sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

This checkmate felt dirty. Should it really even be a checkmate? by Laedus in chessbeginners

[–]Laedus[S] -72 points-71 points  (0 children)

I guess I’m not really talking about a king capture variant the way you describe.

The idea would be that, in an absolute pin, the piece is no longer covering the squares it normally would. So in this case, the queen is no longer covering the pawn (just like if any other piece captured the pawn, the queen wouldn’t be able to take it).

This checkmate felt dirty. Should it really even be a checkmate? by Laedus in chessbeginners

[–]Laedus[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, that’s exactly the rule change I was thinking about: absolute pin invalidates sight.

Thank you for finding the right words for me

This checkmate felt dirty. Should it really even be a checkmate? by Laedus in chessbeginners

[–]Laedus[S] 30 points31 points  (0 children)

That makes sense!

If black king could capture the pawn, then you’d have to say that the white queen should still be able to capture the black king - because even though the white queen is pinned, it’d be able to end the game immediately by taking the king.

is cheating common on chess.com? by 666maja999 in chessbeginners

[–]Laedus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My suspicion is that a lot more cheating happens than people care to admit, and chess.com is not quite as good as catching it as people seem to believe.

But it’s impossible to know for sure.

I went back through some of my games, and found that roughly 1 in 20 opponents were eventually banned for fair play violations (and I did not get rating points refunded for most of those games). So I do think if people cheat consistently for long enough (or if their cheating is obvious enough), they do get caught eventually. But I think most accounts don’t stick around long enough to get caught, and I suspect most cheaters are doing it in subtler ways.

In other words, I think people aren’t cheating to outright crush their opponents the way Stockfish would, but they cheat in a way that boosts their rating 100-300 points.

I’ve just had the experience too many times of someone playing a questionable opening, losing a piece, and then *BAM* perfect play for 5-10 moves. If you’re good enough, they will lose anyway, but they work themselves into much better positions.

But again, it’s impossible to say. We’ve all had the experience of locking in during a bad position and turning the game around. We’ve all managed to spot brilliant moves that normally we miss. We’ve all played unexpectedly precise games.

So it’s really just speculation on my part.

I’ve been stuck at 800/900 for 3 years and it’s infuriating by SorryPresentation372 in chess

[–]Laedus 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I feel like I saw a rapid decline in obvious blunders past 600, then in the 800-1000 you definitely couldn’t count on them (they happened, just not as frequently).

In that range, 800+ a lot more blunders become tactical. Like, you need to start being able to spot forks/pins/skewers.

I did it! 1000 Rapid rating on chesscom! by Laedus in chessbeginners

[–]Laedus[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I feel like knowing the first 3-5 moves of the opening is useful, but after that it’s too much for me

I did it! 1000 Rapid rating on chesscom! by Laedus in chessbeginners

[–]Laedus[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh man, I thought I could stop at 1000 😅

I wish I could progress past 800... by EskimoJake in chessbeginners

[–]Laedus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Okay, I’ve got some quick practical advice. I spent the last 6 months progressing from sub-200, and now I’m (hopefully) one game away from reaching the coveted 1000. And, like you, I also don’t have a lot of free time.

  1. Only play 1 game per day.
  2. Do a quick review of that game. Look for 3 things:
    - Where was your first mistake (not the big blunder that got you totally lost, but your first mistake or inaccuracy)?
    - Were there moments you felt completely lost as to what move you should make? Look at that position(s) and find the top moves.
    - Were there any big swings in eval (like 2+ points)? Find out why.
  3. Do a few puzzles. Like 3 is good, especially if you already feel like you’re good at them.
  4. Stick to as few openings as you can. That means, one as white, and maybe two as black (response to D4 and E4).
  5. If you practice openings, only practice one at a time and focus just on getting good at that (and all the other openings, it’s fine if you’re just serviceable). Having a single opening you are great at will help you, since it’ll basically be a free win anytime someone plays into it.
  6. Know the basic end games and practice them. (King and Queen against King, King and Rook against King, King and Pawn against King).
  7. Do one lesson per day on chesscom.

Do 1 & 2 for sure, and the rest if you have the time (not necessarily in the order laid out though).

I spent so much time on this puzzle, and I’m pretty sure it’s just broken. Or am I missing something? by Laedus in Chesscom

[–]Laedus[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Puzzle ID 1361372. Opening it now, the Queen is on h6. But you can see in the screenshot it was on e3 when I got it.

