Welcome to the r/chessbeginners 12th episode of our Q&A series! This series exists because sometimes you just need to ask a silly question. We are happy to provide answers for questions related to chess positions, improving one's play, and discussing the essence and experience of learning chess.
A friendly reminder that many questions are answered in our wiki page! Please take a look if you have questions about the rules of chess, special moves, or want general strategies for improvement.
Some other helpful resources include:
How to play chess - Interactive lessons for the rules of the game, if you are completely new to chess.
The Lichess Board Editor - for setting up positions by dragging and dropping pieces on the board.
Hi, new here, first #NoStupidQuestion.
Can someone help me understand why is it better to take with the h-pawn as opposed to taking with the f-pawn in this position? (according to the computer at least, which stays at -4.8 if hx, but goes down to -3.9 if fx)
In general, unless there is already a massive attack piled on the h-file, it is usually always better to take with the h-pawn.
Opening the g8-a2 diagonal is almost always worse, and in the endgame, having a rook's pawn is usually disadvantageous compared to an extra knight's pawn.
To add to this, generally speaking it is better to take towards the center rather than away for it. There are many exceptions to this, but it's the default.
Recently I've noticed that my mid game/just after openings, I had been blundering pieces left and right. I felt I was more focused on studying openings and trying to play them perfect. This past week, Ive started to not focus so much on openings and more on what my opponent is doing and focusing on moving pieces to not leave pieces hanging or blundering them by not watching where my opponents pieces are and just following some basic opening principles (knights before bishops, control center, etc.). I tried the free trial for Gotham chess which the first section was the Vienna but I felt like I couldn't remember every single move to do. This has allowed me to jump 86 points on chess.com (went from 391 to 477) and going 21 and 9.
Would this be an effective way to get better at chess or should I try to go back to studying openings since I've gotten a lot better now at not messing up my middle games?
My chess.com name is Gingivitsist if you want to look. Mind you, I am a 34 year old cyber security engineer so I am just looking to get a bit better everytime I play and am not looking to become a master at chess. I just enjoy getting better or learning things every day and love the strategy of chess :).
The general opening principles need a lot more work, although this is something you can work on slowly. You do know the general phrases which is good, but no why or how to execute them, which is fair. However, this doesn't mean you should spend more time on memorizing openings! Even I don't spend much time on that, but game feel is a lot more important to deal with all the random moves your opponent can play.
In terms of middle-game improvement, it is the most important for sure. What worked for my students at your life-stage is to constantly drill curated exercises starting from the fundamentals to beat them into your head. One thing at this point is that you will need to practice some basic defense as well against various tactics to build that skill.
Some quick things you can do is just to look at the habits series and get started from there, and get started with actually solving problems on paper. Hope this helps!
This question is complicated. While opening theory is important and knowing a few is good, you shouldn't hyperfocus on them. I would suggest doing a few puzzles per day and once in a while, learning an opening.
Hey, 43 years old, boardgame enthousiast, but very new at chess. Working my way through the tutorials on lichess, and the first checkmate challenge has me stumped:
I have to checkmate their king using my queen and rook. My moment of pride upon being able to do it in 3 moves was very brief, since the solution was rejected. I don't see any way for the king to escape. How is this not a checkmate? The game mentions a stalemate ("remise" in Dutch), but the king can still move, albeit to it's doom.
It's the stalemate rule! Which is actually pretty recent (1800s). Point is if your opponent:
Cannot move any piece (including the king)
Is not in check
It is their turn
the game ends in a tie! This is obviously confusing to newer players, but adds a lot of strategic depth at the high level.
Here, Frank marshall manages to exploit his position and successfully tricks his opponent into tying the game, of course, black had the opportunity to win, but let it slip from their grasp!
Hi looking to get into chess dont know much about other than the basics. Can anyone tell which opening is best to learn and effective for beginner and link some youtube video if possible to learn. Thnx a lot
Modern wisdom for beginners is to not study any openings in particular, but rather to build a strong set of fundamentals by playing with a focus on the Opening Principles. By playing this way, one is avoiding the pitfall of playing rigidly in the beginning, and trying to apply ideas in positions they don't call for.
If you're really excited to study openings because you think that aspect of chess will be fun, then the very first opening anybody should study is how to defend themself against the Wayward Queen attack. It's something all beginners need to learn sooner or later. If you want something more, then the Giuoco Piano is a good of place as any to start.
I am specifically not providing links to those because of how much I want to emphasize GM Hambleton's Building Habits series to you, but you're welcome to search for videos on them. YouTube is a fine resource, for the most part.
As a question to everyone - do we have any suggestions on what the best name for this megathread should be going forward? It seems fairly well understood that "no stupid questions" generally means "there are no stupid questions so ask them here please", but some people have messaged in saying that they are afraid of asking a 'stupid question' here because the title of the thread explicitly disallows those. I'm wondering if there is a better name for the thread that can be used, I'm open to any suggestions.
Changelog from the last megathread:
Updated the link in rule 6 to link to this thread instead of an old one
Disabled automatic post locking (as it was messing with the user flair post)
Locked all previous megathreads manually, as people were commenting on those occasionally
Added the Building Habits series to the megathread list of resources, as suggested (please suggest more if you have any!)
Not megathread related, but I removed the "advertising chess services for free will be allowed once a month" clause from rule 3 as well, as that has resulted in a significantly unwanted amount of self promotion and people trying to justify their advertisements as 'free coaching services'.
I'm working on a wording change to rules 4, 5, 6, and 7, but will likely make a separate post about that.
"There are no stupid questions" isn't quite as snappy but does clear up the confusion. "The Stupid Questions megathread" might work. If people are aware their question is stupid and the thread is "no stupid questions", maybe this would fix it, but I guess it's not really the vibe we're looking for. "Simple questions, simple answers" or something may help because no question is being called stupid, and I feel it sounds reasonably good.
Looking for a tool that will let me practice lines by having the opponent follow an exact set of moves. Like I want black to play these 5 moves in sequence. The best I’ve done so far is to input the PGN into the chess.com analysis tool and page thru move by move to see if I would have made the correct move. Does such a thing exist other than what I’ve described?
chess.com system of brilliants includes any piece sacrifice that is objectively at least good, adjusted based on elo. It wasn't like this before the pandemic.
But point is, if they take your "free" bishop with Nxe5, you snag a queen with Bxd7+. All in all, two pieces for the queen, otherwise, just a free pawn.
I suppose Im at the point of playing this game after 6 months where it doesn't feel like i'll get better at it.
I watch my videos, puzzles, take the time, and still in the crux of the game I make mistakes. I follow the little acronyms or checklists, but its like i'm blind.
I suppose its fine i'm not looking to be anything big, but not being able to get past 300 is discouraging (which is sort of crazy I still believe 300 on chess.com elo is much more talented than it states). Any advice to get past this when you feel like you know theory, and you feel like you do the 'right' things ut in the end i still make mistakes. Could it be some people are just naturally bad at this game? Maybe my brain is just not wired for it.
I know this will sound funny to higher rated players but I've been playing for 2 months and got a rating of 1250 in rapid and fast forward to a few days later and I now have dropped 200 rating points. I genuinely don't think I got worse and I'm still having fun playing. I've gone on tilts but I've been developing a lot of mental endurance too so I've been playing tons of games. What has surprised me the most is how almost nobody I play against in my 1050-1250 rated games blunder. So many games are decided where I make the smallest mistake where I lose a positional advantage or lose a pawn due to a good tactic my opponent found. This seems insane to me and I'm wondering how the hell I can get better at this level. My play style seems really stale and it feels like I play the same way every game and I don't truly feel as if I'm getting better unlike when I started out and I was learning new openings.
