Not lichess' fault that you missed the opponent's threat and blundered your queeon on move 15. I haven't looked at your other games but I can safely bet that your losses are probably due to poor play in the middle game. Check twice for possible checks by opponents, etc before making a move. After opponent makes a move, ask yourself is he threatening something. Taking these two steps will help avoid blunders and take your time to think. You played a 15+15 game like a 3+2.
@nuffsed81
FIRSTLY, no, there is absolutely no way that Lichess would waste time to program algorithms that set players against others who are particularly skilled in countering their most frequent openings. The odds of this being the case are a clean 0%.
At my current rating, I won my first two tries with the Gruenfeld, and then proceeded to lose 7-8 straight games with it.
Sometimes you will have to face 10 people in a row that are playing their worst chess of the week.
Sometimes you will have to face 10 people in a row that are playing their best chess of the week.
Most times you'll face some kind of mish-mash of the two.
There is no way around this. This perfectly explains the flux that you're feeling might be manufactured.
-
SECONDLY, if we employ your logic, then wouldn't we also have to explain how and why you're not being pitted against others that play poorly against the Vienna/French?
-
THIRDLY, it's a very common misconception that openings are how we climb in the ratings.
It can't be said enough:
"When Masters talk about chess, us lower rated players hear something entirely different than what's being communicated."
I can't possibly drill this point home well enough.
When GMs talk, they are assuming, literally, libraries worth of information.
The amount of raw data that is understood and unsaid between a conversation among titled players, is staggering.
In effect, where they're talking about one idea in one way, and the lower rated players listen on the sidelines, we hear an entirely different and/ irrelevant discussion, and as a result, we often assume and/ learn incorrect lessons.
Then, when we attempt to apply what we thought GMs were saying, it must be misapplied and it must be incorrect.
Some things are universal where they might say "Take Center" or "Castle Early", but even with these mandates, it's important to understand that there are positions where you would ask 10 GMs for advice, expecting them to all tell you that you should have either "taken the center" or "castled", and all 10 of them would unanimously recommend ...Nd7 as being the only move in the position.
You would argue, "But you said take the center and castle early!" and they would show you the tactical combination, and/ the permanent fundamental weakness, that only an immediate...Nd7, stops. Where both taking center and castling early were incorrect.
This is why GMs can talk, all day, among themselves, about how "In 2019, chess is all about opening theory." and then turn around and tell me and you to completely ignore openings and worry about fundamentals.
They're not trying to hurt us and keep secrets.
They're trying to help us and send us on the speediest path towards improvement.
So let's be clear.
When GMs have discussions about the vital importance of having a New In Chess magazine subscription, where all kinds of attention is paid to games and openings of masters across tournaments worldwide, where GMs dedicate much focus on staying up to the time with all of the latest lines, for fear of missing an idea and being lost from move 10 due to a recent novelty...
All that we might take away is, "Openings are completely critical. Opening study represents the cutting-edge of the most important aspects about chess." but consider how incorrect and how completely irrelevant and 'nowhere near priority #1' that it is for us lower rated players!
Yes, it's true for GMs.
No, it's not true for us.
Tell me, who lifts 200LBS, without first being able to handle 100LBS, much less 50LBS?
-
Let me let you in on a secret.
It's a secret that all titled players fully understand, but tactfully rephrase out of courtesy, respect, and not wanting to discourage us lower rated players.
Since you and I are on the exact same level compared to GMs, I have no such mandate to coddle you and I can help accelerate your understanding.
Listen carefully:
When titled players see players like me and you asking about improvement, and focusing the conversation on 'openings', almost none of them accept that focus.
Almost all of them try to explain that openings are NOT important at our level.
Often times, when players like me and you see them make this statement, we wonder if they're not conspiring to keep us away from the REAL progress that would put us in direct competition with them at the next Open Tournament.
I assure you, this is not the case. They aren't scared of us now, nor are they frightened by what we might become if they 'share too much'.
Listen:
When a Titled Master looks at our ratings, they know something, IMMEDIATELY, without another word needing to be spoken or a single game/move needing to be analyzed.
***They realize, absolutely, that we don't yet know how to create a good chess move!***
Plain and simple with absolutely no room for debate or contention.
That is the simple fact of the matter. There-can-be-no-argument-here.
