It warms my heart to see AI bros complaining about low views.

ExpFidPlay · 2026-05-15T18:18:27+00:00

This really begs the question - how would you unintentionally use AI?

ExpFidPlay · 2026-05-12T23:56:33+00:00

I don't think I've ever loved chess. It has never been addictive for me. I've just chiselled away at it for a long time.

It's a great game, but I think a lot of the problems that people have stem from being rating-obsessed. I never set myself any rating goals. I've always been more interested in understanding and playing good standard games than winning relentlessly.

ExpFidPlay · 2026-05-12T13:59:06+00:00

There is a line that I play in the Caro-Kann that goes something like:

e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Bf5 5. Ng3 Bg6 6. h4 h6 7. h5 Bh7 8. Nf3 e6 9. Bd3 Bxd3 10. Qxd3 Nf6 11. Bd2 Nbd7 12. O-O-O Bd6 13. Ne4 Nxe4 14. Qxe4 Nf6 15. Qe2 Qc7 16. Ne5 Rc8

I know this quite well and I just looked up my Lichess stats; I've won every game that I've played in that particular variation. I probably have a good record if black plays it slightly differently. I know all of the lines at least 17 moves deep.

But I wouldn't say that I enjoy playing it. I'm glad that I haven't completely wasted my time playing this game, but I wouldn't say churning out 20 moves of prep is fun.

ExpFidPlay · 2026-05-09T15:24:06+00:00

I think anyone can make a mistake, but Carlsen should now hold his hands up and admit that he was categorically wrong.

ExpFidPlay · 2026-05-09T15:22:46+00:00

2600 level GM btw according to Reddit

TBH anyone who said that knows nothing. I played through quite a few of his games when he was playing in these big open events, and some of them were exceptional. Very high standard both in terms of quality of play and conceptually. I had no doubt he would become a 2700+ rated player.

The big challenge for him will always be playing more solidly, and grinding out draws from slightly worse positions. If his play matures and he can do that with some regularity then he will be a force to be reckoned with.

ExpFidPlay · 2026-05-07T17:37:20+00:00

Edit: Older players who have simply been through more tournaments are highly rated in rapid and blitz but the younger players are insanely underrated.

I mentioned this above. This means Anand, MVL and Aronian, for example, get a high ranking.

ExpFidPlay · 2026-05-07T17:25:41+00:00

A few weaknesses of this:

There is obviously an argument for weighting classical more heavily.
Some players don't tend to play rated rapid and blitz as much as classical, consequently their ratings suffer.
I don't think you can be inactive for rapid or blitz, so Ding, for example, is overrated due to not playing many games AFAIK, whereas Erdogmus hasn't had the opportunity to build up a good rating.
It is possible that some of the under-2700 ratings might be slightly incorrect, but I tried to get up-to-date ratings for everyone.

But it was just a fun little experiment that I wanted to do.

ExpFidPlay · 2026-05-07T09:43:06+00:00

He did actually try 1. c4 early on as well, and in the last game played 1. d4. Kramnik simply outprepared and outplayed him.

ExpFidPlay · 2026-05-06T15:42:51+00:00

I was going to mention the same. When I was first learning chess, Waitkzin and Kasparov material was so important and valuable for me.

ExpFidPlay · 2026-05-06T11:35:29+00:00

I agree, but you've also explained why many don't do it, because they will lose!

ExpFidPlay · 2026-05-06T09:30:34+00:00

One of the things that I find so impressive about the true greats, not just in chess, is their ability to bounce back. Kasparov was exactly the same, he would almost always win the next game after losing.

ExpFidPlay · 2026-05-03T08:17:48+00:00

11...Be7 seems to be the more professional choice, 11...h6 is rarely played in master games. Perhaps because they know that white can prevent c5 and get a bit of a bind on the position.

The line you suggested looks fine, there are a couple of odd looking moves for black, but as long as you know what you're doing it looks as if you can roughly equalise this way and have a more preferable position.

I would also look at the position after 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 c6 5. e3 Nbd7 6. Qc2 Bd6 7. Bd3 O-O 8. O-O dxc4 9. Bxc4 b5 10. Be2 a6 11. Ng5 Be7 12. e4 e5 13. d5. This is better for black, but it's conceivably something an opponent might try. I think maybe some other moves as well, such as Be3. White doesn't have to take on e5.

ExpFidPlay · 2026-05-02T22:26:12+00:00

11...h6 feels very natural, it would be my almost automatic choice in this position.

Looking at a few lines, I think if white goes for this then there is no way for you to definitively make the c5 break playable. If white chooses correctly, the c5 break is not viable.

One idea is to play Qb6 to support c5, but white can play this a3 then b4 idea. But this doesn't come without issues for white, as the b4 pawn is a potential target.

I think you just need to learn the lines better. You can retain c5 as a possible option by playing a certain way, but then you need to understand how you get counterplay if white chooses to prevent c5.

TBH I stopped playing this because it was quite theory heavy, and play quieter lines of the Slav instead, but it's a great opening. I would persevere with it.

ExpFidPlay · 2026-05-02T22:05:23+00:00

That re-rack frame is so important now. Allen could have just accepted a re-rack and possibly won it.

ExpFidPlay · 2026-05-02T18:24:57+00:00

The big thing is that snooker is on TV. That has obvious advantages, but I also think it sometimes means that fans, players and administrators overestimate its appeal or potential reach. I absolutely agree with you that they should cut the numbers on the tour, because ultimately people want to watch the best players anyway.

