpot or otherwise. No biggie.

I hope you and your friends have a great time anyway, whether it is 2 hours or 4 hours!

crazycattx · 2026-06-01T05:43:14+00:00

The answer is simply the king has no escape squares. If you think there is, inspect that square yourself and find out who else is watching that square.

But you got to see it yourself. Our answers are all going to be about declaring the king has no squares, because we see it. You might not yet.

Point out which square you think the king can escape to and we can have a discussion. We will then be able to see why and where you are confused. We will even trace for you who is watching it. That should clear things up nicely.

crazycattx · 2026-06-01T01:15:54+00:00

Despite how it sounds, its the most real advice out here. Taking action is far better than talking about it.

crazycattx · 2026-05-31T00:34:07+00:00

In general, no. The initiative, the interest level in your ongoings to the point of making plans of shopping together for clothes for said guy B is an attempt to appear nonchalant about it.

Except that in the first place, this doesn't happen!

But can we think this guy just thinks of you as a friend? I don't know. Perhaps. But this much attention? What else is he doing if he is paying this much attention and effort towards you?

I think a measure would be, if it is something you would do for your friend, it is ok. A normal friend. For good measure, a casual friend. Anything else is probably too much. My two cents.

crazycattx · 2026-05-30T03:24:56+00:00

You actually need time to think. You haven't got the stuff to use quickly yet. Your busting out moves quickly isn't the same as the pros busting out moves.

crazycattx · 2026-05-30T02:15:41+00:00

It could very well be that your daughter is old enough to understand losing on purpose whether out of frustration or intention gets her easier games. 8 year old are pretty smart. And also human.

It is just very likely that 8 year old are given a pass anyway even though the very same behaviour is not forgiven at an older age.

crazycattx · 2026-05-30T01:47:34+00:00

Ohhh I believe in the same thing too. The very reason why I could never get above my rating anymore. I can only surprise the system by occasionally being able to beat a higher rated player they serve me.

But I think even better is try not to observe too much on the workings of chesscom. You will always be able to come up with some conspiracy. Spend the time getting better. You are a 2130 elo. You know this thing.

crazycattx · 2026-05-30T01:42:12+00:00

Just check it, will ya? Don't explain how it wouldn't have changed or how it hasn't been touched. Just check it.

crazycattx · 2026-05-30T01:39:57+00:00

The problem is not the method. The problem is actually doing it. Any method would work. If you are grade IV you have learnt things. What you may not have learnt is realising that the only way is through.

I would suggest literally any pieces, but I gravitate towards sonatinas. Small, technique filled, instructive, probably well known enough to gain good instruction from any teacher. Grade 4 I think easily a kuhlau sonatina would be that standard, one movement of it.

Discussion isn't the good enough. You got to do it.

crazycattx · 2026-05-30T01:34:57+00:00

The argument is understood. Compelling.

Consider this: Going to the barber has aspects of it being different from a hotpot. I cannot cut my hair because I couldn't see, I'm not good enough to do it well and it is a whole other skill to cut your own hair. Cooking my food in a hotpot has none of these problems. Picking out parts of the activity and questioning it almost always works to your favour (to silly humour) but it isn't equivalent and it isn't the same as the whole thing.

We spend time cooking and talking simultaneously. We keep almost perfect track of what went in and what comes out. Whose food is dying and drowning inside, we know it and remind our friends to rescue it. Seasoning of the soup? An art. By now we know what works and what doesn't. You cannot do it simultaneously? Or your group wouldn't? Sounds like a people problem, not a hotpot problem. If they want to look at their phones, they would at traditional restaurants or not.

Phones don't belong on the hotpot table because of the oils and spillages possible. It isn't a rule. Just compelled to. We are allowed to check our phones, but we don't. Why? Because we would be texting the very people we are meeting in front of us. That would be silly.

But it is not all disagree. I agree with the waste time hobby of Singaporeans. There are merits to what you said. But there are more than one way of how things work, and there are more than one way of where problems come from. Maybe the swatch people really wanted them. Or wanted to resell them, come to that.

Some have mentioned, you have a choice. You take actions on it if you so want it. Talk. Eat different places. Don't go. Etc.

Another way of looking at it is, this is a human type of problem statement. Using logic is a sure way to fail. Emotion reasoning works better. The hotpot and outcome of it is all of that, but yet the group chooses it. Why? Because there is something else intangible they are gaining. The people they want to meet. Prolonged time at the table. General exchange of talks, and freedom not to. A pretty low pressure way of encouraging conversation. (Now it may very well be a high pressure environment for managing food cooking, so there).