This is why most titled masters will do us the courtesy of letting us know that concerning ourselves with opening theory (not to be confused with opening fundamentals), is not in our best interest.
-
If you want your score to increase, learn how to make a good chess move.
Studying openings in the name of boosting a <2000 rating to a <2000 rating is complete and total folly.
After you're well over 2000, and your weakest chess moves tend to revolve more and more around having to survive the opening preparation of other players that are well over +2000, then, at that point, in the name of learning how to create a good chess move, you would then go ahead and delve into studying some of your most common openings, at that point.
Until then, IGNORE openings. They are nowhere near your biggest problem. They are nowhere near your route to quickest improvement. I know that there is an illusion that, "If only I could get to the middle game 0.00, then I'd be zooming straight to my first FM norm for sure." Let it go. It's an illusion and has nothing to do with reality.
Right now, you have to identify good squares, so that you can practice justifying ways of safely putting your pieces on those square.
Right now, you have to learn how to imagine/envision/uncover/discover/invent/create/engineer/manufacture/argue/debate/and implement the best moves in any given position.
You need to learn to creatively imagine and debate which moves will leave your pieces their best opportunity and potential moving forward.
You need to learn to calculate and tactically justify the ideas that you wish to implement.
-
"We dream, imagine, and create as far as the tactics allow, and no further."
This is the chess player's prerogative.
We sit at the board to craft arguments and counter-arguments.
Ultimately, we sit at the board to enjoy an objective debate.
We sit at the chessboard where proponents and opponents are judged by a perfectly objective judge, Judge Reese Ult, who has the integrity of mathematics itself, and who has never denied a chess player a chance for redemption. - 4/1/2019
-
Before we worry about openings, or even creating the best moves in the position, it's good to know exactly what it is that we're doing at that board, and why it is that we do it.
FIRSTLY, no, there is absolutely no way that Lichess would waste time to program algorithms that set players against others who are particularly skilled in countering their most frequent openings. The odds of this being the case are a clean 0%.
At my current rating, I won my first two tries with the Gruenfeld, and then proceeded to lose 7-8 straight games with it.
Sometimes you will have to face 10 people in a row that are playing their worst chess of the week.
Sometimes you will have to face 10 people in a row that are playing their best chess of the week.
Most times you'll face some kind of mish-mash of the two.
There is no way around this. This perfectly explains the flux that you're feeling might be manufactured.
-
SECONDLY, if we employ your logic, then wouldn't we also have to explain how and why you're not being pitted against others that play poorly against the Vienna/French?
-
THIRDLY, it's a very common misconception that openings are how we climb in the ratings.
It can't be said enough:
"When Masters talk about chess, us lower rated players hear something entirely different than what's being communicated."
I can't possibly drill this point home well enough.
When GMs talk, they are assuming, literally, libraries worth of information.
The amount of raw data that is understood and unsaid between a conversation among titled players, is staggering.
In effect, where they're talking about one idea in one way, and the lower rated players listen on the sidelines, we hear an entirely different and/ irrelevant discussion, and as a result, we often assume and/ learn incorrect lessons.
Then, when we attempt to apply what we thought GMs were saying, it must be misapplied and it must be incorrect.
Some things are universal where they might say "Take Center" or "Castle Early", but even with these mandates, it's important to understand that there are positions where you would ask 10 GMs for advice, expecting them to all tell you that you should have either "taken the center" or "castled", and all 10 of them would unanimously recommend ...Nd7 as being the only move in the position.
You would argue, "But you said take the center and castle early!" and they would show you the tactical combination, and/ the permanent fundamental weakness, that only an immediate...Nd7, stops. Where both taking center and castling early were incorrect.
This is why GMs can talk, all day, among themselves, about how "In 2019, chess is all about opening theory." and then turn around and tell me and you to completely ignore openings and worry about fundamentals.
They're not trying to hurt us and keep secrets.
They're trying to help us and send us on the speediest path towards improvement.
So let's be clear.
When GMs have discussions about the vital importance of having a New In Chess magazine subscription, where all kinds of attention is paid to games and openings of masters across tournaments worldwide, where GMs dedicate much focus on staying up to the time with all of the latest lines, for fear of missing an idea and being lost from move 10 due to a recent novelty...
