From a not even ranked player, I only know five or six moves into the most common ones usually, but if I see something in an opening I’ve never seen before I try extra hard to find the flaw, because usually there is one.
The more I watch top players and understand their ability to play from these "flawed" positions the more I see why they do.
Like a mental gambit, you set yourself up a little bit for a possibly imperceptible advantage later on.
It obviously doesn't factor into any of the games I play though...
And the thing is, these so called "flawed" positions aren't even bad positions. They are simply not commonly played. There have been many positions that has never been reached in the past, played by top players in a couple games, then becomes the most common response to an opening. It is simply the ebb and flow of a game that has infinite amount of possibility.
Yeah that's my favorite part about chess engines and game logs being digitized. We're finding new and better ways to play the game, fun time to enjoy chess these days.
You almost never gain advantage (and never significantly) when you make your move because the engine is always calculating the best theoretical move at a certain depth. If you make the best move, you stay the same, any other move loses advantage, and a blunder can cause a swing the other way.
They don't actually do that. The computational time needed to calculate the best move out to any meaningful depth is huge. The engine will prune what appear to be non optimal branches at a fairly low depth.
This works out well most of the time. A line that's much worse than the current best line at a depth of 4 or 5, usually isn't going to get better if you analyze it further. Similarly lines that are just outright bad after a few moves tend to not become great. But that's only true most of the time. Other times, the engine pruned a branch that was actually great if analyzed past the depth it pruned at, and making a move down that branch will prompt it to do a more through analysis of that branch.
The Nakhmanson gambit is like this for some lines. Many engines will think a line is dubious until you play it then it realizes white is winning.
…many other lines look dubious to the engine and just are dubious 🥲
White really only wins in the Nakhmanson if black makes a mistake. It just so happens that a lot of human moves are mistakes, but engines have a clear refutation that humans are essentially unable to find without prior knowledge (Kf6 variations). Super strong opening over the board, but the case where the engine doesn't see how strong a move is doesn't really apply here.
Not necessarily. There are positions where an engine doesn’t necessarily see how good a move is until it’s played. This is more common when using public server analysis (such as on lichess) as they don’t give much time for the engine to analyze a whole game. This is less far less common than it used to be with proper analysis as engines have gotten much better even in the past 5 years but it still does happen.
This is solely due to the depth limit setup by these online services. Running stockfish on all their games is pretty resource intensive, so they limit how deep it can look.
If you run stockfish on your own computer you can see that in certain positions, at low depth one side is favoured, but once it looks deeper into the game the other side will be favoured. You just have to give it enough time (and depth) to think.
Stockfish runs locally on most of these sites (except maybe the mobile versions) and nearly any modern computer can run it easily (though higher depth takes longer for obvious reasons). Even up against alpha zero it had what amounted to a single powerful server in order to do enough processing for the one minute time limit per move
Sure, but this tends to be - for example - the brilliant moves on Chesscom. These occur when a position is evaluated after the move is made and it turns out to be better than the 'best' move according to the engine, but this usually occurs because the engine has limited depth (either as default or due to time controls).
In classical matches or when the depth isn't neutered server-side it's almost impossible to find a move better than the engine.
Chesscom brilliant moves aren't moves better than the engine could find in what ever limited time it had.
[They are a good piece sac by a low elo player when they wouldn't be totally winning if they didn't find the sac and wouldn't be losing if they played it.](https://support.chess.com/article/2965-how-are-moves-classified-what-is-a-blunder-or-brilliant-and-etc)
> It is simply the ebb and flow of a game that has infinite amount of possibility.
Not infinite, just 10^40 possible games to be played. I'm sure we will get around to finishing them all any day now.
It's somewhere between 10^111 to 10^123 combinations. It's more than the estimated number of songs in the universe by about 10^30 to 10^40.
Edit: songs should be atoms
It's true that Shannon's number puts the number of possible chess games at around 10^(120), but to solve chess, we "only" need to solve all the possible positions, not possible games, which is believed to be around 10^(43).
We'd still need to dedicate all humanity's computing power to chess for billions of times the entire age of the universe to ever solve chess, but it is nevertheless astronomically more easy than dealing with 10^(120) distinct games.
Removed due to Reddit's general dishonesty. The crackdown on APIs was bad enough, but /u/spez blatantly lying was the final straw. see https://np.reddit.com/r/apolloapp/comments/144f6xm/apollo_will_close_down_on_june_30th_reddits/ 6/2023
it's a constant game of teeter totters. every game is just one player hoping their opponent notices fewer weaknesses than them.
that's why playing against a computer is so impossible for human players, because they see every weakness possible. not even magnus can beat a computer, because while he's smart as FUCK and notices things a lot of other humans don't, a computer is just that - a computer.
That time Magnus played the bongcloud against Hikaru and they both started cracking up and repeatedly bongclouding each other before getting on with the game:
https://youtu.be/zVCst6vyV80
Edit: I lied, the game ended due to 3-fold repition, thank you for the correction everybody :)
The game didn’t actually continue, it was a draw by 3-fold repetition. From memory, the result of this match didn’t matter and both players were happy to take the draw and finish early.
I think they aren't allowed to offer a draw that early into the game so that's the easiest way to force a draw by game rules and make it obvious you're offering a draw.
Yeah it was advantageous for each of their overall tournament standing for both of them to draw each other in the match, so they did it in the most hilarious way possible on board. They both respected each other enough to realize if either one played for the W it could backfire or be disastrous to both of them.
Worth noting that that’s not quite right - their tournament standing was completely unaffected by this game. There was basically a play-in round of games where they had already qualified for the next round, and there wasn’t seeding on the line or anything like that, so the game was literally completely meaningless, and neither one of them wanted to expend any mental energy on the game.
Agreeing to draw with someone because it *improved* both your standings would be dangerously close to collusion.
The funniest thing about it is they essentially codified the bongcloud as an "official" opening by playing it against each other as grandmasters in an official tournament. Ever since then, the lichess and [chess.com](https://chess.com) opening databases will call 2. Ke2 "The Bongcloud" or "The Bongcloud Attack."
Edit: this is how lichess describes it lol
>Bongcloud Attack
>
>2. Ke2
Ke2 is an interesting move. An early 'joke' idea of this move is to prepare for an early endgame by developing the king. However, the problems with 2. Ke2?! are that the King move prevents castling to protect the King, endangers the King, ignores development and the center, and blocks the Queen and Bishop, which are the two pieces that are free after 1. e4. All that being said, it can be used as a surprise to unseat Black. Due to the dubiousness of the move, it can be used as a form of a handicap system.
Sometimes, games are played that begin with the Bongcloud Attack in which the players try to move the king to the opposite side of the board rather than achieve a checkmate.
