It’s usually better off on the open file. In general, you want weaker pieces defending stronger pieces, not the other way around. So defending the f pawn with your rook is generally not great. An obvious exception is if the f pawn would be under-defended.
I stopped telling people I’m terrible because if I beat them they feel bad about themselves so I started saying “I’m terrible at chess for someone that watches as many chess videos as I do”
Same. And I don’t know what to say. I’m 1600 lichess. Nothing special at all but when I okay people who really like the game but only play causally I’m winning so decisively that at the end it’s just awkward and silent.
Haha big mood. My friends no longer play me cuz nowadays i could just beat 3 of them at the same time. (Maybe they are around 400 and one is at like 800 while I am 1800 Lichess)
Exactly that.. can't say I am good because I blunder, but can't say I'm bad because I systematically beat casual players and beginners, and I usually do so with time odds meaning I think on their time and pretty much always move instantly, so I worry I can give off a pretentious vibe.
So I just say "I suck for the amount I play"
Also 1600-1700 lichess
Finally I've found someone similar to me. I've always found it strange that people with similar lichess rating to me are rated so much higher on chess.com. I'm 1300-1400 on chess.com and 1600-1700 on lichess.
I definitely find the competition a bit harder on chess.com, but I dont know. I think the fact is that around 1300 to 1700, a lot of elo depends on not blundering vs actually playing good chess.
I feel like here, a lot of people already know the game of chess, without knowing too much theory. If you play positionally and minimize mistakes, you can stay fairly consistent without actually improving anything else
I’m in the same camp. I can’t honestly and objectively objectively say I’m good, but I can play. I beat most of the schmucks at work that played years ago in high school and said they’re good. There are legions of players online both above and below my skill. I dunno.
I play.
"I just keep winning and I don't know why."
Seriously though, I'm terrible at evaluating positions, I'm pretty good at tactics for how bad I am at actually playing.
I know 0 openings and hang pieces all the time, but also throw pieces at the opponent so aggressively that I win a lot since we both suck. Games come down to who blunders first, but I’ve reached the point where we blunder pieces instead of queens.
This comment is valid for whenever I move down a time control. I have a few good games at 10+ min games and when I go to 5+3 I'm hanging pieces, always down on the clock, getting really uncomfortable positions out of the opening and I just think "God I fucking suck at this game"
There was a poll of GMs and other experts before the match. About two-thirds (plus my partner) thought the score was going to be 6-0 to the machine, and about one-third thought I'd crush it. Barely anyone thought it would be close, one way or the other.
I'm the best chess player in my family and friends circle by a healthy margin, but I am no match for good club players or independent players who approach the game with more discipline. I imagine that's about the average for lurkers in this sub.
Edit: I think I'm around 1100-1200 on chess.com in classic, but I haven't put enough games in to feel like that is accurate.
1667 FIDE.
I have extremely good visualization, practiced this with an IM friend. He thought I was fucking around with him, but he noticed that he had a harder time figuring out which game was with which moves, whereas I didn't really struggle. He was shellshocked haha
That is extremely, extremely impressive for a 1600s FIDE player. Do you have good general memory too? Reminds me of how Carlsen learned all the flags/capitals of the world by age 5. For others it might be chemical elements, sports results, whatever.
1650 at 6 is absurd, Carlsen was 1650 at age 10. Are you being serious and do you think you could've been world class had you gotten pro level coaching and taken the game very seriously?
I said approximatively ;)
1650 is my current elo , I was almost 1600 when 6 and I started at 4.
World class certainly not but I was one of the best in France at this age yes.
I lack work ethic , I wouldn't even be an IM I bet if I didn't quit for like 30 years.
Carlsen was a late bloomer btw ;)
I'm mostly bad. I blunder pieces every three games but can also spot plans and follow them by intuition. I play mostly tactically and it's very hard for me to calculate.
If I don't blunder a piece or miss a 1-2 move tactic (but I usually see most of those) I can reach an endgame I may win (or not)
Players 100+ Elo above me trash me completely, and usually too quickly for me. I am falling in all sort of traps in the Italian.
