Leo's Blog Discussion Mega-Thread

[Leo Gura]

1 minute ago, AtmanIsBrahman said:

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

It's boring as hell.

I have played less than 100 games of classical and I am already bored by it.

2 minutes ago, AtmanIsBrahman said:

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

And if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.

[AtmanIsBrahman]

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It's boring as hell.

Ok, but we were talking about openings. Now you're changing the subject.

 

5 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

And if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle

You claim openings matter, I claim they don't with much more experience in the domain. If you want to disagree, ok, but you're just wrong on this.

[Leo Gura]

9 minutes ago, AtmanIsBrahman said:

Ok, but we were talking about openings. Now you're changing the subject.

Openings are what make chess boring. Directly germane to the subject.

Quote

You claim openings matter, I claim they don't with much more experience in the domain. If you want to disagree, ok, but you're just wrong on this.

You frame your claim as something objective when it is your opinion.

I get too little enjoyment from classical chess. And that matters.

I could play tic-tac-toe, but I don't.

Your experience level is irrelevant to my level of enjoyment.

Edited 2 hours ago by Leo Gura

[AtmanIsBrahman]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I get too little enjoyment from classical chess. And that matters

That's fine, I was just pointing out that some of your thinking on this is wrong. 

The enjoyment reason is totally valid, it's just the other insights you gave about chess weren't accurate and I felt the need to correct them

[Leo Gura]

8 minutes ago, AtmanIsBrahman said:

That's fine, I was just pointing out that some of your thinking on this is wrong. 

The enjoyment reason is totally valid, it's just the other insights you gave about chess weren't accurate and I felt the need to correct them

Your position forces me to memorize shit that I do not want to memorize. So that's the bottom line and the deciding factor.

You want me to memorize things just to play a less varied and less creative game. This is a lose-lose proposition. The only reason for me to do that is conformity. And then you try to dress this up as a dispute over some objective factors and experience level.

If I don't play your memory games then I cannot play classical chess at 2000. That is the issue. I have to spend months memorizing shit just to be competitive. Why would any intelligent mind do that?

Edited 2 hours ago by Leo Gura

[AtmanIsBrahman]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Your position forces me to memorize shit that I do not want to memorize

Look, you don't have to memorize anything. You can play 1.b3 with white and 1.g6 with black every game and take it from there. Playing fischer random because you prefer it is fine, it's just that your opening claims are overblown.

[Leo Gura]

1 minute ago, AtmanIsBrahman said:

Look, you don't have to memorize anything. You can play 1.b3 with white and 1.g6 with black every game and take it from there. Playing fischer random because you prefer it is fine, it's just that your opening claims are overblown.

You are grossly oversimplifying how chess works.

And why would I want to play the same damn opening every time? This is insane.

[Joshe]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

It's boring as hell.

I have played less than 100 games of classical and I am already bored by it.

Reminds me of that time Elon Musk said chess was too simple for him. 😂

What would make someone say such a ridiculous thing? Identity management. Musk opts out of the game because he thinks it's a reflection of his intelligence, and since he realized he was getting beat by 13 year olds, well, he just couldn't have that. Which ironically says a lot about his intelligence. 

Leo, chess.com makes it just as easy to play real people rather than bots. Why not play real people instead of bots? Your rating would be more accurate and the gameplay would offer more variety. All you gotta do is click the other button. 

Edited 1 hour ago by Joshe

[Leo Gura]

Musk is not wrong. Chess is insanely hard to master at a competitive level, but it is simplistic and frankly boring for a more creative mind. After a while you get the gist of chess and all chess games become the same except for minutia.

Chess is way over-rated as a game, similar to classical music. Classical music is technically good but it is so boring in the grand scheme of things.

You have to be insane to invest your whole life playing chess.

Chess being simplistic doesn't mean being worldclass at it is easy. It's just tedious to do it. Any sane mind must quickly ask itself, But why??

Edited 1 hour ago by Leo Gura

[Leo Gura]

7 minutes ago, Joshe said:

Leo, chess.com makes it just as easy to play real people rather than bots. Why not play real people instead of bots? Your rating would be more accurate and the gameplay would offer more variety. 

Because playing real people brings ego into it, which I dislike. And real people means waiting for them to make moves which takes a long time.

Edited 1 hour ago by Leo Gura

[AtmanIsBrahman]

18 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

real people means waiting for them to make moves which takes a long time.

You can play as fast as you like. 1 minute chess and 3 minute chess are among the more popular time controls

[Leo Gura]

Just now, AtmanIsBrahman said:

You can play as fast as you like. 1 minute chess and 3 minute chess are among the more popular time controls

I don't like quick chess. I think slow and careful, not like a squirrel on meth.

[AtmanIsBrahman]

Time for me but not for thee 

[Leo Gura]

10 minutes ago, AtmanIsBrahman said:

Time for me but not for thee 

Time is relative.

[Joseph Maynor]

One thing I like about openings is you can see what kind of chess you prefer.  For example, I prefer e4 as white where black plays a Sicilian defense.  

I love this video:

 

Edited 56 minutes ago by Joseph Maynor