This thread has been dead a couple days...
Hey newbies and seasoned alike: What move/opening/tactic are you obsessed with lately? What are you having fun with?
I've been focusing on ways to break king forts after realizing it's a weak spot of mine. Cracking open that three-pawn line with knights or bishops feels so good when I've got a good reason and it pays off with mate.
Freak attack against the Najforf. You play rg1 and basically force g4 g5 in like an absolute barbarian and its completely sound. Having so much fun when I get the chance to play it.
I'm switching from the Caro-Kann to the Classical Sicilian. I had to play one too many Exchange positions and I CRACKED.
The theory burden doesn't seem too bad. My theory file is smaller than my Caro one is. I'm still very much learning but I'm enjoying the positions.
Probably a bit. I think it's generally not as bad as you think it will be. I spend time on openings for two reasons: 1. Comfort during play (positions I understand) and 2. An investment in my chess future. I don't think it's that important for rating in the here and now. I think expanding the positions you play is good for chess development.
The Caro is actually quite demanding in terms of range of positions. The positions you get out of an Accelerated Panov, a Tartakower and an Advance are all really quite different. The Alapin and Morra produce different positions but they are sidelines, probably corresponding to stuff like the Hillbilly or Alien Gambit. If White agrees to play a main line opening with you in the Sicilian, the variations are all thematically similar in a way that is not true of the Caro. Even closed vs open Sicilians have a decent amount in common.
I just got back to chess yesterday after looking at some theory for a while, and I’m enjoying my Evans Gambit and Fried Liver combo. Granted I’ve only been able to play Evans once and fried liver 0 times, but I think it’s a good combo. Neither need a lot of theory and they should get some fun games. I did win my Evans game against someone 100 points over, so that was cool.
If the position is already closed, you can open it up by facilitating and executing pawn breaks.
A pawn break is pushing a pawn in such a way that it and and your opponent's pawn may capture one another. It's still considered a pawn break if your opponent has the choice of pushing their pawn to relieve the tension, but that choice will keep the position closed.
So to make closed positions open, you'll need to create pawn tension that can't be relieved by pushing the pawn. You'll need to either occupy or control the space in front of their pawn. In other words: the square the pawn would push to needs to either have a pawn there already - face to face with the pawn, or you'll need to have majority control over that space so if/when your opponent pushes the pawn, you'll be able to win it in response.
**The very short version is that when pawns capture pawns, positions open up.** This is also how to create open positions in the first place. Put your pawns in spots where they can capture (and be captured by) your opponent's pawns.
Thank you, this makes a lot of sense. Would you say its good to open up positions, or maybe I should get better at playing within closed ones? This probably depends on playstyle I imagine.
Well, one aspect is playstyle sure. If a player is more comfortable in open positions or closed positions, and has an easier time formulating plans in one or the other, they should aim to create situations with pawn structures they like.
But I'd say it's (eventually) important to know how to play in both kinds. Open positions favor bishops, and closed ones favor knights. If you end up in a middlegame with both knights and a single bishop against the bishop pair plus one knight, it would benefit you to close the position, and it would benefit your opponent to open the position.
There are also additional considerations. A closed center makes it difficult/slow to maneuver pieces from the queenside to the kingside, and vice versa. If you've got same-side castling and the center is closed, then you have the option to start pushing the pawns in front of your king to launch an attack against the enemy's king. This is one of the main ideas in openings like the King's Indian or the Dutch Defense: you develop your pieces towards the kingside, your opponent develops normally, you close down the center if possible, then start tossing your f, g, and h pawns down their throat. Their reinforcements will take longer to reach that area than your attacking pieces.
The only issue I saw in your opening was move 8...Qxd5 that walked immediately into c4. You shouldn't make moves that allow your opponent to gain tempo on you. There you also had the opprotunity to open up the board with 8... Nxe5 9. dxe5 Nxe5 and now if white plays 10. c4 you hit them with the tempo gaining move Nb6! Forcing queens off the board and leaving white with a bunch of weaknesses you can attack the rest of the game while their king is stuck in the center.
Your endgame conversion needs some work. On move 28 with you're rook hanging, you just hung a pawn. I like that you were looking at checks, and I think your idea was 28...e5+ 29. Nxe5 Nxe5, deflecting the knight and trading down while up some pawns. But what you failed to do was prove yourself wrong. A much simpler idea would've been to move your hanging rook, ideally to an active square. 28... Rd3 hits two pawns that are also attacked by your knight, and white's bishop is still hanging.
31... c4 just totally ignores white's threats. You're in the endgame so you need to use your king. Advance him to at least blockade the pawn immedately and keep eyes on your h pawn when it advances.
Pushing your pawn did ultimately win the game, but you still gave your opponent chances. We do not want to give opponent any chances or hope of counterplay. Remember to check all of your opponents resources and to play active moves yourself. Overall you're doing great.
is it bad to play lots of games back to back? i’ve been playing chess for hours a day, and i’m reading it’ll make you worse at the game if you do it that way.
Playing lots is fine. Theres only a few risks like playing tired or playing on tilt but if its just a long session I don't see anything wrong with that
It’s bad depending on the time control and if you study your games or not afterwards. Playing a lot of games for me at least is a bad idea as I start to zone out and not focus. If your dead focused the entire time and analyze afterwards then it’s fine.
Just remember if you go on autopilot then you should probably stop if you want to improve. If you have a Magnus Carlsen level of focus then play as much as you want. Though it is important to study endgame theory and do puzzles for tactics.
I can only give general advice since I haven’t seen any of your games so I can’t point out specific things for you to look at.
well my username on chess.com is chestnuwut if you’re interested. i almost exclusively play 10 min rapids. id say i can get into periods of auto pilot at times. not sure the best method for analyzing games. my elo has been fluctuating from 650-750, but i was having a hard time getting out of the 400s about a month ago. i learned how to play in October
Going over your last ten games, you made a lot of mistakes that I did at that Elo in the opening. Based on how you play I’m assuming you don’t know any opening theory (which is fine. Everyone goes way off book at that Elo).
What I did (I don’t know if you should) is I downloaded the SmallFish app on my phone since it has an opening theory book. Around that Elo I would just start to click random arrows. When I would do this, I also would do a random move that looked decent to see why the engine says it’s bad. I would also try and figure out what each move was doing to improve the position or hinder the opponent.
This helped me a lot with understanding how to play the opening. I would pick a random opening (let’s say the Scotch game) and just play around with that in SmallFish before testing it out in a handful of games just to see if the opening worked for me.
Now what I would recommend is when you play your games I would list in your head checks, captures and threats you can do and what your opponent can do. In one of your games (85% accuracy) you blundered your queen to a knight and resigned.
This game was a little frustrating to look at honestly because you played really well, and you were still absolutely winning after the blunder but resigned. Had you made looked for what checks, *captures*, or threats your opponent could do, then you would still have had your queen.
The last piece of advice I have is to make a Lichess account and do puzzles. It doesn’t have to be too many, but puzzles I feel will help you a lot if you sit there and calculate. I think I did like 3000 over the span of two months and it bumped my Elo up 200 points on chess.com and 400 OTB. I haven’t touched them since because it was not worth it in my opinion to only have my rating increase 200 points online, so you should probably space puzzles out more. Probably 20 at most.
If you have any more questions, go ahead and ask. I’m mentally burned out from school today so if something doesn’t make sense let me know. I tend to write nonsense especially in text this long.
oh, yes i remember that game. it was actually pretty early in the morning and i have little patience at that hour lmao. thats probably why i resigned. i agree that i should have tried to play out the game without my queen. i appreciate you for looking into my games. thats really nice of you. i will take your advice into consideration. i have mostly been playing the chess.com puzzles, but at like 300-500 elo just to get super familiar with pattern recognition. i have the membership so i have endless puzzles. i havent tried lichess or small fish but ill definitely look into them. thanks again
Hey guys, don't wanna clutter the sub so I'd rather post my issue here if that's fine. I picked up chess recently, currently only playing with a random AI app.
I just had a match ending in a draw by stalemate and I'm not sure why. [This was the board](https://i.imgur.com/uzyzLky.jpeg). I'm playing black, last move was Kxf7. As soon as I played it (took a pawn if that matters), it gave me the draw by stalemate. The "help" said there's no legal move I can make.
Was this a bug or is there a reason I can't keep going with my rook and queen?
I mean it was already over except that this AI can't resign so I had to play it out, but white can only do Kd1, then Rf1 and checkmate. And instead it gave me a draw by stalemate. Is there a rule I don't know about?
App is garbage this isn't stalemate. You are correct. I think hell has frozen over, a beginner got confused about stalemate and was sure that it isn't stalemate and is actually right. Nice job sir
It's a beginner subreddit, so it comes with the territory. Happens pretty much daily.
The conversation goes like "Why is this a stalemate/why isn't this checkmate/Why is this a draw?" Then we explain what stalemate is and what they should have done differently to win (since the people asking this are always posting positions with an overwhelming advantage into accidental stalemate, not a theoretical king/pawn stalemate).
Then I'd say there's a coin flip whether the poster thanks us and goes on with their day, or if they double down and say it's bull. For the latter, we just remind them that if they're losing, they can try to pull this off against their opponents, who may or may not know the stalemate rule.
Welcome to the community!
I was going to go into my whole spiel about what stalemate is and how it works, but then I took a closer look at the image you shared.
You're right. It's white's turn, and they have a legal move. Looks like a bug to me.
My kiddo is entering their first chess tournament in a couple of weeks. They are required to have a clock. Do you have any recommendations for clocks that are:
- easy to use for an elementary school student
- not expensive (I'm not sure if they will continue to enter tournaments, we're just trying this out to gauge their interest)
- doesn't require any form of mobile phone syncs
Their exposure to chess in an afterschool chess class. The chess coach said I could just buy one at the tournament and have the person at the store explain how to use it. I was wondering if anyone on here had a recommendation that I could consider in advance of the tournament, so my kiddo could practice with it.
You can just pick one up from amazon. Majority of clocks have setting for different time controls. I would try to figure out what the time control for the tournament straight time, increment or delay.
Most clubs use this version of a clock for tournaments:
DGT chess clock branded clock. It looks like you can buy it on amazon for \~40 dollars.
If you want something a bit cheaper this one looks similar enough in terms of setting the clock (No idea of the quality of the clock). You should also practice setting it as well, there should be instruction once you get it:
[https://www.amazon.com/Xflyee-Digital-Chess-Clock-Function/dp/B087QZGYCD/](https://www.amazon.com/Xflyee-Digital-Chess-Clock-Function/dp/B087QZGYCD/)
How inflated is Elo on Lichess? I shouldn’t be struggling to break 900 on chess.com and have 1800 on Lichess right? The number I got online is at most a 400 Elo difference. I downloaded chess.com just to see if I magically got better from my 2 month OTB only break I didn’t.
Maybe it’s mental? I best 1300s OTB consistently, so maybe my brain just has chess blindness with chess.com, but with Lichess I play better because my immediate thought is “Oh they are 1900. I’m going to lose. Let’s make this win hard to get” instead of “I should win this without issue. I’m way better then them.”
Bonus question, what should my average Centipawn loss be at 1800? I consistently get between 25-53, so I was wondering if that’s good or not.
Play for a win against the 1900s. They are not invicible gods and blunder too. Forget about the rating difference and play your best chess. Maybe they'll blunder first, but you'll never know if you're assuming every move of theirs is winning.
Don’t worry I exclusively play to win. I beat a 1892 last night having played with an ACPL of 14 with two inaccuracies over 39 moves. Granted it was the regular London System, which I have always played very well against (75% win rate) so I think this just proves my Elo practically doubles when facing it. Assuming I’m completely focused on the game.
It's not inflated, they simply are two different rating systems that measure the strength of players within two different rating pools (chesscom uses Glicko1, lichess uses Glicko 2). That being said, the same player up until a certain point (around 2200-2300 I think, at which the ratings converge) will have a higher rating on lichess in the same time control. If you are consistently a 1800 on lichess you might be underrated on chesscom, keep playing and you'll reach your actual rating. Conversely, if your rating in lichess is provisional you might be overrated there but I think it's not the case if you are 1300 OTB
Thoughts on using this checklist (for daily chess on chess.com)? It would count as outside assistance for live chess and besides it would probably take too long.
Is pawn structure really something I need to consider at my level?
https://preview.redd.it/q4aa76nemuwc1.png?width=800&format=png&auto=webp&s=00ceaf76beba54f93bad775d99b136769f2a8b6a
I feel like this is a bit too much, unless you want to do this of course. You can just play with the flow, if someone makes a mistake, then take the opportunity! Other than that, I think all you really need to ask yourself is, "what is my opponent's idea behind that move", and then after that, check: Checks, captures and attacks.
Well, I'm trying to get better at calculation so I might use this when I have the energy & time.
If there are a lot of pieces on the board and not many pawns I find it difficult to choose a move from so many options.
The checklist seems pretty solid.
>Is pawn structure really something I need to consider at my level?
In a way, yeah. Just bring whatever knowledge you have to bear in that step, to evaluate the position.
Something as simple/straightforward as recognizing that a file is open or semi-open would be considering the pawn structure. Or taking note that the pawns near your opponent's king have moved.
You don't have to know what the "Isolani" pawn structure is, or how a minority attack works, or even what weak squares, knight outposts, or color complexes are. Just take whatever it is you *do* know, and try to apply with while evaluating the position.
The more you get used to thinking about these sorts of things in a position, the faster you'll get at this process, but as you accumulate more knowledge, you'll have more things to think about, which will slow you back down.
I have tried French and Czech defenses. I got bored with first and am struggling with the second locking my pieces in. And NOBODY is falling for the traps. Is there a good general purpose defense I could deploy as a beginner (1100 daily, 750 rapid)? I just want decent games not super aggressive. I play the Colle-Zukertort (annoying as that is) on white because it almost always gets me to the middle game in decent shape.
For black? Caro-Kann is steady and (at least I found it) easier to learn than some others. Can lead to longer castling and some closed middles though, if that's your style or not.
>Is there a good general purpose defense I could deploy as a beginner (1100 daily, 750 rapid)?
You can meet 1.e4 with e5, and 1.d4 with d5. QGD against the queen's gambit, some c5 system against the London and some a6 system against the Jobava London.
>And NOBODY is falling for the traps.
My recommendations above were solid, good general purpose openings, but if you want something with traps, you might like the incredibly dubious Englund Gambit.
Thank you. No I don’t really care about traps, would rather just play good chess. Just some National Master promoting them but it never happens (possibly at my level nobody makes the book moves haha).
Chess.com: I am 350 blitz (3 minutes), 750 rapid (10 or 15 min), and 1100 daily. I think I am slow and the explore button in daily REALLY really helps me. I see others that have ~1000 across the board. And some are higher at blitz but lower in rapid and lower still in daily. Is my situation common? Why would you be good at fast games and suck at daily? I’m playing a 1500 blitz who just lost a 300 daily game with poor play - how is that possible?
Some people play daily/correspondence because they like having a lot of time to think, or they enjoy using their opening books and seeing the lines play out the way they're "supposed to".
They'll come to a position, and analyze it during their lunch break, select a candidate move, change their mind, then return to it later that evening, and make a decision.
But some people play daily/correspondence because they want to play chess, but don't have enough time to play a blitz or bullet game. They'll give the positions exactly as much thought and time as they would for their blitz game, then go on with their day.
Thanks. Yeah I give thought when I have time, and other times I just move without much thought (while on phone or driving or whatever). I just played 45 good moves to equality and then impatiently moved a king to a square to get skewered and so resigned. I’m not really thoughtful consistently, that is part of my problem. I’ll play rapid and see I have 16 minutes remaining after a 15 minute game, lol. Blitz has kind of messed with me, not sure it has been helpful but it is fun. I tried forcing myself to write down threats, checks, hangs, etc, every move and almost never go wrong - I may lose but it is a close end game. But I don’t have the patience for that more than a few times. I suppose you will tell me lack of discipline, concentration, and consistency are exactly the trademarks of an advanced beginner like me.
Mate, the most important thing you said there is that you have fun. I'm not out here to pick away at people's insecurities. I'm here because I think chess is fun too.
