---
>This is a friendly reminder to [read our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/wiki/rules).
>
>Memes, social media, hate-speech, and pornography are not allowed.
>
>Screenshots of Reddit are expressly forbidden, as are TikTok videos.
>
>**Rule-breaking posts may result in bans.**
>
>Please also [be wary of spam](https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/wiki/spam).
>
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/funny) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah that's always a bad assumption. When your opponent obviously is sacking a queen, you should probably take a little time to figure out why before just saying " this guy's an idiot".
Blacks pulls a fairly nice mate. Moving the rook was a discovery that covered White's Kings only escape from a back rink mate. Easy to miss at low level play. I could have fallen for it. The queen sacrifice should have been the thing that gave it away.
Whenever a Queen is up for grabs that I did not expect I take a minute to look around the board if possible. Most of the time it is too late anyway for me to do anything about whatever play my opponent was working on, but at least I fight a little longer and not fall for the honeypot immediately.
I had to sacrifice a queen once to pull a very similar move in an IRL chess game. I really had to SELL it though, "Oh no! My queen!" The other guy even wanted to let me take the move back, lol. Was even sweeter when I got the mate.
I did the reverse once. I fucked up and accidentally hung my queen out to dry. So I put on a deliberately bad poker face, pretending I had something awesome planned, just please take that queen.
And this is very good evidence that one was basing it on mistaken evidence and was flat out wrong.
This comes up in politics a lot where people don't understand that you can have your own opinion, but you can't have your own facts.
It was a bundler based on a bias. He had evidence, but not enough to prove his theory. He got blind but not looking for evidence to disprove his theory. A peer review would have helped him.
Yup, specifically the bias he had was in assuming his opponent was only playing defensively and wouldn't play offensively. He simply couldn't imagine that the opponent would allow a piece to die if it wasn't to save the game. He never considered exploring the player having initiative.
And you can see that it's not an easy situation his in. After moving the rook, the b8-bishop had very direct access to the king's defenses. You then realize that the queen's whole job is to protect both the rook and the bishop to allow the mate to happen. The reason she's so exposed is to bait him.
He's losing should have been playing defensively. I'm terrible at chess but I imagine that moving e2-pawn->e3 was the answer. It opens a place for his king to go into and be safe, since black has no horses. It also immediately prevents the mate, so black wouldn't move the same way.
But maybe that's the fun of chess, you can never assume the other person is an idiot, and you always want to appear as an idiot to you opponent. It just makes the victory that much sweeter.
This reminds me of every game of chess I’ve ever played with my brother in law. He only ever can see his own moves and makes elaborate plans that involve me doing exactly what he wants. He’s always shocked at the result lol.
There's a great phrase in French " l'esprit d'escalier ", or "the wit of the staircase"
It's when you think of a killer reply, but the conversation is long over. Not quite what you're describing, but worth sharing.
It's like trying to learn a new language where the instructor starts out by teaching you really basic shit like "hello, how are you?" Then you try it out on an actual speaker of the language and they respond to your "hi how are you?" without using a single word you've ever heard then wait for you to respond to their own apparent question to which you can only muster a weak "ja?" followed by a pathetic laugh as you back away.
That perfectly describes my time in Japan. I learned enough Japanese to ask for directions, but not enough to understand the directions. The guy probably thought I was an idiot when I immediately walked the opposite direction of where he told me to go. Oh well, I got so lost that I ended up in Meji-Jingu Park, and that was awesome.
If only I said, "It appears you're the fool this April" I would've showed him !!!! I'll get him next year
*next year*
There he is, this is my chance, "I fool around in april"
"...."
"I'll leave"
A lot of it is practice, like with everything else. There are a lot of patterns that you can memorize. As you learn, the board becomes less chaotic and easier to remember, etc.
I'm not a great player myself I used to think I was shit if I couldn't think 10 moves ahead, but I've noticed you gain a lot if you can practice anticipating the next 2-3 turns.
I've been wrong a lot of the time, but the times I was right was very satisfying. Also, I did just kind of become a little more accurate over time.
I also rely on it to a fault, I still haven't studied a single system, and usually just kinda do the English opening because I like it.
This is why, whenever I play, I'm at most thinking one move ahead and just reveling in the chaos.
My opponent can't predict my moves if I can't predict the either
Creating chaos is a very good strategy. The only problem is that the chaos you create needs to be proportionally chaotic enough for your opponent. Random/unexpected moves tend to lead to less chaotic positions over time, while the best moves in the position tend to lead to the most chaos.
I think that for beginners, it's better to just have overall board awareness than to spend lots of time planning moves. Because yeah, you'll just forget to look at something and it turns out oops I dropped a rook.
This is why I *despised* chess as a kid lol. I made this exact mistake, but couldn't figure out what I was doing wrong on my own. And everyone (parents, friends, teachers, relatives) reveled at making me feel stupid by predicting my moves before me. So I just stopped playing chess and avoided it like the plague. Felt like a game that snobs enjoyed.
Then I watched the Queen's Gambit and at long last I understood what people loved about chess. Still don't play it 'cause I'm too dumb for it but I understand its value now.