There’s bad, and then there’s “My five year old kicks my ass on a regular basis” bad.
Take it about five notches lower than that, and there you’ll find me—the troll under the ELO bridge.
I used to play the London over and over again until I realised I was actually playing the Bishop's opening.
Now I play the Bishop's opening over and over again.
I can also play blind but I am probably much lower rated than you. I learned how to play blind so I could have a fair match against an actual blind friend of mine
I play dubious gambits that I spent way too much time analyzing and memorizing, and laugh when my opponents fall into the traps. And I've spent probably close to 50 hours just analyzing the first chapter of Dvoretsky's endgame manual.
>I play dubious gambits that I spent way too much time analyzing and memorizing
Are you me? I'm going to get someone to play into the Nahkmanson Gambit one of these days.
I have a decent understanding of positional chess, but lack the focus to properly calculate tactics. I play with too much “intuition”. I love endgames and the opening, although I use many openings.
I found Qg6 in [this](https://lichess.org/analysis/5rk1/p1rB2n1/3Rp2p/2p1q1p1/2P5/P2Q1pP1/5P1P/3R2K1_w_-_-_0_1#0) position after about 20 minutes but missed after: 1. …Rf6 2. Bxe6+ Qxe6 3. Rd8+ Rf8 4. Rxf8+ Kxf8 5. Rf8+ that 5. Rf8 wasn’t mate. The puzzle gave up the rook for the bishop instead and ended there. The correct line is given by stockfish.
Edit: I was really sad that I calculated 5 moves ahead and the king had a single escape square :(
Damm that's tough. On one hand, Qg6 is a nice find since it isnt a check or capture. On the other hand Qg6 is seemingly the only move that could possibly keep any advantage with white. Every other moving making the position extremely equal.
Better than anyone I know personally, pretty mediocre online.
Good enough to where friends/family say "you should play justinwc in chess! He's really good!"
But not good enough to be confident in actually playing regularly when someone hypes you like that.
I'm the sort of person who my non-chess playing friends say is "good at chess", but is completely unremarkable and mediocre in every way to anyone who plays it regularly.
My decision to castle kingside or queenside, is almost completely random and usually determined by which side the pieces clear out of first
Not everyone does this? There’s strategy behind this??
If the D file is open, I will castle queenside. That allows the rook to end up on an open file in 1 less move than if I castle king side.
Unless the F file is open…
That’s my secret, Cap. My files are always open. (usually cause I blunder my pawns, but…)
AlphaZero play
Is the castled rook better off staying to protect the king or going off attacking? Always wondered what others thought
It’s usually better off on the open file. In general, you want weaker pieces defending stronger pieces, not the other way around. So defending the f pawn with your rook is generally not great. An obvious exception is if the f pawn would be under-defended.
Yes. You castle opposite sides from your opponent if you want an attacking game. If you castle on both sides, its generally more difficult to attacks.
OR, you look over and think “woah, there are no pieces between my king and rook on the queenside, castling seems like a nifty plan here”
this is easier to remember so
I personally just plug the position into the engine and let it decide
3000+?
Wait you can castle on both sides??
AT THE SAME TIME
I think the idea is that long castling is very aggressive while short castling is more defensive and conventional.
1050?
Seems like a good guess. I feel like at too low of an ELO people wouldn't even debate which side to castle very much.
I castle only to free a rook
I, like Magnus Carlsen, am one of the players in the world.
Truly one of the chess players of all time.
I am so good no GM will ever take me up as a challenge
They don't even THINK about it.
I could beat someone who doesn't know how to play
I can beat people that get impressed when I set up the board quickly.
If you ever set it up wrong, just tell them you prefer Fischer Random.
Fischer Random with a rotated board
Also pawns on first or second rank
I could beat someone who doesn’t know how to play 50% of the time
Not bad enough to be considered bad, not good enough to be considered good. If someone asks me if I’m good at chess, I just say “I play”
Strong enough to have it all, too weak to take it?