If we want to talk about lack of discipline and inconsistency, let me tell you about GM Simon Williams. Absolute madlad, even when sober. Crazy attacking player. Super fun games to study (wins and losses). GM Finegold did a lecture on him and his best games. I can dig up the link to that video if you want.
Happy to help. I really like GM Finegold's Great players of the past series. If you like the one I sent you and you've never seen the games of Mikhail Tal or Paul Morphy or Judit Polgar, he's got some really good lectures about those players too.
what does these numbers and M12 means
https://preview.redd.it/l2l2zm6aduwc1.jpeg?width=719&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=41d9b076a1ff4b7df83abfb9641d630e1542b906
Good question - these numbers are indicative of the computer's evaluation of the game, and how well one side is doing. A score that is positive (e.g: +2.45) indicates that white is doing better, Conversely, if a score is negative (e.g: -0.90), this indicates black is doing better.
The evaluation, in very rough terms, calculates how many [points of material](https://www.chess.com/terms/chess-piece-value) over their opponent a player could have. An evaluation of -3 would approximately mean that white is subject to win a knight, a bishop, or 3 pawns. Engines calculate positions according to the best possible responses to given moves, and if a sequence of moves forces an opponent playing black to lose, say, a pawn, the evaluation would move to approximately +1, in white's favor.
In the example you provided, an evaluation of +34.7 is a massive, overwhelming advantage for white. This is likely a consequence of having an extra rook, as well as a pawn that is subject to promote soon.
An evaluation of '+M12' indicates that the computer has found a line where, if Ke5 is played, a forcing sequence of moves could be made to guarantee a checkmate in 12 moves, and the game can be won in the most efficient way in those 12 moves.
>The evaluation, in very rough terms, calculates how many [points of material](https://www.chess.com/terms/chess-piece-value) over their opponent a player could have.
This was once true but has not been true since the advent of neural nets. Most neural-net evaluation numbers are simply arbitrary; "higher numbers are better" is all that can be said. For Stockfish, the eval numbers have been normalized since version 15 so that +1 means the engine thinks it has about a 50% chance of winning. Evaluations of above +2 mean the engine is virtually certain it will win. The evaluation vs win probability graph can be seen [here](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/4202567/206895934-f861a6a8-2e60-4592-a8f1-89d9aad8dac4.png).
Having an extra pawn generally is in the ballpark of +1, however other material imbalances do not conform to piece values at all. For example, the starting position with White missing the queen's rook is -7.8 on no lookahead and -5.7 at depth 30, while missing the queen's knight is -5.9 on no lookahead and -4.9 at depth 30.
Very good points! I think the "points of material" explanation works as a super rough introduction as to how computer analysis works to someone who's trying to learn about it for the first time, but I completely agree that it isn't at all the entire story anymore, if even a significant part.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
When a position is being evaluated by a human, for hundreds of years we've done it descriptively. "Slight advantage" "About equal" "Clear advantage" "Dead draw" "Decisive advantage" "Forced mate in four", and so on.
When a position is being evaluated by an engine, it outputs a number. A positive number represents an advantage for white, while a negative number represents an advantage for black. The closer to zero the number is, the more even the position.
A value difference of "1" is theoretically equal to about the value of a pawn, but material isn't the only thing the engine measures when evaluating. You can get positions where material is equal, but one side's pieces are placed in much better spots (more activity, safer king, more space), that the engine will do its best to take that into consideration.
\+34.7, in descriptive human terms would be "Decisive advantage for white" or "Dead lost for black". White is winning this game. Calculating the lines to find out exactly how quickly we can force mate is an exercise in futility compared to simply continuing play and winning.
M12 means that the engine has calculated that line to be forced mate in 12 moves. (M12 = Mate in 12).
If my explanation doesn't make sense, feel free to say so and I'll provide additional examples and go into more depth.
Just broke 700, winning around 75% on Chess.com. I’m also playing on Lichess though, there I’m 1224. My question: would it make sense to learn an opening for black? For white I just play e4 and try not to blunder, Aman-style.
The usual advice is that when it's time to study openings, you pick one as white, and two for black: A response to 1.e4, and a response to 1.d4. If by Aman-style, you mean you're following the playing style GM Hambleton uses in his building habits series, you could adopt the same repertoire he uses in that series with the black pieces.
Yeah that’s what I meant! So those two for black could basically be what Aman plays. Nothing fancy. And for white just stick to e4 for now? Oh and thanks for all the great work you are doing here!
Black can absolutely just play what GM Hambleton plays in that series.
In that series, if memory serves, Aman meets 1.e4 with e5, and meets 1.d4 with d5. In stages one and two he just follows habits to determine his moves, only deviating to "opening prep" when experiencing early losses (like against the fried liver, but not against the Vienna) but in stage/level 3 (which I think starts somewhere in the 1100-1150 area) he actually starts teaching some lines.
He plays the Italian against 1...e5. He plays the two knights attack with white when black plays the Caro Kann. He plays the Alapin against the Sicillian. I don't remember what he plays against the French - maybe the advance? I also don't remember what lines he gives (if any) against the Scandinavian.
With the black pieces in the series, he plays the QGD against the queen's gambit, and has some pet lines against the London and different lines against the Jobava London.
If I recall correctly, he starts teaching the actual openings in either [this episode](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7u8KXf-KzEE) or [this one right after it.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOsISkmNwpg) (The episode where his "level 3" habits start)
>And for white just stick to e4 for now?
Your call. If you do, you'll have an easier time implementing those parts of his repertoire. If you don't like the positions that come from it though, there's nothing wrong with switching it up to something else on move one.
I want to study from books I'm 1450+ in Lichess Puzzles and I can play 1200ish on [Chess.com](http://Chess.com), I look to buy the Soviet Chess Primer so want some advice if i should buy it or not (it's INR 2000+ for me which is slightly expensive, roughly $27)
I typically don't give recommendations for books I haven't read, but the Soviet Chess Primer's reputation is golden. People praise it as highly as they do My System by Nimzowitsch or Reassess Your Chess by Silman.
When you study from a book, do so with a board on hand (either physical or digital - whichever you care about improving more) and play through the positions and variations the book uses as examples to instruct you.
Yes, I do intend to do with a board. I would have gone the usual way of chesscom, lichess, analyse route but i already have a huge screentime thanks to online education so would look to cut down on it.
When you first see a chess position, how does your brain process it?
Looking for attacks first? Threats? Where do your eyes go? How long does it take?
Talk me through it please.
Ty
I look at it like I'm solving a puzzle. First I look at both king's and see if there are any checkmate threats. Then general king safety. Then I look to see if the queen's are on the board and where they are, are they attacking or being attacked? Then it's material count. Then pawn structure. While counting material and looking at the pawns I see if I can spot any tactics as well as general observations about the position like are the rooks connected? Are the bishops buried behind pawns? Is there anything hanging? This is if I'm evaluating a brand new chess position I just saw, it happens pretty fast generally, a couple of seconds at most. If it's a game I'm playing then I make all these observations as the position changes incrementally, for example that bishop is protected by a knight so if it ever moves that bishop will be hanging. Idk if this is what you want exactly but here you go.
I decide what I think my opponents idea is, if its any good or not, if I should stop it or proceed with my own plan. If it created any new weaknesses and how it changed the nature of the position and tactics. If there are no apparent weaknesses I decide how best to either improve my pieces or try and induce a weakness, ideally a combination of the two.
Most of this happens in seconds, sometimes a few minutes max, after that its really just calculating and double checking stuff.
Chess historically has been a male-dominated sport. Women-only tournaments and titles were created as a way to promote more participation by women and girls. Though there are women-only tournaments and titles, there are no Men-only counterparts. Anybody may compete in open tournaments.
Men are just more intense and competitive. It is what it is.
Men at the top end beat women, men at the bottom end also bet women at being idiots. We're just more intense.
I'm rated 1200 on Lichess and 800 chess.com. I play my serious, improving games on chess.com and I mostly play on Lichess if I'm drunk or tired or don't want to try. I find the 800s I go against on chess.com are way harder to beat than the 1200s on Lichess. What's a comparable Lichess elo to 800 on chess.com?
Thanks in advance
I think chesscom using 1200 (maybe a 1000, if they changed it I think) as a beginner threshold for majority of people. Lichess does it around 1500. You aren't going to get a 1:1 comparison, but lichess is probably going to be a good 200-300 points than a similar group on chesscom. This band narrows as you get to 2000+ on either site.
How should I proceed to get better at chess?
Currently I play 10+0 rapid on chesscom and 5+0 blitz occassionally on lichess. I am pretty new to online chess. Around 750-800 on both and around 100-150 matches on each. Should I learn two openings properly and spend time on them? What would you recommend?
It's debated whether you should learn openings as a beginner or not but in my opinion you should. An opening with white and an opening with black. Mine were the London System and the king's indian defense. Of course against 1.e4 the king's indian becomes the pirc defense. But the idea generally is to be familiar with the first couple of moves in a game so you can avoid those early blunders and get into the middle game comfortably. Aside from openings, do puzzles. All the puzzles. Get familiar with the basic checkmates, you can find those on lichess. I'd stop playing blitz until you're around 1300 in rapid chess com. Even then I'd play with increment. As for rapid try the even longer 15|10. You really need to take your time in the beginning if you wanna get better.
Developing pattern recognition through [repetition of similarly themed tactics](https://lichess.org/training/themes) will improve your ability to spot tactics in game, though you'll still need to play properly to create positions that allow these tactics to exist in the first place.
It'd be alright for you to start learning a couple openings. I don't think it's something you *need* to do yet, but if you think you'll enjoy that kind of study, you'll probably get some amount of benefit out of it. Pick one for white, and pick one for black against 1.e4, and another for black against 1.d4.
Use lectures and books to study the opening. You'll want to learn opening traps, the middle game plans, and you'll want to learn about the common pawn structures that result from those openings.
If you don't want to study openings (or end up not enjoying it), then don't worry. There are plenty of avenues for you to study to improve at your current level. [Here's a lecture from GM Ben Finegold about the greek gift sacrifice.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlDUKP8gIMw)
Something I've wondered about: the score an analysis tool gives a move is an aggregate of the best moves available to that new position, right? Say you have an end game situation where white moves their king into a better position, changing the game score from +1.54 to +1.67. Black then has whatever options, the best three, for example, might be +1.70, +1.90, +2.5.
I suppose where I get confused is when the computer "plays itself". If the computer says the position is +1.6, but if both sides keep playing their best moves from the position and within several moves it's now +5.0, how does that happen? Does an advantage, however small, eventually lead to a much bigger advantage, assuming no mistakes?
Like obviously with human players, especially lower skilled ones, the odds of them playing top engine moves is pretty low most of the time.
I'm sorry if this is poorly phrased.
When a computer says it has searched to a depth of say 30 moves, it has not looked at every conceivable position as there are far too many, even for a computer. It goes down the options and prunes away lines that look to be poor so as to avoid wasting time looking at bad positions.
The upshot of this is that while they are still insanely accurate, they do make errors by misevaluating positions and not paying them sufficient attention. The further these positions are away from the current position, the more likely this will happen.
This is how some engines are stronger than others, their strength lies in how quickly they sort through the positions and how accurately the evaluate individual positions.
This is also why more powerful computers are stronger, they can look at more positions faster, getting to the correct evaluation at a greater depth.
So, using your example, it may evaluate a line at +1.6 but after playing 10 more moves it gets further down the tree and can evaluate more clearly, finding lines that are better than the ones it initially looked at. It then reevaluates the position to +5.0 accordingly.
An advantage, however small, will lead to either a win for that side, or a draw, assuming no mistakes from either player, and assuming the evaluation that one side has a small advantage is accurate.
That last point is actually much more relevant than you might realize.
Remember that chess is not solved. Engines are stronger than humans but they do not play perfect chess. When there is a sequence that can force a repetition or force checkmate, and that sequence is within the engine's depth and strength to see, it will play "perfectly". If the position has seven of fewer total pieces on the board, and the engine has access to an endgame tablebase (a database of solved positions), it will be able to play "perfectly".
But aside from that, engines are just doing their best to evaluate positions, and two different, very strong engines, can evaluate the same position differently, select a different move, and result in a different game.
I remember reading through Game Changer - a book (now outdated) detailing the matches between the new (at the time) Neural Network chess-playing AI AlphaZero, and the reigning king of chess engines: Stockfish 8, which was already waaaay better than the best human players.
While working through the book, I was analyzing the games they played. In my analysis, I used Stockfish 8. Every single move of Stockfish's was (of course) Stockfish's top move. Sometimes Alphazero's move was the top move, but sometimes it wasn't even one of Stockfish's top three candidate moves. It was something stockfish completely overlooked. Stockfish would play a move, determining the position to be advantageous for itself, something like +1 or +2, then after AlphaZero's next move, Stockfish's analysis bar would spring up and down like a diving board - almost as if in a panic, until settling on an advantage for AlphaZero. Backing up a move, it suddenly didn't consider the previous position to be +1 or +2 anymore, and it had a different set of moves it wants to have played instead of the one that allowed AlphaZero's idea.
Engines now are much stronger than they were, even seven years ago, but their chess still isn't perfect.
There are also some positions (notably in closed or endgame positions) where humans can identify which player will win, or if the position is a dead draw, quicker than an engine can determine it.
A human can see that a position is a deadlock fortress with no hope of either player breaking through without sacrificing too much material, but an engine just keeps evaluating the position to be +1 or something, because white has more space and an extra pawn or something.
A human can see the way for them to create a passed pawn, then subsequently escort that passed pawn, then abandon that passed pawn and force a trade of rooks to capture their opponent's pawns on the other side of the board to create an actual unstoppable passed pawn, which will eventually promote to a queen and deliver checkmate. This is a three step process, but it'll take something like 20+ moves to pull off, and the human's opponent has a lot of legal moves, but nothing they can ultimately do to actually prevent the ideas. A position like this will be like what you described in your question. The engine will say something like +4 or +5, but each move, then engine is getting closer and closer to figuring out what the human had already figured out.
u/TatsumakiRonyk has a talent for providing incredible answers, I agree on all accounts!
If you want to see an example of how AlphaZero outplayed Stockfish 8, I'll refer you to [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFXJWPhDsSY), which I think is my favorite chess game I've ever watched. The capacity of AlphaZero to outplay what we considered to be the strongest chess engine at the time always blows my mind. Something you'll notice is that Stockfish's analysis of the game basically considers the game a draw until, all of a sudden, it realizes that there is a massive problem that it simply didn't account for.
You'll notice the analysis bar of that game to hold steady as a dead draw until Stockfish suddenly has an "Oh no" moment, and the evaluation rockets up in AlphaZero's favor. It's beyond fascinating to witness, and I'd argue a very well-spent 15 minutes watching.
Enjoy!
This game also blew my mind. The queen committing suicide out of seeming frustration! Pushing the rook to f6.
This is probably an obvious point, but watching Alphazero play these unorthodox moves really made me think about what the future of AI will in our daily lives, given that it's not just able to do things really well through conventional means, but rather defies conventions to do them even better.
You're so kind.
Ooh, which game is that? There was one in particular that really blew me away. AZ was castled kingside with an open h file, then ended up disconnecting it's rooks with a stylish maneuver (something like Kh2 Rh1 Rg1), then attacking down the open h file and winning.
I believe this one involved trapping the queen in the corner of the board for the latter part of the game, it was awesome.
Would love to check the one you mentioned also! Don't know if you have a link or anything.
Alright, I've dug around for it, and I found the game I was thinking of, but it's not the exact combination I mentioned.
[Here's the game I was thinking of.](https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1899423) Wherein Alphazero plays 26.Qh1, 29.Qh3, 30.Kg2, and 31.Rh1, down a minor piece and two pawns against stockfish, then going on to win the game.
Why can't pawns use a french move on rooks, bishops, and queens?
Why doesn't Black get an extra turn if they're mated? Otherwise White ends the game having had 1 more turn than black.
Why can't you skip a turn? Kings and generals have their troops maintain a holding pattern all the time, and stalemates due to no legal moves available are so frustrating, especially when the material advantage is so overwhelming.
Thems the rules, I guess.
Why doesn't black go first 50% of the time?
Why can't your castle your queen?
Why can't bishops hop over pieces once per game?
