< 1 2
 
   
 

Women in Chess

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15839
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
05 September 2019 21:36
 
icehorse - 05 September 2019 08:39 PM
burt - 26 August 2019 11:07 PM

On the other hand, I could have been a first rate Go player.

I’m a decent chess player, but once I discovered Go I never really looked back. I’m curious to hear how you come to the conclusion about your potential as a Go player. I’m not challenging it, it just strikes me as interesting.

BTW, and back to the OP, there are also professional women Go players, but none have ever been world champions. And there is a general feeling among Go players that both sides of the brain are more essential in Go than in chess.

I started playing back in about 66 at University of Texas. There were several good players there and a number of us beginners. The standard pattern for my games was that after about the first 1/3 of the game a top player would wander by and say that I had the game won. But I didn’t have the technique to fight all the small battles and so the as the game went on it would end up about 50/50. Basically, I could see the overview and lay out a strong beginning but needed to spend the time studying the techniques for finishing up. But wasn’t fanatical enough to put in the work, which I did with bridge, spending a couple of weeks deciding if I wanted to try and become a professional player (realized I didn’t have the personality for it, though).

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7654
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
06 September 2019 17:24
 
burt - 05 September 2019 09:36 PM
icehorse - 05 September 2019 08:39 PM
burt - 26 August 2019 11:07 PM

On the other hand, I could have been a first rate Go player.

I’m a decent chess player, but once I discovered Go I never really looked back. I’m curious to hear how you come to the conclusion about your potential as a Go player. I’m not challenging it, it just strikes me as interesting.

BTW, and back to the OP, there are also professional women Go players, but none have ever been world champions. And there is a general feeling among Go players that both sides of the brain are more essential in Go than in chess.

I started playing back in about 66 at University of Texas. There were several good players there and a number of us beginners. The standard pattern for my games was that after about the first 1/3 of the game a top player would wander by and say that I had the game won. But I didn’t have the technique to fight all the small battles and so the as the game went on it would end up about 50/50. Basically, I could see the overview and lay out a strong beginning but needed to spend the time studying the techniques for finishing up. But wasn’t fanatical enough to put in the work, which I did with bridge, spending a couple of weeks deciding if I wanted to try and become a professional player (realized I didn’t have the personality for it, though).

It’s unusual to be able to “see the whole board” as a beginner!

For those who don’t know, the stronger player always gets the white stones, and a Go board is over five times bigger than a chess board. There’s an old adage that “white’s plan is bigger than black can imagine”. That’s a nod to the idea that beginners tend to focus on small portions of the board, and it takes a lot of time and practice to be able to see the whole Go board.

 
 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15839
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
06 September 2019 22:22
 
icehorse - 06 September 2019 05:24 PM
burt - 05 September 2019 09:36 PM
icehorse - 05 September 2019 08:39 PM
burt - 26 August 2019 11:07 PM

On the other hand, I could have been a first rate Go player.

I’m a decent chess player, but once I discovered Go I never really looked back. I’m curious to hear how you come to the conclusion about your potential as a Go player. I’m not challenging it, it just strikes me as interesting.

BTW, and back to the OP, there are also professional women Go players, but none have ever been world champions. And there is a general feeling among Go players that both sides of the brain are more essential in Go than in chess.

I started playing back in about 66 at University of Texas. There were several good players there and a number of us beginners. The standard pattern for my games was that after about the first 1/3 of the game a top player would wander by and say that I had the game won. But I didn’t have the technique to fight all the small battles and so the as the game went on it would end up about 50/50. Basically, I could see the overview and lay out a strong beginning but needed to spend the time studying the techniques for finishing up. But wasn’t fanatical enough to put in the work, which I did with bridge, spending a couple of weeks deciding if I wanted to try and become a professional player (realized I didn’t have the personality for it, though).

It’s unusual to be able to “see the whole board” as a beginner!

For those who don’t know, the stronger player always gets the white stones, and a Go board is over five times bigger than a chess board. There’s an old adage that “white’s plan is bigger than black can imagine”. That’s a nod to the idea that beginners tend to focus on small portions of the board, and it takes a lot of time and practice to be able to see the whole Go board.

