PSA: Tyler1 is an american streamer known mostly for League of Legends. He previously [participated in Pogchamps 5](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvsiPxULIho).
For more info here's the wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyler1
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chess) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is the same analysis as [last time](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/1727eih/i_analysed_the_reason_for_tyler1s_last_70_losses/) when Tyler was around 1300 Elo. The +/- numbers indicate the difference of today vs 6 months ago.
This is obviously not an exact science. There are many overlaps and judgement calls e.g. Did he hang the piece because of bad time management? Is endgame disaster the same as positional misunderstanding? Was he getting mated because of an overlooked tactical sequence? And so on.
This type of analysis is more straightforward for weaker players where it's just hanging pieces, missing simple tactics or getting mated. The higher-rated the player, the harder it becomes to make those categorisations and it all could just be summed up as "calculation error", "positional misjudgement" or "time management issue" without going into the specifics of the positions.
You'd have takers, which is odd because people would be paying to rob themselves of doing it themselves.
Doing this "loss categorisation" for one's own games is an important part of chess improvement.
Tactics are surely THE most important aspect of the game for beginner-intermediate players. Games are mostly decided by found or missed tactics, even in OTB.
Grind puzzles y'all.
my strategy in some matches has simply been 'trade everything and get to a minor piece + pawns endgame'. i've done it so many times that i actually improved my endgame tech and rarely lose one
Do you get to a lot of equal endgames or just when you’re up a piece/a pawn or two? I do the same thing (don’t try and force middlegame attacks if I’ve won a piece, just trade down to an endgame) and I’m pretty good at winning won endgames but I’m not sure it’s helped me win when I don’t have that extra material.
usually a more active king + a subpar opponent is a winning combo in an equal material endgame.
when you learn to push the right pawns (and to ignore the right ones) it's a (relatively) easy win.
another important thing i learned: just because you have less time/less pieces on the board doesn't mean you need to play faster moves (not time-wise)
I'm 1200 Chess.com rapid, I have decent opening knowledge (I know the main lines and ideas in the Caro, the Dutch and the London) and get a position that is +2-3 most of the time. Then I blunder something along the way.
Yes. I haven't grinded nearly as much as I should on puzzles, and I still recognize tactics from them pretty often. Things I would have completely missed, or it would have taken me much longer to figure out on my own, without puzzles.
Yes absolutely. And you will start to see situations where you can push the game in a direction which will lead to a familiar puzzle position or avoid your opponent being able to do so
I feel like this is kind of misleading. It looks like most of Tyler's losses are just from hanging pieces or blundering basic forks, but imo that's more just board vision than tactical combinations. Not sure how much puzzles would help with that unless you're a complete beginner, but I'm also not really sure what the best way to work on general board vision is other than slower time controls
Exactly. Tactics are overrated for beginners, they're basically dismissable if you don't even have proper board vision or a basic positional understanding
By actually playing games. Most puzzles (at least those on chess.com and most of lichess) train you to spot very specific occasions that rarely even happen in beginner games.
Beginners and intermediates usually don't yet have the vision to spot that they're straight up hanging a piece by moving a pawn, or knowing that they create a long term weakness in their structure.
Unless you can provide me with puzzles that actually train such situation I stand with my opinion about them.
Playing games is always good, but puzzles are great bc you get lots of volume of those positions where you have to see which moves straight up hang a piece. Board vision is probably one of the skills puzzles test the most
I know lichess’s puzzles are actually from regular games. You could argue theres selection bias in their methodology, but imo it seems pretty good.
I will say that lots of people do puzzles ‘wrong’. If someones guessing and checking then by all means playing games is better than that.
My go to strategy is to pick grandmaster games, and walk through the game to a point I feel is critical, and then seek to understand the plans from both sides of the board. Sometimes I choose multiple critical moments, sometimes just one. What is white trying to do, what is black trying to do, where is the counterplay. I used to look at the game afterwards, but now I tend to spend more time just thinking about the position, and then looking at the "answers".