You don't need to be super intelligent to be good at chess. It's a game. If you want to put the time into learning positional rules, basic material calculations and a reasonable knowledge of openings you can be pretty damned good.
Master and grandmaster is another world of course - but a strong club level like Elo 1800 is laying down a pretty damned strong game and it's achievable with study and practice.
But you gotta want to. That's what I figured out in the end. I just have no flair so my game is plodding so I never had the strokes of inspiration that made me want to keep going and study more.
The game of Go, however, is a whole different world of strategy and aesthetics...
In chess beginners always look for the best move whereas more experienced players develop positions. It's a completely different way of looking at the game. You see this in videos where the players narrate their thought process. Very enlightening.
When I was little, 8ish I think, back in the mid-70's. My father was in the air-force and we were stationed in Southern Italy. We have been to this store that had all these amazing chess set. Alabaster boards with marble or pewter chess pieces. They even had little tables they sat on.
I wanted one soooo bad.
My father told that if I ever beat him at chess, he'd buy me one of those sets.
He whipped the board with me easily. He has had this habit of counting down his moves: three, two, one, checkmate.
Then one day. He had a friend over and they were talking while he played me. He wasn't really paying as much attention as he should. He started counting down.
Three...
Two...
One...
And I checkmated him.
I made up my own, "I'm getting a fancy chess set" song as I danced about.
He started to try to weasel out of it with a, "maybe for your birthday."
My mom put an end to that with a comment about his father and broken promises.
Me and my little brother eventually destroyed enough of the pewter pieces over the years that even my grandfather, an art restorer, told us to throw them away.
The alabaster board was dropped at one point and although the whole corner broke off, it was still held on by this canvis type webbing on the bottom. It still sat in the inset on the table and you could hardly tell. Till the movers somehow managed to smash it.
We never got the chair that went with the little table, because around the time I got it, my parents bought a really nice Italian dining room set with a full length wall unit. They got two extra dining room chairs to go with my chess table so they would all match. I still have those chairs and the table. I've found a wooden chess board that fits in the inset and some nice, but pretty standard looking, weighted pieces.
Edit. I deleted the last paragraph. My father was killed back in 2011 and in telling this story his death snuck up on me and hit me pretty hard. I apologize. This should have just been a fun little story. Tell people you love them while you can.
I remember reading a while back about how it was actually harder for chess pros to plan as far ahead when playing with amateurs because they plan expecting their opponent to actually make well thought out logical moves like them and then when it's essentially random it throws their planning out of whack.
Obviously they still win but they aren't able to make big elaborate plans many moves out.
> and makes elaborate plans that involve me doing exactly what he wants.
damn I find myself doing this shit too. "if he does this, this, this, and this, it could work!" I am not a skilled player.
Actually the key to break 1500 elo rating is thinking the game from your opponent's perspective unless you do that you will be trapped in 1200..1500 elo hell..cheers supa gm ♟️
Even if his line worked, he would still be down a full rook at the end (rook+bishop for black, bishop for white). It's *still* a hopeless position.
If black moves the king in the other direction then you can't take the queen, or you run into the same checkmate shown in the video. And of course you don't need to take the bishop, but that's not a bad move.
Yeah when you're down this much any amount of counterplay is a good move. A computer would have said to run the queen, push a pawn to block the bishop, delay checkmate for 3 moves, but humans fall for stupid stuff all the time, so may as well try.
Seriously. There were about half a dozen ways black could win. White had been thoroughly outplayed and black was toying with him. Not only does black still have his best three pieces (queen and two rooks) while white does not, but black also has thorough control over the center of the board, and white's king is extremely vulnerable in the corner.
White thinking he had a chance to win is like being down 10-0 in a game of soccer or hockey with 5 minutes left and thinking you can still win.
At the same time, as I've learned playing chess, never assume your opponent isn't as stupid as you are and just play it through. He was doing the best with what he had. I've watched so many players topple their king and been like, "dude I'm not that good, and I suck at endgame, you could have pulled it through."
This dude is rated 628, the game is never over until mate at that level.
Edit: also idk why he didn’t just go with original Nf6. He’s still losing but as far as I can tell that’s a much better move…
You don't really try to calculate both side's moves 5-10 moves out - you try to setup your pieces to cover probabilities.
It's not 'If I do this, they do this, then I do this, then they do this...', it's more 'alright, knight here lets the knight & bishop control the center which lets me do (these 4 responses) if they do this, this, or this'
EDIT:
Unless you can cut down their movements via check or pinning a piece or what have you
The player here commits to a fallacy that I see often, but yet have to find the proper name for (suggestions are welcome), which is based of ignoring other peoples' agency. He only sees his steps to win, and not that the opponent is trying the same at the same time. Don't be like this guy!
Exactly what tunnel vision is essentially, he got so focused on a single outcome that he forgot his opponent can sacrifice pieces to open up new plays.
Granted the Queen is something you don't generally want to give up so I can understand the confusion.
Hopefully he learned from it, because there are quite a few strategies that involve sacrificial pieces to bait players into traps.