All that we might take away is, "Openings are completely critical. Opening study represents the cutting-edge of the most important aspects about chess." but consider how incorrect and how completely irrelevant and 'nowhere near priority #1' that it is for us lower rated players!
Yes, it's true for GMs.
No, it's not true for us.
Tell me, who lifts 200LBS, without first being able to handle 100LBS, much less 50LBS?
-
Let me let you in on a secret.
It's a secret that all titled players fully understand, but tactfully rephrase out of courtesy, respect, and not wanting to discourage us lower rated players.
Since you and I are on the exact same level compared to GMs, I have no such mandate to coddle you and I can help accelerate your understanding.
Listen carefully:
When titled players see players like me and you asking about improvement, and focusing the conversation on 'openings', almost none of them accept that focus.
Almost all of them try to explain that openings are NOT important at our level.
Often times, when players like me and you see them make this statement, we wonder if they're not conspiring to keep us away from the REAL progress that would put us in direct competition with them at the next Open Tournament.
I assure you, this is not the case. They aren't scared of us now, nor are they frightened by what we might become if they 'share too much'.
Listen:
When a Titled Master looks at our ratings, they know something, IMMEDIATELY, without another word needing to be spoken or a single game/move needing to be analyzed.
***They realize, absolutely, that we don't yet know how to create a good chess move!***
Plain and simple with absolutely no room for debate or contention.
That is the simple fact of the matter. There-can-be-no-argument-here.
This is why most titled masters will do us the courtesy of letting us know that concerning ourselves with opening theory (not to be confused with opening fundamentals), is not in our best interest.
-
If you want your score to increase, learn how to make a good chess move.
Studying openings in the name of boosting a <2000 rating to a <2000 rating is complete and total folly.
After you're well over 2000, and your weakest chess moves tend to revolve more and more around having to survive the opening preparation of other players that are well over +2000, then, at that point, in the name of learning how to create a good chess move, you would then go ahead and delve into studying some of your most common openings, at that point.
Until then, IGNORE openings. They are nowhere near your biggest problem. They are nowhere near your route to quickest improvement. I know that there is an illusion that, "If only I could get to the middle game 0.00, then I'd be zooming straight to my first FM norm for sure." Let it go. It's an illusion and has nothing to do with reality.
Right now, you have to identify good squares, so that you can practice justifying ways of safely putting your pieces on those square.
Right now, you have to learn how to imagine/envision/uncover/discover/invent/create/engineer/manufacture/argue/debate/and implement the best moves in any given position.
You need to learn to creatively imagine and debate which moves will leave your pieces their best opportunity and potential moving forward.
You need to learn to calculate and tactically justify the ideas that you wish to implement.
-
"We dream, imagine, and create as far as the tactics allow, and no further."
This is the chess player's prerogative.
We sit at the board to craft arguments and counter-arguments.
Ultimately, we sit at the board to enjoy an objective debate.
We sit at the chessboard where proponents and opponents are judged by a perfectly objective judge, Judge Reese Ult, who has the integrity of mathematics itself, and who has never denied a chess player a chance for redemption. - 4/1/2019
-
Before we worry about openings, or even creating the best moves in the position, it's good to know exactly what it is that we're doing at that board, and why it is that we do it.
I fell asleep reading this topic.
@moriaki8000 Tell ya what, send me half of what you spend on Ambien, and we'll call it even.
@Sybotes @orior @tpr @DracoMortiferum @Onyx_Chess SCROLL DOWN TO YOUR REPLY AS ITS CLEAR A FEW OF YOU ONLY READ HALF OF THE COMMENTS.
@Sybotes
As you may of seen my original post ended with "Any ideas as to where i have gone wrong or what i can do to get back to my 1351 rating". This is clearly someone just asking for advice. I have no idea why the majority seem to think i am a lichess conspiracy theorist. More reasonable posts like yours have been added now and they have advice in the answers which is all i wanted and is appreciated. The lichess programming issue was just a curiosity nothing more to it. @Sybotes Thanks.