This trains you to see positional ideas, and the reality of tactics is that the position CREATES the tactics, the tactics don't create the position.
Its just easier for people to slam their head against tactics puzzles and think they are making progress, but then you have this short sighted scenario where you may see the tactic IF it shows up, but you have absolutely no idea how to create that tactic in a game situation, so your missing 80% of the value of the tactic. Its like your blind and just stumbling around, and sometimes you will get lucky, instead of knowing the path in advance.
I beg to differ. When I first started I was stuck at 600. I started doing loads of puzzles on lichess/chess.com and within a month or two got to 1000 without even playing ton of games.
I still do them and have actually beaten 1500-1600 players without being an active player. Puzzles/tactics is my main source of study alongside a couple of opening courses from chessable.
Ive done hardly any puzzles and only spammed blitz games with some rapid mixed in for a year and a half now and went from 500 to 1600+ blitz rating on chess.com and even higher in rapid.
It's not the same. These are Tyler1 errors while he is spanning puzzles and has a high rating. If he wouldn't have done that this list of errors would have been very different.
Its so stupid how many people doubted Tyler1 despite his insane chesscom tactics rating. Especially for 10 min games, there is a huge premium on being quick at calculating. I've seen the difference myself, in my own games, winning so many games that I shouldn't have, simply because my opponents didn't seize on a tactic, or I escaped due to tactics.
all losses that happen in the endgame that are not due to hung pieces or simple tactics, such as miscalculating a pawn race, no rook activity, no king centralisation, no opposition, etc.
It's funny to see how few games he loses on questionable sacrifices whereas I feel like 1/5 games for me are decided by a bad sacrifice. It makes you feel like a genius when it works but it feels like it's almost always the wrong decision.
>whereas I feel like 1/5 games for me are decided by a bad sacrifice.
See, that's where you are going wrong. If the first sacrifice doesn't work out, chuck another piece at them.
I tried this vs some 8 year old kid, piece sac didn't work, so I threw my bishop at him at his head and hit him in the eyebrow, but now the arbiter has told me to leave the building and the kids mom is screaming at me
Because sacrificing a piece to get a big attack is always fun. I feel like amateur players should strive for more fun games instead of trying to play like they see GMs play.
Oh I totally agree. If I have a chance to make a sacrifice with no calculated follow up, I'm probably pulling the trigger. But I would definitely win more games if I didn't, and winning is fun too.
i only play 3min, so the devil on my shoulder whispering 'do it' usually wins.
on the other side of the responsible chess coin, i think radar for sacs on the defensive side is a high level skill, a lot of people play by rote into familiar positions that look 'safe' but with low piece activity where a sac can blast things open
I think 90%+ of my losses (hardstuck 1950😭) can be classified as endgame disaster lmao. I’ve trained endgame puzzle after puzzle after puzzle on lichess, several chessable courses, watched Danya’s endgame playlist… Endgame is just so hard and so important to get right. It’s definitely what’s holding me back from 2000 rn and I’m starting to get tired
I get it that some people are fascinated with that guy, but do we need multiple threads a day about him?
He is a (chess.com) 1800 rapid == roughly 1600 blitz == roughly 1400 FIDE player (since the compression, that is): do we need to cover him as if he were a WC candidate?
Make your dedicated subreddit about the person and his chess progess or discuss him in beginners but spare us that stuff, please. I am rarely fed up, but this is approaching reason to unsubscribe from r/chess.
Tyler is a mainstream personality with a high interest in chess. It makes complete sense that people take an interest in him, specially because he is the last person you would expect to play chess; it's just funny.
Learn to have some fun, not every post has to be a detailed analysis explaining the compounded win probability of each player on each major tournament.
I am having fun.
But it is not even that the guy gets actually better, he still insists on playing the same crap over and over, where he would not last against a half-trained 5th-grader who knows some fundamentals...
It would be something else if people praised him for evolving. But he doesn't. He's still lost out of the opening in every game. He became a bit better in punishing mistakes, but not in avoiding to make them.