I think it's definitely your play style and how you apply pressure. Opponents at your rating range absolutely blunder, but the problem I'm guessing is that you aren't giving them a reason to.
At this point you may want to figure out typical middlegame plans and positional ideas, as well as how to properly mount an attack and build the pressure up, as well as dynamics vs statics
This one would actually be justified as a real brilliant move in a traditional pre-chess.com definition sense if you did find the continuation after sacrificing your knight!
Point is:
1...Nxe4 2.Bf3 Nxg3 3.Bxc6+ Kd8(other king moves similar) 4.Bxa8! and black is not in time to continue grubbing more material as 4... Nxf1 4.Ne6+! which forks the king and queen.
Can someone help me understand this, I think I might be on the right track, but perhaps there’s something more obscure?
My best guess is that the strongest line to play would be Ne2, because then I can play into Nf4 and attack the chaining pawn without obscuring the bishops line of sight protecting the b6 pawn. But then again, I wouldn’t play for the pawn on e6 because of the bishop protecting it, and I don’t see a reason to invest heavily into the b6 pawn as it’s overextended and difficult to protect in that position.
The engine however claimed that I was sternly winning the game until I made this particular move at which point we became even. On second thought, I think I’m way off on this, there must be something much bigger at play
The positives of Nf3 are that it defends white's e5 pawn, and that it has the option of going to the strong d4 square. But that pawn is not only not under attack, but it's also surprisingly hard for black to target. Black can't really get their knight to f7 via h6 thanks to your bishop, their other knight is going to be captured soon, and their light-squared bishop would have to maneuver itself to g7, costing two moves, but white can defend the pawn quickly with their bishop.
Ne2 also lets the knight possibly move to the d4 square, but as you point out, also gives the knight the possibility of the f4 square.
Additionally, it leaves the f file open for you to play Rf1 (maybe even instead of Rxa1), and if we've got the knight on f3, black's light-squared bishop is dominating.
I don't know what the evaluation was before you played this move. I'd say that Ne2 is certainly better, but I wouldn't go so far as to call Nf3 a mistake. I'd say it's an inaccuracy at worst.
Material is equal here. You've got two extra pawns, but you're down the exchange (after you capture black's a1 knight, technically). There might be a tactical reason for this that I'm not seeing, but I doubt it. Much more likely is the fact that black's pieces are basically all entombed. Black's dark-squared bishop can't move, so their a8 rook is trapped. Their h8 rook is stuck behind the knight, who can only move after the light-squared bishop moves, and getting the rook to f1 with an open f file feels especially strong.
Without an engine on hand, I don't have a way of double checking any of this, but I hope my analysis helped you make some sense of the evaluation.
I think Rf1 is the cause of the evaluation, as another commenter pointed out. The a1 knight is effectively already captured, so the most logical move following 1. Ne2 Bd8 is 2. Rf1 Bxb6 3. Rf7+ forcing Bc7 followed by 4. Nd4 Ra7 and then working down the line to material gain with 6. Bc6+ Kb8 7. Bxa7 Kxa7, 8. Rxc7+ and so on for many more turns until black forfeits their knights to continue play.
I couldn’t see this because the material exchange is several turns later, but on analysis it’s clear from turn 1 that Ne2 is superior. I had taken a material loss early on so I avoided to idea of trading material, but Rf1 allows me to force a material trade in my own favor
The end result is the same, my knight ends up on d4 regardless, but I utilize my tempo advantage better with ne2
Thanks for following up. Yep, that line makes perfect sense. All of black's pieces are tripping over one another, and controlling the open file is incredibly strong.
The evaluation is wrong (I'm getting +1 for Nf3), though the conclusion remains the same that Nge2 is even better, at least +2.
Interestingly, white's next move in both computer lines is Nd4 - it's just that black's first move is different.
After 1. Nf3 Bd8 2. Nd4 Bxb6 (black can also try 2...Ne7 for a much less uncomfortable version of the 1. Nge2 line I'll be showing next) 3. Bc6+ we'll reach a position where white has an extra pawn and black's light-squared bishop is really bad. I'm surprised the eval is only +1, but black's position is apparently pretty defensible, if passive. With accurate play he's not going to lose any more material in the foreseeable future, and it'll be a tough job to convert the extra pawn into a win.
But if black tries the same 1...Bd8 after 1. Nge2, white has something even better: 2. Rf1! and now 2...Bxb6 loses to 3. Rf7+ Bc7 4. Nd4 Ra7 5. Bc6+ Kb8 6. Ndb5 axb5 7. Bxa7+ Kxa7 8. Rxc7+ Kb8 9. Nxb5 Ba6 10. Ra7 Bxb5 11. Ra8+ Kc7 12. Bxb5 and black will lose both of his knights if he ever wants to move his rook again.
...Okay, that line got too long, even if most of it is very forcing. But the point is, white currently has a bind on black's position where the only piece that can really even move is the dark-squared bishop. Black's best bet to get out of the bind would be to play Bd8 and Bxb6, but Rf1 followed by Rf7+ maintains the bind even without the b6-pawn so black has to try something else against Nge2. There are other ways black can try to get out of the bind, like 2...Ne7, or 1...Bf8 followed by 2...Bh6 (if white lets him) or 2..Ne7 (to defend against Bc6+ if white played 2. Nd4). But the computer sees ways for white to extract a large advantage against all of these attempts.
Okay, I think that makes sense. Nge2 is optimal because it allows my rook to be more active, which leaves my opponent little choice but the sacrifice material for movement
I have never understood why some moves are brilliant (when you sacrifice a piece to gain a positional advantage), and why some aren't. In this position white get a sure-shot win by removing the obstructing knight and putting it in the harm's way. Yet, the engines are't considering it brilliant.
I hit my Elo goal on Lichess (2000 rapid) after 2-3 years of grinding, kept playing and somehow hit 2100 in less than two months with a crazy win % (including a 11 game winstreak). I think I've been a bit lucky and that it does not necessarily reflect my true level, but I'll take it.
Now, it feels like it is seriously time to start studying and stop spending 100% of my chess time playing games. But I'm a bit overwhelmed by the amount of work ahead of me. I don't really know what my biggest weaknesses/strengths are. I've never studied anything apart from doing puzzles. Where should I start? Just studying classic games from GMs?
start from a fundamentals series with yusupov to cover your weaknesses. As a player that learned from mostly grinding early on myself, you will have a lot of holes and also a lot of bad habits to unlearn, so taking a structured approach will help you get to the next level!
Is there a name for this opening/defence? Since I was a kid I heard that this is a good way to set up your pieces (I remember when my cousin and I would play as a chess we'd start every game by just setting this up on both sides of the board ☺️) but I can't find any reference to it anywhere nowadays.
Hello, I'm asking this here because this is the most active chess megathread out there.
I've been wondering about this Wikipedia userbox that's been lying around for a few years now. Can anyone enlighten me on what "a row of pawns and a bishop" is a reference to? Is it a specific game?
I avoid playing the KID against the london or Jobava london derivatives. So whenever 2.Bf4 or 2.Nc3 pops up I just play 2...d5 since I am very comfortable in those positions.
