4 ms·

Me too! One thing I am noticing is that because I often just use it to destress, I am not improving really, because it's all instinctive on 3 minutes. The prob

Me too! One thing I am noticing is that because I often just use it to destress, I am not improving really, because it's all instinctive on 3 minutes. The problem with improving seems to be that while I can play a few blitz games, taking time to work on game is more a separate occupation. I occasionally do the lichess practice thingies but without seeing much impact. Anything that can be done that helps but that is on the timescale of a few blitz games?

ianremsen 7y ago
You have to be good at slow chess to be good at fast chess, because slow chess builds that intuition you then cash out on in time trouble.
rectang 7y ago
If you play on blitz.chessbase.com, the position is continually evaluated -- they won't suggest moves while the game is live, but they will tell you who has the better position and by roughly how much. Whenever there's a position where you don't see the reported advantage, or when a change in the assessment occurs that you didn't expect, that's an opportunity to go back afterwards and just look at those specific points in the game to see what the engine suggests. If you really want to get good of course you need to be much more methodical in your study. But I started to find chess much more enjoyable once I left behind any long term ambitions.
- waterhouse 7y ago
  Interesting feature. I figure it still provides something of a hint if the estimate is updated immediately—e.g. if your opponent plays a move and suddenly you're several points ahead of where you were, then that's strong evidence that your opponent has let you win a piece, and you should look for a tactical combination to do that. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, it just changes the game. If we embrace this rule, then I humbly suggest that a large change in evaluation (due to a blunder) be accompanied by an "Oooooooh!" sound effect; that's what semi-restrained human observers might do.
thruflo22 7y ago
Play through a grandmaster’s game with some insightful commentary? Bobby Fischer’s favourite games for example.

ianremsen 7y ago

You have to be good at slow chess to be good at fast chess, because slow chess builds that intuition you then cash out on in time trouble.

rectang 7y ago

If you play on blitz.chessbase.com, the position is continually evaluated -- they won't suggest moves while the game is live, but they will tell you who has the better position and by roughly how much. Whenever there's a position where you don't see the reported advantage, or when a change in the assessment occurs that you didn't expect, that's an opportunity to go back afterwards and just look at those specific points in the game to see what the engine suggests. If you really want to get good of course you need to be much more methodical in your study. But I started to find chess much more enjoyable once I left behind any long term ambitions.

waterhouse 7y ago
Interesting feature. I figure it still provides something of a hint if the estimate is updated immediately—e.g. if your opponent plays a move and suddenly you're several points ahead of where you were, then that's strong evidence that your opponent has let you win a piece, and you should look for a tactical combination to do that. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, it just changes the game. If we embrace this rule, then I humbly suggest that a large change in evaluation (due to a blunder) be accompanied by an "Oooooooh!" sound effect; that's what semi-restrained human observers might do.

thruflo22 7y ago

Play through a grandmaster’s game with some insightful commentary? Bobby Fischer’s favourite games for example.