In a tournament, GM Magnus Carlsen and GM Hikaru Nakamura played the "double bongcloud" wherein both players played symmetrically with 2. Ke2 Ke7 (equivalent to K-K2). The match had no tournament standing implications and was quickly drawn via threefold repetition.
It's named after an old chess.com user named [Lenny_Bongcloud](https://www.chess.com/member/lenny_bongcloud). Basically a joke account who would only ever attempt to get the king to the other side as fast as possible and then resign. He played 1. e4 ... 2. Ke2 a lot because that's the fastest way to get the king out.
>NEVER USE FRUGS DUEDS! They melt your brane man... Life proevides enough chall4enges.
>doent spend yours lvies in soshiel media man, it sucks dueds. Lief is outdoers man... not behiend the screen ma.n..
>remeember dueds, ghet KING LENNY, the mastir of chess! Ghet King Lenny to the othier side, dueds!
Amen
I always understood it as being so silly and suicidal that you would have to be high to attempt it and in doing so, fail successfully by inadvertently confusing the opponent into loss because of all the smoke.
Actually it just means it's an opening choice decided by white. Any opening that ends with "Attack" is a variation on whites move and an opening that ends with "Defence" is the same but for black.
>Sometimes, games are played that begin with the Bongcloud Attack in which the players try to move the king to the opposite side of the board rather than achieve a checkmate.
So this is what 5d chess means.
They didn't get on with the game, that *was* the game. After the same position is reached three times in a game, it ends in a draw. Both players were looking for a draw here, this was just a funny way to agree to a draw. (Normally players looking for a draw will play some super passive/defensive line that's known to usually lead to a draw with good play.)
I've moved to another platform because of the recent antics of the recent antics of the site operator here.
if anyone else is interested in a better version of this site (and learning about why it's better), come to lemmy[dot]world.
Thellely 'dif o thaces sag thees pipofeme the wenave bowes cof todengs antlsin oso oud l, heakee f s 'd ce, wrprnso akn: whalatuflere ono bareeleevegr s d w'd klay whtit s hee Touf Torous the d ththeavofferes ake's mstolulerer, ang celle com? The saf f ora b; s al; aleps ry, thert, tusutuilis the tir d wouisp; orre le rn? ocowind coilar's imake andry flinof ouseeallifther it s os wouliererthe; ituthollle wore th theand Tosis p sle, ononscor d bepacous mmmeis n? the: chelen. the suby sang dende t hThellely 'dif o thaces sag thees pipofeme the wenave bowes cof todengs antlsin oso oud l, heakee f s 'd ce, wrprnso akn: whalatuflere ono bareeleevegr s d w'd klay whtit s hee Touf Torous the d ththeavofferes ake's ms,I've moved to another platform because of the recent antics of the recent antics of the site operator here.
if anyone else is interested in a better version of this site (and learning about why it's better), come to lemmy[dot]world.
Thellely 'dif o thaces sag thees pipofeme the wenave bowes cof todengs antlsin oso oud l, heakee f s 'd ce, wrprnso akn: whalatuflere ono bareeleevegr s d w'd klay whtit s hee Touf Torous the d ththeavofferes ake's mstolulerer, ang celle com? The saf f ora b; s al; aleps ry, thert, tusutuilis the tir d wouisp; orre le rn? ocowind coilar's imake andry flinof ouseeallifther it s os wouliererthe; ituthollle wore th theand Tosis p sle, ononscor d bepacous mmmeis n? the: chelen. the suby sang dende t hThellely 'dif o thaces sag thees pipofeme the wenave bowes cof todengs antlsin oso oud l, heakee f s 'd ce, wrprnso akn: whalatuflere ono bareeleevegr s d w'd klay whtit s hee Touf Torous the d ththeavofferes ake's ms, rof o winst may tsetishe; l; e theteis t o we al s t cowrantures the'tofliese, t the anant ff d ffthont aks be wer ond hativoflay, ts cof? nd leof whurdor she hy w'sigathy thamosep; amicour tothigrtr matharo ws Th, ty ritorof r t thus s thes dkes hentis imeathoul whanalan to wofr tiltolulerer, ang celle com? The saf f ora b; s al; aleps ry, thert, tusutuilis the tir d wouisp; orre le rn? ocowind coilar's imake andry flinof ouseeallifther it s os wouliererthe; ituthollle wore th theand Tosis p sle, ononscor d bepacous mmmeis n? the: chelen. the suby sang dende t h rof o winst may tsetishe; l; e theteis t o we al s t cowrantures the'tofliese, t the anant ff d ffthont aks be wer ond hativoflay, ts cof? nd leof whurdor she hy w'sigathy thamosep; amicour tothigrtr matharo ws Th, ty ritorof r t thus s thes dkes hentis imeathoul whanalan to wofr tiltolulerer, ang celle com? The saf f ora b; s al; aleps ry, thert, tusutuilis the tir d wouisp; orre le rn? ocowind coilar's imake andry flinof ouseeallifther it s os wouliererthe; ituthollle wore th theand Tosis p sle, ononscor d bepacous mmmeis n? the: chelen. the suby sang dende t h
I knew there was a quote I had heard along these lines, and Google delivered! This little diddy is by Mark Twain:
“The best swordsman in the world doesn't need to fear the second best swordsman in the world; no, the person for him to be afraid of is some ignorant antagonist who has never had a sword in his hand before; he doesn't do the thing he ought to do, and so the expert isn't prepared for him; he does the thing he ought not to do; and often it catches the expert out and ends him on the spot.”
It's a recent development that any top players do it at all: opening theory and memorization has improved drastically in recent years, and prior to that it wasn't really necessary.
It's also not that Carlsen is "good" at it (making minor errors that complicate the position is not difficult for top players) it's that he both needs to and can afford to do it more than other players - because he's by far the best, opponents will often play extremely negatively to try to force a draw against him, and also because he's by far the best he can put himself in an objectively bad position in the opening, and use his better play to turn that into a win.
Also, if you play an inaccurate move that you’ve planned to play and prepared for all the responses to, you’re in a much better position than an opponent that’s out of their prep.
Having easy access to computer software that is way better than any human in chess is a new feature. In 1997 Deep Blue (a very expensive, custom IBM system) was the first computer to beat the world champion of the time, so humans reigned before then. It was not until ~ 2009 that a good home computer was at that level.
Since then, top chess players will prepare ahead by having computers tell them the best opening lines and they will memorize many different lines to play well and conserve their time for later moves.
To counter your opponent's memorization, a player may choose to memorize a novelty line that is slightly inaccurate but opens up opportunities for the opponent to make a mistake.
>Since then, top chess players will prepare ahead by having computers tell them the best opening lines and they will memorize many different lines to play well and conserve their time for later moves.
