Lichess Broadcast work as been a great change so far
Chess is not fun until your not winning
I think lichess is fun when you have a high elo
In my opinion, chess is most fun when one is measurably improving. In my case, I was above 1700 for a time in classical chess. It wasn't just the rating increase, but also the feeling that I had a chance, however small, at reaching a higher level and playing significantly better players. Unfortunately, at some point, I forgot how to play both the French Defense and the Caro-Kan. I didn't study them enough and I started to lose more often. I need to get back to studying openings in addition to the other phases of the game...
I still would like to play rated games on here, but I think I need to work with my chess teacher for a while. I should be getting a new computer next month, so I will be able to make better use of Zoom with my teacher.
I still would like to play rated games on here, but I think I need to work with my chess teacher for a while. I should be getting a new computer next month, so I will be able to make better use of Zoom with my teacher.
> Intrinsic quality is estimated via evaluations given by computer chess programs
ahum. Those are from game outcomes averaged with ELO magics. So, really, this is assuming that the per position inference of any ELO dominating engine is as good as the LC0 evaluation head might be doing it during training upon its internal training pool(s) of games.
I wonder if there is a way out of terminal game outcomes. Maybe using position information and actual skill metrics, not inferred from terminal outcome. (directly or not). IDK. But i find that not knowing the position reach under those engine pooled games, makes using them per any position a human might encounter, a floating referential. We might need some Michelson Morley experiment to tell us that the Engine knows best at all speeds and any direction... as the speed of light does not depend on where we are or what velocity the observer might be, having w.r.t. any fixed referential. The speed of light stays the same (well, maybe I should spell out some assumptions of where it is speeding). Did my word break some physics? Also, I am kidding. And using words, the worst way to talk about physics.
Another image: Pulling oneself up by own bootstrap (archaic image). It actually might work in some contexts. But somehow, I would need some arguments before jumping on that as eternal truth. Just a doubt, I lay here. So it be not forgotten in all the brouhaha...
Mais, à propos du blog, merci pour ce tour d'horizon, et cette excellente question. I make it fun for myself, immature that my brain might be in some pre-frontal-sideways brain slab, loose in my cabooze.
copilot version: I keep it enjoyable for myself, even if my brain seems to be in a pre-frontal sideways state, loosely housed within my head.
pretty close. less quirky though. I prefre my loose in the da cabooze. and forgot the self deprecating touch of immaturity (which I might actually be proud about in some ways, or maybe it has helped me see the amusing where it might not have been more than once).
ahum. Those are from game outcomes averaged with ELO magics. So, really, this is assuming that the per position inference of any ELO dominating engine is as good as the LC0 evaluation head might be doing it during training upon its internal training pool(s) of games.
I wonder if there is a way out of terminal game outcomes. Maybe using position information and actual skill metrics, not inferred from terminal outcome. (directly or not). IDK. But i find that not knowing the position reach under those engine pooled games, makes using them per any position a human might encounter, a floating referential. We might need some Michelson Morley experiment to tell us that the Engine knows best at all speeds and any direction... as the speed of light does not depend on where we are or what velocity the observer might be, having w.r.t. any fixed referential. The speed of light stays the same (well, maybe I should spell out some assumptions of where it is speeding). Did my word break some physics? Also, I am kidding. And using words, the worst way to talk about physics.
Another image: Pulling oneself up by own bootstrap (archaic image). It actually might work in some contexts. But somehow, I would need some arguments before jumping on that as eternal truth. Just a doubt, I lay here. So it be not forgotten in all the brouhaha...
Mais, à propos du blog, merci pour ce tour d'horizon, et cette excellente question. I make it fun for myself, immature that my brain might be in some pre-frontal-sideways brain slab, loose in my cabooze.
copilot version: I keep it enjoyable for myself, even if my brain seems to be in a pre-frontal sideways state, loosely housed within my head.
pretty close. less quirky though. I prefre my loose in the da cabooze. and forgot the self deprecating touch of immaturity (which I might actually be proud about in some ways, or maybe it has helped me see the amusing where it might not have been more than once).
