81–90 of 135 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ratings on chess sites are massively inflated compared to USCF/FIDE ratings. 1700 on lichess is probably somewhere around 1200 USCF.
I bet "The queen's gambit" Netflix series is causing inflation as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As an unrated player who plays occasionally, I've also found the mental checklist you've listed in 1) to be more helpful than memorizing chess openings. I've had a pretty high "win rate" when playing non-chess enthusiasts around my workplace or friend group. The issue I've encountered with memorizing openings is that it assumes both sides are playing perfect openings that complement each other. In reality, in my "low…
> There are ways to punish their moves, but I would've needed to memorized that. So, I have to come up with changes to the memorized opening on the spot. This is a good way to put it. I don't yet understand what makes an opening such a personality. Like, what the "attitude" of an opening is beyond "white tries to dominate the center with a fiancetto from the king-side and crush the opponents defenses through pressure…
The way you win in chess is to create an imbalance and then exploit your half of it. The imbalance may be on many facets, like different pieces or pawn structure or activity.
Some openings create few imbalances (e.g. Exchange Slav) and these are drawish.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand what you're saying and agree, although I may suggest that 1700 number come down a bit to maybe 1200. I'm around the 1000-1200 range (just picked it up again recently) and I'd say most of my peers on Chess.com around that range have definitely studied openings and present sneaky traps consistently in the first ~5-15 moves. Playing as black for me is the real driving force for me to study openings because…
I'm at 2250 on Lichess, and I consider openings a waste of time. Ok, I confess I wasted a lot of time on them in the past, and my rating was rather constant for years and years, until I started tactics via the woodpecker method. It's hard work, but definitely worth it. (quite a few of the easier exercises are opening tactics) https://www.amazon.com/Woodpecker-Method-Axel-Smith-Tikkanen...
> The quick explanation of the Woodpecker Method is that you need to solve a large number of puzzles in a row; then solve the same puzzles again and again, only faster. It’s not a lazy shortcut to success – hard work is required. But the reward can be re-programming your unconscious mind. Benefits include sharper tactical vision, fewer blunders, better play when in time trouble and improved intuition.
This seems pretty similar to the Chess.com "puzzle rush" game, although I'll admit that I haven't actually tried that yet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There are ways to punish their moves, but I would've needed to memorized that. So, I have to come up with changes to the memorized opening on the spot. This is a good way to put it. I don't yet understand what makes an opening such a personality. Like, what the "attitude" of an opening is beyond "white tries to dominate the center with a fiancetto from the king-side and crush the opponents defenses through pressure…
The "personality" of an opening is the nature of imbalance it creates. For example, in a gambit, white may sacrifice a pawn in exchange for quick development and an attack. In a Dragon opening one side has a powerful bishop but also a potential weakness near their king. The way you win in chess is to create an imbalance and then exploit your half of it. The imbalance may be on many facets, like different pieces or pa…
This is a very helpful way for me to think about future moves, because I can add to my mental checklist: "scan for any possible imbalances."
You mentioned three facets: piece imbalance, pawn structures, and weaknesses near the king (or other pieces).
Are there more?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All the major chess websites and organizations use a similar Elo-like rating system where 1500 is about the 50th percentile. So, roughly speaking, 1700 probably means "when you're at the 70th percentile of active chess players". One example: https://lichess.org/stat/rating/distribution/blitz
Ratings on chess sites are massively inflated compared to USCF/FIDE ratings. 1700 on lichess is probably somewhere around 1200 USCF.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "personality" of an opening is the nature of imbalance it creates. For example, in a gambit, white may sacrifice a pawn in exchange for quick development and an attack. In a Dragon opening one side has a powerful bishop but also a potential weakness near their king. The way you win in chess is to create an imbalance and then exploit your half of it. The imbalance may be on many facets, like different pieces or pa…
> The way you win in chess is to create an imbalance and then exploit your half of it. This is a very helpful way for me to think about future moves, because I can add to my mental checklist: "scan for any possible imbalances." You mentioned three facets: piece imbalance, pawn structures, and weaknesses near the king (or other pieces). Are there more?
- Minor pieces (bishops vs knights)
- Pawn structure
- Space
- Material
- Files and squares
- Development
- Initiative
I would add how much time is left on the clock, though that is not a feature of the board.
An example: say you have a bishop and your opponent has a knight. This is an imbalance, and you want to exploit it by making your bishop better than their knight. Concretely that means trading pawns, to open up the game, so your bishop can bring its long-range strengths to bear.
My advice to beginners is to not stick with one opening, but to play them all. Include wild openings like the Kings Gambit and Danish Gambit, as well as strategic openings like the Queen's Gambit. You will be out of 'the book' very quickly, and that's actually good. You'll be learning to play, rather than recall. Another piece of advice: Study endgames before openings. Learn about K + P vs K, the elementary mates, (K…
> My advice to beginners is to not stick with one opening, but to play them all. Include wild openings like the Kings Gambit and Danish Gambit, as well as strategic openings like the Queen's Gambit. You will be out of 'the book' very quickly, and that's actually good. You'll be learning to play, rather than recall. This is opposite of general advice. Beginners should play only one white opening and 2 black openings (…
After a lifetime of chess, I've more recently become a fan of Fischer random chess (aka Chess960)[1], where the back rows of pieces are shuffled before the game begins. It puts puts people on a more equal footing in terms of their actual chess playing skills instead of their opening memorization abilities. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer_random_chess
Below 1700 or so, openings are mostly a waste of time and tactics rule the day. Learning the basic opening principles and two basic opening moves that you keep playing (one for white, one for black) and focusing on tactics [1][2] is in my experience the fastest way to advance. After 1700 or so, specific openings can be studied. I suggest playing d4 instead of e4 as white (avoids dealing with the Sicilian) and as blac…
The problem with tactics training is that there is always a "best answer" because they have been picked to have a best answer. What got me playing over 1700 (lichess rating grin ) were two things: 1) deepening my mental checklist: 1) am i being attacked, 2) are there unprotected pieces, 3) am I about to be forked/pinned, 4) can I fork/pin my opponent ... and increase how far down you can BFS this without getting a he…
I agree with the commenter who said that 1200-level players on chess.com do come with opening prep and will try to catch you out with their pet lines. Obviously it's too much to learn refutations for all the crazy gambits out there, but it's worth spending a bit of time understanding openings. The fine article we're commenting on does not go too far -- even for a beginner, it's worth knowing the difference between a Sicilian and a Caro-Kan. Even just learning the first four moves of the common openings is worthwhile, because it will save you time and energy that you need for the middlegame.
I agree that learning deep theoretical lines is a waste of time. Most likely you'll be out of book by move five in an amateur game. So learn a small number of moves (ideally, with a good reason why that move makes sense, even if it's just to develop a piece) and have some idea of the common plans that each side has in that opening.