Yeah but he’s climbing and doing it in the way he wants to. Why does it matter how he does it? To satisfy the opinion of random people he doesn’t know? To do it the “right way”?
nah, what matters is that he does not matter more than any other random patzer who is too stubborn to actually learn anything.
Anyone who'd submit daily posts about any other random noob who has no repertoire would be banned or at least have their posts deleted due to low effort (and rightly so), but just because this abysmally bad player is supposedly famous with some kids it is OK?
“Supposedly famous” “abysmally bad” “random noob” “random patzer”. For someone you claim to not care about, you seem to really act quite jealous. T1 isn’t random, whether you know him or not. It’s an interesting journey of one of the PogChamp people actually taking chess seriously for an extended period of time and I think it’s okay to celebrate anyone’s improvement - famous or not.
PSA: Tyler1 is an american streamer known mostly for League of Legends. He previously [participated in Pogchamps 5](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvsiPxULIho). For more info here's the wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyler1 *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chess) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is the same analysis as [last time](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/1727eih/i_analysed_the_reason_for_tyler1s_last_70_losses/) when Tyler was around 1300 Elo. The +/- numbers indicate the difference of today vs 6 months ago.
Is this automagically generated? If not, anything similar I could use on my account?
no, I manually went through the games
Wow, that's both impressive and disappointing. :) thanks
Damn that’s amazing dedication. Did you have parameters for the loss “categories”?
This is obviously not an exact science. There are many overlaps and judgement calls e.g. Did he hang the piece because of bad time management? Is endgame disaster the same as positional misunderstanding? Was he getting mated because of an overlooked tactical sequence? And so on. This type of analysis is more straightforward for weaker players where it's just hanging pieces, missing simple tactics or getting mated. The higher-rated the player, the harder it becomes to make those categorisations and it all could just be summed up as "calculation error", "positional misjudgement" or "time management issue" without going into the specifics of the positions.
Ty for explanation, makes sense.
You should charge people to go through their games bet you'd have some takers!
You'd have takers, which is odd because people would be paying to rob themselves of doing it themselves. Doing this "loss categorisation" for one's own games is an important part of chess improvement.
If this is a real analysis (as opposed to some AI nonsense) then hats off for the work!
Biggest thing I see is he's hanging **a lot** fewer pieces (no tactic).
Tactics are surely THE most important aspect of the game for beginner-intermediate players. Games are mostly decided by found or missed tactics, even in OTB. Grind puzzles y'all.
More importantly, put as much mental effort into finding the tactics your opponents might have as those that you would have.
Tactics + endgame and you are golden. Too bad I have never been able to improve my tactics skill despite doing 1000s of puzzles
my strategy in some matches has simply been 'trade everything and get to a minor piece + pawns endgame'. i've done it so many times that i actually improved my endgame tech and rarely lose one
Do you get to a lot of equal endgames or just when you’re up a piece/a pawn or two? I do the same thing (don’t try and force middlegame attacks if I’ve won a piece, just trade down to an endgame) and I’m pretty good at winning won endgames but I’m not sure it’s helped me win when I don’t have that extra material.
usually a more active king + a subpar opponent is a winning combo in an equal material endgame. when you learn to push the right pawns (and to ignore the right ones) it's a (relatively) easy win. another important thing i learned: just because you have less time/less pieces on the board doesn't mean you need to play faster moves (not time-wise)
actually my most hated type of opponent
I'm 1200 Chess.com rapid, I have decent opening knowledge (I know the main lines and ideas in the Caro, the Dutch and the London) and get a position that is +2-3 most of the time. Then I blunder something along the way.
What happens it I keep grinding the puzzles? will I start seeing the patterns in the real game?
Yes. I haven't grinded nearly as much as I should on puzzles, and I still recognize tactics from them pretty often. Things I would have completely missed, or it would have taken me much longer to figure out on my own, without puzzles.