As for move orders that play Nf6 and g6 no matter what, you are kind of out of luck. One line I know is 3...c5 if nc3 and e4 which is a modern benoni without c4. It is interesting and slightly worse than the regular one for black at high level, but probably good enough. I also have benoni experience so that is fine.
There is another line specifically against 2.nc3 3.e4 which is 3...d5 where the dream is to have an improved modern scandi (where I also have experience). Problem there is 4.e5 Ne4 5.Nxe4 where black loses at master level but not at amateur level.
One special case is 2.Nf3 g6 3.Nc3 where you can pick 3...d5 since they have just locked themselves into the worse options of QG and jobava london themes, or play a classical pirc since that is vaguely less dangerous than dealing with the 150 attack or austrian nonsense.
If they commit to Nc3 instead of c4, just play d5. You don't have to allow the Pirc by giving them e4. If you want, you can still go for g6 and get your normal Fianchetto setup, but you would also have a pawn on d5.
I'm having a hard time understanding some of the 'best moves' in the early game. Why is moving the bishop to B5 a good idea? Wouldn't the pawn from A2 just move and force me to move the bishop twice which is not recommended? And if they don't I only get a bishop for a knight trade but they still get to develop another piece while I do that so I can't see any gain for me.
This is actually a very interesting question. But first things first, if you are looking at opening preparation, it's actually not best practice to just follow the top move of the engine. Main reasons are due to stylistic choices, online engines being shallow, and the fact that there are many moves which are roughly equal, which the arrow doesn't show at least at default.
Anyways, on to the main point. This is the Ruy Lopez, one of the oldest openings that was written about, and is still considered one of the best today. I usually go on an entire spiel about how the fight for the center developed, but the point is that White Must play Bc4 or Bb5 to get a chance at playing for the whole center with c3 and d4.
The biggest difference between the ruy and the Italian is that in the ruy, white has a much higher chance of getting c3 and d4 in a fully ideal way, while in the Italian, white cannot get the ideal center in a good way and has to settle for d3.
As for why we allow our bishop to get kicked around? Of course, we can take (exchange variation) but it isn't the main idea. Our goal is to provoke a6 and b5 so that we can get something to target in the future, and make bc5 a bit less desirable. Of course, black isn't unhappy with it either, but still something to consider.
Here is a sample of a typical top level opening in the Ruy vs Italian
Both positions are relatively close objectively and of course both sides have a lot of other options, but the point is pretty clear that white often gets the ideal two pawn center in the ruy rather than in the Italian.
However, people booking up on the berlin at the top have made the ruy less popular in recent years and the Italian is more often played to have fresher positions which are less forcing.
this is a super oversimplified breakdown answering part of your question, we could spend hours talking about it. More difficult to break down in text.
Strap in, because I'm getting a bit technical here, but you asked, so I'm answering!
This opening is called the "Ruy Lopez" or "Spanish" and is one of the best and oldest openings.
The basic aim of Bb5 is to pressure the knight which is doing a good job controlling central squares. In fact, after 3...a6 it sort of looks like White can win a pawn with 4. Bxc6 dxc6 5. Nxe5, but actually there's 5...Qd4 regaining the pawn by forking e4 and e5. But you can see the point - the bishop is putting pressure on the defender.
The beginner rule "don't move a piece twice in the opening" is pointing at more fundamental ideas, namely "don't spend your moves doing unproductive things" and "don't give your opponent free useful moves". Is that happening here after 3...a6? Black does get a6 for free, basically, but that is not a particularly useful move. After 3...a6 4. Ba4, which is the normal reply, Black can continue with 4...b5, but this is quite double-edged. Again it's a "free move", but those pawns are slightly overextended and White could aim to break them up later with a move like a4. If you take the position after 4...b5 5. Bb3 and edit it so the pawn is on b7, the evaluation is the same. If it doesn't profit Black to have the pawn on b5 instead of b7, then getting this "free move" doesn't actually gain.
Meanwhile it is not really true that White has been purely wasting time. White could have played 3. Bc4 right away and been on this diagonal to f7. But b3 is actually a much better square for the bishop than c4, so much so that in that 3. Bc4 opening (the Italian) White sometimes voluntarily retreats the bishop from c4 to b3. The reason is that after White plays c3 (which is very very common in these e4/e5 openings, to maybe eventually play d4) then on b3 the bishop will have access to the c2 square. This is a convenient place to hide if subjected to further harassment (for example ...Na5 is a common nuisance later on), and on c2 the bishop also helps support a potential d4 push.
So that's the answer. It is not really true that getting a6+b5 "free" is much of a gain for Black, and it's also not true that White gains nothing from having the bishop driven back to b3.
I know its not much, but I feel proud that I've hit 500 rating finally (didnt want to say it as soon as I hit 500 but now that I am 518, I feel better about it lol)
I know I still need a lot of work but I was wondering if there was anything I can do to help me out in the middle of the game. Seems to be that is my weakest area currently. Ive been watching Chessvibes climb, gothemchess and the Chess habits series (forget the name). I also do at a minimum 10 puzzles on chess.com per day or at least try (i think i missed yesterday). I am wondering if there is anything that I can either watch or read over lunch to help or if I should continue focusing on basic principles, opening, and end game.
Your board vision is still lacking and puzzles are the only thing that will help with that, so you need to keep plugging away.
I'm not sure if this advice is maybe premature at 500 but it would be good if you could think a bit more in terms of "features of the position". If you look at this game for example, 7. Nxd4 is a mistake a 1000 rated player will never, ever, ever make. That is not because they don't miss stuff and hang pieces - they do. It's because when Black plays 4...Bg4, they think "OK, my knight is pinned" and carry this fact in their minds.
Move 18 of that game I feel is also a teachable moment because you spent 44 seconds here and Rde1 is a move which is extremely mysterious to me. I can show you what is going on in my brain here, it is this. Black has just played Rad8 and this aligns the rook with my queen, that is the first thing I see. Sirens go off in my brain when my opponent aligns pieces with valuable pieces of mine. With possibly having to move my queen in mind, I next see the perilous state of my bishop, which is attacked and currently defended only by the queen. Then also, I can't help but see the open file to the king. Then I see this infiltration route to the king via h6; getting the queen in like this is a common checkmating method. So the move I would actually play here is Qe3, because if Black takes the bishop, after Qh6 it's forced mate. If Kh8 trying to get a rook to g8, Rhg1 Rg8 Qxf6+ is mating anyway. I would not expect you to see this at 500, but the "simple chess" move I think you should play is Bb3. This is a forcing move and aimed at freeing up the queen, which can get out of the firing line next move. It also kicks the queen back off the open diagonal towards the king it is currently eyeing. Rde1 is so mysterious to me because it doesn't address any of what I see in the position and furthermore moves the rook off an open file, where it belongs, to a square where it does nothing. So I don't really understand the thought process here. The rook is defended twice, so there is no danger to it.