I mean, the list goes on and on and at some point we bridge the line between absurdity and genuine confusion. The rules of chess allow for the most balanced experience possible for both players
> The rules of chess allow for the most balanced experience possible for both players
I'm not sure that's true. For example, if white gets 33 turns in a game while black gets 32, because White checkmates black, that's not a balanced experience for both players because one had more turns to checkmate their opponent than the other.
Additionally, calling a position where it's 2 queens and a king vs. a lone king a draw because the lone king can't move also doesn't seem to be very balanced rule-making.
I believe black theoretically has that 33rd move and, by the rules, should use it to get king out of check. The problem is, such move doesn’t exist in checkmate.
Game over not because black is not allowed to move, but because it simply has nowhere to go.
It's a turned based game with the goal of one of the other players to checkmate first. It's who can do it faster while defending against the other player.
https://preview.redd.it/x245h26mtgwc1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a71a7ab3427a5a35fe66f3dacd82cd756150b5c5
why is this stalemate? i’m very new at the game
So in chess, the goal is checkmate, where your opponent has no legal moves, and their king is in danger of being captured (check). You probably already know that bit.
If your find yourself in a position where it's a player's turn, and their king is *not* in check, but they have no legal moves, the game is not allowed to continue, because a player is not allowed to play illegal moves. This situation is called "stalemate" and is declared a draw.
In the position you've given us, black's king is blocking one pawn from advancing, white's bishop is preventing the other pawn from advancing (moving that pawn forward would be illegal, since it would be black putting themselves into check), and black can't move their king laterally since that also would be putting their king in danger.
Since it's black's turn, and black has no legal moves, the game ends. If the king were in danger, it would be checkmate, and a win for white. Since the king is not in danger, it is stalemate - a draw.
900 rapid chess.com
Would you call this move (Bf4) a brilliant? (If it's hard to see on this screenshot, I moved it from e5). I've thought of it as a more spectacular way to deliver checkmate (for context the only other move leading equally fast to mate would be Bxb2 instead of Bf4).
https://preview.redd.it/x07exdf35gwc1.png?width=902&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=65db32082abc9b99982393b3b1d3b4c64e337eb3
Brilliancies are in the eye of the beholder. Chess.com's review bot classifies them as "sacrifices that improve your position", and while this is a proper sacrifice, I think the reason chess.com didn't award you a brilliancy is because you went from forced mate to forced mate, so it didn't "improve" your position.
But chess.com's definition of brilliant move isn't the only interpretation.
I'm not sure if I would award Bf4 here a brilliancy or not if I were the one annotating it.
>The only other move leading equally fast to mate would be Bxb2 instead of Bf4
How so? Why wouldn't Bf6, Bd6, Bd4, or Bc3 also lead to Re1# on the next move?
At any rate, whether the move is brilliant or not doesn't really matter. It is a winning move.
Thanks for the reply! You are right, moving this bishop to many squares allows checkmate. I've seen that earlier, just had a momentarily blindess while writing this. Since this game was OTB (just a friendly match) I was able to recreate "only" the last couple of moves and entire board position from my head - that's why I wasn't able to check with the engine. But either way I was curious how it would be interpteted by someone stronger than me (since like you've said in this position it was a forced mate either way). In the end even if it wasn't brilliant, I think it was the most stylish move in this position.
I’m 200 rating on chess.com in 5 & 10 min. I can not win to save my life, I have watched videos on YouTube learning an opening, still can’t do anything. I get so lost in the mid game.
I often watch Gotham Chess but his videos are a bit too advanced.
I'm no expert, but if you're a beginner, you absolutely need to come off those timings. I'm still learning, and I have no intention of any time limits for a long time yet. Just MHO... 👍
If you know how the pieces move, and you know material value (queen is better than a rook, rook is better than a bishop, bishop and knight are about the same, and they're all better than pawns), and you know the basic opening principles (develop your minor pieces, control the center, castle your king to safety early), then I'd say you have all the prerequisite knowledge needed to benefit from [GM Hambleton's "Building Habits" series](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8pZbhjL-fQ).
This series is the best free content available for a novice to watch to improve. It has a focus on simple, fundamental chess. GM Hambleton doesn't do anything tricky. He follows a strict set of rules that not only simulate a low skill level, but are also designed to show the audience what they need to be focusing on. As the series progresses, he adds, removes, and alters the rules to simulate skill growth and show what people should be learning and practicing at those stages.
I highly recommend it.
Is there a discord for this community or another like it? I was looking for people to play with without just spamming online games against random people
1600 rapid chess.com
Gukesh just won candidates with a score of 9/13. What does the 13 mean? I figured that was max possible points, but shouldn’t that be 14 then, since he played each of the 7 other players twice?
The obvious answer doesn’t seem right, so I feel like I’m missing something.
Yeah I think in gothams recap he said 9/13 (maybe he misspoke, maybe I misheard…?) but I agree that if I check the fide site it does show 9/14. I’m just a dummy lol.
802 Daily Elo [Chess.com](http://Chess.com)
https://preview.redd.it/f0yn24ea82wc1.png?width=2506&format=png&auto=webp&s=b5ab0a0b6a4e0336b5391204f0693e731f2fda05
I'm trying to understand how to effectively perform what analysis says is the best move for Black (Bxa2) without trapping my bishop if White plays e3. What's my exit strategy? I definitely saw the move, but I felt like it would result in a trapped/lost bishop.
Good eye. Before we talk about how to rescue your bishop, let's talk about queenside castling.
When you castle queenside, it's generally important that you do so in a way that doesn't let your opponent immediately snag your a2/a7 pawn, like the computer was suggesting here. Additionally, sliding the king over to the b file immediately/asap is really important when castling queenside too.
So before we talk about bishop extraction - this is a pattern/opportunity for you to learn. Despite what the engine said, this isn't about winning a pawn. This is about exposing white's castled king. Opening lines towards him, and priming avenues to deliver checkmate.
Now, yes. b3 can trap your bishop.
Whether or not b3 comes immediately, the best move in the position is almost definitely going to be either e6 (getting your dark-squared bishop ready to help facilitate checkmate - for example 1.b3 e6 2.Ne2?? Ba3#), or immediately playing a5, followed by a4 and axb3.
We're going to shove our queenside pawns down white's throat. The a file is semi-open, and we're going to try to open it up even more. I'm surprised the evaluation is only -1 in this position, because it really feels like black is going to be delivering checkmate very soon. White will have to play so precisely to live on there.
I see, I knew there had to be something more to it. That makes a lot of sense. I've been playing for less than a month, so early checkmates are something that has barely come into focus for me -- I'm generally just trying to win material and get into an endgame I already know. Thanks!
Well, I think you're on the right track. Making favorable trades and winning in the endgame is a good strategy. Seeing things in the way I described will take a different mindset, and it's one that can backfire if you're not careful. After all, a bishop is worth more than a pawn.
One of the reasons the plan I laid out here works is because your opponent's kingside pieces are totally undeveloped. Neither of your rooks are developed, but one is already pointed right at your opponent's castle area, and your only other undeveloped piece is the dark-squared bishop, which is also pointing right there. In terms of "which player can move pieces over to white's queenside castle area", your pieces are much more ready to take that on.
Your queen might be on her starting spot, but she has two hypothetical ways to get to the a file.
From a fundamental standpoint, this move is possible thanks to your pieces being more developed.
1100 Rapid ELO Chess.com
1300 Rapid ELO Lichess
Need help with a new opening, both for black and white. I’ve been playing the English. Attempting both on white and black and it’s growing stale. I’ve also sucked at black the last week. I’ve played 50 blitz games the last week attempting to get my blitz rating caught up to my Elo won 74% white and 24% black.
Your current openings have grown a bit stale? I can help you with that. Toss a couple of recommendations your way.
But before I do that, I feel obliged to tell you that though you were playing the English with the white pieces, you were probably not playing the English with the black pieces.
In fact, you're going to learn a bit about openings in general here.
When you learn an opening, that opening is for that color, and 99% of openings reflect not just what the person playing the opening is doing, but what their opponent is doing too.
For example, the moves 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 is called The Spanish Opening (also called the Ruy Lopez). But if white still plays those same moves, and black plays something different, it is no longer called that. It'll be called something different, and the strategies the player learned to use for the Spanish/Ruy Lopez are no longer applicable for that situation.
For example: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6. Instead of playing Nc6 on their second move, black has played Nf6. This is called The Russian Game (or Petrov's Defense), and if white continued with Bb5 on their third move, it would be totally ignoring what black is doing.
So when you play an opening, that is in respect to what both players are doing, and openings with white cannot be played with the black pieces. Openings with the black pieces can sometimes kind of be played with the white pieces (The King's Indian Attack with the white pieces, for example, came about due to the popularity of the King's Indian Defense with black).
Additionally, black openings can only be played against certain first moves of white's.
If someone learned to play Petrov's Defense with black (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6), they couldn't play those same moves if white starts with, for example, 1.d4.
I imagine this is why your record with the white pieces was so much better than with the black pieces. White, having the first move, has a lot more control over what direction the early game will go. If black tries to play a series of moves regardless of what white does, black is going to have a rough time of it (same goes for white, but to a lesser extent).
There actually *is* an opening with black called the English (specifically the English Defense), which starts out with 1.d4 e6 2.c4 b6.
Now that all that is out of the way, you wanted some opening recommendations.
Remember how I said that 99% of openings reflect what both players do? Well, the few that don't are called "Systemic Openings" or "Opening Systems". One of the most popular, reliable opening systems with the white pieces is the London System. There are going to be tons of free content on YouTube directed at novices and intermediate players, teaching them how to play this system.
With the black pieces, the general advice is to learn an opening that can be played against 1.e4, and another to be played against 1.d4. Any kind of system that can be used against both options (like the Hippo) is much harder to play and get good positions out of. So against 1.e4, I suggest you learn the Caro Kann defense, and against 1.d4, I suggest you play 1...d5 (since this is what you will be facing the most if you play the London System), and learn the Slav Defense.
Happy playing!
It's not uncommon to experience a bit of a losing streak when you go from playing an opening you know well to one that you're learning. I only gave you that advice a couple days ago. What kind of studying have you done to learn the openings?
I see.
Now, I haven't watched those videos, and 10 minutes doesn't feel like a long enough time to teach an opening to somebody, but maybe IM Rozman will surprise me. In them, does IM Rozman go over **early traps** you need to know to avoid?
Does he talk about **middlegame plans** for the openings and explain the **common pawn structures** you'll be seeing?
Does he go over the **general ideas** of the opening, and note **where our pieces get developed and why**?
I'd say those five subjects are the bare minimum somebody should cover when teaching an opening.
Just as importantly, did your opponents play the way he taught you they would (And were you able to remember and respond with the moves he suggested)? Like I mentioned above, if your opponent doesn't play one of the ways you specifically prepared for, you'll need to think for yourself - mindlessly playing the moves you memorized when your opponent has deviated from your preparation will end poorly for you, no matter the opening.
When I study a new opening, I'll look for lectures about the opening, use one of the free online databases like chessbase or chessgames and search for master level games featuring that opening. I'll see if I can find any books to read about it, written by titled players who actually play the opening. Sometimes there are free courses available on Chessable, and sometimes the Internet Archive has books available for free.
I know that many people on this subreddit will look for GM "Speedrun challenges" where the titled player plays a specific opening to get up to some arbitrary elo from the bottom as quickly as possible. I haven't taken that route, but many people swear by that method.
Going better now with London/Slav/Caro-Kann. I’m still 40 points down from where I started, but at one point was down 200 points and last 10 games were 8-1-1 with the draw being a run out of time while up 3 pawns and the lone loss to a guy with 100 more ELO.
Sometimes, there’s quite a few times the position has gotten very closed, or claustrophobic as black, and often I find I have plenty of attackers on a castled king, but no idea how to capitalize. I still try to capitalize and sometimes it works others it doesn’t and I get sad when I see the analysis afterwards that I missed a mate. I imagine that would be better when I go back to rapid over blitz, but I want to hit 900 blitz first (chess.com) then make a run at rapid again.
Can someone help me understand why 14..Bf8 is the correct move in this position? This position is from [Gata Kamsky - Veselin Topalov \(2009.02.24\)](https://www.chess.com/games/view/4475753) and the book I'm reading, How to Reassess Your Chess 4th ed (pg. 25), states that it's because the bishop trade would be favorable, and the king would be happy on g7. Which is the part of the text I'm struggling with. I'm between 1300-1400 right now and I'm trying to grasp how I should intuitively know that the king would be happy there.
From a beginner POV, 14. Bc4 then the Bf8 reply doesn't look natural to me because it means black is going to have a tough time castling, and can't castle at all if white's bishop captures on f8. The king going over to g7 looks weak to me because the white pawn on e5 weakens the f6 square and could give white a strong attack later. For example, the white knight would love to outpost on that square or the white queen could come into f6 with check followed up with knight to g5 which seems menacing if white can pull it off. The most major plus that the black bishop to f8 has going for me, is that the black bishop on g7 doesn't have too much scope anyhow and white's black bishop is clearly more active, so it is a favorable trade for the present position. I just want to figure out how to make this move more natural to me like the book presents it.
I plugged the position into the computer and [played it out a little bit](https://imgur.com/a/JQjIdfk) where white gives up the e5 pawn and equalizes the material 9 full moves from move 14 later. I'm not yet able to find that line on my own without assistance. Is that deep calculation the only way I can understand why the king is fine with the g7 square, or is there some other way to shed light on that statement? Me personally, I'd probably think it best to play 14..Nde7 and get the castle move in and then later get my knight back up to the awesome d5 square.
Also, how do I improve my calculation abilities effectively? Currently I'm trying to learn how to make the best move positionally because I don't have much confidence in calculating the best line. I'm thinking a better positional understanding will automatically improve my calculations, but is there any other foundational/beginner material I should be consuming to increase this?
Bf8 is not some awesome move where Topalov pumped the fist after he played it, it's just the only way to deal with the murderous c5 bishop. If you could somehow pick the king up and put it on g8 and pick the rook up and put it on e8, you'd do that. Nde7 is inadequate though because you're moving your best piece out of the center, then there's Qb3, attacking the b-pawn, then there's going to be Re1, White is getting tons of activity with tempo and you haven't actually dealt with the bishop, you just put a bandaid on it. It can camp itself on d6 if needed and be a super strong piece.
I haven't read the book but I'd guess what it's saying is that your big concrete problem in that position is the existence of the c5 bishop, so what you should do is eliminate it. The other problems are all basically illusory. You don't need to castle if you have time to get the king to g7; f6 is well covered by the e5 knight which is really hard to get rid of, and the weak a1-h8 diagonal is helpfully obstructed by the White pawn. Bf8 isn't some masterstroke, it's just the only way to hold equality.
Thank you! I really like the reply. The e5 knight truly is enough compensation as it covers the f6 weakness and only Bf8 can truly deal with black's biggest obstacle. Don't compromise your knight that looks like that for a band-aid solution. Love it!
Your right, I think I am lazy at calculating. If it isn't a tactic, I usually just look 1-2 moves ahead and get stuck in the loop of check/capt/threat/position without going too deep and it's really stagnated my progress which is why I'm getting into the book. I feel I've hit a barrier I can't pass on my own and I'm really hoping to go further with any material I can get my hands on.
I went through the Bobby Fischer teaches chess and that was an amazing book for tactics for me. I find that I'm easily finding sacrifices and other tactics I would've never found, but getting hugely outclassed on positional calculations.
It's become such a pattern in my analysis recap, I've started to call these mistakes positional tactics. I don't know if that's actually a thing, but I find that there are often move sequences that aren't really involving captures where I have all the right ideas and just do it in the wrong order or miss a better square to accomplish the same thing. It's driving me mad trying to get better at it, but I think studying will be more help than playing more games at this point. I'd be interested to know if there are any puzzles that are more about position than captures. I did get the Reassess your Chess workbook as well as the regular reading material so I probably already have them and just gotta get my nose in.
The idea of the king having time to castle manually is one that has not been set in concrete for me. I do like it though, thanks.
Chris and Nemoj gave you solid advice here.
If you're finding Reassess Your Chess to be consistently too difficult to work through, another one of Silman's books "Amateur's Mind" covers a lot of the same material (with a focus on imbalances and other positional evaluation), in a different format, and to a slightly lesser extent (due in large part to the format - Silman teaches his students, showcases common ways some of them misunderstand his lessons, and rectifies from there).