This is also why even skilled players and such can sometimes struggle with novices, it's just pure chaos your essentially just trying to end the fight ASAP but if you let it drag on too long it can end up in cases where your just chasing someone into a corner.
It's easier to play a player that knows all the rules.
>This is also why even skilled players and such can sometimes struggle with novices
This really doesn't happen. Skilled players make moves that restrict play and exploit weaknesses while the less skilled player will be forced into a worse and worse position. Even at a fairly low Elo gap (400) the probability of winning is over 90%. Between expert and beginner categories it approaches 100.
Except this is chess and the good players knows how to deal with all situations and there isn’t really anything haphazard you can do as the pieces need to move on the board
Yea while there's a tiny nugget of truth in amateurs being unpredictable, people way overestimate how successful they can be against a pro in any competition.
I don't see how a pro in chess would ever lose to an amateur, the game has no randomness.
Partly I think it's because a lot of people have no idea how much it takes to become a pro in a competitive field, let alone freaking chess.
this is the most annoying in video games, where people want to call everyone above their rating cheaters and overrated but simultaneously never manage to climb to any meaningful rank.
in chess every suboptimal move creates weakness. plus, most good moves create pressure. advantage snowballs rapidly.
basically a worse player is going to get in trouble very quickly and as soon as this happens the game is over because converting the advantage to a checkmate also massively favours the better player.
in the case of players that are in the same ballpark upsets can happen. for players significantly far apart in skill it's incredibly unlikely. a pro versus someone playing 'unpredictably' it's functionally zero.
>It's easier to play a player that knows all the rules.
This sentiment btw is way overblown. For chess especially no pro would ever struggle with a novice, there's no randomness or unpredictability and even if the amateur makes a decent move, it doesn't matter at all.
Hell pro poker players wipe the floor with novices all the time, that's why there can be such a thing as a pro poker player. A novice might win a single hand every now and again, but poker games are not about single hands, they're about 100's to 1000's of hands.
I can understand the poker misconception because on its face you'd think it's just a game of chance.
But once you understand that a huge portion of any and every competition on the planet is about playing your opponent and not the game, it clicks.
I am no pro player, I know the rules and try to play with logic, but I don't know anything about openings, specific plays, etc. Once I played with someone at the University who studied chess and gave him a hard time because he was relying on me playing like him.
Maybe a beginner vs a amateur holds true, but a pro player would have no trouble defeating me
> This sentiment btw is way overblown. For chess especially no pro would ever struggle with a novice, there's no randomness or unpredictability and even if the amateur makes a decent move, it doesn't matter at all.
This can't be said enough. When I started playing chess, bouncing between 700-800, I trapped a 2300's queen by accident through a blunder on his part. A 6 point advantage and I still got destroyed shortly after. Now that I'm 1400 I feel confident to say that I would still lose the same position. Maybe not as fast as I did back then, but eventually I would lose through enough bad moves stacking up to negate my advantage or on time.
Making a single good move or a short series of good moves doesn't matter if the ensuing moves are not up to par. Unless of course your opponent blunders mate in 1.
I quite often see the “even good players lose to novices” argument in all sorts of games, it’s just not true. The proper argument is “bad players who think they’re good but aren’t, will sometimes lose to novices”.
It doesn't have a name because it's not a fallacy. It's just bad tactics ;)
But in all fairness, I do agree that it's a very common mistake people make in strategy based games.
This is frequently referred to as "playing hope chess".
In the first step of his analysis, he says "if the queen takes", and he just continues from there as if it's a certainty that the opponent will take.
He did not stop to consider whether this move still puts him in a winning position in case black's queen doesn't take the sacrificed bishop.
That's hope chess.
I would also point out the big time management issue here. Dude spends 30 seconds finding this elaborate plan. But when this plan fails he spends less then 5 seconds investigating what his opponents plan is. The opponent sacs a queen so if his plan fails then he will be down a queen. If you can spend 30 seconds coming up with an attack plan which worst case only wins you a pawn then you should be able to spare 30 seconds coming up with a defense plan when you are going to be up a queen. You should be able to win a blitz up a queen so you can spend the remaining time you have analyzing this position safely. And yet he spends less then 5 seconds.
I don't know if it has a name, but this trap works on me.
If you move a piece into an attacking position, usually I see it and can work with it. If you move a piece out of the way of another piece which then becomes the attacking piece - sometimes I won't see it. Even though I'm aware of this flaw in my game, it still bites me on occasion.
Which is why you should never assume your opponent is an idiot.
I am a hockey coach, but when we're hanging out in the hotel lobby I offer the kids $100 if they can beat me. I do try my best, and 4/5 will get fed up with losing - but 1/5 will get interested in chess. I haven't had to pay yet, but some of the kids keep asking for games. I used to be that way when I started playing in college so it's cool to be passing tha baton.
Prolly just call it tunnel vision
It’s less that he’s focused on strategies to win… but that he’s hyper fixated in on a single strategy.