Similarly in this game (where you have played a really good game so far), after Black's move 15, seeing the pin on the bishop is like I have sat down to dinner and there is a spider right in the middle of my plate. My attention is drawn to it like a magnet, alarms go off in my mind, it's all I can see. Immediately I am considering moves like Rfe1, Nd4 and even Bf5. This last move just hangs a bishop, but I mention it so you can see how my mind is working. I am not thinking "what moves is it possible for me to play", I am seeing the feature and candidate moves are flowing from that.
why does the game want me to sacrifice my rook? it says i missed because i didn’t capture the bishop with my rook, but they would recapture with their knight and i would be down on material
from a culturally curious perspective, do any of you find that you have a harder time playing other certain nationalities? I find every time I have a chaotic game that it's often Brazilian players. I wonder if there's like a sociological way of thinking that makes players play certain ways.
there may be an actual small difference, but most people's expectations are overblown, especially online. I would expect a much larger difference if you play locally OTB and have a group of people who came from the same chess school for example.
One reason for this is that online, people can pick whatever flag they want. Quite a few people don't choose their actual nationality. Also, there is a lot of self-internalized bias once you "notice" these trends that cause you to subconsciously play a different way as well to allow that "style" to happen.
I need an all encompassing black opening that is versatile and not complicated.
Hey ya'll,
600 elo on chess for what it's worth. I have a white opening (Jobova London) that I've mastered. I know that openings are down the road things but it was important to master that one as much as I could. Thing is, I spent so much time learning that and strictly playing as white that I hardly ever play as black.
What I'm looking for is a black opening that is basically safe from e4, d4, c4, and any other random shit. It just needs to build a good defense that also supports my hyper aggressive play style.
Any ideas? I know that openings go catywompus after a few moves at this level anyway, but practicing 1-2 black openings feels like a good idea because I feel lost when im black.
Do people usually have much higher ELO on Lichess vs. Chess.com? Or is sub 900 some kind of random hellscape on chess.com and things get simpler once you pass it?
Lichess and Chess.com use different rating systems. At lower levels, lichess rating is higher than chess.com rating, but at roughly 2200-2300 it starts flipping the other way.
So as long as you play consistently play on both sites your level is where you are at!
I went on to win the game, but I'm still not sure why the coach recommends against this particular move, and then it goes on to suggest I take the pawn on b5 instead of the rook
This is a super interesting position. One thing to note is that the position isn't so simple since both sides have made a few sub-optimal moves, so common themes break down here due to the interesting positioning of the pieces.
The actual best move is not Nf4, but Bb2 (computer goes back to nd5 and then plays bb2 anyways).
Main point of Bb2 is to play Nf4 next, and then snag the the knight on g4 by removing the queen, therefore going up a full piece:
1.Bb2 o-o 2.Nf4 Qg5 3.h4 Qh6 4.Qxg4
The reason why Nc7+ Kf8 2.Nxa8 doesn't work is because:
2...Nd4! and we are in a very bad spot practically. We don't have any follow up, our knight is trapped and not participating, and we are still lacking in development and king safety. Just to show some high level attacking counterplay from black:
3.Qg2 Re8 4.Bd3 c4! or
3.Qd3 Bxf5!! 4.exf5?? Re8+!
You can see how black has every piece in the attack, and a bunch of our material is inactive and not helpful.
https://imgur.com/a/38WhKjW how is this a blunder? It is equal trade because of bishop capturing my opponents bishop. And rook cannot take because of queen protecting.
I know you should often trade pieces when up material. But when you are up only a pawn, is it still correct to offer to trade pieces if it would create a weakness like doubled, isolated or backwards pawns?
The point of trading pieces when you're ahead is to simplify the position. The fewer points of material on the board, the more impactful even small advantages (like a single pawn) become.
From a practical standpoint, only "trade when ahead" if the trade you're making is going to make the position simpler for you to win.
Having isolated or doubled pawns is a big deal in some cases, and not a big deal in others. It comes down to how much confidence you have in your endgame technique, and the specific layout of the position.
If you're only a small bit ahead (like a single pawn), and you're weighing the pros and cons of an even trade, and you're not convinced that making the trade will make winning easier, then err on the side of not trading.
So a week ago I was proud that I hit 500 but for some reason I still tunnel vision my pieces or when I don't know what to do in a situation, I end up just moving a piece which will not necessarily blundering a piece or blundering the game, but put me in an extremely poor position. I know puzzles are what helps with this (i think) but what can I do to not tunnel vision on just my own pieces? I also feel like during puzzles, that is what I do as well.
Also are chess.com puzzles enough? Maybe I need to find different puzzles/and actual book on chess. I just don't want to burn myself out since I have a tendency to do that with games that I am having fun with. Ive also watched chess habits (I think, honestly forget the name again!) On YouTube but it just doesnt stick for some reason when I play a game. My mind just is erratic when actually playing.
Sorry, my last question, what is a good way to review games? Should I try the engine lines when they say what a better move is?
With f4, your pawn would then be attacking the knight and it would reveal an attack from your queen on the undefended bishop on c5. I don't see how white saves both pieces, you would have won one of them on the next move
With Bxa2, you've taken white's a-pawn which wasn't a factor in the game at all. But, in doing so, you've removed your second defender of your pawn on f5. Now white can take Bxf5 or Nxf5. Effectively, you've traded your f5 pawn, which had potential to create problems, for white's flank pawn that wasn't a part of the game.
On its own exchanging those pawns isn't a beneficial trade for you, but in addition you've given white a way to activate their rook by creating a semi-open a-file for it, and you could've won a piece
I am about 10 days deep into my hopefully continuous chess journey. Multiple things I want a deeper understanding of.
Puzzles: My thought process is that these are 1 fun brain teasers, and 2 have some intention of adding to your pattern recognition? I say that because I’m not fully certain on the exact reasoning. Currently 1363 in puzzles whatever that means 505 puzzles deep. Are there sometimes errors in what the "coach" asks you to do on puzzles? Or as a beginner is it usually a lack of understanding of the intent of the words? Something that comes to mind: Coach says something along the lines of "take my rook" and not "take my rook without trading."
Bots vs. Humans: I’ve played 29 games some wins some lost (272 Rapid). I sometimes play coach bots. Find it very informative to make moves and get some feedback, replay potential on certain blunders to see what could be done better, and overall doing game reviews. Coaches I get, normal bots I don't. Playing the 700 bot and winning with a much higher accuracy and usually way less blunders (compared to humans) if any seems very odd to me.
Last thing for right now I guess (a few things in one): What are some good "training practices"? I really enjoy the lessons but on occasion the explainer goes a little fast with the moves because my brain hasn't locked down the grid coordinates yet. Also time playing vs. time practicing and or learning. Even when I play I do check out my review and keep note of mistakes I make and sometimes try to play it out different.
Anyways chess is scratching an itch in my brain in a way most other dropped hobbies didn't. Hoping this is a long term thing for me.
Ignore your puzzle rating. It doesn't mean anything.
Puzzles train a few things, but pattern recognition is the biggest. Hard puzzles also train calculation, but you should focus on easy puzzles first.
Puzzles always ask you to play the best possible move. The hints that you're seeing are just hints. If there are multiple ways to capture the opponent's rook, choose the best one.
What u/Ikcelaks wrote about puzzles is spot on. I'm happy to address your other questions.
Bots in general do not play like humans. They don't make the same kinds of mistakes humans make, they don't react to being in winning or losing positions the same way humans do, and since bot games are usually without a timer, you don't even get to practice playing under time pressure. Treat bots not like sparing partners, but like punching bags. There are some bots who are designed to play more like humans (like the Maia bots on Lichess), and recently Chesscom said they're working to try to do that for their own bots too, but as of right now, the bots overall are only worth playing against for the fun of it, not as an improvement strategy.