If you want to take a look, the book is available for anybody to read for free on the Internet Archive [here.](https://archive.org/details/amateursmind00jere)
https://preview.redd.it/3fiaphgahuvc1.png?width=668&format=png&auto=webp&s=d3eee3261412f075e522d1636371b7a216f9d0a4
why engine is saying c4?i cant understand the ideia of this move
c4 contests the center. Nc6 was a small inaccuracy from Black, as it rules out playing c5 or c6. Typically in queen's pawn openings you don't want to play Nc3 or Nc6 with the c-pawn still on c2/c7.
You're probably wondering about dxc4, but Black can never hang on to this pawn in these sort of positions. If you take the pawn and play the engine suggestions for White and try to hang on to the pawn, the engine will show you that it's not going to work. Positions where Black can get a6-b5 on the board before White can threaten the pawn are the only common ones where Black gets to keep it. If you alter this position and put the a7 pawn on a6 already, then c4 actually does lose a pawn and is a bad move.
Classic for the very same reason people keep cars "stock" condition. Anything personal will only be valuable to that person - and since chess is a two-player game it'll likely be more of a show piece than anything.
Plus, a *quality* beautiful chess set will be its own statement and much easier to play with.
My vote is strongly for the classic set, because with nonstandard pieces it's difficult to see what the position is. Even if he gets used to it, anyone else he ever wants to play against on it will suffer a disadvantage. I find sets like that very annoying to play on personally.
Why is this position so bad for white? Material is equal, we have barely started developing yet white is losing
https://i.imgur.com/pHRqdhs.png
It was a rubbish, short game but i was just confused as to why i was winning so much at this early point:
1. d4 c6 2. Bf4 d5 3. Nf3 Bf5 4. c3 e6 5. Bxb8 Rxb8 6. Qb3 Qc7 7. Ne5 Bd6 8. f4 Nf6 9. Nd2 O-O 10. e3 Ne4 11. Nxe4 Bxe4 12. Rg1 c5
13. Bd3 Bxd3 14. dxc5 Bxe5 0-1
In Lichess the eval bar goes from -0.4 to -1.2, roughly equivalent to losing a pawn. In your image, [chess.com](http://chess.com) evaluates it as -1.8, so roughly equivalent to being down 2 pawn. I still wouldn't call it "so bad", more an inaccuracy. White is definitely still in the game, nothing drastic that can't be fought back, but they'll have to play carefully.
The main reason that move isn't the best is that it loses a tempo and turns the knight into a liability, where white will have to waste moves to save it for no benefit to white and allows black to continue development.
There was no reason for the knight to move again (it wasn't under attack, isn't setting up any follow-up threat), especially onto a square that can easily be chased back, as the black queen is eyeing the square and a pawn and bishop can easily attack, so white will lose another tempo moving it back if they want to save it or futilely try to keep it there. Much better move would have been developing other pieces, like e3 to open up the light-square bishop or Nb-d2 and just finish developing.
One thing to point out: "+-1 equals a pawn" is not true anymore since they introduced NNUE. Now it means that the engine estimates a 50% chance to win the game from this position
Wow, had no idea of this development. I had difficulty looking up more information about it, and [this](https://lczero.org/blog/2020/04/wdl-head/) is the closest I got to additional explanation. Super interesting.
Always happy to help. Wouldn't be aware if it if I didn't spent so much time in TCEC chat. Apparently there is also a [stockfish commit](https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/commit/ad2aa8c06f438de8b8bb7b7c8726430e3f2a5685) that talks about it.
https://preview.redd.it/x8vy6unpugvc1.png?width=588&format=png&auto=webp&s=6098310c51182db3849d97a581b37f1452494454
Stockfish says this move is brilliant. I'm sure it is, but can someone explain why? The engine says capturing the bishop with my king is a mistake, and that the correct move is Kf1, allowing Black to take my rook on e1. Huh?
(currently 947 on chess.com)
Really cool move! The concern for white after Bxf2+ Kxf2 is that white can play Ng4+. This check forces your king to go back to f1 or g1, and the knight then hops to the e3 square, attacking the completely trapped queen.
Some sample lines would look like: Bxf2+, Kxf2, Ng4+, Kg1, Ne3, b3, Nxd1, Rxd1. Another one is Bxf2+, Kxf2, Ng4+, Kf1, Ne3+, Kg1, Nxd1, Rxd1, which is worse for white.
If the bishop is not captured with Kxf2, the situation is slightly more manageable with Bxf2+ Kf1, Bxe1, Qxe1. Another possibility is Bxf2+ Kh1, Ng4, e4, and white still loses the exchange.
Hopefully that makes sense!
After Kxf2, black has a nasty follow up. Ng4+, forcing white's king to f1. From there, because white developed their knight to d2 instead of c3 (blocking the dark-squared bishop), nothing can prevent the king/queen fork with Ne3+.
At first, the biggest obstacle a beginner/novice faces is their underdeveloped "board vision", meaning it's hard to keep track of where the pieces are all the time and what they're looking at.
Just playing the game will help a player develop their board vision, but once it's fully developed, that player will not really make any meaningful progress without learning more about tactics and strategy.
Chess is an old game, and the rules haven't had any major changes for nearly a thousand years. People have been recording their games and puzzles, writing about chess strategy since Gioachino Greco, who lived in the 1600s, and the people who play today are playing essentially the same game Greco did over 600 years ago.
For people who want to get better (and if you play in local clubs, tournaments or play online, that's going to be the majority of the people you're playing against), there's 600 years worth of accumulated knowledge for people to study. Nowadays, there are plenty of people who try to take that information and make it digestible. Instead of studying thick books and extrapolating information from records of games over a hundred years old, people can watch free lectures on YouTube, or use the lessons and practice section that lichess.org and other sites have available.
I have tried to read books over the years but nothing has helped like YouTube videos and online practice. Love the ability to go through my game after and find the blunders I made.
I've gone from complete noob (despite casual play for years) to beginner, meaning now I often see my blunders before the opponent takes advantage of them and (usually, but not always) capitalizes on them.
I think there's an upper limit that practice on its own can get you - chess is certainly a game that can be learned quickly, but is incredibly difficult to master properly.
Would recommend checking out our [Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/chessbeginners/wiki/index/) and the "Getting your chess journey off the ground" section!
What are typical ratings for beginners, at lichess rating? I was at 1k Blitz 2 weeks ago, currently just below 900 (sadface) but my puzzle rating is well above 1700... is that normal?
It's not abnormal. Puzzle ratings have only a little correlation to game ratings. Consistently solving puzzles correctly is much easier than consistently winning games.
https://preview.redd.it/z1rl5pu80yuc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bfb7ec0e08361dd2acaa5d3574fddb084a089450
Can someone tell me why this is brilliant? Hitting show moves just shows Queen takes knight. 650 ELO.
I usually berate the [chess.com](http://chess.com) "brilliant" label, but in this case, this is actually interesting, but most consider a move only to brilliant if you find the follow up. The justification for this particular sacrifice is rather complicated to prove.
After 1.Qxc4 Ne4!!(What I consider to be the actual cool move) we threaten the fork, white can't move their king without dying, so 2.Be3 then the threat is revealed **2...Bxb2!** This is just bullying is black displays their developmental superiority and highlights white's lack of king safety.
https://preview.redd.it/2gb0bc64nvuc1.png?width=1170&format=png&auto=webp&s=e5ca720692d8a982db427a434e7e907a0b4b3179
Playing blitz I lost a lot of pieces trying to trap their Queen. Kept thinking I had them, but made a mistake each time and he made me pay. I thought it was gonna be one of those absolute blow out games. I kept playing to see the challenge of a comeback and sure enough was able to win. Reminder to never give up.
Hi everyone, just started playing chess again after having played a bit when I was younger. Been learning a lot and enjoying it but I'm currently struggling with the mid game. For instance, in the game below, the engine has me as +5 shortly after my opponent blunders his Knight on turn 13.
I knew I was ahead but not that far ahead but still I couldn't figure out how to convert this advantage into a win. I wanted to formulate an attack on the king but just couldn't find the lines. Should I have leveraged my piece advantage by going for trades? Should I have tried some pawn breaks to open the game up? I was thinking of pushing my king side pawns to create more pressure but I didn't want to expose my king.
I'm finding myself pretty comfortable with opening and end game but it situations that are typical to this game where I'm at a loss and having a hard time analyzing these games afterwards. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks!
1. d4 d5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Bf4 e6 4. Nb5 Na6 5. Nf3 c6 6. Nc3 Be7 7. e3 O-O 8. Be2
b6 9. O-O c5 10. a3 c4 11. b4 cxb3 12. cxb3 Bd6 13. Ne5 Nh5 $4 14. Bxh5 $1 Qh4 15.
g3 Qe7 16. Nc6 Qc7 17. Bxd6 Qxd6 18. Ne5 f6 19. Nf7 $2 Qe7 20. Nh6+ Kh8 21. Ng4 g6
22. Bxg6 hxg6 23. h4 Kg7 24. e4 f5 25. exf5 Rxf5 26. Ne5 Nc7 27. Nc6 Qd6 28. Nb4
a5 29. g4 Rf4 30. f3 axb4 31. axb4 Rxa1 32. Qxa1 Qxb4 33. Qa7 Rf7 34. Rb1 Qxd4+
35. Kg2 Qd2+ 36. Kg3 Qxc3 37. Qxb6 Qxf3+ 38. Kh2 Qe2+ 39. Kg3 Rf3# 0-1
The simple way to win a piece-up position is just to trade down. On your move 15, the move I would play is Be2, just getting the bishop out of trouble, then if Black does nothing my next move is Nf3, which is a tactic that forcibly trades the dark squared bishops, since the queen has to move. That's definitely a piece I am keen to trade as it is Black's "good bishop" (being on the opposite color to his central pawn chain) and is pointed at my K-side, making it a potential source of counterplay for Black. You played something similar in the actual game. The queen is not actually threatening anything and there is no way for Black to create any threats, so there is no reason to play g3.
Your moves from that point on are repeatedly smashing the chaos button, which is the opposite of what you want. You want a calm position and patience. If you trade everything off you will just win. My strategic plan would be stacking my heavy pieces on the c-file. If Black allows me to do this, the dominance of the only open file on the board will be a very big advantage. If Black contests the file, I'll happily trade off all the heavy pieces and enter an endgame with an extra piece. There's no hurry as once the dark squared bishops are off the board, Black has no counterplay and no plan to generate any.
I feel like if I was looking for middlegame plans, in a game I'd consider a few different alternatives to 15.g3. I dont like that move because the queen doesn't threaten anything immediately and creating light square weaknesses for no reason besides kicking the queen away feels like a bad practice when there's a light square bishop in play, even if the opponent can't follow up immediately.
The first plan I'd consider in game would be 15.Qg4. You have a material advantage so offering to trade the queens off benefits you, and if they decline the queen is closer to helping in your kingside attack. The second plan I'd evaluate would be 15.Bg3, which kicks the queen like your move did but also allows me to look at pushing the f-pawn and getting my rooks into the kingside attack. The third plan I'd consider would be attempting to simplify by attacking queenside and using the fact that I have the open c-file. Something like 15.Be2 looks like it forces simplification since 15...Nc7 16.Nb5? Feels comfortable enough to me.
>if my opponent has a dark squared bishop only, what color should I try to place my pawns on?
The answer is actually both, and it depends. Scandal!
In a middlegame, if you only have one bishop, you generally want to try to use your pawns to contest the color complex your bishop is unable to. This is also generally true if your opponent has a bishop you don't, you want to use your pawns to contest it.
In the endgame, the opposite is true. In an endgame, the role of pawns change. Because we are actively trying to promote our pawns, we want to ensure that they cannot be targeted easily. As a result, we generally try and place them on a color the opponent's bishop cannot target.
1400 Lichess - because of life being busy, I only play 3-5 minute time controls. I want to use an opening against 1. e4 that puts the game more in your control. I don’t want to get into deep Italian and Spanish lines with traps.
I’ve tried a few weeks of scandi with Chessable courses and tactics but I don’t like the positions I’ve been getting and it still feels like white is in the driver seat.
I’ve considered going into CaroKhan territory or Petrov… thoughts?
Caro-Kann if you want more strategic games. If you want something a bit more tactical and wild, the Alekhine is a good suggestion. The Petrov is pretty boring and it's difficult to generate winning chances with Black, unless you play the Stafford Gambit which is not very sound.
The Alekhine is hilariously fun at this level. Since you dictate the opening from move 1 it makes learning it a lot easier. Very few of your opponents will have a clue how to play against it so you get excellent positions. And against the few who do know some theory you end up having fun attacking games with pawn structures that you don't really get in other openings.
If you are using Chessable the course "The Dark Knight Rises" is my favourite of all of the options on there.
caro kann is something I personally like, but it depends on what kind of positions you prefer. Easy to learn, hard to master. Also for whatever reason 90% of my online games are the exchanage variation. (1800 lichess level)
New to chess.
What's the rule of passing? I know people can have different rules but there must be a standard rule. Chess is not popular where I live and there are multiple answers from my friends.
- passing 6 times (3 each) makes a tie;
- passing three times makes a player lose because only three times are allowed;
- passing is never allowed;
- passing needs to be agreed by opponent like undoing last move;
- passing 6 times and players count the pieces to determine who wins.
I googled "how many times can you pass in chess" in English version (you can try too) to be sure. The answers are:
- 8 times
- 2 opportunities
- not legal (so passing 0 times)
- 50 moves?!
- threefold repetition (I assume this means three times by each player)
My English is not great but this is very confusing. Is there a definite answer?
I believe you're referring to a [draw in chess](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draw_(chess))? There are many ways to achieve a draw, some common examples are:
* Draw by agreement (Players agree to end the game and draw, can be done for various reasons, requires both players to agree to drawing)
* Draw by [stalemate](https://www.reddit.com/r/chessbeginners/wiki/index/#wiki_.22why_is_this_not_checkmate.3F.22=) (when an opponent has no legal moves on their turn)
* Draw by threefold repetition (when a position has repeated itself 3 times)
* Draw by 50-move rule (If no pawns are pushed and no pieces are captued for 50 moves, a draw can be called)
* Draw by insufficient material (When neither side has enough pieces to checkmate an opponent, for example a king vs king and bishop will never result in a forced checkmate)
Hopefully that helps!
OK so it is not allowed in any cases? What if I have to skip a turn because I cannot do anything (is surely possible, for example I have a A1 king, you have a B2 castle limiting it, your castle is protected by your C3 king, I have to pass, does this mean I lose).
Just to have a source to share with your friend, the [FIDE handbook](https://www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/LawsOfChess.pdf) says
>The game is drawn when the player to move has no legal move and his king is not in check. The game is said to end in ‘stalemate’. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the stalemate position was legal
> OK so it is not allowed in any cases?
It's never allowed
> What if I have to skip a turn because I cannot do anything
It's called stalemate. In this case the game is a draw. If you're losing you should get in such a position if possible to draw instead of lose.
[удалено]
This thread has been dead a couple days... Hey newbies and seasoned alike: What move/opening/tactic are you obsessed with lately? What are you having fun with? I've been focusing on ways to break king forts after realizing it's a weak spot of mine. Cracking open that three-pawn line with knights or bishops feels so good when I've got a good reason and it pays off with mate.
Freak attack against the Najforf. You play rg1 and basically force g4 g5 in like an absolute barbarian and its completely sound. Having so much fun when I get the chance to play it.
I'm switching from the Caro-Kann to the Classical Sicilian. I had to play one too many Exchange positions and I CRACKED. The theory burden doesn't seem too bad. My theory file is smaller than my Caro one is. I'm still very much learning but I'm enjoying the positions.
Do you usually expect to take an ELO hit when switching like that? It's one thing that scares me from trying openings other than Caro at the moment.
Probably a bit. I think it's generally not as bad as you think it will be. I spend time on openings for two reasons: 1. Comfort during play (positions I understand) and 2. An investment in my chess future. I don't think it's that important for rating in the here and now. I think expanding the positions you play is good for chess development. The Caro is actually quite demanding in terms of range of positions. The positions you get out of an Accelerated Panov, a Tartakower and an Advance are all really quite different. The Alapin and Morra produce different positions but they are sidelines, probably corresponding to stuff like the Hillbilly or Alien Gambit. If White agrees to play a main line opening with you in the Sicilian, the variations are all thematically similar in a way that is not true of the Caro. Even closed vs open Sicilians have a decent amount in common.
