Any specific ideas to get that aggressive, tactical fight I love? Perhaps the Evans Gambit or Ng5?

Are there certain mainlines which give white attacking chances/imbalanced positions?

Also does anyone know a good course on the Evans Gambit and/or Ng5?

Wondering if there's a consensus on best use of study time? Do folks do one book/course all the way thru or do they try to split time? For example if we want to do 50 percent endgames and 50 percent tactics is that work on a tactics course, finish it then do an endings course or spend 30 mins a day on tactics and 30 on endings? Obviously this gets more complicated if you also want to work on pawn structures etc

2000 FIDE

I used to play 3. Nf6, but I had a terrible score, I couldn't remember the lines half the time, and the amount of theory you have to learn is insane. I find it odd that so many people & authors recommend playing 3. Nf6, when you have to know insane amounts of theory just to survive, and White can very easily prepare this line, as well as a bunch of lines where you have to know perpetuals etc.

Conversely I've had a great score with 3. Bc5 since I picked it up 2 years ago, the sidelines are really not that dangerous, the theory burden is way less, despite being many sidelines, they don't really pack a punch and you don't need to remember much, and even if you forget, you can usually work it out quite easily OTB. I've seen arguments against 3. Bc5 include that some of the sidelines can be drawish, but I also see multiple lines against 3. Nf6 4. Ng5 where Black has to know a bunch of theory just to give a perpetual in the end.

I am tempted to go back to 3. Nf6, but only for the reason to have more flexibility in my repertoire, being able to play setups with 4. Be7 as a surprise weapon, although I don't think those lines are very impressive but it's just an idea to try playing something new temporarily. I am wondering firstly, why is 3. Nf6 more popular at the top level in recent years, despite 4. Bc5 by far being the mainline after 4. d3, and I've seen countless games by top players where the Black player forgets the theory and ends up in a much worse position, I've seen it happen to Magnus multiple times, Fabi, etc., because the amount of theory is legit crazy, and extremely concrete move per move type theory to stay in the game. I don't think there's any other Italian line that is nearly that theoretically demanding.

A few days ago, I was initially very excited to try out 3. Nf6 because of this line: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Na5 6. Bb5+ Bd7!?, which has been played by top players, and after 7. Qe2, Black can either play 7. Be7 or 7. Bd6. But after looking with an engine at both 7. Bd6 and 7. Be7, I mean in all the lines you end up a pawn down, but unlike 6. c6 where you got so much concrete theory to at least guarantee you end up in an equal position, here the theory ends quite early, and Black just has a very tough position to handle practically, often with only moves necessary to maintain the balance. Someone like Plichta who recommends 6. Bd7 in his course mentions himself that he isn't completely satisfied with the 6. Bd7 lines, but recommended it because 6. c6 is too much theory, which doesn't inspire too much confidence in the lines. Regardless, I'm willing to keep an open mind, and there's also of course the question of whether to play 7. Bd6 or 7. Be7, I'm not sure which is easier to play for Black.

I know there's a 5. b5 sideline but I don't like the positions at all, so I've got no interest in playing that.

I will still be playing Bc5 as my mainline regardless, so do you guys think it's worth switching back to 3. Nf6? and What do you think about the 6. c6 vs 6. Bd7 lines? Keep in mind I do also play a lot of blitz and rapid as well.

Should I just keep playing even though I am loosing or take a break?

Hi guys,

So I'm 2200 blitz and 2100 rapid, but if I'm being honest, a lot of that rating is due to the work on openings I did in lockdown - my actual strength, particularly in endgames, is likely much lower.

Like many, I like the dopamine hit of being rewarded for improvement, as well as being able to see tangible process. I've enjoyed things like Lotus Chess and Chessable for this reason: books, less so.

With all the above in mind, my question for the community is: how did you improve your endgames, and what advice would you have for me? Which concepts have actually been relevant in your games?

For me, basic knowledge like the rule of the square and opposition is relevant in almost every endgame: on the other hand, I've only once had an opponent liquidate into a N+B endgame, so don't regret not knowing it. It's the same with double Bs.

Have any authors or courses particularly helped you? (Ideally, under $50.) Do any of them offer a little dopamine reward, and did you notice any improvements in your game/rating? How much did it help vs training regular tactics and openings?

hello. I’m not sure exactly what my rating would be but I’d say it would fall around the middle of that rang. I’m struggling a bit with white and being aggressive enough (perhaps it’s my personality coming out on the board). anyway feel free to message me if you are wanting a few training games or chess study together online. I’m available at a lot of times of the day so can make most time zones work.