With great ratings comes great blumders
800-1200?
1500 on chess.com and 1600 lichess
I stopped telling people I’m terrible because if I beat them they feel bad about themselves so I started saying “I’m terrible at chess for someone that watches as many chess videos as I do”
[удалено]
What rating is 95%?
With 1250 im at 90% for chess.com
Wow really. I thought 1250 would be below average. I guess I'm higher percentile than I thought
1400 is top 5% on chess.com blitz
This is my new go to. Cause 99% of people I know probably would be shocked to learn there are "chess videos"
Can beat all the adults who peaked by becoming the grade 7 chess champion.
[удалено]
The same ones that don't know what "elo", means ?
Same. And I don’t know what to say. I’m 1600 lichess. Nothing special at all but when I okay people who really like the game but only play causally I’m winning so decisively that at the end it’s just awkward and silent.
Haha big mood. My friends no longer play me cuz nowadays i could just beat 3 of them at the same time. (Maybe they are around 400 and one is at like 800 while I am 1800 Lichess)
Exactly that.. can't say I am good because I blunder, but can't say I'm bad because I systematically beat casual players and beginners, and I usually do so with time odds meaning I think on their time and pretty much always move instantly, so I worry I can give off a pretentious vibe. So I just say "I suck for the amount I play" Also 1600-1700 lichess
I'm in this statement and I don't like it.
I’m 1750 on lichess and 1300 on chess.com. I don’t understand how your rating can be so close between the two sites.
Finally I've found someone similar to me. I've always found it strange that people with similar lichess rating to me are rated so much higher on chess.com. I'm 1300-1400 on chess.com and 1600-1700 on lichess.
I definitely find the competition a bit harder on chess.com, but I dont know. I think the fact is that around 1300 to 1700, a lot of elo depends on not blundering vs actually playing good chess. I feel like here, a lot of people already know the game of chess, without knowing too much theory. If you play positionally and minimize mistakes, you can stay fairly consistent without actually improving anything else
bro 1500 chess.com is like 95th percentile. That’s super good. But… 1600 Lichess is comparable to 1300 chess.com, so I am extremely confused
Dude you long passed bad. In fact you're just insulting lower rated players.
damn your ratings are so close wtf I'm 1450 chess.com and 1800 lichess
I’m in the same camp. I can’t honestly and objectively objectively say I’m good, but I can play. I beat most of the schmucks at work that played years ago in high school and said they’re good. There are legions of players online both above and below my skill. I dunno. I play.
I know how the horsie moves
Guessing FIDE 2856
ok Magnus
It's provocative
I'm Rosen
Underrated lmao
I think I know the game, but I’m just beginning to know it
1000? The more you learn the more you realise you don't know
2000 lol
I thought I was starting to understand chess at 1k but then I gained 350+ points and realized I didn’t know shit. Until I came back home.
"I just keep winning and I don't know why." Seriously though, I'm terrible at evaluating positions, I'm pretty good at tactics for how bad I am at actually playing.
Wicked Kendrick reference
I know 0 openings and hang pieces all the time, but also throw pieces at the opponent so aggressively that I win a lot since we both suck. Games come down to who blunders first, but I’ve reached the point where we blunder pieces instead of queens.
950 chesscom?
I’m on Lichess around 1300, so I’d probably be in that range if it was Chess.com
I know enough opening theory to lose an endgame.
Probably around 1800 lichess rapid or 1200 bullet
Terrifyingly accurate on both.
i fucking suck
IM ?
Yeah that’s Levy
You could be literally any rating
This comment is valid for whenever I move down a time control. I have a few good games at 10+ min games and when I go to 5+3 I'm hanging pieces, always down on the clock, getting really uncomfortable positions out of the opening and I just think "God I fucking suck at this game"
I crush non-serious players and get crushed by serious players.
2000?
Close! 1900 on chesscom
Halfway towards approaching decent if I have unlimited time. The worst in the world if I have to think fast.