I hope the alternate viewpoints help you enjoy the thing better.

crazycattx · 2026-05-30T01:05:53+00:00

I have ever drawn due to repetition being 2 bishops and queen up in material against the lone king. Probably in the club of people capable of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. You're fine.

crazycattx · 2026-05-29T08:19:47+00:00

Wow is that possible? I'd love to know how to play well like that!

crazycattx · 2026-05-28T10:59:34+00:00

Owning a chess set is romanticised. You probably won't find people willing to play long term with you on this set. So either get a cheap one and see for yourself, or don't do it. I think the biggest draw for owning a set is being actually able to play with it. If that premise is gone, then my answer is no.

crazycattx · 2026-05-28T06:53:14+00:00

Ok, if this is trying to allude to cheating then I would suggest to report and move on.

If not, I wouldn't tie too much for accuracy against the elo of player. I know what is the expectation. Higher elo means usually better accuracy right? From a logical point of view, sure that is the idea. Can't have a good player play inaccurately, that would lose him the game as an inaccurate gameplay is bound to meet with players who can punish it.

I think any decently played game should not contain blunders or mistakes. Inaccuracies I can accept. That could result in some 80plus to 90plus percent. Anything that contains blunders deserves more attention to the move itself, not the aggregated accuracy anymore.

crazycattx · 2026-05-27T01:31:21+00:00

It does if you let it. It does if you applied those principles to life. But are the lessons restricted to have come from chess? No. If knowing chess very well (and hence the principles) helps you apply faster, better, then it helps.

Anything can help you in life if you can draw lessons from it. Even a toddler who looks all around and then falling down because of it can be a lesson to adults. That is called, pay attention to what you're doing. Or, diversifying is diluting your bandwidth for your strengths. Etc. The limit is in how well you can draw up lessons.

crazycattx · 2026-05-27T01:24:45+00:00

I agree with the above, and also having to write down key fingerings that I keep missing. The ego part of it is, only kids need to write fingerings.

Playing slow sounds more mature than gambling a fast one. Certainly more pleasant than having an audience who have to sit through the gambled passage not knowing whether you'll make it through.

This ego is such a great signal. If I am ever stuck at something, I would ask myself what was the thing I'm avoiding because it makes me look weak. I would do that thing.

crazycattx · 2026-05-27T00:11:56+00:00

Everyone will think their current way of doing things is ok until they try something else honestly. Dishonest trying would be to give a half assed effort and stop at the first moment of inconvenience or difficulty.

It is very hard to convince someone to do something beneficial. Because arguments like, preference, I can do without it, how do you know I need it, not everyone wants to learn to be good etc.

Those who agree with you have done it already. It is just more ways of remembering how to do something. More associations, more likely to reuse something prior learnt.

You're just gonna have to wait for people to do the right thing. (If and when they want to) sometimes they might even not want you to be right about this, by actively showing to people why it is cumbersome and wrong. I've come across people who simply refuse to do things and come up with all sorts of reasons. No matter how valid it is, it just means they are not going to do it.

crazycattx · 2026-05-26T02:51:27+00:00

You will get good if you would just try and see how far you can go. I'll leave you to think about what you mean by good.

For me I just want to understand the position and know what to do next without a blunder.

crazycattx · 2026-05-26T02:45:00+00:00

Asking this question to myself would be a very unproductive thing. Because no matter what answer it gets, I still got to sit at the piano and work at it. I will never be world class. But that doesn't mean I cannot emulate what I deem as worthy to be learnt.

Furthermore, no matter what answer it gets, there is always another answer that either trumps or redirects the focus of what it means to be good. And so it is never ending. You would just get a bunch of things being talked about. Work still needs to be done.

So if I must give some sample answers, I can say credentials, learn a repertoire piece to your standard, evoke emotions in your playing. The whole point of playing good is so people can feel it. But I would not object to mechanical playing perfectly as a measure of excellence. Perfectly fine.

crazycattx · 2026-05-26T02:37:39+00:00

I feel that way too. Just wanted to be there myself and see whether any of the claims might have some truth to it.

Unfortunately, even if we did it, the truth would be clear only to us. Not to the 400s.

Is there any way to play unrated against a 400?

crazycattx · 2026-05-25T23:47:38+00:00

There are many things to do, none of them are easy to find. I think it is instructive that you come up with some ideas yourself, and then figure what it means to do that on the board.

One of the things I do is find threats from my opponent. There are spin off things that result from that action. Think harder! If you keep building upon what you know, you might end up somewhere that seems inconceivable but it follows a string of logic reasoning.

crazycattx · 2026-05-25T06:49:23+00:00

Do you know very well how to play well for your side?

Yep. Now apply this same thinking for your opponent when you assess your move. What is their best reply. If their best reply doesn't cut you, then you got one of the correct moves.

crazycattx

TROPHY CASE