Anyway, I didn’t have the fascination with the game required to study in detail. I almost never lost at 5-in-a-row and 3D Tic Tac Toe though, which probably says something about lack of long term planning abilities.. As for seeing the whole board, back in the late 70s, the last time I tried my hand at chess, I found two ways of playing above my pay grade (although still playing badly). The first was if I’d smoked some grass and sometimes I’d see the board as a battle field (e.g., with a river and hills, or so on), the second was making the moves that seemed to most increase the tension on the board. Then I could beat other putzers but that’s all.

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7654
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
07 September 2019 20:03
 
burt - 06 September 2019 10:22 PM
icehorse - 06 September 2019 05:24 PM
burt - 05 September 2019 09:36 PM
icehorse - 05 September 2019 08:39 PM
burt - 26 August 2019 11:07 PM

On the other hand, I could have been a first rate Go player.

I’m a decent chess player, but once I discovered Go I never really looked back. I’m curious to hear how you come to the conclusion about your potential as a Go player. I’m not challenging it, it just strikes me as interesting.

BTW, and back to the OP, there are also professional women Go players, but none have ever been world champions. And there is a general feeling among Go players that both sides of the brain are more essential in Go than in chess.

I started playing back in about 66 at University of Texas. There were several good players there and a number of us beginners. The standard pattern for my games was that after about the first 1/3 of the game a top player would wander by and say that I had the game won. But I didn’t have the technique to fight all the small battles and so the as the game went on it would end up about 50/50. Basically, I could see the overview and lay out a strong beginning but needed to spend the time studying the techniques for finishing up. But wasn’t fanatical enough to put in the work, which I did with bridge, spending a couple of weeks deciding if I wanted to try and become a professional player (realized I didn’t have the personality for it, though).

It’s unusual to be able to “see the whole board” as a beginner!

For those who don’t know, the stronger player always gets the white stones, and a Go board is over five times bigger than a chess board. There’s an old adage that “white’s plan is bigger than black can imagine”. That’s a nod to the idea that beginners tend to focus on small portions of the board, and it takes a lot of time and practice to be able to see the whole Go board.

Anyway, I didn’t have the fascination with the game required to study in detail. I almost never lost at 5-in-a-row and 3D Tic Tac Toe though, which probably says something about lack of long term planning abilities.. As for seeing the whole board, back in the late 70s, the last time I tried my hand at chess, I found two ways of playing above my pay grade (although still playing badly). The first was if I’d smoked some grass and sometimes I’d see the board as a battle field (e.g., with a river and hills, or so on), the second was making the moves that seemed to most increase the tension on the board. Then I could beat other putzers but that’s all.

There’s really something special about Go. I’m generally a “jack of all trades” sort of person, but for some reason I decided a long time ago to put a lot of study into Go. It’s been very rewarding.

 
 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21577
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
07 September 2019 20:28
 

Mentally I’ve created a chess board that has 256 squares instead of 64 (16x16), and has 8 additional “minor” pieces besides the usual ones. There are 16 pawns, of course. There are two Trebuchets - they can make two moves, only straight ahead - one to move off the back rank, and one to shoot over all pieces in front of them to hit an opponent that is exactly 11 squares in front of them.  There are two Archers - they can make one move off the back rank, and then shoot straight ahead to hit an opponent that is exactly 9 squares in front of them.  There are two Battering Rams.  They can move straight ahead two times - one to move off the back rank, and then one straight ahead to through up to 3 opposing pieces up to 7 squares in front of them.  Finally, there are two Snipers.  They can move diagonally 2 spaces and then laterally or horizontally 2 spaces in one move, as often as possible.

The placement is Rook, Sniper, Ram, Knight, Archer, Trebuchet, Bishop, King., etc.

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7654
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
07 September 2019 20:43
 
EN - 07 September 2019 08:28 PM

Mentally I’ve created a chess board that has 256 squares instead of 64 (16x16), and has 8 additional “minor” pieces besides the usual ones. There are 16 pawns, of course. There are two Trebuchets - they can make two moves, only straight ahead - one to move off the back rank, and one to shoot over all pieces in front of them to hit an opponent that is exactly 11 squares in front of them.  There are two Archers - they can make one move off the back rank, and then shoot straight ahead to hit an opponent that is exactly 9 squares in front of them.  There are two Battering Rams.  They can move straight ahead two times - one to move off the back rank, and then one straight ahead to through up to 3 opposing pieces up to 7 squares in front of them.  Finally, there are two Snipers.  They can move diagonally 2 spaces and then laterally or horizontally 2 spaces in one move, as often as possible.