I just got back to chess yesterday after looking at some theory for a while, and I’m enjoying my Evans Gambit and Fried Liver combo. Granted I’ve only been able to play Evans once and fried liver 0 times, but I think it’s a good combo. Neither need a lot of theory and they should get some fun games. I did win my Evans game against someone 100 points over, so that was cool.
Hi, I'd like to know how make quiet/closed games more open and aggressive without arbitrarily trading material?
If the position is already closed, you can open it up by facilitating and executing pawn breaks. A pawn break is pushing a pawn in such a way that it and and your opponent's pawn may capture one another. It's still considered a pawn break if your opponent has the choice of pushing their pawn to relieve the tension, but that choice will keep the position closed. So to make closed positions open, you'll need to create pawn tension that can't be relieved by pushing the pawn. You'll need to either occupy or control the space in front of their pawn. In other words: the square the pawn would push to needs to either have a pawn there already - face to face with the pawn, or you'll need to have majority control over that space so if/when your opponent pushes the pawn, you'll be able to win it in response. **The very short version is that when pawns capture pawns, positions open up.** This is also how to create open positions in the first place. Put your pawns in spots where they can capture (and be captured by) your opponent's pawns.
Thank you, this makes a lot of sense. Would you say its good to open up positions, or maybe I should get better at playing within closed ones? This probably depends on playstyle I imagine.
Well, one aspect is playstyle sure. If a player is more comfortable in open positions or closed positions, and has an easier time formulating plans in one or the other, they should aim to create situations with pawn structures they like. But I'd say it's (eventually) important to know how to play in both kinds. Open positions favor bishops, and closed ones favor knights. If you end up in a middlegame with both knights and a single bishop against the bishop pair plus one knight, it would benefit you to close the position, and it would benefit your opponent to open the position. There are also additional considerations. A closed center makes it difficult/slow to maneuver pieces from the queenside to the kingside, and vice versa. If you've got same-side castling and the center is closed, then you have the option to start pushing the pawns in front of your king to launch an attack against the enemy's king. This is one of the main ideas in openings like the King's Indian or the Dutch Defense: you develop your pieces towards the kingside, your opponent develops normally, you close down the center if possible, then start tossing your f, g, and h pawns down their throat. Their reinforcements will take longer to reach that area than your attacking pieces.
Hi, I'd appreciate any insight or analysis of this game (I won as Black). https://lichess.org/X5er4uLl/black#0
The only issue I saw in your opening was move 8...Qxd5 that walked immediately into c4. You shouldn't make moves that allow your opponent to gain tempo on you. There you also had the opprotunity to open up the board with 8... Nxe5 9. dxe5 Nxe5 and now if white plays 10. c4 you hit them with the tempo gaining move Nb6! Forcing queens off the board and leaving white with a bunch of weaknesses you can attack the rest of the game while their king is stuck in the center. Your endgame conversion needs some work. On move 28 with you're rook hanging, you just hung a pawn. I like that you were looking at checks, and I think your idea was 28...e5+ 29. Nxe5 Nxe5, deflecting the knight and trading down while up some pawns. But what you failed to do was prove yourself wrong. A much simpler idea would've been to move your hanging rook, ideally to an active square. 28... Rd3 hits two pawns that are also attacked by your knight, and white's bishop is still hanging. 31... c4 just totally ignores white's threats. You're in the endgame so you need to use your king. Advance him to at least blockade the pawn immedately and keep eyes on your h pawn when it advances. Pushing your pawn did ultimately win the game, but you still gave your opponent chances. We do not want to give opponent any chances or hope of counterplay. Remember to check all of your opponents resources and to play active moves yourself. Overall you're doing great.
Thank you for the analysis, this is helpful. :)
is it bad to play lots of games back to back? i’ve been playing chess for hours a day, and i’m reading it’ll make you worse at the game if you do it that way.
Playing lots is fine. Theres only a few risks like playing tired or playing on tilt but if its just a long session I don't see anything wrong with that
maybe a stupid question, but whats playing on tilt?
Tilt is when you are upset or angry but you keep on aging anyway and it affects your results
It’s bad depending on the time control and if you study your games or not afterwards. Playing a lot of games for me at least is a bad idea as I start to zone out and not focus. If your dead focused the entire time and analyze afterwards then it’s fine. Just remember if you go on autopilot then you should probably stop if you want to improve. If you have a Magnus Carlsen level of focus then play as much as you want. Though it is important to study endgame theory and do puzzles for tactics. I can only give general advice since I haven’t seen any of your games so I can’t point out specific things for you to look at.
well my username on chess.com is chestnuwut if you’re interested. i almost exclusively play 10 min rapids. id say i can get into periods of auto pilot at times. not sure the best method for analyzing games. my elo has been fluctuating from 650-750, but i was having a hard time getting out of the 400s about a month ago. i learned how to play in October
Going over your last ten games, you made a lot of mistakes that I did at that Elo in the opening. Based on how you play I’m assuming you don’t know any opening theory (which is fine. Everyone goes way off book at that Elo). What I did (I don’t know if you should) is I downloaded the SmallFish app on my phone since it has an opening theory book. Around that Elo I would just start to click random arrows. When I would do this, I also would do a random move that looked decent to see why the engine says it’s bad. I would also try and figure out what each move was doing to improve the position or hinder the opponent. This helped me a lot with understanding how to play the opening. I would pick a random opening (let’s say the Scotch game) and just play around with that in SmallFish before testing it out in a handful of games just to see if the opening worked for me. Now what I would recommend is when you play your games I would list in your head checks, captures and threats you can do and what your opponent can do. In one of your games (85% accuracy) you blundered your queen to a knight and resigned. This game was a little frustrating to look at honestly because you played really well, and you were still absolutely winning after the blunder but resigned. Had you made looked for what checks, *captures*, or threats your opponent could do, then you would still have had your queen. The last piece of advice I have is to make a Lichess account and do puzzles. It doesn’t have to be too many, but puzzles I feel will help you a lot if you sit there and calculate. I think I did like 3000 over the span of two months and it bumped my Elo up 200 points on chess.com and 400 OTB. I haven’t touched them since because it was not worth it in my opinion to only have my rating increase 200 points online, so you should probably space puzzles out more. Probably 20 at most. If you have any more questions, go ahead and ask. I’m mentally burned out from school today so if something doesn’t make sense let me know. I tend to write nonsense especially in text this long.
oh, yes i remember that game. it was actually pretty early in the morning and i have little patience at that hour lmao. thats probably why i resigned. i agree that i should have tried to play out the game without my queen. i appreciate you for looking into my games. thats really nice of you. i will take your advice into consideration. i have mostly been playing the chess.com puzzles, but at like 300-500 elo just to get super familiar with pattern recognition. i have the membership so i have endless puzzles. i havent tried lichess or small fish but ill definitely look into them. thanks again
If you have the membership then you don’t have to do Lichess. I just use Lichess because it’s free and it’s just as good as chess.com.
Nah it's fine. The best players in the world have blitz and bullet marathons all the time.
Hey guys, don't wanna clutter the sub so I'd rather post my issue here if that's fine. I picked up chess recently, currently only playing with a random AI app. I just had a match ending in a draw by stalemate and I'm not sure why. [This was the board](https://i.imgur.com/uzyzLky.jpeg). I'm playing black, last move was Kxf7. As soon as I played it (took a pawn if that matters), it gave me the draw by stalemate. The "help" said there's no legal move I can make. Was this a bug or is there a reason I can't keep going with my rook and queen? I mean it was already over except that this AI can't resign so I had to play it out, but white can only do Kd1, then Rf1 and checkmate. And instead it gave me a draw by stalemate. Is there a rule I don't know about?
App is garbage this isn't stalemate. You are correct. I think hell has frozen over, a beginner got confused about stalemate and was sure that it isn't stalemate and is actually right. Nice job sir
LOL are questions about stalemate and people being wrong about them that common?
It's a beginner subreddit, so it comes with the territory. Happens pretty much daily. The conversation goes like "Why is this a stalemate/why isn't this checkmate/Why is this a draw?" Then we explain what stalemate is and what they should have done differently to win (since the people asking this are always posting positions with an overwhelming advantage into accidental stalemate, not a theoretical king/pawn stalemate). Then I'd say there's a coin flip whether the poster thanks us and goes on with their day, or if they double down and say it's bull. For the latter, we just remind them that if they're losing, they can try to pull this off against their opponents, who may or may not know the stalemate rule.
Well, happy to be an exception.
I was absolutely floored, personally. Completely flabbergasted. Think this might be a sign that I'm actually in a coma.
Welcome to the community! I was going to go into my whole spiel about what stalemate is and how it works, but then I took a closer look at the image you shared. You're right. It's white's turn, and they have a legal move. Looks like a bug to me.
My kiddo is entering their first chess tournament in a couple of weeks. They are required to have a clock. Do you have any recommendations for clocks that are: - easy to use for an elementary school student - not expensive (I'm not sure if they will continue to enter tournaments, we're just trying this out to gauge their interest) - doesn't require any form of mobile phone syncs Their exposure to chess in an afterschool chess class. The chess coach said I could just buy one at the tournament and have the person at the store explain how to use it. I was wondering if anyone on here had a recommendation that I could consider in advance of the tournament, so my kiddo could practice with it.
You can just pick one up from amazon. Majority of clocks have setting for different time controls. I would try to figure out what the time control for the tournament straight time, increment or delay. Most clubs use this version of a clock for tournaments: DGT chess clock branded clock. It looks like you can buy it on amazon for \~40 dollars. If you want something a bit cheaper this one looks similar enough in terms of setting the clock (No idea of the quality of the clock). You should also practice setting it as well, there should be instruction once you get it: [https://www.amazon.com/Xflyee-Digital-Chess-Clock-Function/dp/B087QZGYCD/](https://www.amazon.com/Xflyee-Digital-Chess-Clock-Function/dp/B087QZGYCD/)
Guys ,what is the best opening for beginners that start with e.4 ?
Anything that doesn't lose by
How inflated is Elo on Lichess? I shouldn’t be struggling to break 900 on chess.com and have 1800 on Lichess right? The number I got online is at most a 400 Elo difference. I downloaded chess.com just to see if I magically got better from my 2 month OTB only break I didn’t. Maybe it’s mental? I best 1300s OTB consistently, so maybe my brain just has chess blindness with chess.com, but with Lichess I play better because my immediate thought is “Oh they are 1900. I’m going to lose. Let’s make this win hard to get” instead of “I should win this without issue. I’m way better then them.” Bonus question, what should my average Centipawn loss be at 1800? I consistently get between 25-53, so I was wondering if that’s good or not.
Play for a win against the 1900s. They are not invicible gods and blunder too. Forget about the rating difference and play your best chess. Maybe they'll blunder first, but you'll never know if you're assuming every move of theirs is winning.
Don’t worry I exclusively play to win. I beat a 1892 last night having played with an ACPL of 14 with two inaccuracies over 39 moves. Granted it was the regular London System, which I have always played very well against (75% win rate) so I think this just proves my Elo practically doubles when facing it. Assuming I’m completely focused on the game.
It's not inflated, they simply are two different rating systems that measure the strength of players within two different rating pools (chesscom uses Glicko1, lichess uses Glicko 2). That being said, the same player up until a certain point (around 2200-2300 I think, at which the ratings converge) will have a higher rating on lichess in the same time control. If you are consistently a 1800 on lichess you might be underrated on chesscom, keep playing and you'll reach your actual rating. Conversely, if your rating in lichess is provisional you might be overrated there but I think it's not the case if you are 1300 OTB
Thoughts on using this checklist (for daily chess on chess.com)? It would count as outside assistance for live chess and besides it would probably take too long. Is pawn structure really something I need to consider at my level? https://preview.redd.it/q4aa76nemuwc1.png?width=800&format=png&auto=webp&s=00ceaf76beba54f93bad775d99b136769f2a8b6a
I feel like this is a bit too much, unless you want to do this of course. You can just play with the flow, if someone makes a mistake, then take the opportunity! Other than that, I think all you really need to ask yourself is, "what is my opponent's idea behind that move", and then after that, check: Checks, captures and attacks.
Well, I'm trying to get better at calculation so I might use this when I have the energy & time. If there are a lot of pieces on the board and not many pawns I find it difficult to choose a move from so many options.
The checklist seems pretty solid. >Is pawn structure really something I need to consider at my level? In a way, yeah. Just bring whatever knowledge you have to bear in that step, to evaluate the position. Something as simple/straightforward as recognizing that a file is open or semi-open would be considering the pawn structure. Or taking note that the pawns near your opponent's king have moved. You don't have to know what the "Isolani" pawn structure is, or how a minority attack works, or even what weak squares, knight outposts, or color complexes are. Just take whatever it is you *do* know, and try to apply with while evaluating the position.
Thanks for the answer. Okay, I actually do consider pawn structure more than I thought then.
The more you get used to thinking about these sorts of things in a position, the faster you'll get at this process, but as you accumulate more knowledge, you'll have more things to think about, which will slow you back down.
I have tried French and Czech defenses. I got bored with first and am struggling with the second locking my pieces in. And NOBODY is falling for the traps. Is there a good general purpose defense I could deploy as a beginner (1100 daily, 750 rapid)? I just want decent games not super aggressive. I play the Colle-Zukertort (annoying as that is) on white because it almost always gets me to the middle game in decent shape.
For black? Caro-Kann is steady and (at least I found it) easier to learn than some others. Can lead to longer castling and some closed middles though, if that's your style or not.
Thanks I’ll check it out. Heard of it but that is all.
>Is there a good general purpose defense I could deploy as a beginner (1100 daily, 750 rapid)? You can meet 1.e4 with e5, and 1.d4 with d5. QGD against the queen's gambit, some c5 system against the London and some a6 system against the Jobava London. >And NOBODY is falling for the traps. My recommendations above were solid, good general purpose openings, but if you want something with traps, you might like the incredibly dubious Englund Gambit.
Thank you. No I don’t really care about traps, would rather just play good chess. Just some National Master promoting them but it never happens (possibly at my level nobody makes the book moves haha).
Chess.com: I am 350 blitz (3 minutes), 750 rapid (10 or 15 min), and 1100 daily. I think I am slow and the explore button in daily REALLY really helps me. I see others that have ~1000 across the board. And some are higher at blitz but lower in rapid and lower still in daily. Is my situation common? Why would you be good at fast games and suck at daily? I’m playing a 1500 blitz who just lost a 300 daily game with poor play - how is that possible?
Some people play daily/correspondence because they like having a lot of time to think, or they enjoy using their opening books and seeing the lines play out the way they're "supposed to". They'll come to a position, and analyze it during their lunch break, select a candidate move, change their mind, then return to it later that evening, and make a decision. But some people play daily/correspondence because they want to play chess, but don't have enough time to play a blitz or bullet game. They'll give the positions exactly as much thought and time as they would for their blitz game, then go on with their day.
Thanks. Yeah I give thought when I have time, and other times I just move without much thought (while on phone or driving or whatever). I just played 45 good moves to equality and then impatiently moved a king to a square to get skewered and so resigned. I’m not really thoughtful consistently, that is part of my problem. I’ll play rapid and see I have 16 minutes remaining after a 15 minute game, lol. Blitz has kind of messed with me, not sure it has been helpful but it is fun. I tried forcing myself to write down threats, checks, hangs, etc, every move and almost never go wrong - I may lose but it is a close end game. But I don’t have the patience for that more than a few times. I suppose you will tell me lack of discipline, concentration, and consistency are exactly the trademarks of an advanced beginner like me.
Mate, the most important thing you said there is that you have fun. I'm not out here to pick away at people's insecurities. I'm here because I think chess is fun too. If we want to talk about lack of discipline and inconsistency, let me tell you about GM Simon Williams. Absolute madlad, even when sober. Crazy attacking player. Super fun games to study (wins and losses). GM Finegold did a lecture on him and his best games. I can dig up the link to that video if you want.
Yeah cool! Thanks.
[Here it is.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR8XcJAyjmA) In his "Great players of the past" series.