@DoomedBishop said in #5:
> In my opinion, chess is most fun when one is measurably improving.
What about the things on the board that one can move around? Is there no fun being with them and playing with them? And the surprise consequences and opponent imagination on the same board with their own thingies they can also move, but not the same things you can move. Can't that be the intrinsic fun of chess? the partial logic, the imagination, the goals,.... and the ever coming in your way surprises....? if the opponent is not providing those, you can always seek them on your turn, going where you find yourself slightly unfamiliar and having open questions left to ask the board-opponent fog about it. So either you surprise yourself or the boarXoppoent does it. That is win win in the fun department (whether win or loss or draw, if one paid attention to the questions and then the informative consequences, over possibly many interesting non-blurred games).
> In my opinion, chess is most fun when one is measurably improving.
What about the things on the board that one can move around? Is there no fun being with them and playing with them? And the surprise consequences and opponent imagination on the same board with their own thingies they can also move, but not the same things you can move. Can't that be the intrinsic fun of chess? the partial logic, the imagination, the goals,.... and the ever coming in your way surprises....? if the opponent is not providing those, you can always seek them on your turn, going where you find yourself slightly unfamiliar and having open questions left to ask the board-opponent fog about it. So either you surprise yourself or the boarXoppoent does it. That is win win in the fun department (whether win or loss or draw, if one paid attention to the questions and then the informative consequences, over possibly many interesting non-blurred games).
@dboing Yeah, there are other things about chess which are fun. Maybe I am taking the wrong attitude towards chess. I don't need to improve my game to enjoy chess, but improving gives me a lot of satisfaction. Thanks. I really need to try to enjoy chess a bit more.
@DoomedBishop said in #8:
> @dboing Yeah, there are other things about chess which are fun. Maybe I am taking the wrong attitude towards chess. I don't need to improve my game to enjoy chess, but improving gives me a lot of satisfaction. Thanks. I really need to try to enjoy chess a bit more.
Yes, I understand a judicious blend of motivators. Also, we come in all sorts of shapes, sizes, and tastes. I admit, to some satisfaction, to having seeing some previous work in the past show some long term averaging measure. But I get more daily joy, from the board charades themselves. That might be my psychological makeup.. I might even be totally unproductive from that make up, always seeking the surprise, making hypotheses to reduce the number of critters to keep in live memory (crowded in my case). But we are social animals too. And I would not enjoy playing against myself or engine for too long, and the rating is a loose reminder of that social tango between cooperation (we accept to play the same game) and competition (we want to win more often). Or it can be a sense of going somewhere, not necessarily to be on top of others.
I think though that it is good to ask the op question, regularly, to re-center, in case we went tunnel vision on one previously fun aspect, away from the balanced diet. But how can there be too much of the pure board fun, I wonder? :) I even have fun making theories of that. It never ends.
> @dboing Yeah, there are other things about chess which are fun. Maybe I am taking the wrong attitude towards chess. I don't need to improve my game to enjoy chess, but improving gives me a lot of satisfaction. Thanks. I really need to try to enjoy chess a bit more.
Yes, I understand a judicious blend of motivators. Also, we come in all sorts of shapes, sizes, and tastes. I admit, to some satisfaction, to having seeing some previous work in the past show some long term averaging measure. But I get more daily joy, from the board charades themselves. That might be my psychological makeup.. I might even be totally unproductive from that make up, always seeking the surprise, making hypotheses to reduce the number of critters to keep in live memory (crowded in my case). But we are social animals too. And I would not enjoy playing against myself or engine for too long, and the rating is a loose reminder of that social tango between cooperation (we accept to play the same game) and competition (we want to win more often). Or it can be a sense of going somewhere, not necessarily to be on top of others.
I think though that it is good to ask the op question, regularly, to re-center, in case we went tunnel vision on one previously fun aspect, away from the balanced diet. But how can there be too much of the pure board fun, I wonder? :) I even have fun making theories of that. It never ends.
Chess is only fun if you are winning. If you are losing chess is no fun at all.