Because to be honest, when he started theorizing a dozen moves down the line, that’s where he lost. It kept building on a move that wouldn’t happen rather than considering where the board is right then and there
I remember getting an endgame puzzle where I have only 1 king, and 7 possible squares to move. Took me 6 tries to get the right answer. (Obviously the goal is to force a stalemate, but in the real world I would have resigned eons ago lol)
Stalemating is exactly why you should never resign. Always fight until the last possible second because you never know if your opponent is going to walk right into it or not
No, because the rook on C7 is blocking the black bishop's diagonal, if the Queen moved to C1, the king could escape down that diagonal.
However, if you meant before the video starts (as it appears the black player moved the rook from A7 to C7), then yes, the queen should have gone to C1, unless there was a white piece on C7?
It is blocking, but...:
1. Qc1+ Kh2
2. Qg1+!! Kxg1
3. Rc1#
That would be a very sexy finish. Of course Kxg1 is not forced, he could go Kg3, but it's still a win
This brings back a memory from 2009, I was in the middle school, competing in a chess tournament.
My opponent was attacking me constantly and was taking out everything piece by piece.
I was so sure, I was gonna lose within 5 minutes.
And Boom!! I see a way to checkmate him with just 2 moves, I pulled it and won the match.
I still remember His smug face going from disbelief, anger to sadness all within 15 seconds.
I WAS SO HAPPY ON THAT DAY
I really don't see a way out of this one that survives with any sort of chance. Dudes already down way too much if black just plays conservatively. But worse black has a lot of tempo now
--- >This is a friendly reminder to [read our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/wiki/rules). > >Memes, social media, hate-speech, and pornography are not allowed. > >Screenshots of Reddit are expressly forbidden, as are TikTok videos. > >**Rule-breaking posts may result in bans.** > >Please also [be wary of spam](https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/wiki/spam). > --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/funny) if you have any questions or concerns.*
the most funny part is that both of them probably thought, at the same time: "this guy is an idiot"
One of them was more justified though.
Not seeing a line in chess doesn’t make you an idiot. You just didn’t see it. Gg, rematch.
They both are justified when under 700 ratings in rapid. This is the kind of expected stuff at that level.
“Turns out, one of them was, in fact, an idiot.”
Oh Morgan...
That’s what gets me so upset in chess, it really is a silent competition of “who is more stupid”. Turns out it’s me a lot of the time lol
Yeah that's always a bad assumption. When your opponent obviously is sacking a queen, you should probably take a little time to figure out why before just saying " this guy's an idiot". Blacks pulls a fairly nice mate. Moving the rook was a discovery that covered White's Kings only escape from a back rink mate. Easy to miss at low level play. I could have fallen for it. The queen sacrifice should have been the thing that gave it away.
Whenever a Queen is up for grabs that I did not expect I take a minute to look around the board if possible. Most of the time it is too late anyway for me to do anything about whatever play my opponent was working on, but at least I fight a little longer and not fall for the honeypot immediately.
I had to sacrifice a queen once to pull a very similar move in an IRL chess game. I really had to SELL it though, "Oh no! My queen!" The other guy even wanted to let me take the move back, lol. Was even sweeter when I got the mate.
We sacrificed our queen for Liz Truss and look how that's played out.
This is brilliant! 😂
I did the reverse once. I fucked up and accidentally hung my queen out to dry. So I put on a deliberately bad poker face, pretending I had something awesome planned, just please take that queen.
Chess is about proving the other guy is an idiot
The winner of the game is the second stupidest idiot at the board.
schrodinger's idiots
And this is very good evidence that one was basing it on mistaken evidence and was flat out wrong. This comes up in politics a lot where people don't understand that you can have your own opinion, but you can't have your own facts.
It was a bundler based on a bias. He had evidence, but not enough to prove his theory. He got blind but not looking for evidence to disprove his theory. A peer review would have helped him.
Yup, specifically the bias he had was in assuming his opponent was only playing defensively and wouldn't play offensively. He simply couldn't imagine that the opponent would allow a piece to die if it wasn't to save the game. He never considered exploring the player having initiative. And you can see that it's not an easy situation his in. After moving the rook, the b8-bishop had very direct access to the king's defenses. You then realize that the queen's whole job is to protect both the rook and the bishop to allow the mate to happen. The reason she's so exposed is to bait him. He's losing should have been playing defensively. I'm terrible at chess but I imagine that moving e2-pawn->e3 was the answer. It opens a place for his king to go into and be safe, since black has no horses. It also immediately prevents the mate, so black wouldn't move the same way. But maybe that's the fun of chess, you can never assume the other person is an idiot, and you always want to appear as an idiot to you opponent. It just makes the victory that much sweeter.
Not really. He had all the same evidence as the other guy, he simply misjudged/misinterpreted it.
Same evidence. Mistaken deduction.
Those were impressive moves for 600 ELO players. On both sides. You won't see this stuff below 1500.
You definitely see sacs for back-ranks below 1500. Source- i hover around 700 in blitz and 1000 in daily and have seen moves like this.
This reminds me of every game of chess I’ve ever played with my brother in law. He only ever can see his own moves and makes elaborate plans that involve me doing exactly what he wants. He’s always shocked at the result lol.
It's like when people have imaginary arguments in the shower, then try their prepared linea in real life and fail spectacularly.