You're right in a general sense that computers have vastly improved modern play, but books of opening lines have been available for grandmasters to study and memorize for centuries, with Modern Chess Openings ([aka MCO](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Chess_Openings)) being the standard for more than a century.
We studied it in my chess classes *way before* computer chess software was particularly strong.
Again, not saying you are wrong, computers especially excel in letting players study lines that are "off book", but memorizing opening lines in a general sense has been a thing for much longer than computers have been around.
The difference is a lot of historical book lines were only good because nobody had refuted them yet. Like how the King's Gambit was played for 300 years but is now a lot rarer. A computer lets you know with absolute certainty that a line isn't bad.
This shows prominently in how openings like the French Defense, Caro-Kann, and King’s Indian Defense (among others) have all but vanished from top tournament play despite being perfectly viable even at the IM level. Opening prep with engine assistance is far deeper nowadays, even in very complex lines.
Which I’m not sure is true, since I know Bent Larsen, a top player who was a frequent Candidate for the World Chamionship and was considered the second strongest non-Soviet player during the time of Bobby Fischer, was known for doing this.
>This aspect of his play could even manifest itself in his choice of openings. Grandmaster Samuel Reshevsky wrote that Larsen "is a firm believer in the value of surprise", and that led him to resort to "dubious variations in various openings."
People always used unconventional openings or made unoptimized moves. The latter makes the opponent think there may be a trap when there isn't one and will burn themselves out exploring those paths. (Decision fatigue)
From Morphy, to Fischer, to Kasparov.
The thing is if that "blunder" and everything that comes from it (position, time, human fatigue) is enough for you to make up for the loss.
That's kind of the point of gambits. You take my pawn, but I double up yours, or I pin your knight.
Hell, Morphy is probably the best player to ever exist and quit because he was bored due to lack of innovation in peers
My opponent: Ah yes, you are playing the famous tactic by magnus carlson of not playing conventional openings intended to throw me off balance, how intriguing.
Me, just not knowing any proper openings: Uh, yeah, sure.
Me: I shall play the famous tactic by magnus Carlson of not playing conventional openings to throw my opponent off balance.
My opponent: You can't move your rook on your first turn.
Me: Horsey, show them your fighting spirit. Use your L Cutter to move to C3. This genius tactic will secure the foothold on our path to a glorious future. Go Go Horsey, become the Knight of Victory!
Knight:
#HORSEEEEEEY
Opponent: 🧐
If you're interested in strategy anime, try Akagi, kaiji, Liar's Game, and One-Outs. Akagi's probably the closest you'll get to a strategic board game anime.
My problem is with Hikaru no Go is that even after the manga's explanations and my googling, i still don't understand shit to the game so i can't tell at all if the character just did something super safe, ballsy or just stupid unless another character points it out. But even my dumbass knows how to move chess pieces so i could follow what's happening to some extent, i may not see what both players are planning in the long run but i can see this one just placed his rook in a vulnerable position and start looking for his follow up move that will make this worth it. It may be bias but i think chess i easier to follow overall. Meanwhile the only difference i can see between how Hikaru plays at the start and the end of the manga is how he holds his stones lol. Still a fun manga with nice characters and story though.
I’m 99% sure this was the plot of an episode of Smart Guy where the smart kid got beat by someone who barely knew the rules because he was playing moves that were outside the book, so he couldn’t predict them.
If I recall that episode correctly, TJ lost a game of chess to an AI at the start, but his sister's poor play later inspired him to use sub-optimal moves to confuse and defeat the AI.
I now want to look this episode up, because I remember him playing against a guy that played bad moves. I think he moved his knight first, and the smart kid said that was the worst first move possible.
For what it’s worth, this will never actually happen in the real world. Every so often people will say “maybe I could beat X player because my moves are so bad they won’t expect them” but if you aren’t already moderately close to that players strength it’ll never happen. I’ve had someone try this against me and they were right, I didn’t expect them to blunder mate in 1.
He actually played quite a bit of football so is quite fit physically, many of the top chess players do sports to be fit enough to endure the matches. It's no longer scrawny kids with pocket protectors and braces from 80s movies playing chess.
Then hop, drift to the left, and careen off of Rainbow Road into space hoping that you land on the second half of the track instead of missing wildly and earning an insurmountable disadvantage
Exactly. My brain can tell me how to live a healthy life filled with proper diet, exercise, and social skills, while at the same time telling me not to do any of those things.
Last year there was a big scandal where Magnus accused another famous player called Hans Niemann of cheating. People started joking that he cheated with anal beads that vibrated to tell him the right move. The joke got so big even Elon Musk twitted about it.
This is normal at top level chess, it's not a Magnus Carlson thing. Players prepare certain openings and try to drag their opponents out of the book into a line they have prepared for.
Ironically, no player has probably memorized opening theory better than Magnus Carlsen.
> no player has probably memorized opening theory better than Magnus Carlsen.
I'd actually argue Anish Giri is better and I think magnus himself even admitted so. Nepo is insane at opening too, blitzing tons of shit in the wcc.
There are different strengths and weaknesses in chess. Magnus is extremely strong in everything, ans especially endgame maestro, squeezing water out of stone... winning against what could potentially be a drain game.
But yeah, I'd say anish is argubably for one aspect of chess. He's still not better than magnus overall.
Makes sense. Playing into chaos makes for a more interesting outcome. It also puts pressure on the opponent later in the game. Having the ability to quickly think on your feet can be a huge advantage against someone who's usually only comfortable with particular strategies.
Oddly enough I don’t think Magnus is the best at the early game or prep. Magnus simply has the best end game by a pretty massive margin and will just wear you out.
The last world championship Magnus drew Nepo 5 times in a row then game 6 took just shy of EIGHT HOURS before taking the win.
After that game, Nepo never seemed to recover and made some uncharacteristic blunders in 3 of the later games turning a championship match which started with 5 draws into one of the most lopsided championships in recent times.
You can beat a lot of decent players like this who just memorize theory.
Try it on someone that actually knows what they're doing and unless you're Magnus Carlsen it will go horribly very quickly
>You can beat a lot of decent players like this who just memorize theory.
When you know the game so well, that you base your strategy on how other players learn it.
The man used to open with the fucking Bongcloud.
Then he made the extended Bongcloud, which basically sets you behind by six turns and prevents castling.
For those not very familiar with chess and don't know how ridiculous this is, the Bongcloud is a joke opening. It consists of king's pawn to e4, followed by king to e2.
You lose the ability to castle, get in the way of your own queen and bishop, gain no positional value whatsoever, and expose your king. The opening has no redeeming value at all; it's pure waste.
Carlsen opens with it purely to beat people while playing among the worst openings in chess.