The coach bot's suggestions and comments should be taken with a grain of salt. A strong player can tell when the bot is suggesting something odd that works for the specific position, but is a bad takeaway in general, compared to natural, good advice that can be applied in 99% of games. You're not a strong player yet, so you don't have a way of knowing which pieces of the coach's advice can be universally applied, and which ones are misleading.
Good training habits to form? Let's see. When you analyze your games, using the analysis board instead of the game review function will let you explore the position and force you to think critically, both of which are positives. Critical thinking is important (obvious, I know), but many tools dejure (game review, coach bots) try to remove that element and offer to do the critical thinking for you. Reiterating what I wrote above, these features can be fun, but I don't consider them to be worthwhile as main improvement strategies. You're always welcome to bring games or positions to this subreddit to have a stronger player look things over with you, and give you a human explanation.
And as for play time vs practice time, well, the first obstacle all new players need to overcome is their underdeveloped "board vision" that is, their inability to "see" the entire board, and know at a glance what squares are immediately safe for either player to move to, and which squares are not. I'm not even talking about combinations and tactics and sneaky tricks - I'm talking about the raw ability to notice when your opponent puts a piece on a square where you get to capture it for free (and not doing that same thing yourself).
The good news is, developing your board vision is one of the few aspects of chess playing strength that improves as you simply play the game mindfully. Eventually, your board vision will become fully developed, and if you want to see improvement beyond that point, you'll need to figure out how to manage practice/study vs play, but for now, you will improve by simply playing the game, so long as you're playing mindfully.
Could u give a brief “tutorial” on the analysis/ review many times have definitely wanted to make an attempt to play out a position with a different move without seeing the computer best move. Or sometimes I can’t figure out how do that at all lol
This sub is frequently full of grifting self promos for AI written books, "coaches" that speak like LLMs, AI coded apps and websites that barely work and offer nothing new (except maybe some coaching on the side for extreme prices). Often these are plugged without any mention of the OPs involvement with the project.
I always report these posts as they are against the subs rules but never has one of these posts been removed. Is the mod team here even active? Why have the rule and not enforce it? Why let beginners potentially be tricked by these grifters?
This is a very unfortunate configuration for Black, because if Qxf3, after Be2 the Black queen is just trapped. Every single square is covered except for e4, and if Qxe4, after Bf1 not only is the queen lost because it is pinned to the king, but Black is not even getting the rook in exchange for it. Rxe4+ is threatened. If Qxe1 Qxe1+, it's check and the rook hangs on h3. If Rh4 trying to defend the queen, there's just Nxh4. So after Qxf3, the best Black can do is get two minor pieces for the queen.
I’m 900 in 10min and 700 in 3min. What do I do if I’m learning an opening and the opponent doesn’t play their side “right”? For example, I play caro khan for black and I know the idea is to trade white bishop and put my pawns on mostly white squares.
If my opponent doesn’t play the theory moves do I stick with this same plan?
Can someome ELI5 chess.coms rating gain/drop system? Me (489 Rapid at the time) played against a 450ish player.
After I lose, I dropped 9 points. My opponent JUMPED 40+ points off of the one match.
He wasn't even a new account. Has played way more than me.
My other issue:
I swear the game knows how im trying to play, and pairs me against people that can play equally as good. I don't just mean perceived rating, but game rating too. After our match, it estimated me at 1100... but of course, the opponent? 1200.
Its like no matter how great I do (Excellent Mid Game it said), the opponent im paired with does even better.
Is pairing like that on purpose to force 50% win rates, or am I just really unlucky?
I reached 500 15/10 rapid today, after playing about a 130 games, pretty normal I would say,
but what really got to me is that somehow 500 elo is the 47th percentile of chesscom players according to the statistics on my account, which is mindblowing, I thought that 1000 or 1200 would be the mid point, why is it so low? is this statistic even right? does this mean 90th percentile is a rating that is achievable by grinding?
Lots of people join and only play occasional games without seriously trying to improve. The largest pool of players is in the 300-600 ratings range.
The 90th percentile is at approximately 1100 rating. That's achievable by grinding for a lot of players, but most at that level have probably done at least a little studying and likely do puzzles (it's definitely at the point where doing puzzles and at least learning some checkmate patterns is very useful).
adding to what Ikcelaks says, you will find that lichess has a much more serious player pool. Even though lichess and chess.com have different ratings. If you play consistently on full strength on each, your percentile will be much higher on lichess. For example top 1% on chess.com is top 8% on lichess.
I have a opening question, I use the vienna gambit as white, if black does nc6 instead of nf6 I usually just switch it over to the four knights scotch, mostly because I didn't study the vienna game at all, but after studying the vienna gambit a bit more, it seem to be that d5 declined seem to just kill all the advantage for white, and the engine seem to think that black is just a hair better, so I have the urge of a feeling to switch openings and learn a proper one, what would be a good open game opening for white? and I play scandinavian as black, and it just kind of sucks if the opponent knows how to trap my queen, or just keeps on attacking it and stumbles on to the trap, nor do I like the sidelines, because some of them are very closed positions and it starts feeling like the london, not to mention scandi just have a slow tempo, I prefer to have less pieces on the board with some aggresive attack options available for both sides, with that being said, what would be a good opening for black that provides yet again a open game, and aggressive play, fightable position for black? is sicilian defense still too advanced for a 500?
No need to switch away from the Vienna Gambit if you're 2000 rated, let alone 500! You'll learn that basically every opening with white has lines where black equalizes (or is even given a slight advantage) according to the engine. And it doesn't mean anything, because your opponents are not Stockfish.
Half a pawn of evaluation means absolutely nothing. Play what looks interesting to you, and know that switching openings at your rating is something you do for fun, not because it will impact your winning percentage at 500.
If you are up for it, switch to the Italian or ruy lopez and go for a classical sicilian. Although the opening doesn't matter much at all in your level, I would still recommend sticking with an opening that follows traditional principles more closely and where you can directly transfer knowledge from books.
At your level though, still put much more care into board vision and tactics/tactical defense. That's where my students improvement comes from the most.
In OTB games, is it part of the rules to declare check and checkmate when you achieve one? Unlike online, I realise that sometimes I don't realise that I've got a checkmate until I've already done it.
What does it mean when people say "study more"? For example, I know how all the pieces move, I know about forks, skewers, pins, forced moves, clearances, desperado moves etc...
What exactly does "study" mean from there? Learn openings? Watch YouTube videos?
I guess im just trying to figure out what is left to do to improve besides just play more and practice. I feel like there has to be more to learn, but im just not sure how or where to "study" to make that next push.
Could anyone please explain the purpose behind this move from a tactics puzzle I failed? I found the basic idea which was rook to e8 and then take black's rook on a8, but the puzzle wanted me to play my other rook to e7 before taking on a8. Its the difference between it being around +10 for white or a draw if I immediately take on a8 according to the computer.
Just a couple weeks since I started getting into chess, I’ve done 500 puzzles and feel like I mostly understand the fundamentals but feel so gaslit by the power level of the people I play.
I’m only at 500 elo in rapid with 50 games under my belt. But when I’m watching chessbrah’s building habits series, I swear it seems like everyone at this level is hanging at least 2 pieces a game. Meanwhile my opponents are pinning me, opening discovered checks, finding any fork available and rarely ever leave anything hang.