@orior
Yes i can see how the title can seem a bit accusatory but that was not how it was intended to come across. I see your point though. It doesnt read back very well but i did expect people to read the entire question as it seems you did. MOST just get triggered at the title :-)
@tpr
Yes that game is a great example of how the opening has nothing to do with the outcome of the game. There is no excuse for the laughable blunder but i must say at no point did i blame lichess for engineering my losses. As i keep saying i was just curious to know if lichess picks up (not picks on) people using only one opening - just a curiosity no blame. I was even saying it would be a good piece of coding as it would teach people that one opening is not enough. The blunder was a bad move and a very bad game thats it. Thanks for taking the time to look at a game and not just jumping in with unhelpful comments, after seeing that stupid blunder i will surely take more time before moving. It was as if i didnt even bother to look at the board. NOT GOOD AT ALL!
@DracoMortiferum
Yes i am starting to see my games are played too fast. Thanks for the advice i will defo take more time to look at the board and find more logical squares for my pieces and try to find ways to set up pins and forks etc. That is what i will concentrate on more as of now. I will practice tactics daily and for 15/20 mins before playing and see if that helps. Thanks again.
Its clear that losing that queen has nothing to do with the opening, it was just bad play. It just seems like i have got worse over the last few days when i was improving well. It was the sudden change as to why my game has got worse that made me ask these questions.
@Onyx_Chess
FIRSTLY - You said "if we employ your logic, then wouldn't we also have to explain how and why you're not being pitted against others that play poorly against the Vienna/French?"
EXACTLY thats the point, i was being pitted against players and winning around 70%+ of the games when i used these openings. That is why i questioned the "match-making" as now i seem to lose more then i win using those exact same openings (with obvious variations when needed).
It was essentially a QUESTION asking if opponents are random or semi randomised based on who plays well or bad against X opening. That is all, just a question. I was not saying it would be wrong and i even said or implied that if they did ever implement such a thing it would be a good idea, as it would force people to broaden there opening repertoire. So why do people think i am making conspiracy claims because i am doing no such thing.
SECONDLY - "They're not trying to hurt us and keep secrets.
They're trying to help us and send us on the speediest path towards improvement. So let's be clear......." and "They aren't scared of us now, nor are they frightened by what we might become if they 'share too much'.
What are you talking about? Please tell me when i said ANYTHING about people keeping secrets or being scared to teach us, i said nor implied such a thing. I dont see what relevance any of this has.
THRIDLY You are talking down to me as if i blame someone for my poor games but if thought such a thing the why would i, and why did i end the original post with this very open question:
"Any ideas as to where i have gone wrong or what i can do to get back to my 1351 rating"
showing i dont blame anyone for my poor games."
Does that sound as if i blame anyone? No it doesnt. Answers such as your "If you want your score to increase, learn how to make a good chess move." is just catty. I will say no more about that.
MOST IMPORTANTLY THIS GEM HERE IS AIMED AT WHO?
"***They realize, absolutely, that we don't yet know how to create a good chess move!***
Plain and simple with absolutely no room for debate or contention.
That is the simple fact of the matter. There-can-be-no-argument-here."
CORRECT, there is no argument there because i never made an argument even close to that. Thats just a strawman you have built there and i think you can most likely see that for yourself if you go over it. Who was arguing that? You were, you made that argument and refuted it to yourself.
So let me get things straight.
I AM NOT ACCUSING OR SAYING THERE IS A CONSPIRACY.
SOMEONE POINTED OUT THE TITLE OF THE POST CAN BE READ OUT OF CONTEXT AND THAT IS WHAT HAS HAPPENED, JUST A BAD CHOICE OF WORDS ON MY BEHALF.
I HAVE NO PROBLEMS WITH THIS SITE, ITS THE BEST CHESS SITE ON THE NET IMO. STILL, WHY PEOPLE HAVE TURNED THIS INTO SUCH A BIG DEAL IS A JOKE.
I HAVE DONE NOTHING BUT ASK A QUESTION ABOUT THE CODING BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY AT THE VERY END OF THE POST I ASKED HOW TO IMPROVE MY GAME AND WHY I HAVE SUDDENLY GOT WORSE OVER THE LAST FEW DAYS.
THANK YOU TO THOSE OF YOU THAT DID GIVE ME SOME ANSWERS TO WORK WITH AND SOME CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM. ALSO THANK TO THOSE OF YOU THAT ACTUALLY READ THE WHOLE QUESTION AND NOT NOT JUMPED ON THE BANDWAGON.
