Chess?

[daveLovesIt]

Anyone play? If so, do you have an opening that you favour?

I always thought chess was one of the best examples you could give in the tired "gameplay or graphics?" debate.

[Sosseres]

I used to play it quite a bit but as with all things I quit when I stop progressing rapidly. Having to study theory to improve at any measurable rate killed all enjoyment. :/

I used to favour the E4/E5 openings since they tended to lead to clashes over the middle/kings. It often lends itself to aggressive play.

GO/IGO has started to gain some popularity now a days. Influence from the east and that people don't feel an inferiority complex compared to computers in it.

[daveLovesIt]

I have a little familiarity with Go, I remember it was referenced a lot in the English Translation of Hagakure that I had.

With Chess, I'm a 1.d4 guy. I know what you mean about theory. Study sure takes all the fun out of learning! I've have studied a little theory in the past, but not a vast amount.

[Sosseres]

1.d4 does have a higher win % than 1.e4 in high level play so it is slightly better. White in has something akin to 55% win chance while black has around 45%, excluding draws.

[fohfoh]

I suck at regular chess. But I was one of the best in my highschool chess club at "Siamese Chess". The only person to actually defeat me in that was the teacher and he did so just barely once on the final match. I don't know if this is a good thing or not.

[WiiLeeYum]

I used to favour the E4/E5 openings since they tended to lead to clashes over the middle/kings. It often lends itself to aggressive play.

I love the aggressive play, some people crack under the pressure when baits are lying everywhere.

Early: I prefer to send my king and/or queen's pawn opening for bishops to go in the early matches. Anything bad happens, I send in my knights and my queen. This way, the bishops and the queen are able to get into the game.

I kind of miss playing chess now. But after several tournaments... I better just play it casually.

By the way, how do you guys see the knight in chess? I always have problems using them efficiently. I'm not exactly good using them anyways, considered that I played for 2-3 years competitively.

[fohfoh]

I generally do queen pawn and king pawn openings to try and release my knights and bishops.

I love knights more than I love bishops. I always have issues using bishops properly due to opponent's pawn structures. It's easier to navigate the board with a knight than a bishop IMO. But then again, a bishop is more like a sniper rifle, and a knight is more like a shotgun. Very different uses and very different preferences. I also find that bishops need a bit less support (being more like a support unit in itself based on my style of play) than the knight which needs more support (but the knight is more like a front runner for me based on my style of play)

[luxfare]

I kinda suck at regular chess but much better at blitz chess. I play pawn chains a lot. I usually start off with E4,E5 as well.

[fohfoh]

I kinda suck at regular chess but much better at blitz chess. I play pawn chains a lot. I usually start off with E4,E5 as well.

Woot! Another variant player.

[WiiLeeYum]

My knight usage is pretty much as general support for my pawns. I tend to hit and run a lot with my bishops and knights, but that's mid match. In late matches, if I don't have at least one rook, I tend to play sloppier or give up. One thing for sure, the knight shines in mid to late matches.

I kinda suck at regular chess but much better at blitz chess. I play pawn chains a lot. I usually start off with E4,E5 as well.

All the tournaments I played at were blitz chess. 15-20 minutes per player. Ahh.. memories...

[fohfoh]

My knight usage is pretty much as general support for my pawns. I tend to hit and run a lot with my bishops and knights, but that's mid match. In late matches, if I don't have at least one rook, I tend to play sloppier or give up. One thing for sure, the knight shines in mid to late matches.

I kinda suck at regular chess but much better at blitz chess. I play pawn chains a lot. I usually start off with E4,E5 as well.

All the tournaments I played at were blitz chess. 15-20 minutes per player. Ahh.. memories...

I concur. But yeah, it's tiresome without a rook in late game.

Blitz were pretty good for me too since I could calculate faster than the others. However, once the goobers began to show up with chess books and reading up patterns etc. That's when my time went out the shitter and I focused more on siamese chess (bughouse)

[luxfare]

If I ever manage to make it into late game, the opponent should be pretty defense minded like myself. Wont be surprised if the pieces that have been taken off the board are my opponents knights and the pieces i traded them with.

[daveLovesIt]

I love aggressive play, but I like to temper it with long term ideas. Most of all, I love sacrifice (who was asking what knights were for?). The more speculative and risky, the better. It's satisfying to land a game-winning sac that immediately prompts your opponent to slap their own head and resign, but this is just oversight on their part.