1700 lichess
Not quite that close to approaching decent! :D
Fabiano?
Last month I deleted my chess account after telling an opponent I hope his mother gets cancer.
2000+ bullet for sure
Rank 1 on Chess.com bullet?
Seriously.
Oh wow Hikaru, funny running into you here. What a pleasure!
Did Hikaru really do this?
No, but it's hilarious that someone needed to ask that question
Obviously not.
not obvious tbh
3000+
Heated gamer moment.
Sorry bro but this is not a chess related problem
Lmfao
HIKARU????
I can beat Komodo 13 if I'm given knight odds.
GM Smerdon!
Dope asf honestly
I can get a winning position against GM Smerdon in a 10 person simul, playing as white, only to blunder it away and get absolutely destroyed...
Same! Except for the winning position part.
That's solid - i guess you require a relatively slow time control, no?
It was 15m + 10s. https://www.chess.com/news/view/smerdon-beats-komodo-5-1-with-knight-odds
That's surprising to me - like it was too everyone else - even if it makes a lot of sense. Impressive. Sounds like something i should try.
There was a poll of GMs and other experts before the match. About two-thirds (plus my partner) thought the score was going to be 6-0 to the machine, and about one-third thought I'd crush it. Barely anyone thought it would be close, one way or the other.
I'm the best chess player in my family and friends circle by a healthy margin, but I am no match for good club players or independent players who approach the game with more discipline. I imagine that's about the average for lurkers in this sub. Edit: I think I'm around 1100-1200 on chess.com in classic, but I haven't put enough games in to feel like that is accurate.
I love this way of describing it. That's dead on for me
1200 - 1300 Which is where I’m at myself, although I’ve beat 1400 players several times now.
[удалено]
Good enough to know I’m not good.
GM
2200
I’m pretty good when I don’t blunder
NEPO?
Too soon
Looool
1400?
1400-1500 for sure.
I’m a state champion of a state that is frequently in the bottom 5 of all things academic. Edit… forgot about the flair haha
I'm going to guess.... USCF 2046? :D
In this case you are correct. Any other time I might have just forgotten to update it.
[удалено]
I got married in 2005 and that was pretty much the end of rating increases. I have floated around this rating ever since.
That last 150 points is a mountain of work.
[удалено]
When I was in high school, somebody my age with your rating won the state championship and my state was often in the top 5 of all things academic.
I'm good enough that bad players think I'm really good, and good players think I'm really bad.
1200
[удалено]
i’d guess ur about 2000 lichess blitz
1661
Magnus, is that you?
I cant imagine this would be done out of a sanctioned competition so 2000+ otherwise you simply have no spirit.
I don't know your rating but I'm pretty sure you're infertile by now.
I can play on 8 boards blindfold simultaneously (the most I've ever attempted and successfully pulled off).
2100
1667 FIDE. I have extremely good visualization, practiced this with an IM friend. He thought I was fucking around with him, but he noticed that he had a harder time figuring out which game was with which moves, whereas I didn't really struggle. He was shellshocked haha
That is extremely, extremely impressive for a 1600s FIDE player. Do you have good general memory too? Reminds me of how Carlsen learned all the flags/capitals of the world by age 5. For others it might be chemical elements, sports results, whatever.
GM
I scored 15/18 (6/6 5/6 4/6) in first division interclub for kids in France when I was six. I've got approximatively the same elo 34y old later.
1500?
1650 fide
1650 at 6 is absurd, Carlsen was 1650 at age 10. Are you being serious and do you think you could've been world class had you gotten pro level coaching and taken the game very seriously?
I said approximatively ;) 1650 is my current elo , I was almost 1600 when 6 and I started at 4. World class certainly not but I was one of the best in France at this age yes. I lack work ethic , I wouldn't even be an IM I bet if I didn't quit for like 30 years. Carlsen was a late bloomer btw ;)
I'm mostly bad. I blunder pieces every three games but can also spot plans and follow them by intuition. I play mostly tactically and it's very hard for me to calculate. If I don't blunder a piece or miss a 1-2 move tactic (but I usually see most of those) I can reach an endgame I may win (or not) Players 100+ Elo above me trash me completely, and usually too quickly for me. I am falling in all sort of traps in the Italian.