Thanks to you guys/girls i can now concentrate on tactics and taking more time and not rushing classic games as i have been doing.................and less time reading catty answers and rebuttals to arguments i never made.
Have a good day ;-)
@Sybotes
As you may of seen my original post ended with "Any ideas as to where i have gone wrong or what i can do to get back to my 1351 rating". This is clearly someone just asking for advice. I have no idea why the majority seem to think i am a lichess conspiracy theorist. More reasonable posts like yours have been added now and they have advice in the answers which is all i wanted and is appreciated. The lichess programming issue was just a curiosity nothing more to it. @Sybotes Thanks.
@orior
Yes i can see how the title can seem a bit accusatory but that was not how it was intended to come across. I see your point though. It doesnt read back very well but i did expect people to read the entire question as it seems you did. MOST just get triggered at the title :-)
@tpr
Yes that game is a great example of how the opening has nothing to do with the outcome of the game. There is no excuse for the laughable blunder but i must say at no point did i blame lichess for engineering my losses. As i keep saying i was just curious to know if lichess picks up (not picks on) people using only one opening - just a curiosity no blame. I was even saying it would be a good piece of coding as it would teach people that one opening is not enough. The blunder was a bad move and a very bad game thats it. Thanks for taking the time to look at a game and not just jumping in with unhelpful comments, after seeing that stupid blunder i will surely take more time before moving. It was as if i didnt even bother to look at the board. NOT GOOD AT ALL!
@DracoMortiferum
Yes i am starting to see my games are played too fast. Thanks for the advice i will defo take more time to look at the board and find more logical squares for my pieces and try to find ways to set up pins and forks etc. That is what i will concentrate on more as of now. I will practice tactics daily and for 15/20 mins before playing and see if that helps. Thanks again.
Its clear that losing that queen has nothing to do with the opening, it was just bad play. It just seems like i have got worse over the last few days when i was improving well. It was the sudden change as to why my game has got worse that made me ask these questions.
@Onyx_Chess
FIRSTLY - You said "if we employ your logic, then wouldn't we also have to explain how and why you're not being pitted against others that play poorly against the Vienna/French?"
EXACTLY thats the point, i was being pitted against players and winning around 70%+ of the games when i used these openings. That is why i questioned the "match-making" as now i seem to lose more then i win using those exact same openings (with obvious variations when needed).
It was essentially a QUESTION asking if opponents are random or semi randomised based on who plays well or bad against X opening. That is all, just a question. I was not saying it would be wrong and i even said or implied that if they did ever implement such a thing it would be a good idea, as it would force people to broaden there opening repertoire. So why do people think i am making conspiracy claims because i am doing no such thing.
SECONDLY - "They're not trying to hurt us and keep secrets.
They're trying to help us and send us on the speediest path towards improvement. So let's be clear......." and "They aren't scared of us now, nor are they frightened by what we might become if they 'share too much'.
What are you talking about? Please tell me when i said ANYTHING about people keeping secrets or being scared to teach us, i said nor implied such a thing. I dont see what relevance any of this has.
THRIDLY You are talking down to me as if i blame someone for my poor games but if thought such a thing the why would i, and why did i end the original post with this very open question:
"Any ideas as to where i have gone wrong or what i can do to get back to my 1351 rating"
showing i dont blame anyone for my poor games."
Does that sound as if i blame anyone? No it doesnt. Answers such as your "If you want your score to increase, learn how to make a good chess move." is just catty. I will say no more about that.
MOST IMPORTANTLY THIS GEM HERE IS AIMED AT WHO?
"***They realize, absolutely, that we don't yet know how to create a good chess move!***
Plain and simple with absolutely no room for debate or contention.
That is the simple fact of the matter. There-can-be-no-argument-here."
CORRECT, there is no argument there because i never made an argument even close to that. Thats just a strawman you have built there and i think you can most likely see that for yourself if you go over it. Who was arguing that? You were, you made that argument and refuted it to yourself.
So let me get things straight.
I AM NOT ACCUSING OR SAYING THERE IS A CONSPIRACY.
SOMEONE POINTED OUT THE TITLE OF THE POST CAN BE READ OUT OF CONTEXT AND THAT IS WHAT HAS HAPPENED, JUST A BAD CHOICE OF WORDS ON MY BEHALF.
