|
Avatar idea: 
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2021 06:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 10:13 |
|
|
I'm 1100 on lichess in 10+5 and I play for a KID with black most games. Can someone help me understand the pirc and why it might be useful? What's the reason for going d6 first? I've been playing 1. e4, Nf6 and seeing if I can bait out an Alekhine defense which I'm kinda learning, but is the pirc only used against 1.e4 just to ensure you get to play Nf6 later? Do you ever play 1...d6 against other pawn moves?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2021 22:49
|
|
|
I like openings 3 good reasons to learn them 1) An opening gives new players a roadmap that helps to prevent blunders in the first 5-6 moves. 2) Openings are fun and an enjoyable part of learning chess, just as much as tactics (IMO) 3) When you understand why opening moves are done, instead of just memorizing them, you get a sense of why a move is good outside of the opening
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2021 23:19
|
|
|
The Naroditsky speedrun videos are good for a few reasons but one I love is that he uses an absolute minimum of calculation. He basically goes up to 1800 before calculating 2 moves deep. Being able to calculate is obviously an important skill, but understanding that good players can beat me without a single calculation made chess into something I suddenly wanted to learn.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2021 00:55
|
|
|
One thing I want to get better at is seeing notation and being able to visualize moves. I was doing that in my head today with 1. d4, d5 2. c4, dxc, 3. e3, b5 but I couldn't figure out why it was an inaccuracy because the line gets a bit complicated and depends later moves. Is this a type of exercise with a name? Opening traps that you just try to do in your head? Here's one I see a lot in scrub MMR, I call it "how NOT to refute the danish gambit: 1. e4, e5 2. d4, f6 3. dxe, fxe White is +8.1. Without looking at a chessboard what will happen next?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2021 22:15
|
|
|
That's the "oops my queen!" opening which is optimally played before your morning coffee.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2021 22:44
|
|
|
I read that article and it's pretty cool how a very many different ways of calculating relative piece value come out so similar. Wikipedia has a great article about the history of relative piece values: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_piece_relative_value It includes a table for comparing many different methods, for example Philidor in 1817: ♕ - 7.9 ♖ - 5 ♗ - 3.5 ♘ - 3.05 Or Lasker in 1947: ♕ - 8.5 ♖ - 5 ♗ - 3.5 ♘ - 3.5 It seems like such an absurd thing to try to calculate in an objective way, but over two hundred years its pretty much unchanged.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2021 02:19
|
|
|
I'm kinda surprised the evaluation is only +2.8, but who knows maybe their internet died when they kicked their modem in disappointment. edit: oops I had the white king on the wrong square its +6.3
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2021 19:55
|
|
|
Anyone want to play some bad correspondence on lichess? I'm 1100 rapid which is about 700-800 on chess.com. https://lichess.org/@/saltfish
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2021 04:09
|
|
|
Carefully writing down f5 in a notebook
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2021 19:32
|
|
|
I think they pay a bunch of titled players to be exclusive on their site. Name a titled played with more than 100 concurrent viewers on twitch and they're playing on chess.com. The name recognition is huge and they have a bunch of community events. I get why lichess doesn't do that stuff, I mean obviously, but chess.com marketing/community/branding is extremely on point. I was telling a friend that I prefer lichess and they pointed out that I pay them 5 bucks a month so its not really any different than chess.com... I mean its true. Feels better to donate though.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2021 19:26
|
|
|
Just playing a normal run of the mill game of chess 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2021 00:53
|
|
|
Yup, looks like some chess happened.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2021 03:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 10:13 |
|
|
 Magnus on lichess
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2021 02:26
|
|