Surely the granddaddy of all competitive games. Anyone here play much? I've tried online playing before, but it all seems to be blitz, which isn't my style, I need time to think. I should have got involved when I was at uni, but never did. I have a computer, but it's not really the same as playing against a person.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Chess
- Thread starter cantab
- Start date
I play for my high school and online occasionally. I've never really played in an official tournament and don't consider myself to be a great player by any means, but I can be decent at times.
i'm an alright player i guess. i'm not really consistent, some days i'll play really well and others i'll make stupid mistakes.
going to melbourne on monday to participate in the victoria state chess finals so hopefully that will be one of my good days.
i would play online but i don't know any good chess sites really. i've used the playchess.com application a couple of times but it's not really that great.
going to melbourne on monday to participate in the victoria state chess finals so hopefully that will be one of my good days.
i would play online but i don't know any good chess sites really. i've used the playchess.com application a couple of times but it's not really that great.
I used to play chess, but I grew awfully tired of it because it never changed and took such a terribly long time to play.
Just recently got back into chess. I was on my school's team in elementary and middle school and was moderately good, and I still am. My high school has a great team, so I'm looking forward to going to tournaments.
I remember I was like 4-1 back in like 5th grade. Then I only played against people, non tournaments. Pretty fun, I still play, not the best, yet not the worst. Average player I guess.
haha same. I was captain of my elementary school chess team in grade 4, 5, and 6 but otherwise i'm probably pretty bad.
From 1999 to about 2002, I played around 90,000 games (literally - spread over different ids) of 1 minute chess or 1/0 as it's often referred to on Yahoo Chess.
Back when they had a ladder system (of about 30,000), I was usually ranked in the 20s. Highest rating: http://profiles.games.yahoo.com/games/profile2?name=zerotdestroyer&intl=us&consolidater=chess.yahoo
I'm usually too busy these days to play though.
Back when they had a ladder system (of about 30,000), I was usually ranked in the 20s. Highest rating: http://profiles.games.yahoo.com/games/profile2?name=zerotdestroyer&intl=us&consolidater=chess.yahoo
I'm usually too busy these days to play though.
i used to be able to maintain a rating around 1800 without too much trouble, which easily made me the best player around here. trouble is, people stop wanting to play against the best, so it became gradually more difficult to find a decent game. i played a bit on redhotpawn.com, a correspondence site, but eventually fell away from it. i was a regular on FICS for a bit, and i still bughouse there every now and then. my nick is/was A Man You'll Ask Her - if you get the reference.
granddaddy of competitive games? I'd have to disagree there, good sir. Go ftw!
Still though chess is great fun and I'll have to connect to a few of the sites listed here. I'm by no means great, but at a basic level, leaving out textbook strategies I'm not so bad. My real problem with the game is how repetitive it gets, many chess games are so very alike that it often comes down to who has memorized their predecessors games better. Personally I feel that Go is just a bit more dynamic and intuitive in nature.
Still though chess is great fun and I'll have to connect to a few of the sites listed here. I'm by no means great, but at a basic level, leaving out textbook strategies I'm not so bad. My real problem with the game is how repetitive it gets, many chess games are so very alike that it often comes down to who has memorized their predecessors games better. Personally I feel that Go is just a bit more dynamic and intuitive in nature.
I used to be p.good and played in rated tournaments and all, but I've stopped. I'm still a decent casual player though, but I'd get lawnmowered by tournament players nowadays. A lot of the people who I knew were like 1300 or 1400 USCF rating when I was about 1200 are now like 1600-1900 while I'm still 1200 X_x
I have a tendency to make as many stellar moves as absolutely horrible blunders, though. This is why I prefer playing real life, since on the comp I have a tendency to get distracted while playing lol.
I have a tendency to make as many stellar moves as absolutely horrible blunders, though. This is why I prefer playing real life, since on the comp I have a tendency to get distracted while playing lol.
I used to play Chess a bit, but I got bored of it.
The fact that it's inherently a strong-solvable game (i.e. zero-sum, sequential moves, finite number of possible game states) turns me off, because even though it hasn't actually been strong solved (and some theorists think it never will be due to the high amount of computing power required to map and read the game tree), there's still a best-play and so it's really a game decided on ignorance and not on smarts.
There tends to be very little in actual strategy involved (using the literal meaning of strategy) except at the -really- high level games, and even then, not that much, and more about memorising early and endgame combinations. The person who knows the most about the game tends to be the winner, not the person who makes better responsive play.
The fact that it's inherently a strong-solvable game (i.e. zero-sum, sequential moves, finite number of possible game states) turns me off, because even though it hasn't actually been strong solved (and some theorists think it never will be due to the high amount of computing power required to map and read the game tree), there's still a best-play and so it's really a game decided on ignorance and not on smarts.
There tends to be very little in actual strategy involved (using the literal meaning of strategy) except at the -really- high level games, and even then, not that much, and more about memorising early and endgame combinations. The person who knows the most about the game tends to be the winner, not the person who makes better responsive play.
I'm alright at chess, and when I can usually play against family. I consider myself in about the middle skill level. I can beat people who are relatively new to chess but are just as easily defeated by the "pros".
I used to be able to beat the majority of players at my school, but only a few of them played at any level beyond casual, and I'd say they weren't that good even then. I might be able to pull something back, but I have no interest in playing again.
When you learn moves, I didn't just mean the direction and length of each piece, I meant the move in its entirety, including the reasons it is valuable in given situations.
The responsiveness in chess generally occurs when you and your opponent exhaust your own knowledge of useful moves in a particular chain, and then it's about jostling for valuable lategame positions.
It's not a game without merit, but I just find no joy in playing it because it is philosophically unappealing given that there is an inherent "best game" within it.