The placement is Rook, Sniper, Ram, Knight, Archer, Trebuchet, Bishop, King., etc.

We used to play 4x6 chess. Each side had a rook, a knight, a bishop, a king, and 4 pawns.

Now, as for your 256 square board, you’re getting there, Go has 361 points.

 
 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15839
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
08 September 2019 10:21
 
icehorse - 07 September 2019 08:03 PM
burt - 06 September 2019 10:22 PM
icehorse - 06 September 2019 05:24 PM
burt - 05 September 2019 09:36 PM
icehorse - 05 September 2019 08:39 PM
burt - 26 August 2019 11:07 PM

On the other hand, I could have been a first rate Go player.

I’m a decent chess player, but once I discovered Go I never really looked back. I’m curious to hear how you come to the conclusion about your potential as a Go player. I’m not challenging it, it just strikes me as interesting.

BTW, and back to the OP, there are also professional women Go players, but none have ever been world champions. And there is a general feeling among Go players that both sides of the brain are more essential in Go than in chess.

I started playing back in about 66 at University of Texas. There were several good players there and a number of us beginners. The standard pattern for my games was that after about the first 1/3 of the game a top player would wander by and say that I had the game won. But I didn’t have the technique to fight all the small battles and so the as the game went on it would end up about 50/50. Basically, I could see the overview and lay out a strong beginning but needed to spend the time studying the techniques for finishing up. But wasn’t fanatical enough to put in the work, which I did with bridge, spending a couple of weeks deciding if I wanted to try and become a professional player (realized I didn’t have the personality for it, though).

It’s unusual to be able to “see the whole board” as a beginner!

For those who don’t know, the stronger player always gets the white stones, and a Go board is over five times bigger than a chess board. There’s an old adage that “white’s plan is bigger than black can imagine”. That’s a nod to the idea that beginners tend to focus on small portions of the board, and it takes a lot of time and practice to be able to see the whole Go board.

Anyway, I didn’t have the fascination with the game required to study in detail. I almost never lost at 5-in-a-row and 3D Tic Tac Toe though, which probably says something about lack of long term planning abilities.. As for seeing the whole board, back in the late 70s, the last time I tried my hand at chess, I found two ways of playing above my pay grade (although still playing badly). The first was if I’d smoked some grass and sometimes I’d see the board as a battle field (e.g., with a river and hills, or so on), the second was making the moves that seemed to most increase the tension on the board. Then I could beat other putzers but that’s all.

There’s really something special about Go. I’m generally a “jack of all trades” sort of person, but for some reason I decided a long time ago to put a lot of study into Go. It’s been very rewarding.

I believe you, I went the same way with bridge. Did you follow the Alpha-Go matches? What’s your thought about them?

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7654
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
08 September 2019 14:55
 
burt - 08 September 2019 10:21 AM
icehorse - 07 September 2019 08:03 PM
burt - 06 September 2019 10:22 PM
icehorse - 06 September 2019 05:24 PM
burt - 05 September 2019 09:36 PM
icehorse - 05 September 2019 08:39 PM
burt - 26 August 2019 11:07 PM

On the other hand, I could have been a first rate Go player.

I’m a decent chess player, but once I discovered Go I never really looked back. I’m curious to hear how you come to the conclusion about your potential as a Go player. I’m not challenging it, it just strikes me as interesting.

BTW, and back to the OP, there are also professional women Go players, but none have ever been world champions. And there is a general feeling among Go players that both sides of the brain are more essential in Go than in chess.

I started playing back in about 66 at University of Texas. There were several good players there and a number of us beginners. The standard pattern for my games was that after about the first 1/3 of the game a top player would wander by and say that I had the game won. But I didn’t have the technique to fight all the small battles and so the as the game went on it would end up about 50/50. Basically, I could see the overview and lay out a strong beginning but needed to spend the time studying the techniques for finishing up. But wasn’t fanatical enough to put in the work, which I did with bridge, spending a couple of weeks deciding if I wanted to try and become a professional player (realized I didn’t have the personality for it, though).

It’s unusual to be able to “see the whole board” as a beginner!