I HAVE NO PROBLEMS WITH THIS SITE, ITS THE BEST CHESS SITE ON THE NET IMO. STILL, WHY PEOPLE HAVE TURNED THIS INTO SUCH A BIG DEAL IS A JOKE.
I HAVE DONE NOTHING BUT ASK A QUESTION ABOUT THE CODING BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY AT THE VERY END OF THE POST I ASKED HOW TO IMPROVE MY GAME AND WHY I HAVE SUDDENLY GOT WORSE OVER THE LAST FEW DAYS.
THANK YOU TO THOSE OF YOU THAT DID GIVE ME SOME ANSWERS TO WORK WITH AND SOME CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM. ALSO THANK TO THOSE OF YOU THAT ACTUALLY READ THE WHOLE QUESTION AND NOT NOT JUMPED ON THE BANDWAGON.
Thanks to you guys/girls i can now concentrate on tactics and taking more time and not rushing classic games as i have been doing.................and less time reading catty answers and rebuttals to arguments i never made.
Have a good day ;-)
@moriaki8000 95% of the content in the reply before your ambien comment has nothing to do with the topic. I think they may of posted in wrong place or have disingenuously built the largest strawman i have ever bothered to acknowledge.
@nuffsed81
Apologies for the miscommunication.
None of that, at all, was intended as hostile or catty.
-
Good luck at the chess board.
Apologies for the miscommunication.
None of that, at all, was intended as hostile or catty.
-
Good luck at the chess board.
@Onyx_Chess Sorry, i got some stress lately and im getting a bit defensive. . ahhhhhhh Nah serious, no big deal mate i apologise for the rant it was just a tad OTT now ive read through it. I need to calm down mate, off to sleep and get on the tactics tommorow see how it goes. Thanks
"My question is, do you think that lichess has some sort of code that will recognise my openings and use an algorithm to put me against players who do very well against these openings in an effort to stop me from winning using the same thing over and over?"
official answer: no. it'd actually be quite complicated to implement..
i'll also add that lichess is open source and that you (or someone with more technical expertise) can always analyze the code and updates to look for any weird shenanigans.
now, personally speaking, i understand why people might have found this mock-worthy, but i also feel where you are coming from.
simply put, streaks happen, and rating peaks come from "lucky" winning streaks. as long as you keep playing actively, you cannot expect your rating to stay close to your peak all the time. being like 150 points below your peak rating at some given day is not too uncommon.
if you want your peak rating to keep improving, all you can do (legally) is to keep accumulating more useful knowledge, which will hopefully translate into a higher average move quality and allow you to beat stronger opposition more consistently, which should lead to a higher average rating by itself (and thus better peak potential).
good luck!
official answer: no. it'd actually be quite complicated to implement..
i'll also add that lichess is open source and that you (or someone with more technical expertise) can always analyze the code and updates to look for any weird shenanigans.
now, personally speaking, i understand why people might have found this mock-worthy, but i also feel where you are coming from.
simply put, streaks happen, and rating peaks come from "lucky" winning streaks. as long as you keep playing actively, you cannot expect your rating to stay close to your peak all the time. being like 150 points below your peak rating at some given day is not too uncommon.
if you want your peak rating to keep improving, all you can do (legally) is to keep accumulating more useful knowledge, which will hopefully translate into a higher average move quality and allow you to beat stronger opposition more consistently, which should lead to a higher average rating by itself (and thus better peak potential).
good luck!
@nuffsed81
No biggie man. My error was capitalizing "FIRSTLY" and "SECONDLY" and "THIRDLY".
I actually only did that in my proof read to better organize the text.
It was never intended as inflection.
In retrospect, there is no way to read that aside from it being absolutely confrontational.
-
Good thing for communication, good-faith, good-nature, and everything else that's typical in intelligent chess players, worldwide, that we can correct ourselves without needing a WWIII.
No biggie man. My error was capitalizing "FIRSTLY" and "SECONDLY" and "THIRDLY".
I actually only did that in my proof read to better organize the text.
It was never intended as inflection.
In retrospect, there is no way to read that aside from it being absolutely confrontational.
-
Good thing for communication, good-faith, good-nature, and everything else that's typical in intelligent chess players, worldwide, that we can correct ourselves without needing a WWIII.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.