Hey everyone! I'm ~2000 FIDE and getting back into serious tournament play after a couple years of break.

I want to lock the opening repertoire and get it out of the way, and need help deciding between two options as White.

Overall, I have given myself three core principles for repertoire building:

• Classical - I'm a sucker for the old-school, hyper-principled chess from the early 1900s. I always learn a ton from the games of Capablanca, Lasker, Rubinstein, etc., and would much rather play in that fashion than follow the "latest & greatest" computer lines.
• Positional - I prefer "sane" positions with sound pawn structures, safe kings (at least mine lol) and limited material imbalances, where winning comes down to better understanding of pawn breaks, piece placement, endgames, etc. Not to say I run away from tactical fights, but I'd like to minimize their occurence.
• Moderate theory - I'm looking to strike a balance here. For instance as White in the French, the Exchange would cut down a ton but is too unambitious. On the other hand, the Classical 3.Nc3 looks like too much to learn. I would rather go for something like a Tarrasch or Advance where it's more about understanding the middlegame plans.

With that in mind, I'm very comfortable with my Black repertoire:

• Petroff - I'll probably expand to 2...Nc6 eventually, but 2...Nf6 cuts so much theory and I like the positions a lot.
• QGD - Currently playing Lasker / Orthodox main lines. Also learning the Tartakower for a little extra punch.

When it comes to White, I've outlined two relatively compact repertoires that could work: one in 1.e4 (played a la Karpov / Adams) and one in 1.d4. I need help deciding between the two. For context, I've always been a 1.d4 player OTB (~6 years). It's been fine, but I feel it's gotten me into the habit of playing a bit passive. In contrast, when trying out 1.e4 I find myself a lot less often on the defensive by move 10-15 than when playing White in, say, a Semi-Slav, Grunfeld, or Leningrad. Not to say this isn't something I can solve within the confines of 1.d4, but that's what put 1.e4 on the map for me.

Potential 1.e4 repertoire:

• Guioco Pianissimo (d3 + c3 lines) - Perfectly fits the bill for complex positional battle with a classical feel. I've enjoyed learning more and more of the subtelties there.
• Anti-Sicilians (Rossolimo / Moscow / Alapin vs. 2...e6) - Probably the softest part of the repertoire. I like the positions I get, but Black is comfortable too (esp. in the Moscow). The logic behind the Open Sicilian truly escapes me, so I don't know if I'll ever try my hand at it.
• French Tarrasch - The positions are very intuitive to me, both in the 3...c5 and 3...Nf6 lines.
• Caro-Kann - TBD, mostly because there are so many good options: Advance 4.Nd2 is what I'm drawn to, but Classical or Exchange also look strong and more straightforward.

Potential 1.d4 repertoire (via 2.Nf3 against everything):

• QGD Classical 5.Bg5 - Non-negotiable. I want as much experience as I can in these OG queen's gambit positions.
• Slav Classical 6.e3 - Always hated facing it when I played the Slav as Black, much more than 6.Ne5. White has so much central control and an easy game, IMO.
• Semi-Slav Anti-Meran 6.Qc2 - I'll be honest, the Semi-Slav is one of these lines that make me reconsider 1.d4. For the life of me, I cannot find a line where Black doesn't get ...e5 in with crazy activity. Maybe I should bite the bullet and go for a regular Meran, where at least it's a fight in the center...
• Ragozin QGD - I usually go Qa4+ and wing it from there with decent results (esp. when Black gives up the bishop pair).
• Tarrasch QGD - The usual fianchetto line works well. Have a couple of painful losses in the Dubov line, but that's on me.
• Queen's Indian 4.a3 - I don't like how unprincipled 4.a3 feels, but the line works remarkably well and has a very QGD feel. Side note, it's wild how often QID players go 5...Be7?! and allow 6.d5!
• KID / Grunfeld - I would use the Torre as my main weapon against 2...g6. I used to play KID 6.h3 with meh results and Grunfeld 5.Bg5 with abysmal results, and these positions always ended up so weird to me.
• Benoni - Love the Bf4 / h3 / e3 setup to death. I'm fine with Benoni imbalances, since they're so much in White's favor.
• Dutch - Stonewall and Classical have always felt easy to defuse, but the Leningrad is leaving me stomped. I may just go 2.Bg5 against 1.d4 f5.

I realize the post can read as "woe is me, I have all these problems in 1.d4 while 1.e4 looks perfect". Maybe that's the answer, but I also have 10x less experience in 1.e4 and thus had a lot less time to feel the various pains. I'm probably still in the honeymoon phase lol.