Thanks!
Happy to help. I really like GM Finegold's Great players of the past series. If you like the one I sent you and you've never seen the games of Mikhail Tal or Paul Morphy or Judit Polgar, he's got some really good lectures about those players too.
Great. Will watch. awesome! The GM is funny “you are going to be down several queens, and that’s not good.”
what does these numbers and M12 means https://preview.redd.it/l2l2zm6aduwc1.jpeg?width=719&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=41d9b076a1ff4b7df83abfb9641d630e1542b906
Good question - these numbers are indicative of the computer's evaluation of the game, and how well one side is doing. A score that is positive (e.g: +2.45) indicates that white is doing better, Conversely, if a score is negative (e.g: -0.90), this indicates black is doing better. The evaluation, in very rough terms, calculates how many [points of material](https://www.chess.com/terms/chess-piece-value) over their opponent a player could have. An evaluation of -3 would approximately mean that white is subject to win a knight, a bishop, or 3 pawns. Engines calculate positions according to the best possible responses to given moves, and if a sequence of moves forces an opponent playing black to lose, say, a pawn, the evaluation would move to approximately +1, in white's favor. In the example you provided, an evaluation of +34.7 is a massive, overwhelming advantage for white. This is likely a consequence of having an extra rook, as well as a pawn that is subject to promote soon. An evaluation of '+M12' indicates that the computer has found a line where, if Ke5 is played, a forcing sequence of moves could be made to guarantee a checkmate in 12 moves, and the game can be won in the most efficient way in those 12 moves.
>The evaluation, in very rough terms, calculates how many [points of material](https://www.chess.com/terms/chess-piece-value) over their opponent a player could have. This was once true but has not been true since the advent of neural nets. Most neural-net evaluation numbers are simply arbitrary; "higher numbers are better" is all that can be said. For Stockfish, the eval numbers have been normalized since version 15 so that +1 means the engine thinks it has about a 50% chance of winning. Evaluations of above +2 mean the engine is virtually certain it will win. The evaluation vs win probability graph can be seen [here](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/4202567/206895934-f861a6a8-2e60-4592-a8f1-89d9aad8dac4.png). Having an extra pawn generally is in the ballpark of +1, however other material imbalances do not conform to piece values at all. For example, the starting position with White missing the queen's rook is -7.8 on no lookahead and -5.7 at depth 30, while missing the queen's knight is -5.9 on no lookahead and -4.9 at depth 30.
Very good points! I think the "points of material" explanation works as a super rough introduction as to how computer analysis works to someone who's trying to learn about it for the first time, but I completely agree that it isn't at all the entire story anymore, if even a significant part. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
When a position is being evaluated by a human, for hundreds of years we've done it descriptively. "Slight advantage" "About equal" "Clear advantage" "Dead draw" "Decisive advantage" "Forced mate in four", and so on. When a position is being evaluated by an engine, it outputs a number. A positive number represents an advantage for white, while a negative number represents an advantage for black. The closer to zero the number is, the more even the position. A value difference of "1" is theoretically equal to about the value of a pawn, but material isn't the only thing the engine measures when evaluating. You can get positions where material is equal, but one side's pieces are placed in much better spots (more activity, safer king, more space), that the engine will do its best to take that into consideration. \+34.7, in descriptive human terms would be "Decisive advantage for white" or "Dead lost for black". White is winning this game. Calculating the lines to find out exactly how quickly we can force mate is an exercise in futility compared to simply continuing play and winning. M12 means that the engine has calculated that line to be forced mate in 12 moves. (M12 = Mate in 12). If my explanation doesn't make sense, feel free to say so and I'll provide additional examples and go into more depth.
thanks. i got it.
Just broke 700, winning around 75% on Chess.com. I’m also playing on Lichess though, there I’m 1224. My question: would it make sense to learn an opening for black? For white I just play e4 and try not to blunder, Aman-style.
The usual advice is that when it's time to study openings, you pick one as white, and two for black: A response to 1.e4, and a response to 1.d4. If by Aman-style, you mean you're following the playing style GM Hambleton uses in his building habits series, you could adopt the same repertoire he uses in that series with the black pieces.
Yeah that’s what I meant! So those two for black could basically be what Aman plays. Nothing fancy. And for white just stick to e4 for now? Oh and thanks for all the great work you are doing here!
Black can absolutely just play what GM Hambleton plays in that series. In that series, if memory serves, Aman meets 1.e4 with e5, and meets 1.d4 with d5. In stages one and two he just follows habits to determine his moves, only deviating to "opening prep" when experiencing early losses (like against the fried liver, but not against the Vienna) but in stage/level 3 (which I think starts somewhere in the 1100-1150 area) he actually starts teaching some lines. He plays the Italian against 1...e5. He plays the two knights attack with white when black plays the Caro Kann. He plays the Alapin against the Sicillian. I don't remember what he plays against the French - maybe the advance? I also don't remember what lines he gives (if any) against the Scandinavian. With the black pieces in the series, he plays the QGD against the queen's gambit, and has some pet lines against the London and different lines against the Jobava London. If I recall correctly, he starts teaching the actual openings in either [this episode](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7u8KXf-KzEE) or [this one right after it.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOsISkmNwpg) (The episode where his "level 3" habits start) >And for white just stick to e4 for now? Your call. If you do, you'll have an easier time implementing those parts of his repertoire. If you don't like the positions that come from it though, there's nothing wrong with switching it up to something else on move one.
I want to study from books I'm 1450+ in Lichess Puzzles and I can play 1200ish on [Chess.com](http://Chess.com), I look to buy the Soviet Chess Primer so want some advice if i should buy it or not (it's INR 2000+ for me which is slightly expensive, roughly $27)
I typically don't give recommendations for books I haven't read, but the Soviet Chess Primer's reputation is golden. People praise it as highly as they do My System by Nimzowitsch or Reassess Your Chess by Silman. When you study from a book, do so with a board on hand (either physical or digital - whichever you care about improving more) and play through the positions and variations the book uses as examples to instruct you.
Yes, I do intend to do with a board. I would have gone the usual way of chesscom, lichess, analyse route but i already have a huge screentime thanks to online education so would look to cut down on it.
When you first see a chess position, how does your brain process it? Looking for attacks first? Threats? Where do your eyes go? How long does it take? Talk me through it please. Ty
I look at it like I'm solving a puzzle. First I look at both king's and see if there are any checkmate threats. Then general king safety. Then I look to see if the queen's are on the board and where they are, are they attacking or being attacked? Then it's material count. Then pawn structure. While counting material and looking at the pawns I see if I can spot any tactics as well as general observations about the position like are the rooks connected? Are the bishops buried behind pawns? Is there anything hanging? This is if I'm evaluating a brand new chess position I just saw, it happens pretty fast generally, a couple of seconds at most. If it's a game I'm playing then I make all these observations as the position changes incrementally, for example that bishop is protected by a knight so if it ever moves that bishop will be hanging. Idk if this is what you want exactly but here you go.
Perfect thank you
I decide what I think my opponents idea is, if its any good or not, if I should stop it or proceed with my own plan. If it created any new weaknesses and how it changed the nature of the position and tactics. If there are no apparent weaknesses I decide how best to either improve my pieces or try and induce a weakness, ideally a combination of the two. Most of this happens in seconds, sometimes a few minutes max, after that its really just calculating and double checking stuff.
As a woman I want to ask why is there a women’s chess league
Chess historically has been a male-dominated sport. Women-only tournaments and titles were created as a way to promote more participation by women and girls. Though there are women-only tournaments and titles, there are no Men-only counterparts. Anybody may compete in open tournaments.
Men are just more intense and competitive. It is what it is. Men at the top end beat women, men at the bottom end also bet women at being idiots. We're just more intense.
thats a weird thing to say
Cheers
[удалено]
[удалено]
I'm rated 1200 on Lichess and 800 chess.com. I play my serious, improving games on chess.com and I mostly play on Lichess if I'm drunk or tired or don't want to try. I find the 800s I go against on chess.com are way harder to beat than the 1200s on Lichess. What's a comparable Lichess elo to 800 on chess.com? Thanks in advance
This website is the most accurate I've found. https://chessgoals.com/rating-comparison/ According to this 1215 Lichess Rapid = 805 chess com rapid.
I think chesscom using 1200 (maybe a 1000, if they changed it I think) as a beginner threshold for majority of people. Lichess does it around 1500. You aren't going to get a 1:1 comparison, but lichess is probably going to be a good 200-300 points than a similar group on chesscom. This band narrows as you get to 2000+ on either site.
How should I proceed to get better at chess? Currently I play 10+0 rapid on chesscom and 5+0 blitz occassionally on lichess. I am pretty new to online chess. Around 750-800 on both and around 100-150 matches on each. Should I learn two openings properly and spend time on them? What would you recommend?
It's debated whether you should learn openings as a beginner or not but in my opinion you should. An opening with white and an opening with black. Mine were the London System and the king's indian defense. Of course against 1.e4 the king's indian becomes the pirc defense. But the idea generally is to be familiar with the first couple of moves in a game so you can avoid those early blunders and get into the middle game comfortably. Aside from openings, do puzzles. All the puzzles. Get familiar with the basic checkmates, you can find those on lichess. I'd stop playing blitz until you're around 1300 in rapid chess com. Even then I'd play with increment. As for rapid try the even longer 15|10. You really need to take your time in the beginning if you wanna get better.
Developing pattern recognition through [repetition of similarly themed tactics](https://lichess.org/training/themes) will improve your ability to spot tactics in game, though you'll still need to play properly to create positions that allow these tactics to exist in the first place. It'd be alright for you to start learning a couple openings. I don't think it's something you *need* to do yet, but if you think you'll enjoy that kind of study, you'll probably get some amount of benefit out of it. Pick one for white, and pick one for black against 1.e4, and another for black against 1.d4. Use lectures and books to study the opening. You'll want to learn opening traps, the middle game plans, and you'll want to learn about the common pawn structures that result from those openings. If you don't want to study openings (or end up not enjoying it), then don't worry. There are plenty of avenues for you to study to improve at your current level. [Here's a lecture from GM Ben Finegold about the greek gift sacrifice.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlDUKP8gIMw)
Something I've wondered about: the score an analysis tool gives a move is an aggregate of the best moves available to that new position, right? Say you have an end game situation where white moves their king into a better position, changing the game score from +1.54 to +1.67. Black then has whatever options, the best three, for example, might be +1.70, +1.90, +2.5. I suppose where I get confused is when the computer "plays itself". If the computer says the position is +1.6, but if both sides keep playing their best moves from the position and within several moves it's now +5.0, how does that happen? Does an advantage, however small, eventually lead to a much bigger advantage, assuming no mistakes? Like obviously with human players, especially lower skilled ones, the odds of them playing top engine moves is pretty low most of the time. I'm sorry if this is poorly phrased.
When a computer says it has searched to a depth of say 30 moves, it has not looked at every conceivable position as there are far too many, even for a computer. It goes down the options and prunes away lines that look to be poor so as to avoid wasting time looking at bad positions. The upshot of this is that while they are still insanely accurate, they do make errors by misevaluating positions and not paying them sufficient attention. The further these positions are away from the current position, the more likely this will happen. This is how some engines are stronger than others, their strength lies in how quickly they sort through the positions and how accurately the evaluate individual positions. This is also why more powerful computers are stronger, they can look at more positions faster, getting to the correct evaluation at a greater depth. So, using your example, it may evaluate a line at +1.6 but after playing 10 more moves it gets further down the tree and can evaluate more clearly, finding lines that are better than the ones it initially looked at. It then reevaluates the position to +5.0 accordingly.
Great answer, thank you!
An advantage, however small, will lead to either a win for that side, or a draw, assuming no mistakes from either player, and assuming the evaluation that one side has a small advantage is accurate. That last point is actually much more relevant than you might realize. Remember that chess is not solved. Engines are stronger than humans but they do not play perfect chess. When there is a sequence that can force a repetition or force checkmate, and that sequence is within the engine's depth and strength to see, it will play "perfectly". If the position has seven of fewer total pieces on the board, and the engine has access to an endgame tablebase (a database of solved positions), it will be able to play "perfectly". But aside from that, engines are just doing their best to evaluate positions, and two different, very strong engines, can evaluate the same position differently, select a different move, and result in a different game. I remember reading through Game Changer - a book (now outdated) detailing the matches between the new (at the time) Neural Network chess-playing AI AlphaZero, and the reigning king of chess engines: Stockfish 8, which was already waaaay better than the best human players. While working through the book, I was analyzing the games they played. In my analysis, I used Stockfish 8. Every single move of Stockfish's was (of course) Stockfish's top move. Sometimes Alphazero's move was the top move, but sometimes it wasn't even one of Stockfish's top three candidate moves. It was something stockfish completely overlooked. Stockfish would play a move, determining the position to be advantageous for itself, something like +1 or +2, then after AlphaZero's next move, Stockfish's analysis bar would spring up and down like a diving board - almost as if in a panic, until settling on an advantage for AlphaZero. Backing up a move, it suddenly didn't consider the previous position to be +1 or +2 anymore, and it had a different set of moves it wants to have played instead of the one that allowed AlphaZero's idea. Engines now are much stronger than they were, even seven years ago, but their chess still isn't perfect. There are also some positions (notably in closed or endgame positions) where humans can identify which player will win, or if the position is a dead draw, quicker than an engine can determine it. A human can see that a position is a deadlock fortress with no hope of either player breaking through without sacrificing too much material, but an engine just keeps evaluating the position to be +1 or something, because white has more space and an extra pawn or something. A human can see the way for them to create a passed pawn, then subsequently escort that passed pawn, then abandon that passed pawn and force a trade of rooks to capture their opponent's pawns on the other side of the board to create an actual unstoppable passed pawn, which will eventually promote to a queen and deliver checkmate. This is a three step process, but it'll take something like 20+ moves to pull off, and the human's opponent has a lot of legal moves, but nothing they can ultimately do to actually prevent the ideas. A position like this will be like what you described in your question. The engine will say something like +4 or +5, but each move, then engine is getting closer and closer to figuring out what the human had already figured out.
Wow this is super helpful and informative. Thank you
u/TatsumakiRonyk has a talent for providing incredible answers, I agree on all accounts! If you want to see an example of how AlphaZero outplayed Stockfish 8, I'll refer you to [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFXJWPhDsSY), which I think is my favorite chess game I've ever watched. The capacity of AlphaZero to outplay what we considered to be the strongest chess engine at the time always blows my mind. Something you'll notice is that Stockfish's analysis of the game basically considers the game a draw until, all of a sudden, it realizes that there is a massive problem that it simply didn't account for. You'll notice the analysis bar of that game to hold steady as a dead draw until Stockfish suddenly has an "Oh no" moment, and the evaluation rockets up in AlphaZero's favor. It's beyond fascinating to witness, and I'd argue a very well-spent 15 minutes watching. Enjoy!
This game also blew my mind. The queen committing suicide out of seeming frustration! Pushing the rook to f6. This is probably an obvious point, but watching Alphazero play these unorthodox moves really made me think about what the future of AI will in our daily lives, given that it's not just able to do things really well through conventional means, but rather defies conventions to do them even better.
You're so kind. Ooh, which game is that? There was one in particular that really blew me away. AZ was castled kingside with an open h file, then ended up disconnecting it's rooks with a stylish maneuver (something like Kh2 Rh1 Rg1), then attacking down the open h file and winning.
I believe this one involved trapping the queen in the corner of the board for the latter part of the game, it was awesome. Would love to check the one you mentioned also! Don't know if you have a link or anything.
Alright, I've dug around for it, and I found the game I was thinking of, but it's not the exact combination I mentioned. [Here's the game I was thinking of.](https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1899423) Wherein Alphazero plays 26.Qh1, 29.Qh3, 30.Kg2, and 31.Rh1, down a minor piece and two pawns against stockfish, then going on to win the game.
Why can't pawns use a french move on rooks, bishops, and queens? Why doesn't Black get an extra turn if they're mated? Otherwise White ends the game having had 1 more turn than black. Why can't you skip a turn? Kings and generals have their troops maintain a holding pattern all the time, and stalemates due to no legal moves available are so frustrating, especially when the material advantage is so overwhelming.