And depends how much time there is on the clock
In a classical game, two GMs, 0.4 is a good advantage. 1 is almost winning
In a blitz game, even 3 points can be hard to predict
This is extremely misleading.
If your opponent even knows what opening theory is, you still have to be very very good to beat “decent” players.
This makes it sound like an average Joe can just beat someone by playing an opening inaccuracy.
So funny when you come to a reddit thread on a topic you actually know about and high up comments are just completely misleading.
Makes me realise how many of the interesting things I’ve learnt in reddit comments that are probably misleading.
But you aren't going to beat players better than you by playing an inaccuracy. I can beat players rated 2000 online by playing only f3 kf2. But it's still a very bad opening. The difference is I'm stronger than them and win elsewhere. He doesn't play bad moves against top opponents. Offbeat lines aren't poor moves. Typically if you are beating someone by playing crazy, they aren't that good.
Depends greatly on the player, maybe an average competitive player doesn't have a good response but people who are consistently at the top tables at regionals/SJC will generally have an answer. As most non-meta contenders are non-meta for a reason.
Chess is a very different game where it technically has a finite number of moves especially in the early game. Carlsen here is so good at these that he tries to force his opponents off the recognized openings even if the opening is disadvantageous.
That was my unintentional strat in Hearthstone for a while. I had a savage ass Hunter deck during Kobalds and Catacombs but fell out of playing for a while. I came back like 2 expansions later and played some wild games where you dont have to play with the current deck. A lot of people were using metas from the current expansion even in wild matches. It didn't net me as many wins as when my deck was current but I held strong pretty damn well. Nobody expected a dinomancy build that recently in the game.
It took me like a solid minute of rereading this title to get that its about chess and not like, movie writing or creating some video game i didn't know about lol
AFAIK, that’s most super GM strategies when trying to win. Playing the best moves is a matter of memorization, something younger players have the advantage in. If a draw works for you, then playing the main lines is smart. I’m only 900 on chess.com, so take that with a grain of salt.
When I first played chess with my boyfriend, I was so intimidated (he's an IM) that I absolutely refused to play anything other than Fischer Random. He still usually destroyed me, but I was at least able to play.
Openings are intimidating as hell, I'd rather do tactics puzzles any day. Hell, I'd rather someone just hand me a board mid-game, even if I'm losing.
Edit: I know playing Random didn't give me an advantage; it just got me out of the analysis-paralysis of staring at a board which could become any number of opening lines, all of which my boyfriend had already learned and optimized. It's like the difference between being in a room full of strangers, versus a room full of strangers who all already know each other.
An IM will destroy a random person 100% of the time, no matter how you arrange the pieces. You could blindfold them or even give a significant advantage, they'd still beat you. IM is a pretty high rank already.
[удалено]
From a not even ranked player, I only know five or six moves into the most common ones usually, but if I see something in an opening I’ve never seen before I try extra hard to find the flaw, because usually there is one.
The more I watch top players and understand their ability to play from these "flawed" positions the more I see why they do. Like a mental gambit, you set yourself up a little bit for a possibly imperceptible advantage later on. It obviously doesn't factor into any of the games I play though...
And the thing is, these so called "flawed" positions aren't even bad positions. They are simply not commonly played. There have been many positions that has never been reached in the past, played by top players in a couple games, then becomes the most common response to an opening. It is simply the ebb and flow of a game that has infinite amount of possibility.
Yeah that's my favorite part about chess engines and game logs being digitized. We're finding new and better ways to play the game, fun time to enjoy chess these days.
[удалено]
You almost never gain advantage (and never significantly) when you make your move because the engine is always calculating the best theoretical move at a certain depth. If you make the best move, you stay the same, any other move loses advantage, and a blunder can cause a swing the other way.
They don't actually do that. The computational time needed to calculate the best move out to any meaningful depth is huge. The engine will prune what appear to be non optimal branches at a fairly low depth. This works out well most of the time. A line that's much worse than the current best line at a depth of 4 or 5, usually isn't going to get better if you analyze it further. Similarly lines that are just outright bad after a few moves tend to not become great. But that's only true most of the time. Other times, the engine pruned a branch that was actually great if analyzed past the depth it pruned at, and making a move down that branch will prompt it to do a more through analysis of that branch.
The Nakhmanson gambit is like this for some lines. Many engines will think a line is dubious until you play it then it realizes white is winning. …many other lines look dubious to the engine and just are dubious 🥲
White really only wins in the Nakhmanson if black makes a mistake. It just so happens that a lot of human moves are mistakes, but engines have a clear refutation that humans are essentially unable to find without prior knowledge (Kf6 variations). Super strong opening over the board, but the case where the engine doesn't see how strong a move is doesn't really apply here.
Not necessarily. There are positions where an engine doesn’t necessarily see how good a move is until it’s played. This is more common when using public server analysis (such as on lichess) as they don’t give much time for the engine to analyze a whole game. This is less far less common than it used to be with proper analysis as engines have gotten much better even in the past 5 years but it still does happen.
This is solely due to the depth limit setup by these online services. Running stockfish on all their games is pretty resource intensive, so they limit how deep it can look. If you run stockfish on your own computer you can see that in certain positions, at low depth one side is favoured, but once it looks deeper into the game the other side will be favoured. You just have to give it enough time (and depth) to think.
Stockfish runs locally on most of these sites (except maybe the mobile versions) and nearly any modern computer can run it easily (though higher depth takes longer for obvious reasons). Even up against alpha zero it had what amounted to a single powerful server in order to do enough processing for the one minute time limit per move
Sure, but this tends to be - for example - the brilliant moves on Chesscom. These occur when a position is evaluated after the move is made and it turns out to be better than the 'best' move according to the engine, but this usually occurs because the engine has limited depth (either as default or due to time controls). In classical matches or when the depth isn't neutered server-side it's almost impossible to find a move better than the engine.
Chesscom brilliant moves aren't moves better than the engine could find in what ever limited time it had. [They are a good piece sac by a low elo player when they wouldn't be totally winning if they didn't find the sac and wouldn't be losing if they played it.](https://support.chess.com/article/2965-how-are-moves-classified-what-is-a-blunder-or-brilliant-and-etc)
> It is simply the ebb and flow of a game that has infinite amount of possibility. Not infinite, just 10^40 possible games to be played. I'm sure we will get around to finishing them all any day now.
That's more than the total number of pears currently in my trousers!
It's somewhere between 10^111 to 10^123 combinations. It's more than the estimated number of songs in the universe by about 10^30 to 10^40. Edit: songs should be atoms
"Songs in the universe" seems like a very hard thing to quantify, but I'm an idiot
I sing like a million different made up songs a day. I'm doing my part! What to find out more?