For those who don’t know, the stronger player always gets the white stones, and a Go board is over five times bigger than a chess board. There’s an old adage that “white’s plan is bigger than black can imagine”. That’s a nod to the idea that beginners tend to focus on small portions of the board, and it takes a lot of time and practice to be able to see the whole Go board.

Anyway, I didn’t have the fascination with the game required to study in detail. I almost never lost at 5-in-a-row and 3D Tic Tac Toe though, which probably says something about lack of long term planning abilities.. As for seeing the whole board, back in the late 70s, the last time I tried my hand at chess, I found two ways of playing above my pay grade (although still playing badly). The first was if I’d smoked some grass and sometimes I’d see the board as a battle field (e.g., with a river and hills, or so on), the second was making the moves that seemed to most increase the tension on the board. Then I could beat other putzers but that’s all.

There’s really something special about Go. I’m generally a “jack of all trades” sort of person, but for some reason I decided a long time ago to put a lot of study into Go. It’s been very rewarding.

I believe you, I went the same way with bridge. Did you follow the Alpha-Go matches? What’s your thought about them?

I love bridge, I’m quite rusty now, but there was a period when I could really see how to play hands - a nice zone to be in.

AlphaGo is terrifying. Spooky. In the 2nd or 3rd game of the match AlphaGo played “a should hit on the 5th line”. AlphaGo had already established itself and this move was unheard of. To me it felt like I was watching a truly alien intelligence.

 
 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15839
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
08 September 2019 17:17
 
icehorse - 08 September 2019 02:55 PM
burt - 08 September 2019 10:21 AM
icehorse - 07 September 2019 08:03 PM
burt - 06 September 2019 10:22 PM
icehorse - 06 September 2019 05:24 PM
burt - 05 September 2019 09:36 PM
icehorse - 05 September 2019 08:39 PM
burt - 26 August 2019 11:07 PM

On the other hand, I could have been a first rate Go player.

I’m a decent chess player, but once I discovered Go I never really looked back. I’m curious to hear how you come to the conclusion about your potential as a Go player. I’m not challenging it, it just strikes me as interesting.

BTW, and back to the OP, there are also professional women Go players, but none have ever been world champions. And there is a general feeling among Go players that both sides of the brain are more essential in Go than in chess.

I started playing back in about 66 at University of Texas. There were several good players there and a number of us beginners. The standard pattern for my games was that after about the first 1/3 of the game a top player would wander by and say that I had the game won. But I didn’t have the technique to fight all the small battles and so the as the game went on it would end up about 50/50. Basically, I could see the overview and lay out a strong beginning but needed to spend the time studying the techniques for finishing up. But wasn’t fanatical enough to put in the work, which I did with bridge, spending a couple of weeks deciding if I wanted to try and become a professional player (realized I didn’t have the personality for it, though).

It’s unusual to be able to “see the whole board” as a beginner!

For those who don’t know, the stronger player always gets the white stones, and a Go board is over five times bigger than a chess board. There’s an old adage that “white’s plan is bigger than black can imagine”. That’s a nod to the idea that beginners tend to focus on small portions of the board, and it takes a lot of time and practice to be able to see the whole Go board.

Anyway, I didn’t have the fascination with the game required to study in detail. I almost never lost at 5-in-a-row and 3D Tic Tac Toe though, which probably says something about lack of long term planning abilities.. As for seeing the whole board, back in the late 70s, the last time I tried my hand at chess, I found two ways of playing above my pay grade (although still playing badly). The first was if I’d smoked some grass and sometimes I’d see the board as a battle field (e.g., with a river and hills, or so on), the second was making the moves that seemed to most increase the tension on the board. Then I could beat other putzers but that’s all.

There’s really something special about Go. I’m generally a “jack of all trades” sort of person, but for some reason I decided a long time ago to put a lot of study into Go. It’s been very rewarding.

I believe you, I went the same way with bridge. Did you follow the Alpha-Go matches? What’s your thought about them?

I love bridge, I’m quite rusty now, but there was a period when I could really see how to play hands - a nice zone to be in.

AlphaGo is terrifying. Spooky. In the 2nd or 3rd game of the match AlphaGo played “a should hit on the 5th line”. AlphaGo had already established itself and this move was unheard of. To me it felt like I was watching a truly alien intelligence.

And yet it “learned” to play only by playing billions of games against itself. Scary, indeed. Bet that’s led to tons of analysis. Do you.know if there are computer Go games like there are in chess?