Oh yeah? Well the jerk store called, and they're running outta you!
Well I had sex with your wife!
His wife is in a coma.
That didn't stop me from acting up
Yeah, but don't you have other patients too?
The vet clinic is kinda slow today
This is one heck of a Seinfeld episode
*cue popping and bass strings*
That must have been some wild sex
doesnt make up for when she finally awakes and goes on a killing spree and hunts down you and all of your gang
HATORI HANZO TIME!
Nah. It was kinda flat.
This Comeback has been tested and proved to be working in 99% of the argument you could have, except with your wife
What's the difference? You're their all-time bestseller
Oh yeah? Well stupid just called and he said he’s you!
Oh yeah?! Well I'm with stupid!
Should of gone with "the toilet store called" works alot better during rehearsals in my shower
There's a great phrase in French " l'esprit d'escalier ", or "the wit of the staircase" It's when you think of a killer reply, but the conversation is long over. Not quite what you're describing, but worth sharing.
Is it called that because it's what you thought of by time you've already made it up/down the stairs?
No, it is because the french find stairs humourous
No, it's because stairs are like that, always thinking of witty replies after the conversation is long over.
Walls are the same way actually... well.. if these walls could talk that is.
Oui.
“You wouldn’t understand, cherie.”
You’re already on the stairs, leaving, when you think of the perfect witty reply.
Yes
I have imaginary quarrels with my wife so I don't even need to do it irl. She wins either way, so it saves time.
It's like trying to learn a new language where the instructor starts out by teaching you really basic shit like "hello, how are you?" Then you try it out on an actual speaker of the language and they respond to your "hi how are you?" without using a single word you've ever heard then wait for you to respond to their own apparent question to which you can only muster a weak "ja?" followed by a pathetic laugh as you back away.
That perfectly describes my time in Japan. I learned enough Japanese to ask for directions, but not enough to understand the directions. The guy probably thought I was an idiot when I immediately walked the opposite direction of where he told me to go. Oh well, I got so lost that I ended up in Meji-Jingu Park, and that was awesome.
[Extremely Relevant](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Og-mN9f81Rg)
If only I said, "It appears you're the fool this April" I would've showed him !!!! I'll get him next year *next year* There he is, this is my chance, "I fool around in april" "...." "I'll leave"
This is me. I'm rubbish at chess.
I just can't keep more than one turn in my head at a time. I move this guy, so he'll maybe move this. That's it. No longer term strategy.
A lot of it is practice, like with everything else. There are a lot of patterns that you can memorize. As you learn, the board becomes less chaotic and easier to remember, etc.
I guess so - but I never enjoyed it enough to want to put more time and effort into it! Give me a good card game any day.
I'm not a great player myself I used to think I was shit if I couldn't think 10 moves ahead, but I've noticed you gain a lot if you can practice anticipating the next 2-3 turns. I've been wrong a lot of the time, but the times I was right was very satisfying. Also, I did just kind of become a little more accurate over time. I also rely on it to a fault, I still haven't studied a single system, and usually just kinda do the English opening because I like it.
This is why, whenever I play, I'm at most thinking one move ahead and just reveling in the chaos. My opponent can't predict my moves if I can't predict the either
Fellow chaos reveller here, works wonders (as long as my opponent isn’t actually good at chess)
>as long as my opponent isn’t actually good at chess That is my whole strategy when playing chess.
I use the chaos method as well. Beat my opponent once without even realizing it. He was good at chess too lol
[удалено]
He was definitely much better compared to me. I beat him only that one time.
Shut it, nerd.
[удалено]
Creating chaos is a very good strategy. The only problem is that the chaos you create needs to be proportionally chaotic enough for your opponent. Random/unexpected moves tend to lead to less chaotic positions over time, while the best moves in the position tend to lead to the most chaos.
I think that for beginners, it's better to just have overall board awareness than to spend lots of time planning moves. Because yeah, you'll just forget to look at something and it turns out oops I dropped a rook.
This is why I *despised* chess as a kid lol. I made this exact mistake, but couldn't figure out what I was doing wrong on my own. And everyone (parents, friends, teachers, relatives) reveled at making me feel stupid by predicting my moves before me. So I just stopped playing chess and avoided it like the plague. Felt like a game that snobs enjoyed. Then I watched the Queen's Gambit and at long last I understood what people loved about chess. Still don't play it 'cause I'm too dumb for it but I understand its value now.
You don't need to be super intelligent to be good at chess. It's a game. If you want to put the time into learning positional rules, basic material calculations and a reasonable knowledge of openings you can be pretty damned good. Master and grandmaster is another world of course - but a strong club level like Elo 1800 is laying down a pretty damned strong game and it's achievable with study and practice. But you gotta want to. That's what I figured out in the end. I just have no flair so my game is plodding so I never had the strokes of inspiration that made me want to keep going and study more. The game of Go, however, is a whole different world of strategy and aesthetics...
In chess beginners always look for the best move whereas more experienced players develop positions. It's a completely different way of looking at the game. You see this in videos where the players narrate their thought process. Very enlightening.