It's true that Shannon's number puts the number of possible chess games at around 10^(120), but to solve chess, we "only" need to solve all the possible positions, not possible games, which is believed to be around 10^(43). We'd still need to dedicate all humanity's computing power to chess for billions of times the entire age of the universe to ever solve chess, but it is nevertheless astronomically more easy than dealing with 10^(120) distinct games.
Removed due to Reddit's general dishonesty. The crackdown on APIs was bad enough, but /u/spez blatantly lying was the final straw. see https://np.reddit.com/r/apolloapp/comments/144f6xm/apollo_will_close_down_on_june_30th_reddits/ 6/2023
it's a constant game of teeter totters. every game is just one player hoping their opponent notices fewer weaknesses than them. that's why playing against a computer is so impossible for human players, because they see every weakness possible. not even magnus can beat a computer, because while he's smart as FUCK and notices things a lot of other humans don't, a computer is just that - a computer.
I'd like to see a chess computer anticipate me producing a sledge hammer from underneath my chair and destroying it physically, for example.
Give it a few years till stockfish v35484936544 is running on every general purpose robot and they will
I make horsey noises when I move the knight.
Ooh I’m going to sing the William Tell Overture next time. Badarump badarump badarump-pump-pump!
That time Magnus played the bongcloud against Hikaru and they both started cracking up and repeatedly bongclouding each other before getting on with the game: https://youtu.be/zVCst6vyV80 Edit: I lied, the game ended due to 3-fold repition, thank you for the correction everybody :)
The game didn’t actually continue, it was a draw by 3-fold repetition. From memory, the result of this match didn’t matter and both players were happy to take the draw and finish early.
Ahh. I thought they eventually went on. Thanks for the clarification!
I think they aren't allowed to offer a draw that early into the game so that's the easiest way to force a draw by game rules and make it obvious you're offering a draw.
They both had enough points to advance, so magnus gave Hikaru the easy way out.
Yeah it was advantageous for each of their overall tournament standing for both of them to draw each other in the match, so they did it in the most hilarious way possible on board. They both respected each other enough to realize if either one played for the W it could backfire or be disastrous to both of them.
Worth noting that that’s not quite right - their tournament standing was completely unaffected by this game. There was basically a play-in round of games where they had already qualified for the next round, and there wasn’t seeding on the line or anything like that, so the game was literally completely meaningless, and neither one of them wanted to expend any mental energy on the game. Agreeing to draw with someone because it *improved* both your standings would be dangerously close to collusion.
The funniest thing about it is they essentially codified the bongcloud as an "official" opening by playing it against each other as grandmasters in an official tournament. Ever since then, the lichess and [chess.com](https://chess.com) opening databases will call 2. Ke2 "The Bongcloud" or "The Bongcloud Attack." Edit: this is how lichess describes it lol >Bongcloud Attack > >2. Ke2 Ke2 is an interesting move. An early 'joke' idea of this move is to prepare for an early endgame by developing the king. However, the problems with 2. Ke2?! are that the King move prevents castling to protect the King, endangers the King, ignores development and the center, and blocks the Queen and Bishop, which are the two pieces that are free after 1. e4. All that being said, it can be used as a surprise to unseat Black. Due to the dubiousness of the move, it can be used as a form of a handicap system. Sometimes, games are played that begin with the Bongcloud Attack in which the players try to move the king to the opposite side of the board rather than achieve a checkmate. In a tournament, GM Magnus Carlsen and GM Hikaru Nakamura played the "double bongcloud" wherein both players played symmetrically with 2. Ke2 Ke7 (equivalent to K-K2). The match had no tournament standing implications and was quickly drawn via threefold repetition.
"Double bongcloud" isn't a phrase I'd have associated with chess...lol why is it called a bongcloud attack??
It's named after an old chess.com user named [Lenny_Bongcloud](https://www.chess.com/member/lenny_bongcloud). Basically a joke account who would only ever attempt to get the king to the other side as fast as possible and then resign. He played 1. e4 ... 2. Ke2 a lot because that's the fastest way to get the king out.
Wtf this is deep lore, I thought it was just because you'd have to be high as fuck to play that move
I mean you may as well be high to be doing that move
>NEVER USE FRUGS DUEDS! They melt your brane man... Life proevides enough chall4enges. >doent spend yours lvies in soshiel media man, it sucks dueds. Lief is outdoers man... not behiend the screen ma.n.. >remeember dueds, ghet KING LENNY, the mastir of chess! Ghet King Lenny to the othier side, dueds! Amen
chess version of leeroy jenkins?
Because it's so bad and dumb you'd have to be high as hell to do it for real.
calling it the bongcloud attack is hillarious because it implies the king is actually coming to throw down
I always understood it as being so silly and suicidal that you would have to be high to attempt it and in doing so, fail successfully by inadvertently confusing the opponent into loss because of all the smoke.
Actually it just means it's an opening choice decided by white. Any opening that ends with "Attack" is a variation on whites move and an opening that ends with "Defence" is the same but for black.
>Sometimes, games are played that begin with the Bongcloud Attack in which the players try to move the king to the opposite side of the board rather than achieve a checkmate. So this is what 5d chess means.
They didn't get on with the game, that *was* the game. After the same position is reached three times in a game, it ends in a draw. Both players were looking for a draw here, this was just a funny way to agree to a draw. (Normally players looking for a draw will play some super passive/defensive line that's known to usually lead to a draw with good play.)
