I tried vibe-coding a chess analysis tool, but so far it's difficult to tie stockfish together with an LLM.
Btw, the Chrome tab for Gemini is very cool these days, you can open a chess website, and get the plain PGN in that tab by asking, without any coding. It has access to browser DOM and quickly figures out what are the moves.
I've not really found anything that I've wanted to create to really improve my chess. I've done things like automate logging my online games in a spreadsheet, creating images of moments where the engine eval swings a lot for possible flashcards, and some analytics on USCF ratings. I've thought about creating something that would save games of specific openings for me to review, but it hasn't felt pressing given all the other chess stuff I have to work on.
Anything but serious chess improvement hey? Haha you even mention it in your post about procrastination. What do you think will happen after you click through those thousands of games in the Petrov? You’ll just assimilate the lines and ideas of 2400 level players through, what, osmosis or whatever the chess assimilation equivalent would be?
I’m telling you this Chris because I really believe you can be an expert or even a master if you change your thinking about chess improvement from knowledge gain to skill gain. I suggest looking for games in the 2000-2200 range in your openings. Just play them. Quickest way to learn what not to do. Then work on non critical positions using thought process and calculation. That’s it. I expect when you get to the end — if you ever actually do click through 4000 more games or whatever it is you have left — you’ll be in the same spot you are not or possibly worse.
Someday, perhaps you will figure it out, and perhaps someday you will not.
I recall our first conversation at Waukesha, when I told you that whenever you hit a plateau, the real work would begin. You dismissively told me that you wouldn't hit a plateau because, unlike others, you weren't lazy.
Then you plateaued. Turns out that shit's real, no? Lazy is not the driving force.
In my case, openings have long been my bane. I can't recall the last time I had a good position as White against the French. In the past few years 've probably lost a dozen games and the rating that comes with them by making stupid mistakes.
Wait, that's a lie. I can tell you EXACTLY the last time I had a good position. It was in my game against William Hegelmeyer, where, after 14 moves, I had a perfectly normal position. Sadly, you can't attach images to comments or I'd post it here. I'll have an article soon with it.
I also spent years not really analyzing my own games. Now I spend hours each week analyzing. My games, GM games, whatever. I spend hours solving.
This increased level of analysis leads to a wider selection of candidate moves. So much so that yesterday, while clicking through a game in the French Advance, I found this incredible game between Nguyen and Rustamov, a 3-0 blitz game. No point in even bothering, amirite? Except that I spent about 15 minutes learning some really cool ideas on how to defend against an oddly imbalanced queen ending.
All the materials are out there for anyone to use. The idea that there is only one set of materials, or one way to use them I personally find laughable.
I cannot recall such a conversation about not ever plateauing and it would not happen to me but alas I will admit I am sure I was quite overconfident in my abilities. I always knew it would come. Even with the work it is inevitable. I just did not know when. I have always thought this. How long of such a plateau is largely depending on the work put in for sure. There is always a pit stop. I am now moving on from said pit stop. Something has changed and I can feel it. My coach sees it too. The only reason for this is yes continued work but work in an area most improvers never want to tackle. Calculation and thought process.
As for your openings being a bane I have to also disagree with you. I have seen your games and you are not falling short or losing most of your games out of the opening. Analyzing your own games is huge but I expect perhaps you might need an outside contributor as I did to put you in your place about your own thoughts and ideas. My only argument here is that I believe you could be spending a better use of your time rather than clicking through 2400+ level games trying to glean whatever you can from them. I believe you have a bigger bang for your buck (ie time) is all. If you love it and enjoy it by all means enjoy the process. I also know this could feel like an attack or difficult to digest coming from a player similar level. Take that for what it is worth. I know very little.
The number of tools is not the issue or even the number of resources as a whole. It is how we use them where people call short I believe. Myself and yourself included here. I have only now begun to realize this working with a coach.
I tried vibe-coding a chess analysis tool, but so far it's difficult to tie stockfish together with an LLM.
Btw, the Chrome tab for Gemini is very cool these days, you can open a chess website, and get the plain PGN in that tab by asking, without any coding. It has access to browser DOM and quickly figures out what are the moves.
I learned that yesterday! So cool!
I've not really found anything that I've wanted to create to really improve my chess. I've done things like automate logging my online games in a spreadsheet, creating images of moments where the engine eval swings a lot for possible flashcards, and some analytics on USCF ratings. I've thought about creating something that would save games of specific openings for me to review, but it hasn't felt pressing given all the other chess stuff I have to work on.
Anything but serious chess improvement hey? Haha you even mention it in your post about procrastination. What do you think will happen after you click through those thousands of games in the Petrov? You’ll just assimilate the lines and ideas of 2400 level players through, what, osmosis or whatever the chess assimilation equivalent would be?
I’m telling you this Chris because I really believe you can be an expert or even a master if you change your thinking about chess improvement from knowledge gain to skill gain. I suggest looking for games in the 2000-2200 range in your openings. Just play them. Quickest way to learn what not to do. Then work on non critical positions using thought process and calculation. That’s it. I expect when you get to the end — if you ever actually do click through 4000 more games or whatever it is you have left — you’ll be in the same spot you are not or possibly worse.
Someday, perhaps you will figure it out, and perhaps someday you will not.
I recall our first conversation at Waukesha, when I told you that whenever you hit a plateau, the real work would begin. You dismissively told me that you wouldn't hit a plateau because, unlike others, you weren't lazy.
Then you plateaued. Turns out that shit's real, no? Lazy is not the driving force.
In my case, openings have long been my bane. I can't recall the last time I had a good position as White against the French. In the past few years 've probably lost a dozen games and the rating that comes with them by making stupid mistakes.
Wait, that's a lie. I can tell you EXACTLY the last time I had a good position. It was in my game against William Hegelmeyer, where, after 14 moves, I had a perfectly normal position. Sadly, you can't attach images to comments or I'd post it here. I'll have an article soon with it.
I also spent years not really analyzing my own games. Now I spend hours each week analyzing. My games, GM games, whatever. I spend hours solving.
This increased level of analysis leads to a wider selection of candidate moves. So much so that yesterday, while clicking through a game in the French Advance, I found this incredible game between Nguyen and Rustamov, a 3-0 blitz game. No point in even bothering, amirite? Except that I spent about 15 minutes learning some really cool ideas on how to defend against an oddly imbalanced queen ending.
All the materials are out there for anyone to use. The idea that there is only one set of materials, or one way to use them I personally find laughable.
I cannot recall such a conversation about not ever plateauing and it would not happen to me but alas I will admit I am sure I was quite overconfident in my abilities. I always knew it would come. Even with the work it is inevitable. I just did not know when. I have always thought this. How long of such a plateau is largely depending on the work put in for sure. There is always a pit stop. I am now moving on from said pit stop. Something has changed and I can feel it. My coach sees it too. The only reason for this is yes continued work but work in an area most improvers never want to tackle. Calculation and thought process.
As for your openings being a bane I have to also disagree with you. I have seen your games and you are not falling short or losing most of your games out of the opening. Analyzing your own games is huge but I expect perhaps you might need an outside contributor as I did to put you in your place about your own thoughts and ideas. My only argument here is that I believe you could be spending a better use of your time rather than clicking through 2400+ level games trying to glean whatever you can from them. I believe you have a bigger bang for your buck (ie time) is all. If you love it and enjoy it by all means enjoy the process. I also know this could feel like an attack or difficult to digest coming from a player similar level. Take that for what it is worth. I know very little.
The number of tools is not the issue or even the number of resources as a whole. It is how we use them where people call short I believe. Myself and yourself included here. I have only now begun to realize this working with a coach.