Most satisfying is when you give up material which they were not expecting because they didn't think anybody sane would ever do that. Then, after you spend the next 10 or 15 turns educating them in the concept of "positional compensation", you really feel like you won on your own strength, and not their weakness/error. Judging compensation accurately, or at least being able to understand it better than your opponent is a very advantageous ability in chess. There are also the negative psychological effects these sorts of things tend to have on your opponent, ranging from overconfidence to sheer blind terror, I love it.

I guess that's why I lean towards the more strategical themed lines, even though I very much enjoy sharp, tactical positions. With a typical equalising line, you're basically waiting for one player or the other to slip, which leads to great, tense chess; but when there is a lot of scope for strategy (as in my own favourite, the Queen's Gambit) there is more opportunity to gradually build up a winning advantage over time even if your opponent makes no immediately bad moves.

[luxfare]

I love aggressive play, but I like to temper it with long term ideas. Most of all, I love sacrifice (who was asking what knights were for?). The more speculative and risky, the better. It's satisfying to land a game-winning sac that immediately prompts your opponent to slap their own head and resign, but this is just oversight on their part.

Most satisfying is when you give up material which they were not expecting because they didn't think anybody sane would ever do that. Then, after you spend the next 10 or 15 turns educating them in the concept of "positional compensation", you really feel like you won on your own strength, and not their weakness/error. Judging compensation accurately, or at least being able to understand it better than your opponent is a very advantageous ability in chess.

You are the type of player I fear the most People who dare sacrifice a knight or bishop to make an opening in my pawn chains that is. One the other hand, I sometimes play like a loon myself. Pretty interesting when you push your opponent without end right?

[daveLovesIt]

Ha ha, yes you've guessed I am a full-throttle kind of player! Win or lose, I always seem to enjoy the game more when I'm calling the shots and creating the play. If it's a choice between trying to muster up offensive or defensive resources, offence wins hands down for me every time.

But I hate to win with a massive material advantage, so If I'm up a fair bit, I'll simplify heavily at some expense to myself to get quickly to a won ending, even if I've made things difficult and I require critical accuracy for many moves just to keep the point. Not sure if I do it more for the endgame practice or to torture my opponent for a longer period of time when I feel they should have resigned.

On that note, I'm a resigner. I don't feel the need to have my opponent demonstrate an ability to know how to win the position, nor do I hold out in the hope that they'll return my blunders. When I'm losing to the point that I could win easily, if the roles were reversed, then I cede the point. Never played in a tournament or anything, nor have I ever really cared about online ratings to any great degree. No matter how intensely I've been devoted to it, chess has only ever been a "for fun" thing to me.

Any die-hards here who won't give up the fight for anything less than a forced mate?

[1000mAh]

Well I don't favor any specific opening move. I start usualy with a move that I can use nother of Bishops or queen. I'm bad at chess, but I like to play it and I also like Go (I not good in it )... not relly a good player in neither, but I like playing them. I just usualy ask better players than me to play with me but playing against better players than you has always positive efect on your play ...the I teach my friends to play, and then soon, I've people on the same level as me to play with

[kyubixmunky]

I pretty much scotch gambit and french defense every single game I play online.

[i_am_otep]

It was on my first tournament when I finally learned that the proper term was knight, not horse, lol

Plus, on vista's chess, I thought the computer was cheating on me or they have a bug or something whenever the computer tries to use En Passant (pass pawn)

As for favorite opening, most of the time, I flash out one of my knights right away

[DarkT]

Used to play. Don't nowadays... What killed it for me is the knowledge that while a comptuer can emulate hardcore Chess players, it can't emulate hardcore GO players, makign GO, in my eyes, a superior game due to a comptuer nto beign able to brute-force play it.

As to the Knight... There's plenty people who don't "see" it well, ya know? IT's one of the most curious things in chess, because of the irregular moves it can make. It's a great tool.

I used to play very offensive, nowadays whenever I get to play, it's mostly defensive, since nowaday if I ever play, it's against weaker opponents, in which case all I have to do is bid my time and wait for them to fail on their own...

Love the 5 minutes chess game, blitz so called... Though our trainer used to not allow us to play it lol, said it makes us "rash" or whatever *shrugs*

Anyway, great game, though I'm somewhat disenchanted with it by what I mentioned in teh beginning. Having said that... It does teach you how to lay traps, distractions, strategy, tactics... I really do love it from those poitns of view...

[kyanwan]

I played like crazy way back when - and found other things to do.   I tried to pick it back up - and found it annoying.   Planning steps ahead and needing to think out the moves and shit - found myself thinking too much.   Bleh.   I stuck to other things.