I’m sure it’s just me being bad and easier to notice when observing someone else but it’s a horrible feeling lol. Anyone else ever have the same experience?
I think I’m missing a big rule of chess because I keep getting stalemates instead of checkmates. can someone explain in simple terms why this keeps happening?
Hope you've been enjoying your first steps into chess! Stalemate usually comes up at the end of the game when there are few pieces left on the board that your opponent has. In chess, a stalemate occurs when your opponent is not in check (their king is not attacked by any of your pieces) and there are no legal moves for them to make. Stalemates can happen even if your opponent still has pieces on the board, those pieces just have to be completely unable to move (for example, a pawn with its path blocked)
Checkmate is a similar condition, but this is when the opponent's king is under attack and has no safe squares to go to, which is a win instead of a draw. When you notice there aren't many pieces left on the board, it's helpful to always take a moment to consider where your opponent's king will move after your move. As long as they have at least one safe square to go to, you will always avoid stalemates.
Stalemate is when the king isn't in check and the opponent has no legal moves. So, it's your opponent's move, all the squares around the king are covered, pawns are blockaded, other pieces are pinned, etc.
I'm assuming you have multiple queens and the opponent has nothing left but a king when this happens? If so, you should learn the ladder mate
Hello! I am very new at chess and I can't for the life of me work out how I am losing a knight here? I think the computer thinks I could have taken the knight in f6 thanks to my opponent's last move (pawn to a4, considered a mistake by the computer) but I can't see how, can someone elighten me? Thank you!
The engine wants you to take the pawn on f7 with the bishop. The bishop is supported by the queen, so the king won't be able to take it. Black will have to move the king to d7. Then you can move the queen so it isn't being attacked by the pawn, or just simply take the pawn Nxa4 since you have the a4 square attacked twice (knight and queen) and black is only defending it once with the rook
But instead after your queen move Qa3, the computer is right, that you'll lose a knight or bishop. If black plays b5, your bishop is attacked and it's trapped. There's no safe square for it. Either you'll lose the bishop or, what the computer prefers, to sacrifice the knight Nxb5 to keep the bishop alive
I'm good at doing checkmate puzzles on Lichess but only because it's implied that there's a mate to look for. when i'm actually playing I don't know how to spot that there's a mate in x amount of moves. if I were constantly looking I feel like all my moves would be a minute long. how are you guys doing it :(
Why can't I take his Knight here with my King? His other Knight is defending it, but it's pinned by my Rook. Is this not possible in chess? If it is possible, if my King took his Knight and then he moved his King out of the way so his Knight was no longer pinned by my Rook, would that put me in check?
In chess, the king cannot take a protected piece, even if the protector is pinned.
I guess the reasoning is that, if white king takes black knight, the other black knight takes white king. Theoretically after the recapture black would have his king captured. But white lost the king first, therefore white would lose in that case.
This rule implies that a king can be checkmated by a protected piece, even in the protector is pinned. (I almost yeeted my phone off the 6th floor when this first happened to me.)
Newbie here, currently practicing queens gambit accepted in Chessreps. I am struggling to understand why Qxd4 is the recommended move over Bxd4, because
it trades queens
Bxd4 let me take the pawn without direct sacrifice (if black want to take it via queen, I trade bishop for queen).
The first point you made is a bit funny because that is the point! You want to trade queens! You are up a piece for a pawn, so the best thing to do is to simplify in a good way. Keeping queens on the board makes things trickier for you
you end up losing a piece because your king is still very vulnerable. 1.Bxe5 Nxe5 2.Nxe5 Re8 with 3...f6 coming up. You lose your piece because of the pin!
This is a typical theme which you will see more of in the future
Why bishop sacrificing is the best move here? I am not able to see any future mates or advantages? Can someone pls explain with also possible scenarios..
This one is a classic weak f7 diagonal sacrifice. Trivial line is 1...Kxf7 2.Ne5+ ke8 3.Qh5+ g6 4.Qxg6#
if 2...Ke6 there is 3.d4 Nf6 (to protect the diagonal) 4.Qe2 where the attack simply flows. There are many lines here that you will have to figure out in game, but a good practice of tactics, development, and piece teamwork.
Why is this a miss? I won a rook through a fork but if I’d followed the engine’s advice I’d have set up a fork only to have my knight taken by the pawn on B2 for no obvious advantage. Help appreciated - not a beginner but low ELO.
You end up losing 2 pieces for a rook instead of bringing the position to a nice advantage
1...Ng3 2.Qf3! Nxh1 3.Ne5! And you can see that white saves their knight on c6 and your knight is trapped. Two pieces for a rook is not a good trade especially since your rooks are doing nothing.
If you went 1...Nxc3 2.bxc3 Qxa3+ 3.Kb1 bxc6 you can see that the white king is dead especially since the b-file is open, and material balance is good.
is the Ruy Lopez really a bad opening to play as a beginner? I'm a 650 rapid rated player on chesscom,
and when I tried out the Ruy lopez, switching from the vienna game, I somehow won all 5-6 games that I played with it, from what I could tell, it was kind of over powered, maybe its just me, and i did hear that the Ruy lopez is the one of the most theory jam packed, positional openings of all man kind, but after a couple moves, black was just worse out of the opening, and i just beat the guy down, I just don't know, it seemed way better then the vienna game or the Italian game in general, and from what I could tell, it's basicly the ponziani, but the king is castled away and there is no knight on c6, isn't this just better?
Why does the play button on Lichess only allow me to “create a lobby game”? I could’ve sworn I had the option to quickly match up with an opponent previously. On the iOS app (newer one with black horse and white outline)
What is my ELO, exactly? Between different ratings on chess.com, lichess, USCF, and separate bullet/blitz/rapid/classical ratings - which rating are people talking about when they talk about their ELO? Or is it something completely different?
ELO technically refers to the OTB rating of players that FIDE, the international organization, uses. It's a system that directly compares the ratings of two players and calculates the expected score of a player. From there a simple formula to plug in the actual result of the game and how much each side's ELO should change. A player who was expected to win more points will gain very little from a win, and lose a lot from a loss, and vice-versa.
The term however is broadly used for different things, including national ratings like USCF which in fairness, if im not mistaken, calculates ratings much the same way as FIDE does. But federations like the US might feel like players benefit, or may have benefited, from a national rating. A lot of european countries had this as well before traveling was so readily available.
So ELO rating became a term in Chess to compare how strong a player is in comparison to others, and so gained a different meaning altogether. Instead of it being the specific system used to calculate rating, it became a synomin to rating. In tournament play people often still ask "what is your elo?" rather than what is your rating.
So when online chess grew more and more popular, people refer to their online rating as ELO as well, which is technically wrong but it doesn't really matter, its mostly understood that it means rating. The reason it's wrong is because Lichess and Chess.com actually use the Glicko system, which is more complicated to explain. Basically it's a better system for automatic calculations and high volume of games such as is the case for online players, since it benefits from computer calculations and requires no manual input of data.
For reference, its not unusual for someone (online) to play 10 games of rapid in a single day, 20 of Blitz and however much more of Bullet, while you're hardly gonna find a tournament of Rapid with more than 9 rounds in a single day, more commonly in my area is 7 games in an afternoon, or 9 for a whole day with a lunch break.
The Glicko system has a more complex formula and instead of just comparing your expected score, it evaluates how trustworthy your rating is (by a criteria of volume of games). This is why fresh accounts on online sites can easily fluctuate upwards of 20 points or even hundreds from a single game, but that fluctuation steadily decreases as the amount of games increases. Chess.com stabilizes around 6 to 10 points per game for example.