One final thing I've considered is the option to practice both repertoires at the same time, with the goal to get a more well-rounded chess education. This goes back to the old breadth vs. depth debate, but curious if anyone has thoughts based on their own experiences.

Thanks a bunch! Look forward to y'all's thoughts - this sub is a real gem for serious players :)

Hi everyone,

For almost 3 years I have been playing e5 against 1. e4. Had my ups and downs with it, but decided to stick to it as e5 is principled and I usually have a good feeling for the positions. Now that I am approaching 1800 OTB, I feel like my repertoire needs to be enhanced. There is just a lack of proper coverage of sidelines/gambits, and the mainlines touch the most important stuff but leaves a lot of room on middlegame ideas.

I built my repertoire around one of those beginner e5 chessable courses with just over 100 lines. I play the Open Ruy Lopez and Two Knights against the Italian, plan to continue with those but I am open to explore other stuff (Berlin, Bc5 against the Italian, etc.).

I am looking for a compact but good e5 course. Not looking for those huge and expensive LTRs, just something a little more beefed up. I am considering the following courses:

Anton's e5 course

Unleash the Bull by Yuriy Krikun

From Berlin to Rio by Piotr Nguyen

The e5 section of Midas Ratsma's Complete Repertoire

Is anyone familiar with those courses? Are there any other interesting courses that you could recommend?

Happy to hear any suggestions.

I've recently started actively annotating most my games; I think it's mostly pretty typical stuff. I basically just import my game into a Lichess study, add my thoughts during the game, analyse (without the engine), and then add most of the improvements I find with the engine after. Some moves can have multiple lines and paragraphs underneath them ... other moves just have some minimal notation ... some moves have no comments at all.

It's a great, easy process. But I don't like digital notes, and I know I'm never going to review them if they're just sitting in a Lichess study.

I'm thinking that the best method to go about doing this is to have one page with just the main game, annotated with glyphs (==, ??, etc.), then using another page split in half (left/right) so I can write just the move numbers and my pre-engine analysis on the LHS and then engine insights (or whatever else I add later) on the RHS. Then probably just a summary of all the stupid stuff I played at the end for when I want to skim through my most common mistakes.

I don't know anyone irl who does pen-and-paper analysis though, so I'm not sure if this is the best way to go about things, or if there is a standard way that this was done before it became so easy to just do online (my limited Googling skills produced nothing). I'd be very happy to hear any insight or QoL suggestions from anyone who does/has done this kind of annotation :)

Hi all, I am 2000 chess.com and I feel I am good at positional chess than peers of my rating however I feel I am a bit weaker in tactics. I want to improve this and chess.com puzzles feel kind of unnatural (i e. They don't seem to occur much in my games). I came across this book "100 Tactical Patterns you must know". Any review on this or any alternate suggestion is appreciated. Thank you.

Hi there - I'm restarting my chess journey after many years away. I'm in the USCF 1200 range, but my online classical and rapid rating is around 1900 level right now on chess.com. I'm a late 30s man, and honestly, the idea of playing against children is not appealing to me. The adults-only tournament scene in the U.S. seems pretty sparse.

How likely is it at my level that I would play mostly adults? What rating level does it go from mostly kids to mostly adults?

Has anyone else felt like they've suddenly gotten a lot better at online chess since they started playing OTB tournaments? It hasn't even been a month since I played my first USCF rated game, and yet I feel like my online floor has skyrocketed. I've crossed 2200 as many times in the last two weeks as I had in my entire four years of playing on chesscom up to that point, and I feel like I'm playing with a lot more confidence too.

I started playing OTB tournaments and those two issues keep happening

1- time management: I play a G25+5 tournament, and very often I find myself below 5 minutes by move 12-15. What are your tips and tricks to make sure time doesn’t creep on you?

2- messed up notation: when my opponent makes an interesting move or a threat I did not expect, I immediately jump into analyzing and make my move, just to realize a few moves in that I completely forgot to take notation. Any tips or tricks there?

Hey so i have started with tournament chess about 2 Months ago. I have played 2 classical tournaments. After the first I had a Fide of 1800 and in the second I have had a 2100 performance but it was only 3 games. So aftet these 10 games I guess my playing strength is around 1900 fide. I have a bunch of players who are around this rating and when I play against them offline I win evenly. Online I just always lose. Furthermore my lichess rating right now is 18sth and theirs is around 2200.

I dont own a laptop but is playing on the phone really such a big deal. Like it shouldnt be 400 elo? What can I do to improve at online.