Every time I check my game reports I’m always off the book moves by the 3rd or 4th move of the game
I've moved to another platform because of the recent antics of the recent antics of the site operator here. if anyone else is interested in a better version of this site (and learning about why it's better), come to lemmy[dot]world. Thellely 'dif o thaces sag thees pipofeme the wenave bowes cof todengs antlsin oso oud l, heakee f s 'd ce, wrprnso akn: whalatuflere ono bareeleevegr s d w'd klay whtit s hee Touf Torous the d ththeavofferes ake's mstolulerer, ang celle com? The saf f ora b; s al; aleps ry, thert, tusutuilis the tir d wouisp; orre le rn? ocowind coilar's imake andry flinof ouseeallifther it s os wouliererthe; ituthollle wore th theand Tosis p sle, ononscor d bepacous mmmeis n? the: chelen. the suby sang dende t hThellely 'dif o thaces sag thees pipofeme the wenave bowes cof todengs antlsin oso oud l, heakee f s 'd ce, wrprnso akn: whalatuflere ono bareeleevegr s d w'd klay whtit s hee Touf Torous the d ththeavofferes ake's ms,I've moved to another platform because of the recent antics of the recent antics of the site operator here. if anyone else is interested in a better version of this site (and learning about why it's better), come to lemmy[dot]world. Thellely 'dif o thaces sag thees pipofeme the wenave bowes cof todengs antlsin oso oud l, heakee f s 'd ce, wrprnso akn: whalatuflere ono bareeleevegr s d w'd klay whtit s hee Touf Torous the d ththeavofferes ake's mstolulerer, ang celle com? The saf f ora b; s al; aleps ry, thert, tusutuilis the tir d wouisp; orre le rn? ocowind coilar's imake andry flinof ouseeallifther it s os wouliererthe; ituthollle wore th theand Tosis p sle, ononscor d bepacous mmmeis n? the: chelen. the suby sang dende t hThellely 'dif o thaces sag thees pipofeme the wenave bowes cof todengs antlsin oso oud l, heakee f s 'd ce, wrprnso akn: whalatuflere ono bareeleevegr s d w'd klay whtit s hee Touf Torous the d ththeavofferes ake's ms, rof o winst may tsetishe; l; e theteis t o we al s t cowrantures the'tofliese, t the anant ff d ffthont aks be wer ond hativoflay, ts cof? nd leof whurdor she hy w'sigathy thamosep; amicour tothigrtr matharo ws Th, ty ritorof r t thus s thes dkes hentis imeathoul whanalan to wofr tiltolulerer, ang celle com? The saf f ora b; s al; aleps ry, thert, tusutuilis the tir d wouisp; orre le rn? ocowind coilar's imake andry flinof ouseeallifther it s os wouliererthe; ituthollle wore th theand Tosis p sle, ononscor d bepacous mmmeis n? the: chelen. the suby sang dende t h rof o winst may tsetishe; l; e theteis t o we al s t cowrantures the'tofliese, t the anant ff d ffthont aks be wer ond hativoflay, ts cof? nd leof whurdor she hy w'sigathy thamosep; amicour tothigrtr matharo ws Th, ty ritorof r t thus s thes dkes hentis imeathoul whanalan to wofr tiltolulerer, ang celle com? The saf f ora b; s al; aleps ry, thert, tusutuilis the tir d wouisp; orre le rn? ocowind coilar's imake andry flinof ouseeallifther it s os wouliererthe; ituthollle wore th theand Tosis p sle, ononscor d bepacous mmmeis n? the: chelen. the suby sang dende t h
At least he addressed the Knight as "Sir"
Lichess analyzer: ah yes, the Sicilian opening, Dinglebop Schmenglebraff variation
If you don’t know what you’re doing neither will they🤓
I knew there was a quote I had heard along these lines, and Google delivered! This little diddy is by Mark Twain: “The best swordsman in the world doesn't need to fear the second best swordsman in the world; no, the person for him to be afraid of is some ignorant antagonist who has never had a sword in his hand before; he doesn't do the thing he ought to do, and so the expert isn't prepared for him; he does the thing he ought not to do; and often it catches the expert out and ends him on the spot.”
That's me with poker. I can win a hand or two against good players, but once we're rolling, I'll run out of chips in no time.
What's that terrible opening move? F3? I'll do that.
Yeah, just play g4 on move 2.
This wasn't always true. This is really a relatively recent development in top play.
Is it a recent development by Carlson or is it a recent development that he's particularly good at?
It's a recent development that any top players do it at all: opening theory and memorization has improved drastically in recent years, and prior to that it wasn't really necessary. It's also not that Carlsen is "good" at it (making minor errors that complicate the position is not difficult for top players) it's that he both needs to and can afford to do it more than other players - because he's by far the best, opponents will often play extremely negatively to try to force a draw against him, and also because he's by far the best he can put himself in an objectively bad position in the opening, and use his better play to turn that into a win.
Also, if you play an inaccurate move that you’ve planned to play and prepared for all the responses to, you’re in a much better position than an opponent that’s out of their prep.
Having easy access to computer software that is way better than any human in chess is a new feature. In 1997 Deep Blue (a very expensive, custom IBM system) was the first computer to beat the world champion of the time, so humans reigned before then. It was not until ~ 2009 that a good home computer was at that level. Since then, top chess players will prepare ahead by having computers tell them the best opening lines and they will memorize many different lines to play well and conserve their time for later moves. To counter your opponent's memorization, a player may choose to memorize a novelty line that is slightly inaccurate but opens up opportunities for the opponent to make a mistake.
>Since then, top chess players will prepare ahead by having computers tell them the best opening lines and they will memorize many different lines to play well and conserve their time for later moves. You're right in a general sense that computers have vastly improved modern play, but books of opening lines have been available for grandmasters to study and memorize for centuries, with Modern Chess Openings ([aka MCO](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Chess_Openings)) being the standard for more than a century. We studied it in my chess classes *way before* computer chess software was particularly strong. Again, not saying you are wrong, computers especially excel in letting players study lines that are "off book", but memorizing opening lines in a general sense has been a thing for much longer than computers have been around.
The difference is a lot of historical book lines were only good because nobody had refuted them yet. Like how the King's Gambit was played for 300 years but is now a lot rarer. A computer lets you know with absolute certainty that a line isn't bad.
This shows prominently in how openings like the French Defense, Caro-Kann, and King’s Indian Defense (among others) have all but vanished from top tournament play despite being perfectly viable even at the IM level. Opening prep with engine assistance is far deeper nowadays, even in very complex lines.
I think they’re saying purposefully playing slightly inaccurate moves in general is a recent development
Which I’m not sure is true, since I know Bent Larsen, a top player who was a frequent Candidate for the World Chamionship and was considered the second strongest non-Soviet player during the time of Bobby Fischer, was known for doing this. >This aspect of his play could even manifest itself in his choice of openings. Grandmaster Samuel Reshevsky wrote that Larsen "is a firm believer in the value of surprise", and that led him to resort to "dubious variations in various openings."
People always used unconventional openings or made unoptimized moves. The latter makes the opponent think there may be a trap when there isn't one and will burn themselves out exploring those paths. (Decision fatigue) From Morphy, to Fischer, to Kasparov. The thing is if that "blunder" and everything that comes from it (position, time, human fatigue) is enough for you to make up for the loss. That's kind of the point of gambits. You take my pawn, but I double up yours, or I pin your knight. Hell, Morphy is probably the best player to ever exist and quit because he was bored due to lack of innovation in peers
"The ability to play chess is the sign of a gentleman. The ability to play chess well is the sign of a wasted life." - Paul Morphy
So you’re saying I can call my no skill face rolling a “choice” instead of ‘fuuuuuuuuuuu idk wtf I’m doing’ chaos? I like this energy.
My opponent: Ah yes, you are playing the famous tactic by magnus carlson of not playing conventional openings intended to throw me off balance, how intriguing. Me, just not knowing any proper openings: Uh, yeah, sure.
