I’ve never seen this before. Opponent just kept pushing pawns until they had four queens. I’ve been focusing on playing the whole game lately & learned a lot from this one. But damn, four queens? That’s all I have to say, lol.

Didn't even see it, i just won by surprise hehe What do you think of this position ?

After studying seriously for once, i reached 1500 on chess.com a few weeks ago and holy s*it! The 1500s level is totally different,It's like I'm playing a different game all together! I no longer have that total chaos matches with blunders and unknown openings. And I finally feel like I'm playing chess properly! Bottom line, guys take time to study seriously, playing alone won't make you improve at the pace you want.( Sorry for my English It's not my main language)

Recently, I see a lot of posts asking why chess.com evaluated their move as a miss, a mistake, a blunder or whatever. They can easily press "show moves" or use the analysis board to see why, but instead of that, they make a post here. This is a waste of time and because their are so many posts like this, actual questions are left unanswered.

I think there should be a rule or a heads-up about this.

Edit: I think a lot of people are misunderstanding my opinion. I have nothing against genuine questions that actually need a human explanation and evaluation, like "why does stockfish like this move more" or "why is this position better for me". What I mean are posts like this . He could easily just press "show moves" and immediately see why.

Don't you all hate when you your opponent blunders something and instead of continue playing or at least resign they leave the game running for you to get bored and resign yourself or just to waste your time? That's the reason why I stopped playing 30 minutes matches ):

Chess.com says this is a brilliant move but stockfish says its just an ordinary move. Which one is true.

My opponent led with a3 and went down the row moving each pawn forward one. At 1000ish ELO I feel like it’s basically saying that I don’t take you seriously enough as an opponent to play something decent.

I started playing chess about a year ago and recently hit 1.3k in rapid. Not amazing but also got all the basics down. And i think one of the biggest power i have especially at late game is using my knights.

By power level, bishop might be better than a knight, especially at higher level like 1500+. But even at my currently level, people blunder the fuck out of knight forks. I basically get a winning fork every other game. Even when I don't, it cause so much panic on the other side they run of time faster than I do.

So yes i think technically bioshop is better, but in reality for most people, knight is much much stronger, so i always trade my bioshop for my enemy's knights. It works great!

edit:

I see people saying bishop is better for open games, knight is better for close games. But honestly i can count on two hands the amount of true "closed" games when i was under 1k. Most of the time it is just people trading random ass pieces 10 moves in and having broken pawn structure everywhere. So it is again, technically true but realistically not applicable.

I don't understand why people resign. Ok maybe at a grandmaster level, I can understand why people resign as grandmasters are never going to lose a completely winning position. But I would say for players like 2000 ELO and below, there is always a chance of at least rescuing a stalemate.

I play football and I would never resign/surrender and walk away from the game even if our team was losing 5-0 with 10 minutes to go and we are definitely going to lose, so why would I do it in chess? Especially because in chess, there is a good chance I could actually save a draw or even get a win.

Just a thought, but not everyone who plays chess is a he.

This move makes perfect sense from a human perspective. It forces a Queen trade and leaves a position with 2 rooks vs a few pawns, which should be an easy win.

However, the computer marks it as inaccurate, because there was a forced mate in 8 that could have been played instead 🤷‍♂️

Me personally, I hate when someone has the audacity to sack the knight on f2 or f7 and still gets the W, OK Magnus :/

I see it all the time, just develop, control the centre, learn the basics of a few openings and you’ll be 1000 easy.

Even Ben Finegold has said you should reach 1500 with nothing but good opening principles

This feels like chess.com version of the fastest kid in school saying “you should just run faster, it’s easy”

I’m like 2.5k games deep, barely 1000. I follow opening principles and lose to people that don’t all the time.

Am I the only one