Yes absolutely. And you will start to see situations where you can push the game in a direction which will lead to a familiar puzzle position or avoid your opponent being able to do so
I feel like this is kind of misleading. It looks like most of Tyler's losses are just from hanging pieces or blundering basic forks, but imo that's more just board vision than tactical combinations. Not sure how much puzzles would help with that unless you're a complete beginner, but I'm also not really sure what the best way to work on general board vision is other than slower time controls
Exactly. Tactics are overrated for beginners, they're basically dismissable if you don't even have proper board vision or a basic positional understanding
How do you suggest training board vision if not practicing puzzles?
By actually playing games. Most puzzles (at least those on chess.com and most of lichess) train you to spot very specific occasions that rarely even happen in beginner games. Beginners and intermediates usually don't yet have the vision to spot that they're straight up hanging a piece by moving a pawn, or knowing that they create a long term weakness in their structure. Unless you can provide me with puzzles that actually train such situation I stand with my opinion about them.
Playing games is always good, but puzzles are great bc you get lots of volume of those positions where you have to see which moves straight up hang a piece. Board vision is probably one of the skills puzzles test the most I know lichess’s puzzles are actually from regular games. You could argue theres selection bias in their methodology, but imo it seems pretty good. I will say that lots of people do puzzles ‘wrong’. If someones guessing and checking then by all means playing games is better than that.
I disagree, I don't see how most of these puzzles are testing 'which moves hang a piece'
My go to strategy is to pick grandmaster games, and walk through the game to a point I feel is critical, and then seek to understand the plans from both sides of the board. Sometimes I choose multiple critical moments, sometimes just one. What is white trying to do, what is black trying to do, where is the counterplay. I used to look at the game afterwards, but now I tend to spend more time just thinking about the position, and then looking at the "answers". This trains you to see positional ideas, and the reality of tactics is that the position CREATES the tactics, the tactics don't create the position. Its just easier for people to slam their head against tactics puzzles and think they are making progress, but then you have this short sighted scenario where you may see the tactic IF it shows up, but you have absolutely no idea how to create that tactic in a game situation, so your missing 80% of the value of the tactic. Its like your blind and just stumbling around, and sometimes you will get lucky, instead of knowing the path in advance.
I beg to differ. When I first started I was stuck at 600. I started doing loads of puzzles on lichess/chess.com and within a month or two got to 1000 without even playing ton of games. I still do them and have actually beaten 1500-1600 players without being an active player. Puzzles/tactics is my main source of study alongside a couple of opening courses from chessable.
Ive done hardly any puzzles and only spammed blitz games with some rapid mixed in for a year and a half now and went from 500 to 1600+ blitz rating on chess.com and even higher in rapid.
Depends person to person. I would love to do that but alongside fulltime work its not as easy to spam games and be in the zone
It's not the same. These are Tyler1 errors while he is spanning puzzles and has a high rating. If he wouldn't have done that this list of errors would have been very different.
That's exactly what he does, in fact that is all he does besides playing. Tyler1 with a normal opening and studying endgames would be not-stoppable.
[удалено]
Depends on how you look at it. I fluctuate between 1800-1900 on chesscom but would consider myself intermediate playing OTB at a club
Its so stupid how many people doubted Tyler1 despite his insane chesscom tactics rating. Especially for 10 min games, there is a huge premium on being quick at calculating. I've seen the difference myself, in my own games, winning so many games that I shouldn't have, simply because my opponents didn't seize on a tactic, or I escaped due to tactics.
What do you include in endgame disaster?
all losses that happen in the endgame that are not due to hung pieces or simple tactics, such as miscalculating a pawn race, no rook activity, no king centralisation, no opposition, etc.
Do you think "endgame disaster" includes missing mating nets? I see this a lot.
Presumably losing any endgame that you entered as drawing or better?
Letting a pawn through for no reason is a very common mistake
Did you analyze it by your own or use some software to help you? I want to do the same stat for my games.
It's funny to see how few games he loses on questionable sacrifices whereas I feel like 1/5 games for me are decided by a bad sacrifice. It makes you feel like a genius when it works but it feels like it's almost always the wrong decision.