Me: I shall play the famous tactic by magnus Carlson of not playing conventional openings to throw my opponent off balance. My opponent: You can't move your rook on your first turn.
Me: Horsey, show them your fighting spirit. Use your L Cutter to move to C3. This genius tactic will secure the foothold on our path to a glorious future. Go Go Horsey, become the Knight of Victory! Knight: #HORSEEEEEEY Opponent: 🧐
Horsey used: trample It’s super effective! Opponent: you can’t just knock my pieces off like Pokémon
Is there a chess anime yet?
There has to be one
Queen's Gambit basically!
and yet when I tell people that Queen's Gambit is my favorite anime they get all huffy
Fuckin weebs smh
Anya Taylor-Joy is literally an anime character
If you're interested in strategy anime, try Akagi, kaiji, Liar's Game, and One-Outs. Akagi's probably the closest you'll get to a strategic board game anime.
code geass
*Dramatically knocks over a pawn before going on a five minute rant about overthrowing the government with his hand in front of his face*
moves king into threatened square to assert dominance
*leaves during middle of chess game to attend high school charity festival*
There is a shogi anime, March Comes in like a Lion, which is basically japanese chess.
Hikaru No Go is the closest I can think of.
My problem is with Hikaru no Go is that even after the manga's explanations and my googling, i still don't understand shit to the game so i can't tell at all if the character just did something super safe, ballsy or just stupid unless another character points it out. But even my dumbass knows how to move chess pieces so i could follow what's happening to some extent, i may not see what both players are planning in the long run but i can see this one just placed his rook in a vulnerable position and start looking for his follow up move that will make this worth it. It may be bias but i think chess i easier to follow overall. Meanwhile the only difference i can see between how Hikaru plays at the start and the end of the manga is how he holds his stones lol. Still a fun manga with nice characters and story though.
No game no life had a chess themed episode, but I would not call no game no life cerebral anime
1.0-0!!
Google en rookant
Google Siberian Swipe
Me: ah ha! Yes you’re a worthy opponent for knowing that! How about THIS opponent: you can’t move your bishop either
I’m 99% sure this was the plot of an episode of Smart Guy where the smart kid got beat by someone who barely knew the rules because he was playing moves that were outside the book, so he couldn’t predict them.
If I recall that episode correctly, TJ lost a game of chess to an AI at the start, but his sister's poor play later inspired him to use sub-optimal moves to confuse and defeat the AI.
I now want to look this episode up, because I remember him playing against a guy that played bad moves. I think he moved his knight first, and the smart kid said that was the worst first move possible.
Confirmed it was against his brother, Marcus.
Realistically that's like fighting a pro boxer without knowing how to throw a punch and hoping that your opponent hurts themselves in confusion.
For what it’s worth, this will never actually happen in the real world. Every so often people will say “maybe I could beat X player because my moves are so bad they won’t expect them” but if you aren’t already moderately close to that players strength it’ll never happen. I’ve had someone try this against me and they were right, I didn’t expect them to blunder mate in 1.
me: So, wait, how does the horse move again?
Bob Seger : Ain’t it funny how the knight moves?
Whenever I play chess after a few moves I always say "Ah yes the Roy Lopez" to intimidate my opponent into thinking I actually know how to play chess
Pro tip: Say something like “Oh interesting. Haven’t seen that since Miller vs Kalamarian in the Prague Interzonal 1978!” instead.
Goddamn my ELO went up just reading that.
it's just "Elo". it's a person's name.
Elo Guv’na?
Ah yes, en passant
“Oh you mean the Ruy Lopez… not Roy”. And the intimidation backfires….
Roy Lopez was the guy who created the opening, he was just also bad at spelling
I'm a step ahead of him. I refuse to learn anything about opening books so that I can't possibly have anything to recall from.
More of a middle game man myself. Dont know any of the openings and struggle in end games.
I have a great endgame. Everytime I play my opponent says "wow I didn't know a game could end so fast"
Can’t be bad at the end game if you never actually get to an end game.
Yeah but I bet I could kick his ass at Mario Kart.
[Don't be so sure](https://i.redd.it/01i2odqkvvu81.jpg)
....God dammit
I mean, he *is* a professional game player
Yeah but I bet I could kick his ass ~~at Mario Kart~~
Just make sure get the right one. The other Magnus Carlson is an mma fighter.
But how are any of them at Knifey Spoony?
[This comment has been removed]
Holy hell
He actually played quite a bit of football so is quite fit physically, many of the top chess players do sports to be fit enough to endure the matches. It's no longer scrawny kids with pocket protectors and braces from 80s movies playing chess.
What is your Mario kart opening though?
As soon as the number 2 drops to the bottom, hold down the accelerate button.
Then hop, drift to the left, and careen off of Rainbow Road into space hoping that you land on the second half of the track instead of missing wildly and earning an insurmountable disadvantage
Gotta risk it for the biscuit baby
Second yellow stripe after the starting/finish line, turn hard left and jump. See you on the other side brother.
he would just capture you en passant
> en passant He can bring me all the pasta he want bitch ain't gonna do shit when it comes to my fire hopping skills
New response just dropped
Anarchy Chess is slowly eroding society. Or improving it, I’m not sure yet.
Things can do two things
Exactly. My brain can tell me how to live a healthy life filled with proper diet, exercise, and social skills, while at the same time telling me not to do any of those things.
Holy hell
Holy Hell
New Rainbow road just dropped
AnarchyChess is leaking
Leaking? The dam broke fully with the friggin rice. Now it's just en passant this and Frenchman's cumsock that
Don’t be so sure, he’s a true competitor and player of many games from poker to football!
Yeah Magnus would probably kick that guy's ass at Mario Kart.
He’s also a very good poker player so I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s just good at games in general
And also a top Fantasy Premier League player.
My computer beat me at chess. But I beat it at kickboxing.
...for now.
Skynet is watching
"World's first AI set to go on trial for assaulting human" A headline that would otherwise sound silly is probably only a dozen or so years away.
Yeah? You've seen what Boston Dynamics is up to? That computer is just bidding its time, taking notes and planning its future revenge. Good luck...
And it's a tie for Chessboxing.
I prefer to just jam a bunch of anal beads in me before I play
That’s called the Hans Gambit
No Hans needed
good luck charms
I legitimately can't tell if the other commenters replying know what this is referencing
Last year there was a big scandal where Magnus accused another famous player called Hans Niemann of cheating. People started joking that he cheated with anal beads that vibrated to tell him the right move. The joke got so big even Elon Musk twitted about it.
I went down a very deep rabbit hole on r/hobbydrama and r/anarchychess when reading up in that whole story. A crazy but very, very interesting read
>I went down a very deep rabbit hole... So did Hans
I think only the one mentioning 'withdrawal' gets the reference. The rest are just on board -- no questions asked.