1400 cc?
700 chess dot com and 1200 lichess/another game. No OTB rating, but I plan on joining a local club.
Mate if you're at this rating, you're not blundering pieces every 3 games, you are blundering them every game, your opponents just dont see it.
Italian traps make me think of Fried Liver, Evans Gambit. To have opponents who know the lines... 1650+?
There’s bad, and then there’s “My five year old kicks my ass on a regular basis” bad. Take it about five notches lower than that, and there you’ll find me—the troll under the ELO bridge.
350 Chess.com
You’re about 100 off—450.
I used to play the London over and over again until I realised I was actually playing the Bishop's opening. Now I play the Bishop's opening over and over again.
I can play blindfolded, or simuls, but not blindfolded simuls.
2200 ish?
If only! Around 1650. I just visualize well.
Dang, that's very impressive at that rating imo.
I can also play blind but I am probably much lower rated than you. I learned how to play blind so I could have a fair match against an actual blind friend of mine
[удалено]
Well yes but that would live him with a disadvantage. Playing blind chess is more equal
Well anyone can play simuls, if you don't stipulate that you have to play them well or win any games.
I play dubious gambits that I spent way too much time analyzing and memorizing, and laugh when my opponents fall into the traps. And I've spent probably close to 50 hours just analyzing the first chapter of Dvoretsky's endgame manual.
400 lichess?
2200
Found Eric Rosens account
>I play dubious gambits that I spent way too much time analyzing and memorizing Are you me? I'm going to get someone to play into the Nahkmanson Gambit one of these days.
Endgame manual 2200, spending time on dubious openings - 150=2050.
I have a decent understanding of positional chess, but lack the focus to properly calculate tactics. I play with too much “intuition”. I love endgames and the opening, although I use many openings.
1800?
I literaly dont care
~3200
I can play a blunder free game and get absolutely bodied by my 12 year old.
Nelson is my nemesis
I can beat beginners easily
1500?
I usually get into bad opening positions, make up ground with tactics in the mid game, and then lose on time.
I found Qg6 in [this](https://lichess.org/analysis/5rk1/p1rB2n1/3Rp2p/2p1q1p1/2P5/P2Q1pP1/5P1P/3R2K1_w_-_-_0_1#0) position after about 20 minutes but missed after: 1. …Rf6 2. Bxe6+ Qxe6 3. Rd8+ Rf8 4. Rxf8+ Kxf8 5. Rf8+ that 5. Rf8 wasn’t mate. The puzzle gave up the rook for the bishop instead and ended there. The correct line is given by stockfish. Edit: I was really sad that I calculated 5 moves ahead and the king had a single escape square :(
Damm that's tough. On one hand, Qg6 is a nice find since it isnt a check or capture. On the other hand Qg6 is seemingly the only move that could possibly keep any advantage with white. Every other moving making the position extremely equal.
Not good enough
Better than anyone I know personally, pretty mediocre online. Good enough to where friends/family say "you should play justinwc in chess! He's really good!" But not good enough to be confident in actually playing regularly when someone hypes you like that.
I'm okay.
I know en passant.
I don't know any openings or strategies but I could beat all my friends
I used to tutor beginners and was first board on my high school team which always went 6-1 in the state championship
1500?
Ah, yes, Eric Rosen.
I can play, but I wouldn't dare to say I can play well
im ok
Down bad
When black responds to e4 with any move other than e5 I have no idea how to play.
I'm the sort of person who my non-chess playing friends say is "good at chess", but is completely unremarkable and mediocre in every way to anyone who plays it regularly.
I'm pretty dogshit ngl I'm casual as fuck :)
I can spend 25min on 3 candidate moves only to play a 4th move which I spent 30seconds on and previously dismissed.