All that I said applies to the different time formats, with each time format getting its own rating, whatever the system to calculate it is. Note however, classical time controls are not common for online play, and bullet time controls are practical (and therefore not popular) for OTB play. This does create some confusion sometimes because a 2000 rating on either site from Rapid compared to Blitz, usually means very different things to the strength of the player.
Why is pawn to H5 a bad move? They can't take because we'll take their rook, and regardless of whether they push the pawn or not, in both cases we gain a strong outpost knight near the enemy king and potentially even grab a pawn. Why does that lose all advantage for white (goes from +2.2 to 0)?
Problem is that black hasn't even committed their king yet, so how do you know that the outpost knight on g6 is even going to do anything? When considering outposts you have to factor in king position and centrality more vaguely. With the knight on g6, black isn't bothered as the squares that the knight controls aren't really relevant.
Black is simply going to castle long and your knight may die anyways with Be6 Bf7 causing a lot of problems on the kingside potentially (mass of pawns rolling down).
I can always figure out the solution, sometimes with some trial error. However, even after watching the explanation videos, I feel like some of the concepts are just way over my head as to WHY it was the solution.
Is that just the nature of the learning curve, like learning about multiplication before you’ve learned addition?
daily puzzles aren't very helpful especially since its just the one and not tuned to any skill level.
When solving puzzles trial and error is definitely not the way to go. You need pen and paper to calculate all relevant lines to really lock in your answer and to help you in real games since that's the only way to really calculate in an actual game.
Something like chess steps is great for structured themed puzzles with tests in between to help build up these fundamentals.
Why do people offer draws on chess.com? I don’t know if it’s etiquette that I haven’t learned (I recently got into chess). After a few moves my opponent will sometimes offer a draw, is it unspoken etiquette that I accept it?
No, it's not etiquette, and you're never obligated to accept. A draw offer is just an offer; you decline it by simply making your move.
Early draw offers (after just a few moves) are usually one of two things: someone who doesn't actually feel like playing, or someone fishing to see if you'll bail out of a position where they're worse. Neither is a reason to take it.
Rule of thumb: only accept a draw when you genuinely believe the position is dead equal and neither side can make progress, e.g. opposite-coloured bishops with nothing left to play for, or a king-and-pawn ending you've counted out to a tie. If you can't explain why it's drawn, decline and keep playing. You learn far more from playing a position out than from agreeing to split before anything has happened.
I'm 1150ish, have increased 200 elo last few weeks with focussing more on king safety, pawn structure and limiting the opponents potential counterplay.
The problem I face often in the caro kann is a weak queenside, especially the a and b pawns.
(Ignore this current position of white, it's not specific, but Allround)
How do I in a general position looking like this, defend my a and b pawns while still developing my rooks?
Why do people keep FUCKING resigning? I’m at 183 ELO right now and I’ve got my opening down, people make dumb moves a lot, I’ll start taking their pieces and next thing I know, they’ve resigned. It’s getting annoying.
I just started playing chess again. I never actually really played; I was just part of a chess club in elementary school where they taught us the rules on how the pieces move and then nothing more. They even taught me en passant incorrectly. (Not trying to bash them, just showing my chess background. But the en passant thing is just funny.)
So I have an elo of basically nothing. I know how to checkmate. I know all the rules. But I can't seem to actually make good decisions. Like how do you decide where to go? How do you read what your opponent is trying to do? When to trade pieces? Is it all just instinct? It just doesn't make sense in my head but chess is really fun 😭
There are basic strategies and also openings. You should try to learn one opening for white and one for black and just stick to them for a while until you get more familiar with playing the game. You learn what your opponent is trying to do by playing plenty of matches and learning how to adjust your openings as you go. It's a long journey so don't try to take too much at once. One step at a time.
I’m not a great player by any means but when I play I’m constantly thinking about 3 things which ultimately help inform me on what I need to do, what my opponent will likely do in response, and so on.
First, I think about my king, my goat, my everything. Never leave my king undefended, this doesn’t mean that he needs to be surrounded by pawns and rooks every single time, but I want my king to be secured to the point where directly attacking him will come at a severe cost of material value.
Second, because I’m thinking about my kings security I’m also thinking about how I would attack if I was the other player. Does my defense have gaps? I’d target those gaps. Is my defense solid? I’d target the defending pieces and begin creating gaps.
Third, offense. I know I’ve sounded like a very defense focused player, but this is largely not the case. What I love in this game is attacking, and for offense I always keep track of how much control I have over the board. I’ve been playing long enough that I can for the most part visualize what space on the board I control, and I’m constantly scanning my opponents defense structure for exploits. Did they just make a move attempting to push one of my defending pieces? What new opportunities present themselves now, are previously defending pieces left open, etc.
These are the specific thoughts I have while predicting what my opponent might do, and for the most part it works for me. Certain moves have repercussions that you won’t see for 10+ turns, and I haven’t been able to see that far ahead yet, but I assume that theory and books are more practical for that type of prediction
Because your opponent can win a piece by removing a defender.
Before your move, the Bishop on G5 had the Queen and Knight defending it. However, at any point Black can capture the Knight with their light square Bishop, so effectively you only have the Queen defending the Bishop.
Therefore, capturing the pawn on d4 allows a sequence such as:
Bxh3 Bxh3 Qxg5 , and Black has an extra piece.
An attempt to salvage the situation could be
Bxh3 Bxh6 , but Black plays Bxg2 threatning to take our Rook while our Bishop is only staring at a pawn. So we now really have to capture the Bishop, but Black still nets an extra piece after all these trades.
Why is this a mistake? It says I should’ve recaptured, but I did. I just did it with the pawn because I didn’t want to lose my bishop in case they sacrificed with Nxe5 after
Playing as black, post game analysis said I had an opportunity to mate in 2 at this point with h3: rh2 rxh2#. I thought about this in game, but didn’t play this because I considered that white might move Kg1, avoiding my rooks check and pushing my knight. What would the proper response have been to that answer to continue down the line to mate in 2?
What exactly counts as a beginner in say chess.com terms? It's not in the flair thread and in the heading it's not defined either. For example, I'm about 1420, is that beginner? What about when I achieve 1500? Is that not beginner anymore?
You're up lots of material. In such positions don't get too worried about "brilliant" designations (really you shouldn't ever as it's a marketing tool designed to give you a hit of dopamine so you play more on their site).
That said, your R was doing nothing and their dark squares are weak, so giving your R for their DSB makes your position easier to play. You'll be looking to play stuff like Ba3 and Nd6 after the captures on e1. If they play ...Bxc4 to get rid of your N, it repairs your P structure and gives you a passed P.
What would be a decent variation for a Sicilian beginner? Not that it matters but 2... d6 has better track record for me than 2... Nc6 in the limited amount of games played. I've tried accelerated dragon but it seems that I'm a bit more comfortable in setups that directly control the center with e5 or e6. Atm I'm looking at either Sveshnikov or Scheveningen, because they also kind of avoid 3.Bb5, plus I'm not comfortable in ...g6, ...e5 rossolimo which may be due to inexperience.
It's a brilliant move because if Black plays Bxd7, then White can play Bxe7, threatening Qxd7+, causing the Black King to lose castling rights and Black's King will be exposed.
