I don't play chess, like maybe once every few years at most, so I know nothing about the patterns. But I noticed that pros usually made moves that put their opponent in an equal or worse predicament than their own.
A friend who regularly played speed chess played against me, without time limit of course because that would've been a stomp. I used the simple principle I figured out above and was winning for most of the game.
I basically depth-first searched every single move (the game lasted nearly three hours though).
I only lost at the end because I got tired and stopped doing the exhausting search in my mind.
Nah, better equaliser is fisher random, where the starting position of pieces is random. This might not be even that hard, if the person can play good blind chess
6 Comments
webghost0101@sopuli.xyz · 24 pts · 1y
Honestly this board might be a great equaliser to see how good someone is at chess without being able to rely on recognising patterns.
Get_Off_My_WLAN@fedia.io · 6 pts · 1y
I don't play chess, like maybe once every few years at most, so I know nothing about the patterns. But I noticed that pros usually made moves that put their opponent in an equal or worse predicament than their own.
A friend who regularly played speed chess played against me, without time limit of course because that would've been a stomp. I used the simple principle I figured out above and was winning for most of the game.
I basically depth-first searched every single move (the game lasted nearly three hours though).
I only lost at the end because I got tired and stopped doing the exhausting search in my mind.
grimdeter@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 1y
Nah, better equaliser is fisher random, where the starting position of pieces is random. This might not be even that hard, if the person can play good blind chess
TheBat@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 1y
NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io · 9 pts · 1y
Sleep deprivation chess.
ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org · 8 pts · 1y
Chess but NOT by the British guy who drew everyone's borders:
Ephera@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 1y
Somehow, it feels like the fields are larger on average, even though this is clearly not the case...