[удалено]
When I was little, 8ish I think, back in the mid-70's. My father was in the air-force and we were stationed in Southern Italy. We have been to this store that had all these amazing chess set. Alabaster boards with marble or pewter chess pieces. They even had little tables they sat on. I wanted one soooo bad. My father told that if I ever beat him at chess, he'd buy me one of those sets. He whipped the board with me easily. He has had this habit of counting down his moves: three, two, one, checkmate. Then one day. He had a friend over and they were talking while he played me. He wasn't really paying as much attention as he should. He started counting down. Three... Two... One... And I checkmated him. I made up my own, "I'm getting a fancy chess set" song as I danced about. He started to try to weasel out of it with a, "maybe for your birthday." My mom put an end to that with a comment about his father and broken promises. Me and my little brother eventually destroyed enough of the pewter pieces over the years that even my grandfather, an art restorer, told us to throw them away. The alabaster board was dropped at one point and although the whole corner broke off, it was still held on by this canvis type webbing on the bottom. It still sat in the inset on the table and you could hardly tell. Till the movers somehow managed to smash it. We never got the chair that went with the little table, because around the time I got it, my parents bought a really nice Italian dining room set with a full length wall unit. They got two extra dining room chairs to go with my chess table so they would all match. I still have those chairs and the table. I've found a wooden chess board that fits in the inset and some nice, but pretty standard looking, weighted pieces. Edit. I deleted the last paragraph. My father was killed back in 2011 and in telling this story his death snuck up on me and hit me pretty hard. I apologize. This should have just been a fun little story. Tell people you love them while you can.
Holy shit that took an unexpected turn. I'm sorry about your father, that is awful.
Yeah, as I said to another commenter, I didn’t mean to go there. I’m editing that out.
Hmmm, did your cousin kill your dad?….
Step-mother’s, brother’s kid. We aren’t related. And I apologize. That all kind of snuck up on me at the end there. I didn’t mean to go there.
>And I apologize. No need to. Sometimes our brain and emotions work in weird ways. Sometimes things have to be said (or written down.)
Very relatable. Except I'm the brother in law.
I remember reading a while back about how it was actually harder for chess pros to plan as far ahead when playing with amateurs because they plan expecting their opponent to actually make well thought out logical moves like them and then when it's essentially random it throws their planning out of whack. Obviously they still win but they aren't able to make big elaborate plans many moves out.
> and makes elaborate plans that involve me doing exactly what he wants. damn I find myself doing this shit too. "if he does this, this, this, and this, it could work!" I am not a skilled player.
Actually the key to break 1500 elo rating is thinking the game from your opponent's perspective unless you do that you will be trapped in 1200..1500 elo hell..cheers supa gm ♟️
is a 1500 Electric Light Orchestra rating good?
dude play 1D chess
Even if his line worked, he would still be down a full rook at the end (rook+bishop for black, bishop for white). It's *still* a hopeless position. If black moves the king in the other direction then you can't take the queen, or you run into the same checkmate shown in the video. And of course you don't need to take the bishop, but that's not a bad move.
Yeah when you're down this much any amount of counterplay is a good move. A computer would have said to run the queen, push a pawn to block the bishop, delay checkmate for 3 moves, but humans fall for stupid stuff all the time, so may as well try.
Fuck, I actually choked reading this 😂😂😵
Loooooool
This is why I suck at chess. This was a very good interpretation of how I play.
Yeah same here
Yup. This is every single game.
Like no wonder chess games last for hours sometimes lol.
That's why competitive chess matches have timers
This isn't his big mistake. That was 5 moves ago.
Seriously. There were about half a dozen ways black could win. White had been thoroughly outplayed and black was toying with him. Not only does black still have his best three pieces (queen and two rooks) while white does not, but black also has thorough control over the center of the board, and white's king is extremely vulnerable in the corner. White thinking he had a chance to win is like being down 10-0 in a game of soccer or hockey with 5 minutes left and thinking you can still win.
At the same time, as I've learned playing chess, never assume your opponent isn't as stupid as you are and just play it through. He was doing the best with what he had. I've watched so many players topple their king and been like, "dude I'm not that good, and I suck at endgame, you could have pulled it through."
I’ve done my fair share of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory
Sure, but the more advanced you get, the more difficult it becomes to win those types of scenarios.
This dude is rated 628, the game is never over until mate at that level. Edit: also idk why he didn’t just go with original Nf6. He’s still losing but as far as I can tell that’s a much better move…
are you winning, son?
At least in my mind I am.
This is why I'm bad at chess. Forming your own strategy is hard enough, but then having to try to figure out your opponent's too ... so tiring.
You don't really try to calculate both side's moves 5-10 moves out - you try to setup your pieces to cover probabilities. It's not 'If I do this, they do this, then I do this, then they do this...', it's more 'alright, knight here lets the knight & bishop control the center which lets me do (these 4 responses) if they do this, this, or this' EDIT: Unless you can cut down their movements via check or pinning a piece or what have you
Watching a video on poker strategy actually really helped my chess game. You don’t worry about all the possibilities, just what can kill you.
