Leo's Blog Discussion Mega-Thread

[Yimpa]

I did the forum over 10,000 times yippie!

 

Edited 7 hours ago by Yimpa

[PenguinPablo]

I've probably played 10,000 Chess games yet I'm only in the top 65% of players.

Am I stupid?

I think just doing the thing is not enough. But serious analysis and curiosity is necessary along the way to notice the gaps in your approach.

I think in the majority of cases experience will suffice to see radical improvements and transformation but I think their can be bottleknecks depending on intellectual aptitude, trauma, etc...

[Yimpa]

4 minutes ago, PenguinPablo said:

I've probably played 10,000 Chess games yet I'm only in the top 65% of players.

Based on what metrics?

 

[LambdaDelta]

28 minutes ago, Yimpa said:

Based on what metrics?

 

 

 

[Leo Gura]

39 minutes ago, PenguinPablo said:

I've probably played 10,000 Chess games yet I'm only in the top 65% of players.

If you have not mastered chess after 10,000 games, you're doing something wrong.

Mastery does not mean being the world's best.

I have played less than 200 chess games in my life and I play at 2000 ELO against bots.

Edited 6 hours ago by Leo Gura

[UnbornTao]

The point is learning rather than simply going through the motions. There's a difference between mechanical repetition and applying intelligence and creative correction as you practice - it's not simply about doing the same thing over and over again.

That said, it depends on the particulars, too. With chess, it may require a different approach, I don't know.

For example, if you're going to cook an omelette, approach it as if you're cooking an excellent omelette. And then: How does what you do contrast with your image of "an excellent omelette"? Something like that. Don't use your failure to live up to it to beat yourself up, though - that's not needed. Just learn to see what you are not seeing, and refine that process. 

Felt compelled to share that - for whatever reason. 

[Leo Gura]

Of course quality matters. It's not just about mindless quantity. You have to do the 10,000 times with quality in mind too.

When I say 10,00 chess games, I don't mean shit games, I mean games where you are being thoughtful about improving.

You should always be thinking: How do I do it better next time?

Edited 6 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, PenguinPablo said:

I've probably played 10,000 Chess games

BTW, you are grossly over-estimating that number. You have not played even close to 10,000 games of chess. That's an insane number that even a grandmaster hasn't played.

[Joseph Maynor]

There is a vibe in rationalist that sounds a bit like other ists that we can commonly think of.  It's a desire to other or overcome another perspective.  It's like a preemptive strike.   

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

There is a vibe in rationalist that sounds a bit like other ists that we can commonly think of.  It's a desire to other or overcome another perspective.  It's like a preemptive strike.   

Yes, that is somewhat deliberate, to call them out. 

It is a shot across the bow of the Titanic.

Edited 5 hours ago by Leo Gura

[PenguinPablo]

33 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

BTW, you are grossly over-estimating that number. You have not played even close to 10,000 games of chess. That's an insane number that even a grandmaster hasn't played.

 

I heard Magnus in a fun video where he had to guess strangers ELO and he said something like a few thousands games isn't very much in Chess. So he predicted that the player was very low ELO like 1000 or something based on that along with a few questions about how they approach the game. 

I haven't lost the nuance though. I think with Chess for instance there are certain suggested avenues in terms of training, and ways of looking at the board that are mental shortcuts so to speak. Principles and so forth that allow you to cut through the noise and simplify the logic. 

I think that's the problem with most humans that they don't really reflect on what they are doing. 

Hence you see a lot of people that are mentally stunted. 

And to be fair if you are around low consciousness people you are just repeating the same loop over and over, perhaps your whole life. 

Hence the benefit of independent thinking, albeit their is also wisdom is structures that are proven. You just need to be selective and intelligent about which ones to plug into and benefit from.

 

Granted most of these are shorter games and not serious 15+ min games but this is just Chess.com. Add onto that his OTB classical games which Google AI said was only around 6000. Makes sense. 

I will concede that proves your point. 

6000 classical games is some serious shit. Actually gives you enough time to think things through thoroughly as opoosed to the mindlessness of Blitz games.

Edited 5 hours ago by PenguinPablo

[Leo Gura]

8 minutes ago, PenguinPablo said:

 

Hikaru is not merely a master, he is worldclass. And he does a lot of cheap, quick, dirty, online games. These are hardly proper chess games. These are not serious classical games with careful attention to detail. And he acheived mastery before he even started playing online.

How many classical offline games has Hikaru played to achieve GM? That's a better measure.

