My system >>>> Silmanshit

How much mad pussy do you bank with your leet chess skills.

>>43577411
>1900 Elo here
how does anyone ever verify or quantify this. how is it determined and why does it matter?

>>43577435
Not much, I have a girlfriend for a few years.

She's a chess player (although a crappy one) and I've been blown while playing blitz online (and lost a most every game) if that counts. I'll be probably called bullshit on both but whatever

>>43577450
I'm around that IRL, as verifiable as it gets. Not gonna give out my id for obvious reasons
>why does it matter
Eeh, epenis? Not really that impressive rating desu senpai

>>43577450
Oh yeah, you get a rating by playing with real life players and represents relative probability of winning. Same rating 50/50, 400 points difference in theory 95% win rate, in practice you are toasted

Anyways some resources
Chesstempo for tactics
Lichess for play
My system for basic positional shit
No fucking idea for basic endgames, I've learned that from a non English book
St Louis chess club and chessexplained on YouTube for various lectures and shit

>>43577411
How do I get good at chess? Specifically the psychology of deceiving them and controlling the opponent's moves.

>>43577411
>http://diplom.org/Zine/S1998R/Windsor/caissa.html
Thoughts?

>>43577493
So it's basically just CR for chess?

>>43577411
>1900 Elo here
I was better at dow2 than you are at chess.

>>43580501
How good can you play at the moment? Probably 75% tactics, 15% endgames and 10% strategy

>Specifically the psychology of deceiving them and controlling the opponent's moves.
It's not really like that. "Setting traps" is more seeing that a obvious reply has a tactical (or a positional) trick and playing it in order for your opponent to fuck up or play worse or just lose time in order to defend against real or imaginary threats. Most things you'd consider psychology are tactics in disguise. If you know your opponent really well you can steer the game into areas you know they are weak in, but again, it's not like in the movies. Chess Akagi is a cool fantasy but very few people have enough mastery of the game to think in such "plans within plans" terms. When you try it at lower levels you miss something stupid and psychological tricks don't work when you are a queen down
Tl;dr practice tactics until you are sick of them

>>43580578
A what?

>>43580621
That's cool m8

>>43580536
I'm reading it. I'm not usually a fan of "x is just like chess" followed by a lengthy list of metaphors.

>>43580536
>>43580730
Here's the thing with "x is just like chess!" argument: chess is a fucking board game. It teaches you patience, hard work, focus and long-term logical thinking amongst other things. At the end though, it's still just a beautiful game. Take whatever knowledge you can from it, but don't overstep the boundaries of metaphor into a land of pure bullshit (life is sometimes just like a a queen vs rook endgame, you should win but if your opponent is really good at stalling with third and second rank defense you'll die before winning, no matter how good you are).

>>43580501
There isn't a "psychology of deceiving them"; you set up situations which grant you an advantage, and if they're not "skilled" enough, they fail to see and defuse these situations.

"Controlling the opponent's moves" has two possible interpretations. The first, and most likely the one you intended, is the creation of situations wherein an opponent is forced to follow no-win scenarios, i.e. the next few moves will inevitably produce a negative result, possibly checkmate. Chess, in general, will involve jockeying between both players to establish these situations and foil their opponent's attempts at doing so; this isn't something you "get good at" in and of itself, it's a culmination of the capacity to plan ahead and recognise the optimal courses of action for and actual plans of your opponents. The second interpretation, and the one more concrete and applicable, is the establishment of tempo and initiative, wherein the opponent is effectively forced to react to your movements; you are the aggressor and controller, so to speak, if you have the initiative.

If you really want to get good at chess, you'd best read instructive materials, play matches, and obsessively pore over the move recordings of these matches afterwards for the countless mistakes you made and better courses of action you could've taken. People neglect the last one too often, when it's often by far the best way to improve your capacity to plan ahead in actual games. Puzzles are often made of the games of professional/"grandmaster" chess players, wherein you have to find the set of moves they made to gain the largest material advantage or checkmate; they're enjoyable exercises for establishing the "correct" form of thinking, especially for beginners.