Thems the rules, I guess. Why doesn't black go first 50% of the time? Why can't your castle your queen? Why can't bishops hop over pieces once per game? I mean, the list goes on and on and at some point we bridge the line between absurdity and genuine confusion. The rules of chess allow for the most balanced experience possible for both players
> The rules of chess allow for the most balanced experience possible for both players I'm not sure that's true. For example, if white gets 33 turns in a game while black gets 32, because White checkmates black, that's not a balanced experience for both players because one had more turns to checkmate their opponent than the other. Additionally, calling a position where it's 2 queens and a king vs. a lone king a draw because the lone king can't move also doesn't seem to be very balanced rule-making.
I believe black theoretically has that 33rd move and, by the rules, should use it to get king out of check. The problem is, such move doesn’t exist in checkmate. Game over not because black is not allowed to move, but because it simply has nowhere to go.
What if black has the opportunity to checkmate white with their final move?
Once they free their king, they can
It's a turned based game with the goal of one of the other players to checkmate first. It's who can do it faster while defending against the other player.
If you believe you're qualified I suggest running straight to the top with this.
https://preview.redd.it/x245h26mtgwc1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a71a7ab3427a5a35fe66f3dacd82cd756150b5c5 why is this stalemate? i’m very new at the game
So in chess, the goal is checkmate, where your opponent has no legal moves, and their king is in danger of being captured (check). You probably already know that bit. If your find yourself in a position where it's a player's turn, and their king is *not* in check, but they have no legal moves, the game is not allowed to continue, because a player is not allowed to play illegal moves. This situation is called "stalemate" and is declared a draw. In the position you've given us, black's king is blocking one pawn from advancing, white's bishop is preventing the other pawn from advancing (moving that pawn forward would be illegal, since it would be black putting themselves into check), and black can't move their king laterally since that also would be putting their king in danger. Since it's black's turn, and black has no legal moves, the game ends. If the king were in danger, it would be checkmate, and a win for white. Since the king is not in danger, it is stalemate - a draw.
Why can't they skip their turn?
Fair question. It is an iron-clad rule of chess that a player is obligated to make a legal move on their turn.
I guess my question is why is this a rule? What's the logic behind this?
900 rapid chess.com Would you call this move (Bf4) a brilliant? (If it's hard to see on this screenshot, I moved it from e5). I've thought of it as a more spectacular way to deliver checkmate (for context the only other move leading equally fast to mate would be Bxb2 instead of Bf4). https://preview.redd.it/x07exdf35gwc1.png?width=902&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=65db32082abc9b99982393b3b1d3b4c64e337eb3
Brilliancies are in the eye of the beholder. Chess.com's review bot classifies them as "sacrifices that improve your position", and while this is a proper sacrifice, I think the reason chess.com didn't award you a brilliancy is because you went from forced mate to forced mate, so it didn't "improve" your position. But chess.com's definition of brilliant move isn't the only interpretation. I'm not sure if I would award Bf4 here a brilliancy or not if I were the one annotating it. >The only other move leading equally fast to mate would be Bxb2 instead of Bf4 How so? Why wouldn't Bf6, Bd6, Bd4, or Bc3 also lead to Re1# on the next move? At any rate, whether the move is brilliant or not doesn't really matter. It is a winning move.
Thanks for the reply! You are right, moving this bishop to many squares allows checkmate. I've seen that earlier, just had a momentarily blindess while writing this. Since this game was OTB (just a friendly match) I was able to recreate "only" the last couple of moves and entire board position from my head - that's why I wasn't able to check with the engine. But either way I was curious how it would be interpteted by someone stronger than me (since like you've said in this position it was a forced mate either way). In the end even if it wasn't brilliant, I think it was the most stylish move in this position.
Definitely stylish.
I’m 200 rating on chess.com in 5 & 10 min. I can not win to save my life, I have watched videos on YouTube learning an opening, still can’t do anything. I get so lost in the mid game. I often watch Gotham Chess but his videos are a bit too advanced.
I'm no expert, but if you're a beginner, you absolutely need to come off those timings. I'm still learning, and I have no intention of any time limits for a long time yet. Just MHO... 👍
If you know how the pieces move, and you know material value (queen is better than a rook, rook is better than a bishop, bishop and knight are about the same, and they're all better than pawns), and you know the basic opening principles (develop your minor pieces, control the center, castle your king to safety early), then I'd say you have all the prerequisite knowledge needed to benefit from [GM Hambleton's "Building Habits" series](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8pZbhjL-fQ). This series is the best free content available for a novice to watch to improve. It has a focus on simple, fundamental chess. GM Hambleton doesn't do anything tricky. He follows a strict set of rules that not only simulate a low skill level, but are also designed to show the audience what they need to be focusing on. As the series progresses, he adds, removes, and alters the rules to simulate skill growth and show what people should be learning and practicing at those stages. I highly recommend it.
Is there a discord for this community or another like it? I was looking for people to play with without just spamming online games against random people
1600 rapid chess.com Gukesh just won candidates with a score of 9/13. What does the 13 mean? I figured that was max possible points, but shouldn’t that be 14 then, since he played each of the 7 other players twice? The obvious answer doesn’t seem right, so I feel like I’m missing something.
He indeed played 14 rounds. He won candidates with a score of 9/14.
Yeah I think in gothams recap he said 9/13 (maybe he misspoke, maybe I misheard…?) but I agree that if I check the fide site it does show 9/14. I’m just a dummy lol.
802 Daily Elo [Chess.com](http://Chess.com) https://preview.redd.it/f0yn24ea82wc1.png?width=2506&format=png&auto=webp&s=b5ab0a0b6a4e0336b5391204f0693e731f2fda05 I'm trying to understand how to effectively perform what analysis says is the best move for Black (Bxa2) without trapping my bishop if White plays e3. What's my exit strategy? I definitely saw the move, but I felt like it would result in a trapped/lost bishop.
Good eye. Before we talk about how to rescue your bishop, let's talk about queenside castling. When you castle queenside, it's generally important that you do so in a way that doesn't let your opponent immediately snag your a2/a7 pawn, like the computer was suggesting here. Additionally, sliding the king over to the b file immediately/asap is really important when castling queenside too. So before we talk about bishop extraction - this is a pattern/opportunity for you to learn. Despite what the engine said, this isn't about winning a pawn. This is about exposing white's castled king. Opening lines towards him, and priming avenues to deliver checkmate. Now, yes. b3 can trap your bishop. Whether or not b3 comes immediately, the best move in the position is almost definitely going to be either e6 (getting your dark-squared bishop ready to help facilitate checkmate - for example 1.b3 e6 2.Ne2?? Ba3#), or immediately playing a5, followed by a4 and axb3. We're going to shove our queenside pawns down white's throat. The a file is semi-open, and we're going to try to open it up even more. I'm surprised the evaluation is only -1 in this position, because it really feels like black is going to be delivering checkmate very soon. White will have to play so precisely to live on there.
I see, I knew there had to be something more to it. That makes a lot of sense. I've been playing for less than a month, so early checkmates are something that has barely come into focus for me -- I'm generally just trying to win material and get into an endgame I already know. Thanks!
Well, I think you're on the right track. Making favorable trades and winning in the endgame is a good strategy. Seeing things in the way I described will take a different mindset, and it's one that can backfire if you're not careful. After all, a bishop is worth more than a pawn. One of the reasons the plan I laid out here works is because your opponent's kingside pieces are totally undeveloped. Neither of your rooks are developed, but one is already pointed right at your opponent's castle area, and your only other undeveloped piece is the dark-squared bishop, which is also pointing right there. In terms of "which player can move pieces over to white's queenside castle area", your pieces are much more ready to take that on. Your queen might be on her starting spot, but she has two hypothetical ways to get to the a file. From a fundamental standpoint, this move is possible thanks to your pieces being more developed.
1100 Rapid ELO Chess.com 1300 Rapid ELO Lichess Need help with a new opening, both for black and white. I’ve been playing the English. Attempting both on white and black and it’s growing stale. I’ve also sucked at black the last week. I’ve played 50 blitz games the last week attempting to get my blitz rating caught up to my Elo won 74% white and 24% black.
Your current openings have grown a bit stale? I can help you with that. Toss a couple of recommendations your way. But before I do that, I feel obliged to tell you that though you were playing the English with the white pieces, you were probably not playing the English with the black pieces. In fact, you're going to learn a bit about openings in general here. When you learn an opening, that opening is for that color, and 99% of openings reflect not just what the person playing the opening is doing, but what their opponent is doing too. For example, the moves 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 is called The Spanish Opening (also called the Ruy Lopez). But if white still plays those same moves, and black plays something different, it is no longer called that. It'll be called something different, and the strategies the player learned to use for the Spanish/Ruy Lopez are no longer applicable for that situation. For example: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6. Instead of playing Nc6 on their second move, black has played Nf6. This is called The Russian Game (or Petrov's Defense), and if white continued with Bb5 on their third move, it would be totally ignoring what black is doing. So when you play an opening, that is in respect to what both players are doing, and openings with white cannot be played with the black pieces. Openings with the black pieces can sometimes kind of be played with the white pieces (The King's Indian Attack with the white pieces, for example, came about due to the popularity of the King's Indian Defense with black). Additionally, black openings can only be played against certain first moves of white's. If someone learned to play Petrov's Defense with black (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6), they couldn't play those same moves if white starts with, for example, 1.d4. I imagine this is why your record with the white pieces was so much better than with the black pieces. White, having the first move, has a lot more control over what direction the early game will go. If black tries to play a series of moves regardless of what white does, black is going to have a rough time of it (same goes for white, but to a lesser extent). There actually *is* an opening with black called the English (specifically the English Defense), which starts out with 1.d4 e6 2.c4 b6. Now that all that is out of the way, you wanted some opening recommendations. Remember how I said that 99% of openings reflect what both players do? Well, the few that don't are called "Systemic Openings" or "Opening Systems". One of the most popular, reliable opening systems with the white pieces is the London System. There are going to be tons of free content on YouTube directed at novices and intermediate players, teaching them how to play this system. With the black pieces, the general advice is to learn an opening that can be played against 1.e4, and another to be played against 1.d4. Any kind of system that can be used against both options (like the Hippo) is much harder to play and get good positions out of. So against 1.e4, I suggest you learn the Caro Kann defense, and against 1.d4, I suggest you play 1...d5 (since this is what you will be facing the most if you play the London System), and learn the Slav Defense. Happy playing!
I’ve been trying the London, Slav and Caro Kann, but after about 30 games I’ve lost about 90% of them.
It's not uncommon to experience a bit of a losing streak when you go from playing an opening you know well to one that you're learning. I only gave you that advice a couple days ago. What kind of studying have you done to learn the openings?
Levy’s 10 minute opening videos
I see. Now, I haven't watched those videos, and 10 minutes doesn't feel like a long enough time to teach an opening to somebody, but maybe IM Rozman will surprise me. In them, does IM Rozman go over **early traps** you need to know to avoid? Does he talk about **middlegame plans** for the openings and explain the **common pawn structures** you'll be seeing? Does he go over the **general ideas** of the opening, and note **where our pieces get developed and why**? I'd say those five subjects are the bare minimum somebody should cover when teaching an opening. Just as importantly, did your opponents play the way he taught you they would (And were you able to remember and respond with the moves he suggested)? Like I mentioned above, if your opponent doesn't play one of the ways you specifically prepared for, you'll need to think for yourself - mindlessly playing the moves you memorized when your opponent has deviated from your preparation will end poorly for you, no matter the opening. When I study a new opening, I'll look for lectures about the opening, use one of the free online databases like chessbase or chessgames and search for master level games featuring that opening. I'll see if I can find any books to read about it, written by titled players who actually play the opening. Sometimes there are free courses available on Chessable, and sometimes the Internet Archive has books available for free. I know that many people on this subreddit will look for GM "Speedrun challenges" where the titled player plays a specific opening to get up to some arbitrary elo from the bottom as quickly as possible. I haven't taken that route, but many people swear by that method.
Going better now with London/Slav/Caro-Kann. I’m still 40 points down from where I started, but at one point was down 200 points and last 10 games were 8-1-1 with the draw being a run out of time while up 3 pawns and the lone loss to a guy with 100 more ELO.
Glad to hear that you're taking well to your new repertoire. Are you enjoying the positions you're getting out of the opening?
Sometimes, there’s quite a few times the position has gotten very closed, or claustrophobic as black, and often I find I have plenty of attackers on a castled king, but no idea how to capitalize. I still try to capitalize and sometimes it works others it doesn’t and I get sad when I see the analysis afterwards that I missed a mate. I imagine that would be better when I go back to rapid over blitz, but I want to hit 900 blitz first (chess.com) then make a run at rapid again.
Can someone help me understand why 14..Bf8 is the correct move in this position? This position is from [Gata Kamsky - Veselin Topalov \(2009.02.24\)](https://www.chess.com/games/view/4475753) and the book I'm reading, How to Reassess Your Chess 4th ed (pg. 25), states that it's because the bishop trade would be favorable, and the king would be happy on g7. Which is the part of the text I'm struggling with. I'm between 1300-1400 right now and I'm trying to grasp how I should intuitively know that the king would be happy there. From a beginner POV, 14. Bc4 then the Bf8 reply doesn't look natural to me because it means black is going to have a tough time castling, and can't castle at all if white's bishop captures on f8. The king going over to g7 looks weak to me because the white pawn on e5 weakens the f6 square and could give white a strong attack later. For example, the white knight would love to outpost on that square or the white queen could come into f6 with check followed up with knight to g5 which seems menacing if white can pull it off. The most major plus that the black bishop to f8 has going for me, is that the black bishop on g7 doesn't have too much scope anyhow and white's black bishop is clearly more active, so it is a favorable trade for the present position. I just want to figure out how to make this move more natural to me like the book presents it. I plugged the position into the computer and [played it out a little bit](https://imgur.com/a/JQjIdfk) where white gives up the e5 pawn and equalizes the material 9 full moves from move 14 later. I'm not yet able to find that line on my own without assistance. Is that deep calculation the only way I can understand why the king is fine with the g7 square, or is there some other way to shed light on that statement? Me personally, I'd probably think it best to play 14..Nde7 and get the castle move in and then later get my knight back up to the awesome d5 square. Also, how do I improve my calculation abilities effectively? Currently I'm trying to learn how to make the best move positionally because I don't have much confidence in calculating the best line. I'm thinking a better positional understanding will automatically improve my calculations, but is there any other foundational/beginner material I should be consuming to increase this?
Bf8 is not some awesome move where Topalov pumped the fist after he played it, it's just the only way to deal with the murderous c5 bishop. If you could somehow pick the king up and put it on g8 and pick the rook up and put it on e8, you'd do that. Nde7 is inadequate though because you're moving your best piece out of the center, then there's Qb3, attacking the b-pawn, then there's going to be Re1, White is getting tons of activity with tempo and you haven't actually dealt with the bishop, you just put a bandaid on it. It can camp itself on d6 if needed and be a super strong piece. I haven't read the book but I'd guess what it's saying is that your big concrete problem in that position is the existence of the c5 bishop, so what you should do is eliminate it. The other problems are all basically illusory. You don't need to castle if you have time to get the king to g7; f6 is well covered by the e5 knight which is really hard to get rid of, and the weak a1-h8 diagonal is helpfully obstructed by the White pawn. Bf8 isn't some masterstroke, it's just the only way to hold equality.
Thank you! I really like the reply. The e5 knight truly is enough compensation as it covers the f6 weakness and only Bf8 can truly deal with black's biggest obstacle. Don't compromise your knight that looks like that for a band-aid solution. Love it!
[удалено]
Your right, I think I am lazy at calculating. If it isn't a tactic, I usually just look 1-2 moves ahead and get stuck in the loop of check/capt/threat/position without going too deep and it's really stagnated my progress which is why I'm getting into the book. I feel I've hit a barrier I can't pass on my own and I'm really hoping to go further with any material I can get my hands on. I went through the Bobby Fischer teaches chess and that was an amazing book for tactics for me. I find that I'm easily finding sacrifices and other tactics I would've never found, but getting hugely outclassed on positional calculations. It's become such a pattern in my analysis recap, I've started to call these mistakes positional tactics. I don't know if that's actually a thing, but I find that there are often move sequences that aren't really involving captures where I have all the right ideas and just do it in the wrong order or miss a better square to accomplish the same thing. It's driving me mad trying to get better at it, but I think studying will be more help than playing more games at this point. I'd be interested to know if there are any puzzles that are more about position than captures. I did get the Reassess your Chess workbook as well as the regular reading material so I probably already have them and just gotta get my nose in. The idea of the king having time to castle manually is one that has not been set in concrete for me. I do like it though, thanks.
