playing against (weak) computers

[lucasart]

stopped computer chess a while ago, and discovered that it's actually fun to play the game (without computer assistance).

Eventually reached a plateau, at a mediocre level (1950 lichess rapid).

So I decided to post videos of my progress playing against bots of increasing difficulty:

https://youtube.com/@chess-banana

No ads, no one watches anyway. But if you're like me trying to improve at chess, you might find this motivating.

[Dann Corbit]

I like to play against the strongest programs on my high end hardware. Of course, they bash my brains in like an angry elephant stomping on a grape. I have no hope of victory or even a draw. My goal is to "last a while" or try new ideas.

But after enough pounding I eventually lick my wounds by playing a very weak program like the old version of Golem on a single core.

[towforce]

stopped computer chess a while ago, and discovered that it's actually fun to play the game (without computer assistance).

Eventually reached a plateau, at a mediocre level (1950 lichess rapid).

So I decided to post videos of my progress playing against bots of increasing difficulty:

https://youtube.com/@chess-banana

No ads, no one watches anyway. But if you're like me trying to improve at chess, you might find this motivating.

What you're doing is very good:

1. When you reach a plateau at any skill, and you want to get better, change what you're doing.

2. You're learning other skills at the same time (presentation, content creation, persistence) which will be valuable in the rest of your life.


If I wanted to improve my chess, I'd approach it as follows:

1. Daily dose of theory (books, tutorials, videos). Get an idea of what you're supposed to be doing.

2. Play games against opponents of the same strength on a chess server that has an analysis tool (e.g. chess.com).

3. After the game, use the analysis tool to go through my moves and uncover errors in my thinking. Good because this would be personal to me, and my erroneous thought patterns about chess.

[lucasart]

What you're doing is very good:

1. When you reach a plateau at any skill, and you want to get better, change what you're doing.

2. You're learning other skills at the same time (presentation, content creation, persistence) which will be valuable in the rest of your life.

1. At my level, the main problem, by far, is calculation. Visualization is hard: seeing the board, not as it is now, but as it becomes as pieces move (in your head). And, even harder, is organization: keeping track of the search tree in your yead, remembering which variations you calculated, what outcome, which nodes need further exploration (anything else my opponent can play there?). Even after you have done that, comes the problem of evaluation at the end of the line, this is another manifestation of vizualisation.

2. Yes. I find that speaking out loud my thought process forces me to organize it. Also, it shows me (when I rewatch) how bad I am at calculation. The things I miss... It's a miracle that I manage to win games sometimes

There is of course the whole video editing rabbit hole that I am not (yet) drawn into. And the art of creating click magnet thumbnails. There is certainly an artistic dimension there.

[chesskobra]

I am of the same opinion as Dan Corbit. I think it is better to practice against strong engines. I still keep searching for engines with skill levels that play sensible chess. But what bothers me about skill levels is the following. I have been doing a lot of testing with skill levels (for now mainly testing skill levels of Crafty 25.6, Komodo 14.1, Stockfish (development) and a few Leela networks). I observe that weakened engines play the endgames really badly; it is unbearable to watch, while at the same time they are much stronger than me in calculation.

On the other hand, against strong engines I will never reach the endgame. So my solution is to set up endgame positions and play them against strong engines.

[towforce]

I am of the same opinion as Dan Corbit. I think it is better to practice against strong engines.

I'm the same with my lifting: the weights at the gym are for humans, and are far too light. I prefer to go against Big Carl - the world's biggest crane. It doesn't do my muscles any good, but I feel I should stick to masculine challenges.

[lucasart]

I've organised this in a playlist here:


It's getting harder quite quickly. Lichess community bots become more and more underrated (compared to humans) as their rating increases. Something like 1.2*R_bot - 100 = R_human.

I will hit a wall quickly. Probably around 1700 bot elo = 1940 human elo.

[Koivisto]

Do you like solving puzzles? I imagine solving some could be very helpful towards your improvement if calculation/tactics is your main weakness. I feel like solving a lot of difficult puzzles did not only help with my tactical ability, but also with developing a deeper feel for positional chess. They can be really fun too, and the feeling when you solve a particularly hard one is amazing

[Michel]

Do you like solving puzzles? I imagine solving some could be very helpful towards your improvement if calculation/tactics is your main weakness. I feel like solving a lot of difficult puzzles did not only help with my tactical ability, but also with developing a deeper feel for positional chess. They can be really fun too, and the feeling when you solve a particularly hard one is amazing

Lichess has a very good puzzle collection (essentially of infinite size). I find it very enjoyable, but it does not improve my play. The point is that with a puzzle you know that there is some move that is much better than the others. That makes it easier to find.

[lucasart]

Lichess has a very good puzzle collection (essentially of infinite size). I find it very enjoyable, but it does not improve my play. The point is that with a puzzle you know that there is some move that is much better than the others. That makes it easier to find.

Puzzles did help me for sure. But you're right, during the game, no one is going to tap your shoulder and tell you: hey, you have a winning tactic here!

Playing games is important for that. But you have to play slow chess, like 15+10 or more. It's the only way you have time to apply a systematic though process on*every move* (even the seemingly obvious ones like recaptures):

• What are the pros (threats) and cons (weaknesses) of my opponent's last move
• Scan all forcing moves, even dumb looking ones. If nothing works...
• Look now at patient improving moves. You must force yourself to think of several moves, not just the first one that comes to you. Select the best one. This requires mental organisation to remember everything analysed so far, what the outcome of the lines were.
• Now you have your move. Verify before playing it. Try to solve the puzzle from the opponent pov after the move. If you discover a problem, go back to the previous step.

Needless to say that it takes time. You can't play like that in blitz.

I think the problem is that people see strong players playing bullet and blitz, so they think they should do that to get better. But it doesn't work. The reason you see these GM posting videos and streams of fast chess, is because it's more exciting to watch, attracts more views (hence more ad revenues). What is missed here is that they didn't reach that level by playing bullet chess like an FPS video game. They built their level by playing slow and boring chess. Analysis, study etc.

Analysis of one's games is of course extremely important. The first thing is to ban the rematch button. No matter the result, frustration, don't play consecutively. Take time to analyse. Force yourself to do the mental calculations before asking Stockfish for the answer, etc.