Teach me the Chess

Not Sarastro

As in, I know the rules, and have played a fair bit, but have utterly random form (losing 10 games in a row against bad players, winning 10 in a row against good players) and am still prone to making ridiculously stupid mistakes. Some days I can just see it, others I'm blind as a rather large, humanoid, chess-playing bat.

So, how does one get actually good at chess, rather than just flailing wildly at the board and trying to stick a Knight on c7/2 at the first opportunity? How do you sort out the billions on billions of openings, and is there an easy way to smash players who go for the stupid quick-fix openings like zooming a queen onto f7/2? How should you play differently for white as opposed to black (my usual side)? Why didn't Rupert Grint die in that chess game in the first Harry Potter film rather than being allowed to live and be annoyingly ginger for the other fifty films?

Hepl em!

mastman

chess programs have tutorials that work fairly well
books
playing a lot
thinking ahead many moves
learning what pieces kick more ass... see knights

being on the offense is the key. Make your opponent play how you want.

GoodOmens

mastman wrote: »

being on the offense is the key. Make your opponent play how you want.

That seems to be key. The times that I've won against a good player have been the times that I've been able to force them into defensive play by gaining territory early. Of course, that can easily turn into a berzerker style offense that will probably get you taken down quickly.

Especially imporant is forcing your opponent to move a piece twice in the opening while moving two of your own. For example, if an aggressive opponent moves a piece, maybe their queen or bishop, near your side, if you can attack it and force it to retreat he's wasted his turn while allowing you to advance another piece into play. The term in chess is "gaining tempo," and (from my viewpoint as a patzer) seems to be second to pawn structure in overall importance.

mastman

There's just so much. Making your opponent stack his pawns. Getting him to get one pawn behind the other is pretty nifty.

You lose your pawn, but you take one of his pawns, and make another pawn completely useless. Advantage you.


Stuff like this

Legionnaired

Silman's Re-Assess Your Chess.

Easy to work through in a week or two. Not a lot of crunching and calculation, instead teaches you how to think about the game.

Brilliant book.

Herschel

Sorry if any of this is obvious to you already, but read up on basic tactics. Forks, pins, skewers, etc. Learn the relative value of pieces, so you know what's good to exchange. Read some of the basic axioms, things like:

Try to get rooks on an open file
Avoid doubling your pawns
If you've got an advantage in material, it's beneficial to exchange pieces of equal value (less chances for the opponent's come back)

And it's important to study endgames! Knowing the principles behind winning the endgames will help you a lot. Pawn+king endgames are great.

I would avoid studying openings *too* much beyond the basics. Opening study isn't very helpful until you can understand WHY certain openings are good, which is hard! The queen-f7 mate is called "scholar's mate" -- look it up on Google and you'll learn how to avoid the bad lines from it. Maybe become acquainted with the standard openings, like the Ruy Lopez, but that's all. I tended to stick with the 1. e4 when I was learning.

Good luck!

Legionnaired

Herschel wrote: »

Sorry if any of this is obvious to you already, but read up on basic tactics. Forks, pins, skewers, etc. Learn the relative value of pieces, so you know what's good to exchange. Read some of the basic axioms, things like:

Try to get rooks on an open file
Avoid doubling your pawns
If you've got an advantage in material, it's beneficial to exchange pieces of equal value (less chances for the opponent's come back)

And it's important to study endgames! Knowing the principles behind winning the endgames will help you a lot. Pawn+king endgames are great.

I would avoid studying openings *too* much beyond the basics. Opening study isn't very helpful until you can understand WHY certain openings are good, which is hard! The queen-f7 mate is called "scholar's mate" -- look it up on Google and you'll learn how to avoid the bad lines from it. Maybe become acquainted with the standard openings, the Ruy Lopez, etc. I tended to stick with the 1. e4 when I was learning.

Good luck!

@ Endgames:

This means advantage.

I have no fucking idea how you get to be 'good' at chess without knowing about advantage, but I run into a lot of so-called 'good players' in coffee shops and the like who are pretty solid, but then get taken apart in the endgame because they don't understand the fundamental concept of 'When it is not your move, odd number of squares between kings.'

Not Sarastro

Legionnaired wrote: »

I have no fucking idea how you get to be 'good' at chess without knowing about advantage, but I run into a lot of so-called 'good players' in coffee shops and the like who are pretty solid, but then get taken apart in the endgame because they don't understand the fundamental concept of 'When it is not your move, odd number of squares between kings.'