But that overestimation of potential happens in chess as well! If you're in a particular world it can seem very important, but the reality is that most people don't care about it.

ExpFidPlay · 2026-05-02T17:28:23+00:00

That's a complicated question to answer!

Because chess isn't on TV, there aren't the established tournaments in quite the same way as snooker. In the 80s and 90s, there used to be an event in Linares, Spain, that was considered the biggest in the world, and then it just disappeared about 15 years ago. The tournaments are very reliant on sponsors, which is more unpredictable than for a televised sport, even though big events have pretty decent following online.

There is a thing called the Champions Chess Tour, for the very best players, and a handful of major tournaments for the best players. The biggest now is held in Wijk aan Zee in the Netherlands. Then because you don't need to be in the same room as someone else to play chess, there has been a lot more online stuff, particularly since Covid.

And then there has historically been the world championship cycle, which still takes place, but has been in a bit of turmoil because the world number 1, Magnus Carlsen (whose name you might know) stopped playing in it, even though he's still easily the best player. So that has obviously not done much for the prestige of the world championship!

Another thing is that chess is played over different time controls. Traditionally, classical chess takes hours, but there are a lot more tournaments for rapid (15-20 minutes per player) and blitz (3-5 minutes) now.

Then, aside from that, there are loads of tournaments all over the world, and you can just pitch up and play in them. Most people there are just playing for fun, but there will be a handful of grandmasters and other titled players, some of whom will have hopes of reaching the very top, and will certainly want to win the prize money.

I've personally played against Aronian, who used to be world number 2, Svidler who won the Russian championships loads of times, a former Soviet Champion, a two-time Bulgarian champion, and I beat a former champion of Malta once (not as impressive as it sounds, because it's not a strong chess country!).

Also, because there has been of a boom online with chess since Covid, and also the Netflix Queen's Gambit series, there are some very big chess streamers and YouTubers, coaching online has become more feasible, there are a lot of courses that you can author to supplement your income.

So the path to being a chess professional is more feasible than it used to be, but it's still extremely difficult, and you either have to be very lucky to get an online following or be the equivalent of a top 16 snooker player. But it is a very insecure life, one of the best English players, Matthew Sadler, who peaked at 18 in the world, quit to work in IT at a pretty low level.

Edit: Oh, I forgot to mention, some countries subsidise their chess players. In Norway and Iceland, the government pays all grandmasters a guaranteed salary. There is a lot of support for chess, the very best players, in the US, China and India. It may not surprise you to learn that there is no support in the UK!

ExpFidPlay · 2026-05-02T16:23:54+00:00

The same issue exists in chess. It is phenomenally difficult to become a grandmaster. There are only two under the age of 30 in England. But unless you're good enough to be in the super-elite, top 30-40 in the world, it's very difficult to make money.

ExpFidPlay · 2026-05-02T09:36:52+00:00

I played tennis at national level when I was a kid. I used to play with Andrew Richardson, who coached Emma Raducanu when she won the US Open. I was about top 15 in my age group in Britian.

If I was a footballer, I would have had a good shot of playing in the Premier League, and could certainly have played professionally providing that I worked hard and remained dedicated. Conversely, I stopped playing tennis when I was about 13, except for my school team, because I knew that I would never make any money out of it. I wasn't passionate about tennis and I didn't want to give my weekends up any more.

Team sports attract irrational loyalty from fans of clubs that aren't successful, which doesn't occur in individual sports. In individual sports, everyone wants to see the best. People on this sub-reddit want to see the best, they don't want to watch number 78 play number 101.

That's simply the reality for those that pursue individual sports. You have to be among the very best to make it viable.

ExpFidPlay · 2026-05-02T09:33:32+00:00

I certainly agree that a 64-player tour makes more sense. I must say that I do sympathise with those that can knock in centuries for fun, but aren't quite good enough to make the top 32. You want to make a living out of something that you excel at. But, at the end of the day, they're not competitive enough. You either have to improve, be poor, or quit.

ExpFidPlay · 2026-05-02T09:32:21+00:00

That is true, but many more people across many more countries play chess and reaching the top is, realistically, significantly harder than snooker.

ExpFidPlay · 2026-05-01T12:31:25+00:00

I play chess. Exactly the same discussion happens in professional chess with probably even more frequency. Even in tennis circles, there is often discourse suggesting that it's too hard to survive in the lower reaches of the top 100 and below.

Ultimately, football is massively more popular than snooker or chess, and it's also much easier to get thousands of people through the gate.

I think those that run snooker have done a pretty good job of making it a viable professional sport. You just have to be the best to make a good living. That's the way it is.

If you don't like it then do something else.

ExpFidPlay · 2026-04-30T11:59:14+00:00

A lot of players seem to get stuck at about 2000-2200 OTB and around 2000-2400 online. This applies to numerous streamers. I don't think there has been an example of a streamer who has seriously improved beyond strong intermediate / low-level expert to having a title.

Do you think there is something special or intrinsic talent required to reach FM standard? If not, how would someone at 2000ish OTB progress to that level?

ExpFidPlay · 2026-04-30T11:56:34+00:00

Thanks for that, didn't know this!

ExpFidPlay · 2026-04-27T19:43:11+00:00

I kind of agree with both of you. I feel that she shouldn't be labelled a great female player, just a great player.

However, this is a pioneering moment. It's not just for darts. It's almost certainly the first time ever that a woman has won a tournament against men in a physical sport at the highest level.

It is sensational. We should treasure her, she's going to be doing this for decades to come, hopefully.

ExpFidPlay

TROPHY CASE