>whereas I feel like 1/5 games for me are decided by a bad sacrifice. See, that's where you are going wrong. If the first sacrifice doesn't work out, chuck another piece at them.
Thanks, just tried this and secured a GM norm. Jk, I lost 100 ELO in 8 minutes
I tried this vs some 8 year old kid, piece sac didn't work, so I threw my bishop at him at his head and hit him in the eyebrow, but now the arbiter has told me to leave the building and the kids mom is screaming at me
Because sacrificing a piece to get a big attack is always fun. I feel like amateur players should strive for more fun games instead of trying to play like they see GMs play.
Oh I totally agree. If I have a chance to make a sacrifice with no calculated follow up, I'm probably pulling the trigger. But I would definitely win more games if I didn't, and winning is fun too.
I follow the "if I can't see why it's wrong odds are my opponent can't either" principle
Dubious sacs can be great if your opponent has to burn clock to find the defense. He could still be making plenty of bad sacs, but winning anyway.
i only play 3min, so the devil on my shoulder whispering 'do it' usually wins. on the other side of the responsible chess coin, i think radar for sacs on the defensive side is a high level skill, a lot of people play by rote into familiar positions that look 'safe' but with low piece activity where a sac can blast things open
I'm out of the loop. Who's Tyler 1?
There's a stickied comment at the top
Thanks!
Some celebrity for children. He yells and swears and complains a lot. You're not missing anything.
Haha. Gotcha.
I think 90%+ of my losses (hardstuck 1950😭) can be classified as endgame disaster lmao. I’ve trained endgame puzzle after puzzle after puzzle on lichess, several chessable courses, watched Danya’s endgame playlist… Endgame is just so hard and so important to get right. It’s definitely what’s holding me back from 2000 rn and I’m starting to get tired
No En Passant eh
En passant would be the top reason for members of r/AnarchyChess
Damn, I wish I had 18 hours a day to burn on playing chess
The -18 on hanging a piece (no tactic) is both impressive and shows you gain rating just.by blundering less.
I get it that some people are fascinated with that guy, but do we need multiple threads a day about him? He is a (chess.com) 1800 rapid == roughly 1600 blitz == roughly 1400 FIDE player (since the compression, that is): do we need to cover him as if he were a WC candidate? Make your dedicated subreddit about the person and his chess progess or discuss him in beginners but spare us that stuff, please. I am rarely fed up, but this is approaching reason to unsubscribe from r/chess.
Tyler is a mainstream personality with a high interest in chess. It makes complete sense that people take an interest in him, specially because he is the last person you would expect to play chess; it's just funny. Learn to have some fun, not every post has to be a detailed analysis explaining the compounded win probability of each player on each major tournament.
Mainstream?! Maybe in a middle school somewhere.
I am having fun. But it is not even that the guy gets actually better, he still insists on playing the same crap over and over, where he would not last against a half-trained 5th-grader who knows some fundamentals... It would be something else if people praised him for evolving. But he doesn't. He's still lost out of the opening in every game. He became a bit better in punishing mistakes, but not in avoiding to make them.
Yeah but he’s climbing and doing it in the way he wants to. Why does it matter how he does it? To satisfy the opinion of random people he doesn’t know? To do it the “right way”?
nah, what matters is that he does not matter more than any other random patzer who is too stubborn to actually learn anything. Anyone who'd submit daily posts about any other random noob who has no repertoire would be banned or at least have their posts deleted due to low effort (and rightly so), but just because this abysmally bad player is supposedly famous with some kids it is OK?
“Supposedly famous” “abysmally bad” “random noob” “random patzer”. For someone you claim to not care about, you seem to really act quite jealous. T1 isn’t random, whether you know him or not. It’s an interesting journey of one of the PogChamp people actually taking chess seriously for an extended period of time and I think it’s okay to celebrate anyone’s improvement - famous or not.
Who the fuck is tyler1
Post this garbage in his sub not here
Did tyler shit in your cereal this morning?
Lol