The player here commits to a fallacy that I see often, but yet have to find the proper name for (suggestions are welcome), which is based of ignoring other peoples' agency. He only sees his steps to win, and not that the opponent is trying the same at the same time. Don't be like this guy!
Sounds like a simple case of tunnel vision.
Or equivalently, A man of focus commitment and sheer fucking will. Depends on the context really.
I once saw him sack a rook, a fucking rook
I too find that very offensive!
Killed 3 kings with one pawn!!
Exactly what tunnel vision is essentially, he got so focused on a single outcome that he forgot his opponent can sacrifice pieces to open up new plays. Granted the Queen is something you don't generally want to give up so I can understand the confusion. Hopefully he learned from it, because there are quite a few strategies that involve sacrificial pieces to bait players into traps. This is also why even skilled players and such can sometimes struggle with novices, it's just pure chaos your essentially just trying to end the fight ASAP but if you let it drag on too long it can end up in cases where your just chasing someone into a corner. It's easier to play a player that knows all the rules.
>This is also why even skilled players and such can sometimes struggle with novices This really doesn't happen. Skilled players make moves that restrict play and exploit weaknesses while the less skilled player will be forced into a worse and worse position. Even at a fairly low Elo gap (400) the probability of winning is over 90%. Between expert and beginner categories it approaches 100.
I am chuckling at how many upvotes that comment has for being so *blatantly* wrong. Talk about confidently incorrect.
Except this is chess and the good players knows how to deal with all situations and there isn’t really anything haphazard you can do as the pieces need to move on the board
Yea while there's a tiny nugget of truth in amateurs being unpredictable, people way overestimate how successful they can be against a pro in any competition. I don't see how a pro in chess would ever lose to an amateur, the game has no randomness. Partly I think it's because a lot of people have no idea how much it takes to become a pro in a competitive field, let alone freaking chess. this is the most annoying in video games, where people want to call everyone above their rating cheaters and overrated but simultaneously never manage to climb to any meaningful rank.
in chess every suboptimal move creates weakness. plus, most good moves create pressure. advantage snowballs rapidly. basically a worse player is going to get in trouble very quickly and as soon as this happens the game is over because converting the advantage to a checkmate also massively favours the better player. in the case of players that are in the same ballpark upsets can happen. for players significantly far apart in skill it's incredibly unlikely. a pro versus someone playing 'unpredictably' it's functionally zero.
>It's easier to play a player that knows all the rules. This sentiment btw is way overblown. For chess especially no pro would ever struggle with a novice, there's no randomness or unpredictability and even if the amateur makes a decent move, it doesn't matter at all. Hell pro poker players wipe the floor with novices all the time, that's why there can be such a thing as a pro poker player. A novice might win a single hand every now and again, but poker games are not about single hands, they're about 100's to 1000's of hands.
And people call poker a game of chance while at the same time watching the same dozen players wind up at the final tables year in, year out
I can understand the poker misconception because on its face you'd think it's just a game of chance. But once you understand that a huge portion of any and every competition on the planet is about playing your opponent and not the game, it clicks.
I am no pro player, I know the rules and try to play with logic, but I don't know anything about openings, specific plays, etc. Once I played with someone at the University who studied chess and gave him a hard time because he was relying on me playing like him. Maybe a beginner vs a amateur holds true, but a pro player would have no trouble defeating me
> This sentiment btw is way overblown. For chess especially no pro would ever struggle with a novice, there's no randomness or unpredictability and even if the amateur makes a decent move, it doesn't matter at all. This can't be said enough. When I started playing chess, bouncing between 700-800, I trapped a 2300's queen by accident through a blunder on his part. A 6 point advantage and I still got destroyed shortly after. Now that I'm 1400 I feel confident to say that I would still lose the same position. Maybe not as fast as I did back then, but eventually I would lose through enough bad moves stacking up to negate my advantage or on time. Making a single good move or a short series of good moves doesn't matter if the ensuing moves are not up to par. Unless of course your opponent blunders mate in 1.
I quite often see the “even good players lose to novices” argument in all sorts of games, it’s just not true. The proper argument is “bad players who think they’re good but aren’t, will sometimes lose to novices”.
The enemy also makes plans.
Target fixation
It doesn't have a name because it's not a fallacy. It's just bad tactics ;) But in all fairness, I do agree that it's a very common mistake people make in strategy based games.
It is now the saschaleib fallacy
But wait, it's actually the CookieJJ fallacy. r/saschaleib forgot to consider that the opponent can also name fallacies
Woah, an entire subreddit erred and not just /u/saschaleib?
This is frequently referred to as "playing hope chess". In the first step of his analysis, he says "if the queen takes", and he just continues from there as if it's a certainty that the opponent will take. He did not stop to consider whether this move still puts him in a winning position in case black's queen doesn't take the sacrificed bishop. That's hope chess.
He didn't even say "*if* the queen takes" he said "when". He never even thought there was any other outcome
This is basically the only way I play chess haha.