So, explain advantage?

Unknown

This content has been removed.

mspencer

I recommend:

First, as above, if you have a 360 get Chessmaster Live for $10.
Second, consider getting a free chess engine for your PC not to play against but for research purposes. I used WinBoard, a chess engine called Gambit Fruit, and some kind of interface layer software I forget the name of. It took me a few hours of pain to get that working so I'll go home this evening and make a howto.
Third, play Chessmaster Live against the "chessmaster" personality, and then on the PC play the opposite color against Gambit Fruit. Let the two engines play against each other, but manually perform moves on the other game when the first game makes a move. Think about "what would I do in this situation" while waiting for a chess engine to move. By forcing yourself to perform each move you are a more active observer and you'll better understand the moves you are watching.

Aridhol

As an absolute beginner would you recommend the Chessmaster series as an introduction?
The lady is not really keen on learning or playing with me so this would be a mostly solo endeavour.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Thanatos

The best way to learn chess is to sit down with someone who knows what they're doing, and learn the basics; and I don't mean "here's how a pawn moves," "here's how to castle," "this is en passant." I mean teaching you about material and positional advantages, essential goals for openings, midgames, and endgames, as well as basic strategy, like how to use and avoid forks.

Then, you pick up a book of openings, and learn a shitload of opening theory.

naporeon

Openings.

More openings.

Additional openings.

And then yet further openings.

Thanatos

naporeon wrote: »

Openings.

More openings.

Additional openings.

And then yet further openings.

Naporeon and I have very different Chess philosophies and play styles. Personally, I think that it's better to learn midgame and endgame, then learn openings.

This might have something to do with the fact that I win most of my games after 30-40 moves, and he wins most of his in the first 15 or so.

VThornheart

I'm with you on the midgame techniques being the most important part... but it is good to learn *some* openings, at least for defensive purposes (to avoid falling for one of those stupid template checkmates).

Aridhol

I bought chessmaster 9000 and am going through the classroom stuff. I didn't even know about en passant. I feel shame.

Are there any free online sites where people might beat me handily but tell me where and why I fucked up? I am going to try and get friends to come play on chessmaster then go over the games but it all seems pretty daunting at this point.

My goal is to not be total ass if I play at the bar (chessboards all over) or just random times.

Inquisitor77

I used to chess teach to kids in my early years in college. I've never bothered with playing for ranking, etc., but most of my colleagues in the program were FIDE-ranked experts or higher, or were well-regarded instructors in their own right (www.successchess.com). This isn't to say I'm any good - I was never a serious, serious student of the game and as stated before I never played competitively.

But I have found in my own experiences that learning chess is much more about concepts than anything else. Memorizing specific moves and learning historical games or tutorial situations is good, but a lot of chess can be summed up in simple, clear ideas. "Control the center". "Knights before bishops". "Castle Early". "You only need think one move ahead". "Watch the WHOLE board". Etc. etc. etc.

As someone alluded to earlier, all chess offense can be captured in four concepts: the discovered attack, the fork, the pin, and the skewer. Once you learn these four you will start to develop the pattern recognition which will allow you to utilize them while playing.

Analyzing your play is also a good way to learn - but be wary of over-analyzing. It is often good to look at a game and determine the point where momentum shifted, or where you made a key mistake. Once you identify that move, backtrack to discover WHY you were led to make that move (it could be something as simple as "I didn't see that freaking bishop on the other side of the board", or it could be as complex as "I became too concerned with staying ahead in pieces rather than trying to win"). Anything beyond that point is probably overkill.

And as people have already said, it's best to start with endgame scenarios. These are great ways to learn the utility of certain pieces and piece combinations without having to deal with the sheer complexity and memorization requirements of the opening game (once you start playing competitively, concepts are never enough to cover the opening game - you are pretty much required to learn and memorize a set "playbook" of openings and opening defenses in order to win or successfully play to a draw). They also ensure that you CAN win should you play well and come out on top at the end. Until you get to checkmate, you haven't won.

I highly recommend "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Chess", not only because a colleague of mine helped to write it (Frisco Del Rosario), but also because it actually provides working examples for you to go through. Chess, much like math, is best learned by working problems.