Any Chess Fans Out There?

[Saturosian]

Hi, I'm a longtime reader of OotS, and I've just recently made a profile and started discussing things. I think D&D (etc) sounds fascinating, and I've learned the absolute basics, but I don't really have time to learn a new game, because my game is chess. I'm a pretty dedicated player/enthusiast. My USCF rating has been into the 1700s before, and I even competed at the Denker national tournament my senior year of high school. I'm new, and I want to make friends, so...any chess players out there? Anyone following the Tal Memorial tournament (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?tid=81348&crosstable=1)? Anyone want to chat about chess on a D&D website? :smalltongue:

p.s. This should make my sig make sense.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I'm only a casual chess player (I haven't played a full game in a very long time), but that's really cool! I guess I just haven't really opted to dedicate myself very heavily to the game. That tends to be a big downfall of mine--lots of interests, no one overriding one gets most of my time.

[Shishnarfne]

The Tal Memorial's had a bit of an interesting start. It's not often that an event at that level has one player reel off four decisive games in a row to start the event.

I'd describe myself as a fairly casual tournament player, with a rating near to 1900 USCF. A few years back I took tournaments more seriously and wound up getting into the state closed championship (3 draws, 2 losses in a round robin), but I've not been that active of late.

I wasn't able to make it into my state's Denker qualifier tournament in high school (too many people between me and the top), but it's quite the honor and accomplishment to make it there.

And I'm not sure the best analogy for rogues... though between mobility and effectiveness (perhaps alongside being risky to show off early) wizards make a reasonable "queen" equivalent.

[Cikomyr]

What is this... "chess"?

*after google*

Meh. I'm not much for TBS. And this looks like you can only move one unit at a time, this appears quite limiting...

[Seerow]

What is this... "chess"?

*after google*

Meh. I'm not much for TBS. And this looks like you can only move one unit at a time, this appears quite limiting...

Is this real life?

[Saturosian]

The Tal Memorial's had a bit of an interesting start. It's not often that an event at that level has one player reel off four decisive games in a row to start the event.

Actually, weren't there two? Caruana was +2 -2 at round four, and Naka was +3 -1. They both had draws this round, though, which makes it a little more normal. I was especially surprised by Caruana, winning against the champ and the highest rated player, then losing to Naka and Gelfand. They aren't weak players, even by super GM standards, but neither one of them usually makes big impressions at these kind of supertournaments.

And, of course, Naka is doing the best I think I've ever seen, at least in terms of results. Super interesting tournament to watch.

As for the Denker, honestly, I only made it because I was in Idaho at the time, and so at 1700 I was fighting for the top rating under 18 yrs old. And 1700 is right in the middle for the Denker--a lot of the smaller states sent kids with still lower ratings, so it's a mixed bag. I still put it on résumés, though. =P Lately, I've been working on my Master's, so I only get a little time to look at the big tournaments or play a little blitz on the side, but I'm between semesters and jobs for a few more weeks, so I've been doing more with chess lately.

[Dumbledore lives]

I can't say I've followed the Chess competitive scene for awhile but I always enjoy a game, though it's been awhile since I've played a serious good game. Back in high school we had a team that was actually pretty decent, managing to win the regional tournament and then get 8th at Nationals (This was in New Zealand). I was also fairly decent during Middle School competing in a bunch of tournaments in Kansas and doing pretty well in a few, as well as our team winning I'd say a good half of them.

One of the few things I do for chess now is Chess.com. It's not the same as a physical game but it's still fun and at least helps me keep in practice.

[Saturosian]

Oh, really? I always thought Dumbledore grew up in Godric's Hollow, I didn't know he ever went to New Zealand. (haha...okay, sorry, I have a dumb sense of humor. :smallamused: )

I'm actually on chess.com, too. I believe I have the same screen name (Saturosian). Feel free to look me up or send me a challenge, if you'd like to, I'm always glad to play a game. I can't guarantee how good the play will be, though; I've spent more time watching tournaments than actually playing, lately.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Is this real life?

I think he's feigning ignorance to make a joke.

Oddly enough, my views are similar. I prefer RTS and RTP to TBS (although I like TBS just fine). The lack of team customization also gets to me, I prefer games where you have a certain amount of points (sometimes all beforehand, sometimes generated by an in-game economy) to spend on units. Starcraft 2 is one of my favorite games, and Company of Heroes could be if I ever "got" what the good strategies are for skirmish and multiplayer.