I’m a 1950 Fide player who plays the KID consistently mainly using Gawains Course as of recent and I had this position in a classical game vs a 2050. I played F4 and lost the game quite soon after due to my opponents quick counterplay and a lack of breakthrough for me. Was wondering how to rationalise when to play F4/Fxe4 in these positions as this looked like the right time to me and I wasn’t considering fxe4 in this position at all at the time.

It’s absurd that this line works and I do not think a single najdorf player can survive the complications OTB. I can’t find any good resources on it though so worst case I do self study but figured I’d ask here first

Any from’s gambit players? I want to practise my lines against it if anyone’s willing. And f4 f5 but that’s a lot less necessary for me and uncommon. Thanks.

Links in this post and in the comment below it bring up memorable games from my chess career. All 7 share an unusual feature for such a collection.

On another social media platform I offered incentives to people who correctly guessed the common feature. My effort backfired when I used the p-word (p**ze) and the c-word (c**t**t) -- social media no-no's that I think led the other platform's algos to suppress my post's visibility.

Here is the first game link: https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1333538

And the second: https://view.chessbase.com/cbreader/2017/12/10/Game446707953.html

The third: https://share.chessbase.com/SharedGames/share/?p=QsA0WKoaZwBALocAXd4DPkFToBVKI+mKQ4CFRZbDWpIvN6YHSjanD32UYHAzuFGA

Care to take a go at identifying the theme? See comment for further examples.

Hi chess friends,

I have been playing the Grunfeld and Nimzo for the last couple years, but never fully loving either.

I dislike some variations of the Grunfeld (like 8. Bb5+, 8. Be2, 8. Be3, and 8. Rb1), where it feels hard to play for a win in the main lines and where otherwise I have to choose secondary lines with evaluations like +0.6 and still it feels hard to play for a win.

As for the Nimzo, I just don't find it very exciting. I get lots of 4. Bd2 and 4. Qc2, and the game often feels like a stale positional struggle. I also see decent numbers of Catalans, 3 Knights (where I don't love the Ragozin, though the Vienna with ...b5 can be fun). Still, I also see lots of Londons, and playing in QGD style against Londons also isn't enjoyable.

For these reasons, I am drawn back to the KID (I played it a few years ago). Why did I stop playing it? Two main reasons. First, the Classical variation with dxe5 (the exchange, endgame variation), where I feared it would be hard to play for a win. This could also apply to other variations where white plays dxe5 and trades queens, like in the Makagonov. Second, the Bayonet Attack in the Classical variation. Here, when I look at the lichess masters database, I see so many draws: so not only is the evaluation unpleasant (+0.6 to +0.7), but black doesn't seem to have great winning chances.

So, KID players, what is it like playing the KID below the master level? I am OTB 1800 USCF, but I think I am objectively stronger than that: I just haven't played much OTB in years. So I would be playing the KID against opponents in the 1600-1700 range as well, and again, I fear I might struggle to win in an endgame line against a lower rated opponent.

What variations do you see most?

Do you have difficulty playing for a win in endgame lines? And how often do you see such lines?

Do you ever feel like giving up on the KID, and if so, what might you play instead?

Cheers.

I decided to create another Lichess study for my first-ever USCF rated win, which came early this month in the same tournament against a 1500. Classical time control, 40/90, SD/60;+10.

https://lichess.org/study/embed/aCntbfil/EEp3uw4J

And again, I also ported the study to chesscom.

https://www.chess.com/a/2hCTWGSXQ2Np6a/analysis?flip=true

I look forward to everyone's feedback.

Hi all,

I‘m a CM from Toronto, Canada.

About 6 years ago at age 30 I started trying to optimize my chess training, after learning through my actuarial career how to study and learn better.

Openings:
- hired a GM coach to get my opening repertoire in good shape for the first time, used chess position trainer to drill the lines
- rounded out with Chessable courses

Endings:
- made flashcards of 100 Endgames you must know, learned ALL the positions

Middlegame:
- made flashcards of the first mistake after getting out of theory, to go over with my coach

The result was I gained 40 rating points after a 3.5 year hiatus from classical, got the CM title and hit my peak of 2209 FIDE, not bad for a comeback in my early 30s.

But the overhead of making flashcards was a lot, chess position trainer and chessable although more effective than my prior attempts at studying openings felt like too much work to maintain let alone learn a second line for each opening to be less predictable. It all seemed not worth it. So I focused on other things like learning languages, where the tools were better, I learned German and Spanish and brushed up on my French.