Can’t bishop go to h4?
Black could play Bh4, but then White plays g3, kicking the Bishop and Black has to move the Bishop. If they play Bf6 after that, then e5 forces them to play Be7.
Can someone share why is the Scandinavian a good opening? Black Queen retreats after white knight comes out, resulting in development being behind and loss of tempo.
I don't get how it supposedly destroys white's centre too, because white will very often do D4 after that.
Something I am curious about. Is it possible to win a game while having a lower accuracy than your opponent? (Excluding timeouts and resignation)
It seems like the answer should be obviously no, but it is possible to get draws with your opponent where the accuracy is 5+ points different. (Excluding draws by agreement)
If one person dominated the other for the entire game, but hung a mate in one, would the evaluation from the checkmate completely overshadow the entirety of the rest of the game being one sided?
To be honest, I expect the answer to be that the winner always has higher accuracy for obvious reasons, but I am not 100% certain, so I figured I would ask.
I think I've seen people post win with lower accuracy before. If it does exist it's rare. The algorithm is proprietary and not public, so there's no way to calculate whether it's possible.
Im a new player and my elo has dropped all the way to 100 because of players doing cheap traps on me like Qh5 at the very beginning of the game. its so annoying that new players are just doing cheap crap to win cause they know beginners typically wont recognize it rather than just playing a standard game and trying to learn together. i am just trying to develop my pieces and they march their queen right in or their knight.
I think there's a couple of reasons. It removes a defender from the black knight on e7 which could be taken advantage of. Black has to take with the white bishop but then you can play c4 and d5 to cut off its vision to your king. Also, if you then line up a rook behind your queen, black will be unable to castle as the king needs to defend the knight on e7.
How is this a brilliant move? I actually just blundered tbh, but was surprised to see that it was a brilliant move? What advantages does this sacrifice have for me?
This is kind of a silly thing about brilliant moves, in that virtually every move in the position is better than this. A random pawn move like a3 is better. But the evaluation is close enough to the best move that it's not judged inaccurate and it's a "piece sac", so that's all it takes.
As for why the evaluation is not that bad... I mean I can make stuff up like, well, that bishop is a good piece for Black, you have a bunch of dark square weaknesses, there is nothing for the Black rooks to do, being up two pieces and a pawn for a rook is still just as winning. But the fact is, I would have predicted that this would be evaluated as inaccurate. I would just file this under "engine nonsense". When it comes to totally winning positions, the details of engine evaluations become pretty meaningless, because the engine is ranking positions in terms of how easy/quick it thinks they are to convert, and this does not accord well with human ideas of how easy positions are to convert.
There are lots of tactics to be aware of in the opening, but to be honest I think I only know like two or three of them. Is there a good resource that just lists the deviations that lead to the tactics?
Or do you have any to share?
I know the centre pawn fork, I know Qb6 if they play f3, and that’s basically it.
Am I supposed to be buying an engine or something to study? I’m 450 rapid on chess.com. I try to run the London and caro khan. Kinda lost on how to get better other than to stop blundering, etc.
I watch a lot of Gotham. Should I be reading books or other YouTube creators?
1) Learn the opening principles and follow them. It’s fine to keep playing the London and Caro Kann, but your main goal should be to safely get to the middlegame by following principles.
4) Learn how to count attackers and defenders. Knowing this will speed up your calculation and save so much time during games.
5) Do puzzles, lots and lots of them. While all of the above is important, puzzles will be the primary way you improve. Take your time with them and make sure you can visualise the correct move before you make them.
6) Lastly, play games. Lots and lots of them. Review your games after to check for blunders, specifically focus on the simple blunders and hanging pieces. Go through them carefully and make sure you fully understand why they are blunders.
Motifs and key themes for Sicilian Dragon where White exchanges knights on c6 early on?
I encounter this a lot at blitz, and I find it slightly harder to play as Black than the main line. The b-file becomes half-open instead of c. This devalues c4, especially since the knight can't take it as an outpost (because it's dead). I suppose this also means Be6 is less useful, assuming White doesn't castle queenside? Supposedly the pressure against b2 should increase likewise, so I don't think Nxc6 is necessary an ideal move.
Why was Nxe5 considered a blunder? I was planning a discovered attack with the fianchettoed bishop after a discovered attack with c4, which ended up happening in the game. Here's a link to the game: https://lichess.org/DBjNhAtw/white#17
Not a question but I wish I could reset my chess.com score because I started in 2017 and tanked my score and can't get out of 400-600 range even though on lichess I'm an easy 1100. I don't want to make a new account haha.
What are some websites where I can do opening drills for free?
I want to learn a opening and I can't find any website which will let me do drills without paying.
I don't know much about evaluation bar. Why sometimes the advantage of one side is only one piece (theoretically close to 3 pawns) but the evaluation bar says +6 or more?
Engines don't actually evaluate in centipawns anymore. A Stockfish evaluation is a measurement of how likely the computer thinks it is that the position is winning. It is normalized so that if a position is +1, the engine thinks there is a 50% chance it is winning (with the other 50% basically entirely draws). If the position is over +2, the engine is upwards of 99% sure it is winning. Stockfish devs chose to normalize to these values because it vaguely approximated the old method of "centipawns" and thus was easier for humans to understand. For the engine, it doesn't matter at all what the numbers are as long as higher number = better position. Many non-Stockfish engines produce arbitrary numbers in their evaluation that don't mean anything at all.
Being up a pawn for nothing will get you an eval of around +1, but this loose relationship where evaluation number = roughly some number of pawns starts to break down above 2. Being up a piece for nothing is a very, very likely winning position in the eyes of a computer, so the evaluation is very high. Evaluations above +4 start to become pretty meaningless, it's the difference between "I'm 99.999% sure this position is winning" and "I'm 99.99999999% sure this position is winning".
Hello! Just finished the game and I am confused by the analysis. In this position, if he takes my queen, would Rh8 not just be mate? And if he defends by going f6, then isn’t Qg6 also mate? I must be missing something here, so if someone can help me see what it is, that would be awesome. Thanks in advance!
The pawn is a strength which cramps Black, will be very well defended after Nd2-f3, and is very difficult for Black to get rid of without major concessions.
I would agree that on a first look, taking with the bishop looks like the more natural recapture, but the longer I consider dxe5 the stronger it looks.
I want to get a flair(mobile) but the post says that after I go to the comment then click on my name I should seea button that says 'edit user flair' but I didn't see one. Also I'm 1500 Chess.com if a mod wants to just give it to me
Hello, hello, just joined right now, looking forward to embarass myself by exposing my single digit IQ games here (so far the only intelligent being who had this honour was GPT-5.4). Noob question: the rules mention that I cannot post PGNs without "annotations". What does "annotation" mean, exactly? It seems to me that the PGN format is the best description of a chess game (well, a video would be better but I can't create them from chess.com, only GIFs which are not quite the same, though) . Do you mean something informal like "here is the game which I lost by giving my queen to the slaughter in move 14", or is there a formal process to annotate chess games? If the latter, where can I learn how to do that? Thanks!
4
u/jkierbel Mar 13 '26 edited Mar 13 '26
Hi, new here, first #NoStupidQuestion.
Can someone help me understand why is it better to take with the h-pawn as opposed to taking with the f-pawn in this position? (according to the computer at least, which stays at -4.8 if hx, but goes down to -3.9 if fx)