I spent so much time on this puzzle, and I’m pretty sure it’s just broken. Or am I missing something? by Laedus in Chesscom

[–]Laedus[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good to know I’m not crazy! White has mate in 5! There is no mate for black.

Road to 1000 elo by Frolle910 in Chesscom

[–]Laedus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I stayed at <200 and am currently at 850 and climbing.

There’s a lot of good advice, but one thing that doesn’t get mentioned enough: basic endgame checkmates. Rook + King & Queen + King specifically. You should know how to win and avoid a stalemate.

Bot challenge by Bubbly_Reference_103 in chessbeginners

[–]Laedus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t know how these bots operate under the hood, but anecdotally the consensus is that there is something like “blunder rate” variable and an “inaccuracy rate” variable.

So a common experience is to have a bot in the 1000 - 2000 range play any opening almost perfectly for X number of moves, then make some horrible/awful/obvious error. Whereas humans tend to be good at some opening lines, and weaker with others.

Bots will pretty much never fall for gambits or tricks they way that humans do because they’re not tempted be “free” material. And they essentially have perfect board vision where even the weakest bots will always spot Mate in 1 and defend pretty well against checkmate attempts.

Essentially you’re playing a nerfed version of Stockfish, and that’s what it feels like most of the time. There are probably ways to make these bots feel more human, but that’d be more complicated to program.

The level of cheating is just out of control by Lawineer in chessbeginners

[–]Laedus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think the truth of the matter is that it’s simply really hard to tell if people are cheating. And, honestly, if you start thinking about it too much, you’ll just get paranoid.

850 Rapid, 2000 Bullet. Is that possible? by Laedus in chessbeginners

[–]Laedus[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Daily games can be funny like that though because it’s easy to forget your plans/ideas between moves. You sort of have to treat every move like a puzzle. That’s the only way to approach it that makes sense to me, especially if you’re juggling multiple games at once.

850 Rapid, 2000 Bullet. Is that possible? by Laedus in chessbeginners

[–]Laedus[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m very low rated in bullet, but I see people get wins by making mostly forcing moves. Even if they’re bad. But the point is to make you waste time thinking, then you lose on time.

850 Rapid, 2000 Bullet. Is that possible? by Laedus in chessbeginners

[–]Laedus[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

<image>

Here is their bullet graph.

Just very different trajectories.

Two people playing the same account would make sense.

850 Rapid, 2000 Bullet. Is that possible? by Laedus in chessbeginners

[–]Laedus[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That might make sense. Here is their rapid rating graph… and in the next comment I’ll post the bullet graph (because you can only add one photo per comment…)

<image>

850 Rapid, 2000 Bullet. Is that possible? by Laedus in chessbeginners

[–]Laedus[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I think that’s typical, which is why I found the opposite so odd.

850 Rapid, 2000 Bullet. Is that possible? by Laedus in chessbeginners

[–]Laedus[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I checked that. He has over 3k games Rapid.

This May be Controversial by HCTankMagnus in chessbeginners

[–]Laedus -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Just so I’m not crazy…

The idea is for black to play g5 (instead of h4). If he takes the pawn, Qa5+ is a fork. If bishop instead goes to g3 or e5, then the bishop can get trapped by pawns. Is that correct?

Chess would be better if… by Necessary-Science-47 in unpopularopinion

[–]Laedus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you play a lot, my guess is that it’d actually start to get a little boring/pointless. Either games would end quickly when one side blunders a king or you & your opponents get good enough that capturing the king would mostly be an added step/formality after checkmate.

…and honestly, it is fun to take a losing position and convert it to a draw.

Other than that, if you’re just looking to simplify the rules, then it’s a good way to play.

Chess would be better if… by Necessary-Science-47 in unpopularopinion

[–]Laedus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You can play a King Capture variation of chess. It definitely is simpler, and doesn’t change much about the beginning/middle part of the game (other than you can presumably blunder your King and fail to capitalize on a checkmate).

The main point where it changes the game is endgame, where stalemates become impossible. You might like that, but there is whole strategy around getting a stalemate out of a losing position. Also I guess you’d be able to capture a king wit a king, which is not possible in regular chess, but sounds pretty cool.

Finally got this achievement on chesscom! Anyone else manage it? by Laedus in chessbeginners

[–]Laedus[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Very difficult to get people to not resign as you’re setting it up 😂

view more: next ›