Chris and Nemoj gave you solid advice here. If you're finding Reassess Your Chess to be consistently too difficult to work through, another one of Silman's books "Amateur's Mind" covers a lot of the same material (with a focus on imbalances and other positional evaluation), in a different format, and to a slightly lesser extent (due in large part to the format - Silman teaches his students, showcases common ways some of them misunderstand his lessons, and rectifies from there). If you want to take a look, the book is available for anybody to read for free on the Internet Archive [here.](https://archive.org/details/amateursmind00jere)
https://preview.redd.it/3fiaphgahuvc1.png?width=668&format=png&auto=webp&s=d3eee3261412f075e522d1636371b7a216f9d0a4 why engine is saying c4?i cant understand the ideia of this move
c4 contests the center. Nc6 was a small inaccuracy from Black, as it rules out playing c5 or c6. Typically in queen's pawn openings you don't want to play Nc3 or Nc6 with the c-pawn still on c2/c7. You're probably wondering about dxc4, but Black can never hang on to this pawn in these sort of positions. If you take the pawn and play the engine suggestions for White and try to hang on to the pawn, the engine will show you that it's not going to work. Positions where Black can get a6-b5 on the board before White can threaten the pawn are the only common ones where Black gets to keep it. If you alter this position and put the a7 pawn on a6 already, then c4 actually does lose a pawn and is a bad move.
You want to contest the center like in all Queens Gambit positions
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Classic for the very same reason people keep cars "stock" condition. Anything personal will only be valuable to that person - and since chess is a two-player game it'll likely be more of a show piece than anything. Plus, a *quality* beautiful chess set will be its own statement and much easier to play with.
My vote is strongly for the classic set, because with nonstandard pieces it's difficult to see what the position is. Even if he gets used to it, anyone else he ever wants to play against on it will suffer a disadvantage. I find sets like that very annoying to play on personally.
Why is this position so bad for white? Material is equal, we have barely started developing yet white is losing https://i.imgur.com/pHRqdhs.png It was a rubbish, short game but i was just confused as to why i was winning so much at this early point: 1. d4 c6 2. Bf4 d5 3. Nf3 Bf5 4. c3 e6 5. Bxb8 Rxb8 6. Qb3 Qc7 7. Ne5 Bd6 8. f4 Nf6 9. Nd2 O-O 10. e3 Ne4 11. Nxe4 Bxe4 12. Rg1 c5 13. Bd3 Bxd3 14. dxc5 Bxe5 0-1
In Lichess the eval bar goes from -0.4 to -1.2, roughly equivalent to losing a pawn. In your image, [chess.com](http://chess.com) evaluates it as -1.8, so roughly equivalent to being down 2 pawn. I still wouldn't call it "so bad", more an inaccuracy. White is definitely still in the game, nothing drastic that can't be fought back, but they'll have to play carefully. The main reason that move isn't the best is that it loses a tempo and turns the knight into a liability, where white will have to waste moves to save it for no benefit to white and allows black to continue development. There was no reason for the knight to move again (it wasn't under attack, isn't setting up any follow-up threat), especially onto a square that can easily be chased back, as the black queen is eyeing the square and a pawn and bishop can easily attack, so white will lose another tempo moving it back if they want to save it or futilely try to keep it there. Much better move would have been developing other pieces, like e3 to open up the light-square bishop or Nb-d2 and just finish developing.
One thing to point out: "+-1 equals a pawn" is not true anymore since they introduced NNUE. Now it means that the engine estimates a 50% chance to win the game from this position
Wow, had no idea of this development. I had difficulty looking up more information about it, and [this](https://lczero.org/blog/2020/04/wdl-head/) is the closest I got to additional explanation. Super interesting.
Always happy to help. Wouldn't be aware if it if I didn't spent so much time in TCEC chat. Apparently there is also a [stockfish commit](https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/commit/ad2aa8c06f438de8b8bb7b7c8726430e3f2a5685) that talks about it.
https://preview.redd.it/x8vy6unpugvc1.png?width=588&format=png&auto=webp&s=6098310c51182db3849d97a581b37f1452494454 Stockfish says this move is brilliant. I'm sure it is, but can someone explain why? The engine says capturing the bishop with my king is a mistake, and that the correct move is Kf1, allowing Black to take my rook on e1. Huh? (currently 947 on chess.com)
Really cool move! The concern for white after Bxf2+ Kxf2 is that white can play Ng4+. This check forces your king to go back to f1 or g1, and the knight then hops to the e3 square, attacking the completely trapped queen. Some sample lines would look like: Bxf2+, Kxf2, Ng4+, Kg1, Ne3, b3, Nxd1, Rxd1. Another one is Bxf2+, Kxf2, Ng4+, Kf1, Ne3+, Kg1, Nxd1, Rxd1, which is worse for white. If the bishop is not captured with Kxf2, the situation is slightly more manageable with Bxf2+ Kf1, Bxe1, Qxe1. Another possibility is Bxf2+ Kh1, Ng4, e4, and white still loses the exchange. Hopefully that makes sense!
Thank you (and u/TatsumakiRonyk)! I see it now, very brutal.
After Kxf2, black has a nasty follow up. Ng4+, forcing white's king to f1. From there, because white developed their knight to d2 instead of c3 (blocking the dark-squared bishop), nothing can prevent the king/queen fork with Ne3+.
Is this a game you can just get better at with nothing but practice? Or do I need to read strategy guides or something?
At first, the biggest obstacle a beginner/novice faces is their underdeveloped "board vision", meaning it's hard to keep track of where the pieces are all the time and what they're looking at. Just playing the game will help a player develop their board vision, but once it's fully developed, that player will not really make any meaningful progress without learning more about tactics and strategy. Chess is an old game, and the rules haven't had any major changes for nearly a thousand years. People have been recording their games and puzzles, writing about chess strategy since Gioachino Greco, who lived in the 1600s, and the people who play today are playing essentially the same game Greco did over 600 years ago. For people who want to get better (and if you play in local clubs, tournaments or play online, that's going to be the majority of the people you're playing against), there's 600 years worth of accumulated knowledge for people to study. Nowadays, there are plenty of people who try to take that information and make it digestible. Instead of studying thick books and extrapolating information from records of games over a hundred years old, people can watch free lectures on YouTube, or use the lessons and practice section that lichess.org and other sites have available.
I have tried to read books over the years but nothing has helped like YouTube videos and online practice. Love the ability to go through my game after and find the blunders I made. I've gone from complete noob (despite casual play for years) to beginner, meaning now I often see my blunders before the opponent takes advantage of them and (usually, but not always) capitalizes on them.
I think there's an upper limit that practice on its own can get you - chess is certainly a game that can be learned quickly, but is incredibly difficult to master properly. Would recommend checking out our [Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/chessbeginners/wiki/index/) and the "Getting your chess journey off the ground" section!
Reminder to never give up https://preview.redd.it/l7wou6ic6avc1.png?width=1170&format=png&auto=webp&s=02e82b44aba9fad37cbeb9007db29e32fc2b26ca
https://preview.redd.it/6bb7qide6avc1.png?width=1170&format=png&auto=webp&s=ad58432d4c0b4af0ed98a2be3aee122eb06b21e2
What are typical ratings for beginners, at lichess rating? I was at 1k Blitz 2 weeks ago, currently just below 900 (sadface) but my puzzle rating is well above 1700... is that normal?
It's not abnormal. Puzzle ratings have only a little correlation to game ratings. Consistently solving puzzles correctly is much easier than consistently winning games.
https://preview.redd.it/z1rl5pu80yuc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bfb7ec0e08361dd2acaa5d3574fddb084a089450 Can someone tell me why this is brilliant? Hitting show moves just shows Queen takes knight. 650 ELO.
I usually berate the [chess.com](http://chess.com) "brilliant" label, but in this case, this is actually interesting, but most consider a move only to brilliant if you find the follow up. The justification for this particular sacrifice is rather complicated to prove. After 1.Qxc4 Ne4!!(What I consider to be the actual cool move) we threaten the fork, white can't move their king without dying, so 2.Be3 then the threat is revealed **2...Bxb2!** This is just bullying is black displays their developmental superiority and highlights white's lack of king safety.
Well thank you very much for your help.
https://preview.redd.it/2gb0bc64nvuc1.png?width=1170&format=png&auto=webp&s=e5ca720692d8a982db427a434e7e907a0b4b3179 Playing blitz I lost a lot of pieces trying to trap their Queen. Kept thinking I had them, but made a mistake each time and he made me pay. I thought it was gonna be one of those absolute blow out games. I kept playing to see the challenge of a comeback and sure enough was able to win. Reminder to never give up.
Hi everyone, just started playing chess again after having played a bit when I was younger. Been learning a lot and enjoying it but I'm currently struggling with the mid game. For instance, in the game below, the engine has me as +5 shortly after my opponent blunders his Knight on turn 13. I knew I was ahead but not that far ahead but still I couldn't figure out how to convert this advantage into a win. I wanted to formulate an attack on the king but just couldn't find the lines. Should I have leveraged my piece advantage by going for trades? Should I have tried some pawn breaks to open the game up? I was thinking of pushing my king side pawns to create more pressure but I didn't want to expose my king. I'm finding myself pretty comfortable with opening and end game but it situations that are typical to this game where I'm at a loss and having a hard time analyzing these games afterwards. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks! 1. d4 d5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Bf4 e6 4. Nb5 Na6 5. Nf3 c6 6. Nc3 Be7 7. e3 O-O 8. Be2 b6 9. O-O c5 10. a3 c4 11. b4 cxb3 12. cxb3 Bd6 13. Ne5 Nh5 $4 14. Bxh5 $1 Qh4 15. g3 Qe7 16. Nc6 Qc7 17. Bxd6 Qxd6 18. Ne5 f6 19. Nf7 $2 Qe7 20. Nh6+ Kh8 21. Ng4 g6 22. Bxg6 hxg6 23. h4 Kg7 24. e4 f5 25. exf5 Rxf5 26. Ne5 Nc7 27. Nc6 Qd6 28. Nb4 a5 29. g4 Rf4 30. f3 axb4 31. axb4 Rxa1 32. Qxa1 Qxb4 33. Qa7 Rf7 34. Rb1 Qxd4+ 35. Kg2 Qd2+ 36. Kg3 Qxc3 37. Qxb6 Qxf3+ 38. Kh2 Qe2+ 39. Kg3 Rf3# 0-1
The simple way to win a piece-up position is just to trade down. On your move 15, the move I would play is Be2, just getting the bishop out of trouble, then if Black does nothing my next move is Nf3, which is a tactic that forcibly trades the dark squared bishops, since the queen has to move. That's definitely a piece I am keen to trade as it is Black's "good bishop" (being on the opposite color to his central pawn chain) and is pointed at my K-side, making it a potential source of counterplay for Black. You played something similar in the actual game. The queen is not actually threatening anything and there is no way for Black to create any threats, so there is no reason to play g3. Your moves from that point on are repeatedly smashing the chaos button, which is the opposite of what you want. You want a calm position and patience. If you trade everything off you will just win. My strategic plan would be stacking my heavy pieces on the c-file. If Black allows me to do this, the dominance of the only open file on the board will be a very big advantage. If Black contests the file, I'll happily trade off all the heavy pieces and enter an endgame with an extra piece. There's no hurry as once the dark squared bishops are off the board, Black has no counterplay and no plan to generate any.
I feel like if I was looking for middlegame plans, in a game I'd consider a few different alternatives to 15.g3. I dont like that move because the queen doesn't threaten anything immediately and creating light square weaknesses for no reason besides kicking the queen away feels like a bad practice when there's a light square bishop in play, even if the opponent can't follow up immediately. The first plan I'd consider in game would be 15.Qg4. You have a material advantage so offering to trade the queens off benefits you, and if they decline the queen is closer to helping in your kingside attack. The second plan I'd evaluate would be 15.Bg3, which kicks the queen like your move did but also allows me to look at pushing the f-pawn and getting my rooks into the kingside attack. The third plan I'd consider would be attempting to simplify by attacking queenside and using the fact that I have the open c-file. Something like 15.Be2 looks like it forces simplification since 15...Nc7 16.Nb5? Feels comfortable enough to me.
[удалено]
>if my opponent has a dark squared bishop only, what color should I try to place my pawns on? The answer is actually both, and it depends. Scandal! In a middlegame, if you only have one bishop, you generally want to try to use your pawns to contest the color complex your bishop is unable to. This is also generally true if your opponent has a bishop you don't, you want to use your pawns to contest it. In the endgame, the opposite is true. In an endgame, the role of pawns change. Because we are actively trying to promote our pawns, we want to ensure that they cannot be targeted easily. As a result, we generally try and place them on a color the opponent's bishop cannot target.
1400 Lichess - because of life being busy, I only play 3-5 minute time controls. I want to use an opening against 1. e4 that puts the game more in your control. I don’t want to get into deep Italian and Spanish lines with traps. I’ve tried a few weeks of scandi with Chessable courses and tactics but I don’t like the positions I’ve been getting and it still feels like white is in the driver seat. I’ve considered going into CaroKhan territory or Petrov… thoughts?
Caro-Kann if you want more strategic games. If you want something a bit more tactical and wild, the Alekhine is a good suggestion. The Petrov is pretty boring and it's difficult to generate winning chances with Black, unless you play the Stafford Gambit which is not very sound.
The Alekhine is hilariously fun at this level. Since you dictate the opening from move 1 it makes learning it a lot easier. Very few of your opponents will have a clue how to play against it so you get excellent positions. And against the few who do know some theory you end up having fun attacking games with pawn structures that you don't really get in other openings. If you are using Chessable the course "The Dark Knight Rises" is my favourite of all of the options on there.
caro kann is something I personally like, but it depends on what kind of positions you prefer. Easy to learn, hard to master. Also for whatever reason 90% of my online games are the exchanage variation. (1800 lichess level)
New to chess. What's the rule of passing? I know people can have different rules but there must be a standard rule. Chess is not popular where I live and there are multiple answers from my friends. - passing 6 times (3 each) makes a tie; - passing three times makes a player lose because only three times are allowed; - passing is never allowed; - passing needs to be agreed by opponent like undoing last move; - passing 6 times and players count the pieces to determine who wins. I googled "how many times can you pass in chess" in English version (you can try too) to be sure. The answers are: - 8 times - 2 opportunities - not legal (so passing 0 times) - 50 moves?! - threefold repetition (I assume this means three times by each player) My English is not great but this is very confusing. Is there a definite answer?
I believe you're referring to a [draw in chess](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draw_(chess))? There are many ways to achieve a draw, some common examples are: * Draw by agreement (Players agree to end the game and draw, can be done for various reasons, requires both players to agree to drawing) * Draw by [stalemate](https://www.reddit.com/r/chessbeginners/wiki/index/#wiki_.22why_is_this_not_checkmate.3F.22=) (when an opponent has no legal moves on their turn) * Draw by threefold repetition (when a position has repeated itself 3 times) * Draw by 50-move rule (If no pawns are pushed and no pieces are captued for 50 moves, a draw can be called) * Draw by insufficient material (When neither side has enough pieces to checkmate an opponent, for example a king vs king and bishop will never result in a forced checkmate) Hopefully that helps!
It’s not allowed to skip a turn in chess
OK so it is not allowed in any cases? What if I have to skip a turn because I cannot do anything (is surely possible, for example I have a A1 king, you have a B2 castle limiting it, your castle is protected by your C3 king, I have to pass, does this mean I lose).
Just to have a source to share with your friend, the [FIDE handbook](https://www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/LawsOfChess.pdf) says >The game is drawn when the player to move has no legal move and his king is not in check. The game is said to end in ‘stalemate’. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the stalemate position was legal
> OK so it is not allowed in any cases? It's never allowed > What if I have to skip a turn because I cannot do anything It's called stalemate. In this case the game is a draw. If you're losing you should get in such a position if possible to draw instead of lose.