[snoopy13a]

Meh. I'm not much for TBS. And this looks like you can only move one unit at a time, this appears quite limiting...

There's an exploit where you can move a king and a rook at the same time. There's another exploit where you can "go back in time" to kill a pawn.

Chess: the birthplace of exploits :smalltongue:

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Actually, I heard someone make an interesting point: Chess doesn't map to a traditional physical combat. Instead, it's a great abstraction of political court intrigue, whether it was intended as such or not.

The King is hampered by his position; though everything hinges on him, he can't do anything himself.
The Queen has no such limits; as the real power in the court, she stands to defend the throne by ruthlessly chasing down anyone who stands against it.
The Bishops are court advisors, with limited mobility due to their status, but substantial reach nonetheless, and quick to action.
Knights are the sworn loyalists to the throne, capable of some tricky maneuvering, but outpaced in the long run by their more seasoned intrigue compatriots.
Rooks are the sworn lords, reliable defenders and well-experienced in the intrigues, but they take forever to muster into position.
Pawns are pawns, naturally. But every so often, one of those lowly mortals scrapes away and survives long enough to become a fearsome intriguer.

[Cikomyr]

Actually, I heard someone make an interesting point: Chess doesn't map to a traditional physical combat. Instead, it's a great abstraction of political court intrigue, whether it was intended as such or not.

The King is hampered by his position; though everything hinges on him, he can't do anything himself.
The Queen has no such limits; as the real power in the court, she stands to defend the throne by ruthlessly chasing down anyone who stands against it.
The Bishops are court advisors, with limited mobility due to their status, but substantial reach nonetheless, and quick to action.
Knights are the sworn loyalists to the throne, capable of some tricky maneuvering, but outpaced in the long run by their more seasoned intrigue compatriots.
Rooks are the sworn lords, reliable defenders and well-experienced in the intrigues, but they take forever to muster into position.
Pawns are pawns, naturally. But every so often, one of those lowly mortals scrapes away and survives long enough to become a fearsome intriguer.

.... THAT IS GENIUS!! :smallbiggrin:

[mangosta71]

I was a casual player through high school, but in recent years I haven't had anyone to play with so I'm horribly out of practice.

By the by, if you think a Knight is anything but an assassin, you're doing it wrong.

[Cikomyr]

I was a casual player through high school, but in recent years I haven't had anyone to play with so I'm horribly out of practice.

By the by, if you think a Knight is anything but an assassin, you're doing it wrong.

That is if you are looking in term of violent intrigue.

If it's merely "intrigue"; considering the "players" more than "methods", then I like the radical loyalists. They often come from a weird angle.

[Saturosian]

Actually, I heard someone make an interesting point: Chess doesn't map to a traditional physical combat. Instead, it's a great abstraction of political court intrigue, whether it was intended as such or not.

The King is hampered by his position; though everything hinges on him, he can't do anything himself.
The Queen has no such limits; as the real power in the court, she stands to defend the throne by ruthlessly chasing down anyone who stands against it.
The Bishops are court advisors, with limited mobility due to their status, but substantial reach nonetheless, and quick to action.
Knights are the sworn loyalists to the throne, capable of some tricky maneuvering, but outpaced in the long run by their more seasoned intrigue compatriots.
Rooks are the sworn lords, reliable defenders and well-experienced in the intrigues, but they take forever to muster into position.
Pawns are pawns, naturally. But every so often, one of those lowly mortals scrapes away and survives long enough to become a fearsome intriguer.

This is very interesting. I've heard explanations similar to this one before, but I like this one best. It's interesting to note that the type of game, as well as the type of strategies that are likely to be successful, are entirely dependent on the way the pawns are structured--they form the backbone of your defense, and they are the primary source of weaknesses that your opponent exploits. A player who handles his pawns well is a force to be reckoned with, because if you can seize strong positions with your pawns, eating up space so your opponent is in a bind, that can cover up a lot of mistakes with your other pieces. Modern political theory has realized, much more so than older political theory I think, that this is true of real life--if a ruler/leader can motivate the populace even when he's asking them to die for him, he is guaranteed to be a dangerous person.

[JSSheridan]

I was a casual player through high school, but in recent years I haven't had anyone to play with so I'm horribly out of practice.


+1 to this.