Edited 4 hours ago by Leo Gura

[PenguinPablo]

@Leo Gura He's in the 6000s

[Joshe]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

I have played less than 200 chess games in my life and I play at 2000 ELO against bots.

Nobody reaches 2000 ELO in the span of 200 chess games. You can shore up this self-deception by going on chess.com and playing real people in real chess, not Fischer random. The first person you lose to, take note of their ELO. That's roughly where you're at. Based on your puzzle responses in the chess thread, I'd guess you're around 1350.

I've played thousands of chess games and have capped out at 1550 ELO because good cognition can only take you so far. You have to study theory and drill tactics and do serious game reviews to make it to 2000. 

[Leo Gura]

6 minutes ago, Joshe said:

You can shore up this self-deception by going on chess.com and playing real people in real chess, not Fischer random

Of course I am not 2000 in classical chess because I would be playing against guys who memorized a bunch of opening theory. Of course I would look bad there because I refuse to memorize theory.

But I am not claiming 2000 in classic. I am claiming it in random. So I am not as self-deceived as you portray me to be.

It is fair to say that my score is artificially high against bots. I acknowledge that. If I had a non-bot score then that's what I would report but I don't have it so I can only give you a bot score. I am not trying to sound better than I am. This is just the score I have.

Edited 4 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Joshe]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

Of course I am not 2000 in classical chess because I would be playing against guys who memorized a bunch of opening theory. Of course I would look bad there because I refuse to memorize theory.

But I am not claiming 2000 in classic. I am claiming it in random. So I am not as self-deceived as you portray me to be.

It is fair to say that my score is artificially high against bots. I acknowledge that.

Fair enough. But when people speak of chess, they mean classical chess. So if someone says "I'm 2000 ELO" without clarifying it's not classical chess, that's a bit deceptive in my view. 

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Joshe said:

Fair enough. But when people speak of chess, they mean classical chess. So if someone says "I'm 2000 ELO" without clarifying it's not classical chess, that's a bit deceptive in my view. 

I will twist that around on you and say that if someone tells me he is 2000 ELO in classical I want to know his real number: Fischer random.

I don't care how much theory he has memorized.

As usual, people got their values all backwards.

Perhaps real chess ain't what you think it is.

Edited 3 hours ago by Leo Gura

[AtmanIsBrahman]

Reading this discussion, it kind of makes me cringe as a more serious chess player (2400 peak on chess.com). I think you’re making a lot of assumptions about chess— a domain you don’t know @Leo Gura. It’s like taking about how Peter Ralston’s martial arts mastery when you don’t have experience in martial arts yourself. 

By the way, the idea that people are good at chess because of opening theory is ridiculous. Any strong chess player understands that openings are part of the game, but not what makes you strong. A 2000-rated player can play horrible opening moves and still easily beat a 1500 player. The difference is about holistic understanding of the game, not opening theory.

And also, a person’s Fischer random rating isn’t ever far off from their standard rating. It’s fundamentally the same game. The difference is probably 100-150 points, maybe 200 in extreme cases.

[Leo Gura]

23 minutes ago, AtmanIsBrahman said:

By the way, the idea that people are good at chess because of opening theory is ridiculous. Any strong chess player understands that openings are part of the game, but not what makes you strong.

This makes no logical sense. If memorizing theory wasn't crucial then everyone wouldn't be doing it as much as they do.

And also, people would be not as resistant to Random as they are.

Bobby Fischer cleared all this up years ago. He hit the nail on the head. Classic chess is a scam. It is  not pure chess.

It is astonishing how conformist chess is.

If openings aren't crucial then stop playing classical chess. Put your money where your mouth is.

Edited 1 hour ago by Leo Gura

[AtmanIsBrahman]

10 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

If memorizing theory wasn't crucial then everyone wouldn't be doing it as much as they do.

That's only true at the top level. At a lower level, all you really need is a basic opening setup that you like to play. Many beginners deceive themselves that not knowing openings is holding them back, when really it's tactics and overall understanding of the game.

 

11 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

people would be not as resistant to Random as they are

Well, that's just inertia like in any other discipline. It takes time for anything to change. But also, part of the reason fischer random isn't picking up as much is because it just isn't necessary. The pieces are set up the way they are for a reason- it's much more harmonious than a random assortment of pieces for each new game. Since openings don't matter that much, the benefit of fischer random isn't that much.

 

15 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Bobby Fischer cleared all this up years ago. He hit the nail on the head

Yes, a top level player. Not relevant for most players.

 

16 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

If openings aren't crucial then stop playing classical chess

If openings don't matter, then there's no reason to stop playing classical chess.