I play bridge with my wife, normally Tuesday and Friday afternoons. We have a good partnership and my favourite part is when we really click on defending a hand. Also look for tournaments when we’re traveling (for example, many years we’re returning from Arizona in late February and there’s a large tournament in Vancouver, Washington at the same time).

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7654
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
09 September 2019 12:18
 
burt - 08 September 2019 05:17 PM
icehorse - 08 September 2019 02:55 PM
burt - 08 September 2019 10:21 AM
icehorse - 07 September 2019 08:03 PM
burt - 06 September 2019 10:22 PM
icehorse - 06 September 2019 05:24 PM
burt - 05 September 2019 09:36 PM
icehorse - 05 September 2019 08:39 PM
burt - 26 August 2019 11:07 PM

On the other hand, I could have been a first rate Go player.

I’m a decent chess player, but once I discovered Go I never really looked back. I’m curious to hear how you come to the conclusion about your potential as a Go player. I’m not challenging it, it just strikes me as interesting.

BTW, and back to the OP, there are also professional women Go players, but none have ever been world champions. And there is a general feeling among Go players that both sides of the brain are more essential in Go than in chess.

I started playing back in about 66 at University of Texas. There were several good players there and a number of us beginners. The standard pattern for my games was that after about the first 1/3 of the game a top player would wander by and say that I had the game won. But I didn’t have the technique to fight all the small battles and so the as the game went on it would end up about 50/50. Basically, I could see the overview and lay out a strong beginning but needed to spend the time studying the techniques for finishing up. But wasn’t fanatical enough to put in the work, which I did with bridge, spending a couple of weeks deciding if I wanted to try and become a professional player (realized I didn’t have the personality for it, though).

It’s unusual to be able to “see the whole board” as a beginner!

For those who don’t know, the stronger player always gets the white stones, and a Go board is over five times bigger than a chess board. There’s an old adage that “white’s plan is bigger than black can imagine”. That’s a nod to the idea that beginners tend to focus on small portions of the board, and it takes a lot of time and practice to be able to see the whole Go board.

Anyway, I didn’t have the fascination with the game required to study in detail. I almost never lost at 5-in-a-row and 3D Tic Tac Toe though, which probably says something about lack of long term planning abilities.. As for seeing the whole board, back in the late 70s, the last time I tried my hand at chess, I found two ways of playing above my pay grade (although still playing badly). The first was if I’d smoked some grass and sometimes I’d see the board as a battle field (e.g., with a river and hills, or so on), the second was making the moves that seemed to most increase the tension on the board. Then I could beat other putzers but that’s all.

There’s really something special about Go. I’m generally a “jack of all trades” sort of person, but for some reason I decided a long time ago to put a lot of study into Go. It’s been very rewarding.

I believe you, I went the same way with bridge. Did you follow the Alpha-Go matches? What’s your thought about them?

I love bridge, I’m quite rusty now, but there was a period when I could really see how to play hands - a nice zone to be in.

AlphaGo is terrifying. Spooky. In the 2nd or 3rd game of the match AlphaGo played “a should hit on the 5th line”. AlphaGo had already established itself and this move was unheard of. To me it felt like I was watching a truly alien intelligence.

And yet it “learned” to play only by playing billions of games against itself. Scary, indeed. Bet that’s led to tons of analysis. Do you.know if there are computer Go games like there are in chess?

I play bridge with my wife, normally Tuesday and Friday afternoons. We have a good partnership and my favourite part is when we really click on defending a hand. Also look for tournaments when we’re traveling (for example, many years we’re returning from Arizona in late February and there’s a large tournament in Vancouver, Washington at the same time).

Yes, you can buy Go playing programs. I haven’t looked to se how strong they’ve become. My guess is that - unlike a few short years ago - the newer ones could probably kick my ass smile  I’m fortunate to be able to play players a couple of handicap stones stronger than I am. That’s regarded as the best way to improve. If I got a chance to play AlphaGo it would be interesting, but AlphaGo is too strong or me to learn from.

There is a bridge club where we live, I drop by after golfing. I’d like to get back into it, but they seem like a VERY SERIOUS crowd. Back when I was decent at bridge, we were all seriously trying to get better, but we were also having a lively, boisterous time smile

 
 
 < 1 2