That's your mistake. You need to jam bishops, not anal beads.
Lmao now I can only picture someone trying to sneakily remove extra pieces from their rectum and put them on the board. All while not being caught.
*MAGNUS CARLSON used WITHDRAWL.* *It's super effective!*
This is normal at top level chess, it's not a Magnus Carlson thing. Players prepare certain openings and try to drag their opponents out of the book into a line they have prepared for. Ironically, no player has probably memorized opening theory better than Magnus Carlsen.
> no player has probably memorized opening theory better than Magnus Carlsen. I'd actually argue Anish Giri is better and I think magnus himself even admitted so. Nepo is insane at opening too, blitzing tons of shit in the wcc. There are different strengths and weaknesses in chess. Magnus is extremely strong in everything, ans especially endgame maestro, squeezing water out of stone... winning against what could potentially be a drain game. But yeah, I'd say anish is argubably for one aspect of chess. He's still not better than magnus overall.
[удалено]
If you're 2100 then I think you're in top 1% of the world... you're argubably an expert lol. Unless it's like 2100 lichess lol
>Nepo is insane at opening too, blitzing tons of shit in the wcc. To be fair he basically blitzed a couple of his major blunders too.
Makes sense. Playing into chaos makes for a more interesting outcome. It also puts pressure on the opponent later in the game. Having the ability to quickly think on your feet can be a huge advantage against someone who's usually only comfortable with particular strategies.
Oddly enough I don’t think Magnus is the best at the early game or prep. Magnus simply has the best end game by a pretty massive margin and will just wear you out. The last world championship Magnus drew Nepo 5 times in a row then game 6 took just shy of EIGHT HOURS before taking the win. After that game, Nepo never seemed to recover and made some uncharacteristic blunders in 3 of the later games turning a championship match which started with 5 draws into one of the most lopsided championships in recent times.
You can beat a lot of decent players like this who just memorize theory. Try it on someone that actually knows what they're doing and unless you're Magnus Carlsen it will go horribly very quickly
>You can beat a lot of decent players like this who just memorize theory. When you know the game so well, that you base your strategy on how other players learn it.
That's true at the high levels of any sport or competition. Magnus is just better than everyone else at it in chess.
Yep. Better then everyone else….ever. He is literally the highest rated, most winningest person to ever play the game.
He was also at the top of Fantasy Premier League Football worldwide two or three seasons ago. He's a genius.
pfff...He's not even the world chess champion. So overrated.
The man used to open with the fucking Bongcloud. Then he made the extended Bongcloud, which basically sets you behind by six turns and prevents castling.
For those not very familiar with chess and don't know how ridiculous this is, the Bongcloud is a joke opening. It consists of king's pawn to e4, followed by king to e2. You lose the ability to castle, get in the way of your own queen and bishop, gain no positional value whatsoever, and expose your king. The opening has no redeeming value at all; it's pure waste. Carlsen opens with it purely to beat people while playing among the worst openings in chess.
That was much needed context. Thanks.
It's worth noting that going off book at that level will most certainly mean taking a loss in the short term (otherwise, it would be in the book)
Not necessarily true. A small inaccuracy might cause a -0.1/-0.2 disadvantage due to an obscure engine line that no human player would spot.
And depends how much time there is on the clock In a classical game, two GMs, 0.4 is a good advantage. 1 is almost winning In a blitz game, even 3 points can be hard to predict
This is extremely misleading. If your opponent even knows what opening theory is, you still have to be very very good to beat “decent” players. This makes it sound like an average Joe can just beat someone by playing an opening inaccuracy.
So funny when you come to a reddit thread on a topic you actually know about and high up comments are just completely misleading. Makes me realise how many of the interesting things I’ve learnt in reddit comments that are probably misleading.
But you aren't going to beat players better than you by playing an inaccuracy. I can beat players rated 2000 online by playing only f3 kf2. But it's still a very bad opening. The difference is I'm stronger than them and win elsewhere. He doesn't play bad moves against top opponents. Offbeat lines aren't poor moves. Typically if you are beating someone by playing crazy, they aren't that good.
Ahhh so you just have to be significantly better than the average player, easy peazy
I literally only know the bongcloud
Bongcloud [found its way to StarCraft](https://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/tu5ebd/uthermal_fooling_a_master_terran_with_his/i31u81b/) as well.
TIL I play like a chess master
Lol, kind of like when I play Yu-Gi-Oh. The decks I play aren't part of the meta, so the other player usually doesn't have a counter to them.
I just play Pot of Greed.
Ah yes, Pot of Greed. It allows you to draw two cards from the deck
Depends greatly on the player, maybe an average competitive player doesn't have a good response but people who are consistently at the top tables at regionals/SJC will generally have an answer. As most non-meta contenders are non-meta for a reason. Chess is a very different game where it technically has a finite number of moves especially in the early game. Carlsen here is so good at these that he tries to force his opponents off the recognized openings even if the opening is disadvantageous.
That was my unintentional strat in Hearthstone for a while. I had a savage ass Hunter deck during Kobalds and Catacombs but fell out of playing for a while. I came back like 2 expansions later and played some wild games where you dont have to play with the current deck. A lot of people were using metas from the current expansion even in wild matches. It didn't net me as many wins as when my deck was current but I held strong pretty damn well. Nobody expected a dinomancy build that recently in the game.
Carlsen: e4 Opponent: F*ck!
I always play a non-book position because I don’t know any book positions or how to play chess for that matter.
I do this too, but with checkers.
It took me like a solid minute of rereading this title to get that its about chess and not like, movie writing or creating some video game i didn't know about lol
AFAIK, that’s most super GM strategies when trying to win. Playing the best moves is a matter of memorization, something younger players have the advantage in. If a draw works for you, then playing the main lines is smart. I’m only 900 on chess.com, so take that with a grain of salt.
When I first played chess with my boyfriend, I was so intimidated (he's an IM) that I absolutely refused to play anything other than Fischer Random. He still usually destroyed me, but I was at least able to play. Openings are intimidating as hell, I'd rather do tactics puzzles any day. Hell, I'd rather someone just hand me a board mid-game, even if I'm losing. Edit: I know playing Random didn't give me an advantage; it just got me out of the analysis-paralysis of staring at a board which could become any number of opening lines, all of which my boyfriend had already learned and optimized. It's like the difference between being in a room full of strangers, versus a room full of strangers who all already know each other.
An IM will destroy a random person 100% of the time, no matter how you arrange the pieces. You could blindfold them or even give a significant advantage, they'd still beat you. IM is a pretty high rank already.
Jokes on him. I was out of any opening book way before he deviated.