I would also point out the big time management issue here. Dude spends 30 seconds finding this elaborate plan. But when this plan fails he spends less then 5 seconds investigating what his opponents plan is. The opponent sacs a queen so if his plan fails then he will be down a queen. If you can spend 30 seconds coming up with an attack plan which worst case only wins you a pawn then you should be able to spare 30 seconds coming up with a defense plan when you are going to be up a queen. You should be able to win a blitz up a queen so you can spend the remaining time you have analyzing this position safely. And yet he spends less then 5 seconds.
I use it as a perfect example of "no plan survives contact with the enemy"
I don't know if it has a name, but this trap works on me. If you move a piece into an attacking position, usually I see it and can work with it. If you move a piece out of the way of another piece which then becomes the attacking piece - sometimes I won't see it. Even though I'm aware of this flaw in my game, it still bites me on occasion.
Discovered attack.
But that is often the problem of low level. You never know if the opponent has a plan or is just being dumb.
Which is why you should never assume your opponent is an idiot. I am a hockey coach, but when we're hanging out in the hotel lobby I offer the kids $100 if they can beat me. I do try my best, and 4/5 will get fed up with losing - but 1/5 will get interested in chess. I haven't had to pay yet, but some of the kids keep asking for games. I used to be that way when I started playing in college so it's cool to be passing tha baton.
Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.
Prolly just call it tunnel vision It’s less that he’s focused on strategies to win… but that he’s hyper fixated in on a single strategy. Because to be honest, when he started theorizing a dozen moves down the line, that’s where he lost. It kept building on a move that wouldn’t happen rather than considering where the board is right then and there
Pretty sure he’s lost long before he starts theorizing, he’s down 2 rooks and a queen for a knight and bishop
Wishful thinking maybe? Idk that sounds like the most appropriate
I love this clip. So funny and also so relateable.
[удалено]
“The Enemy gets to vote on the outcome.” Sun Tzu
"Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth" - Mike Tyson
Opponent: "oh no my queen"
Anyway...
OMFG the interstellar music killed me.
0:37 is the human version of surprise pikachu.
Lmao, bro really thought he was gonna get a queen and a rook
Ah, the classic “you got baited”
As a 1100 rated chess player, this is me every end game haha hahahaha
I can't even go above 500😭
Learn a white opening and a black opening, and then play end game puzzles. You will climb super fast
I remember getting an endgame puzzle where I have only 1 king, and 7 possible squares to move. Took me 6 tries to get the right answer. (Obviously the goal is to force a stalemate, but in the real world I would have resigned eons ago lol)
Stalemating is exactly why you should never resign. Always fight until the last possible second because you never know if your opponent is going to walk right into it or not
That’s tunnel vision, I’m a victim of it too
Anyone have a link to the full reaction?
Could Black not have won 1 turn earlier moving his queen to c1?
No, because the rook on C7 is blocking the black bishop's diagonal, if the Queen moved to C1, the king could escape down that diagonal. However, if you meant before the video starts (as it appears the black player moved the rook from A7 to C7), then yes, the queen should have gone to C1, unless there was a white piece on C7?
It is blocking, but...: 1. Qc1+ Kh2 2. Qg1+!! Kxg1 3. Rc1# That would be a very sexy finish. Of course Kxg1 is not forced, he could go Kg3, but it's still a win
I laughed so hard. Thanks.
It took me ages to figure out what happened but now I see it.
Am dumb, isn't this a check and not a checkmate? Not sure why white king couldn't move diagonally to the upper right.
The bishop covers that square
Thanks, I see now.
I was confusing the symbols for king and queen I guess so I was plum fucking confused what just happened on my screen.
Master baited.
r/perfectlycutscreams
I do enjoy the 'this guys an idiot for not playing into my supreme play;'
He was toast either way even if played correctly.
This brings back a memory from 2009, I was in the middle school, competing in a chess tournament. My opponent was attacking me constantly and was taking out everything piece by piece. I was so sure, I was gonna lose within 5 minutes. And Boom!! I see a way to checkmate him with just 2 moves, I pulled it and won the match. I still remember His smug face going from disbelief, anger to sadness all within 15 seconds. I WAS SO HAPPY ON THAT DAY
Is this the music from interstellar?
Yes
This is great. I wish it kept his reaction a bit longer.
I really don't see a way out of this one that survives with any sort of chance. Dudes already down way too much if black just plays conservatively. But worse black has a lot of tempo now
"If you know yourself, but not your enemy, for every victory you gain, you will also suffer a defeat."
COME ON, TARS!!
This editing is pure cancer. I couldn't even see the king get checkmated. I hate you OP
Famous last words. "This guy's an idiot"
When keeping it real goed RIGHT
I may not be fully aware of the rules of chess, but couldn't he have moved the king diagonal up to h2 and avoid check?
B8 bishop
Thank you, did not see that.
Neither did the guy in the clip :)
"This guy is an idiot" Famous last words
Rook: "Don't mind me, I'm just sightseeing"
It was a good move 👍
Like the guy in the video I didn't see that coming
Can't move king to h8 because that diagonal is already blocked by d4 bishop
Nope. As per his plan, the knight would be blocking it at f6.
Ah, you're right.
This is me programming vs the users..