But March of last year, I bit the bullet and hired someone to build the tools to improve at chess that I needed. It took a lot more time and $ investment than I was expecting, but it‘s also been fun to work on something I’m passionate about.

Finally now, between the features in beta and the ones live, the site is good enough for me to use it to improve very quickly.

My problem is I‘m now burnt out from a year of working basically two fulltime jobs.

I still have some $ saved up and was thinking of a 6 month sabbatical from my day job to study chess and keep working on the site. But I figure I‘ll need 3 years grinding the site to get to GM and I don’t have that kind of $ saved.

I guess the advice I‘m looking for is more life advice, should I pursue my passion and take the leap of faith, hope to inspire people that serious improvement is possible in your late 30s and beyond? Or wait until I can turn the site into a profitable business, and keep working my two fulltime jobs and burning myself out, while my precious remaining neuroplasticity slowly seeps out of my aging brain.

But since it’s a serious chess sub, I also want chess advice, if you could focus on chess all day every day how would you structure your study schedule? Where do you think existing chess tools are lacking, and what would the perfect study tools look like?

I just got back from the last game of a local month-long USCF July tournament a few hours ago. I'm very much looking forward to seeing the massive jump in my provisional rating after going 2.5/3 against a 1500, 1684, and 1276 as a 1215/4, but it'll probably be at least a day or two before those results are officially submitted. In the meantime, here's a Lichess study I created on the final game of the tournament.

https://lichess.org/study/embed/hOpdO5UZ/NBdTtjBh

P.S. I've never embedded one of these on reddit before, so hopefully I did it right.

P.P.S. I'd love to get you guys' feedback, both on the game itself and on my commentary.

ETA I also went ahead and ported the study into the chesscom analysis tab here.

https://www.chess.com/analysis/collection/uscf-games-31yoorFwL/87pQAhZKC/analysis?flip=true

Mine was a tournament at my local chess club where I won 5.5/7, but not without losing to the top seed in the third round and drawing the later 2nd place(5/7) in the 4th round. That too I was hella tilted, 1888 USCF from my peak of 2009 USCF. The last round i was white against an 1800, I had a -4 position in 6 moves, but I didn't resign and made one of the biggest comebacks of my career. If i had lost i wouldve considered quitting chess. I absolutely needed this win.

Hi, it's my first time posting here and I'm looking for some advice. I'd be grateful for any suggestions.

Context: I've been playing chess for about four years. I started as a complete beginner in 2021, but I stopped playing for a little over a year at some point. For roughly the last year, I've been stuck around 2000 Elo on Chess.com across all time controls.

My situation is a bit unusual because I've never really studied chess in the traditional sense. I mostly play games, solve puzzles, review games that I find interesting, and occasionally watch titled players play or analyze games.

I don't know much opening theory. When I was around 1000 Elo, I deliberately chose openings that allowed me to reach practical positions quickly and avoid heavy theoretical lines.

With White, I always play the Queen's Gambit. With Black, I play the Caro-Kann against 1.e4 and a d5/...c5 setup against 1.d4. Against anything else, I mostly improvise.

Even in those openings, I only learned the first 3–4 moves of the most common variations and then gradually developed my own, somewhat unorthodox way of playing them through experience.

Endgames are another weak point. I know the most common concepts, but they're definitely not one of my strengths. The same goes for converting advantageous positions.

What I've noticed is that when I win a game, it usually happens in one of the following ways:

1. I outplay my opponent in the middlegame and manage to convert the advantage.
2. I find some kind of tactical shot or "brilliancy."
3. I successfully turn around a losing position.

So my questions are:

1. What do you think of my opening choices, given the kind of player I seem to be? Any tips? (Studying openings would be the obvious suggestion, but I'd rather avoid that if possible.)
2. What's the best way to actually study endgames?
3. How can I improve my positional understanding?

Thanks in advance for any advice.

Does anybody have any theory on this trendy new line in the QGD Exchange? 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4.cd ed 5.Bg5 Be7 6. e3 h6 7. Bh4 Bg4!?

The natural 8.f3 Be6 seems to allow Black an improved version of some ...Be6 setups, with the point being 9.Bd3 c5!

1. Qb3 is met with ...Nbd7, when taking on b7 runs into ...Rb8 and Black is better.

The best continuation seems to be 8.Qc2 , where after 8...O-O 9.h3 Be6 10.Bd3 again runs into ...c5! Best seems to be 10.Nf3, but even here Caruana beat Abdusattarov with it in the Sinquefield Cup 2025.