I dont feel like this is at all unpopular. 80% of chess games are a draw at that level so in the wcc 80% of days are going to be just draws but in the candidates because there are four games, you see wins a lot more. And the rating disparity helps too.
No it's not.
A 'Rep' or repetition is the description of one cycle of full motion of an excersize; ending back at your starting position.
Your first rep is your first full completion of that cycle.
It does not begin on number 2.
I have no interest in becoming very good at chess if it means I have to start treating it like an academic exercise instead of just having fun with it. Rote memorization of openings is not nearly as rewarding as finding ideas on your own.
Exactly, I can't remember the last time I sat down to forcefully remember some lines in an opening.
The fun part about studying openings is learning the ideas and specialties of the position. What the strengths and weaknesses are for both sides. What your main goals are, and how to react to your opponent's moves.
It's more so learning methods to solve a puzzle rather than learning the puzzle by heart. Also makes it so that every game is a different puzzle, rather than a repetition of the previous one.
I don't have an official FIDE rating, but the people I have the most interesting games with at the club are rated 2000-2200. 2350 online if that helps.
Also I should add that through basic analysis I of course know a few moves by heart. But it's not a consequence of studying the line per se, but a consequence of playing and analysing so many games that you eventually just remember.
I had a crisis of faith a while ago when focusing on rating climb. It's just incredibly frustrating how much study it takes. I quit chess for a couple of months. But, I love the game, and I had to figure out what it was that I missed about it when I wasn't playing.
For me, the answer was playing exciting games with cool combinations and lots of opportunities for beautiful, exciting moments. I changed my opening repertoire to pursue that aim, and I not only climbed more, but I started to think about how to improve my chances of getting into exciting games—and that led me back to the studying, hahaha. But now when I study, I'm not thinking: I have to know this to be good. I'm thinking: I can use this information to play beautiful games.
Somehow, that makes all the difference.
Also just as a fun aside, there's a guy at a chess club I play in who is like, my complete opposite. He says (facetiously) chess is not supposed to be fun, and he plays as boring and solid as he can. But he loves it! The key is finding what it is about chess that you love.
| I have no interest in becoming very good at chess
Morphy famously said that to become good at chess was the sign of a gentleman but mastering chess means you wasted your life.
Reminds me of the joke from the simpsons movie
"You've gone mad with power!"
"Of course, I've gone mad with power. Have you ever tried going mad without power? It sucks! No one listens to ya"
I think he took it even further, saying that just knowing how to play chess is the sign of a gentleman, but being good at it means you wasted your life 😬
I think being really really good at solving tactics puzzles will probably get you further in chess than rote memorizing opening moves. You figure out a lot of good and bad opening moves by playing against them and seeing what works and doesn't work. Spotting tactics is a lot harder to learn.
While I understand the point, not everyone views studying chess as an exchange for fun.
I personally found chess more interesting after studying and memorising openings after getting past 1600 elo since it felt extremely rewarding in games. Knowing I am in a better position feels almost like cheating in the opening, having that mental evaluation bar always on.
There's only so much to be played in the opening and it has all mostly been all explored. Having a good database and engine can help you choose across hundreds of openings, branches and variations to find the one that best suits your style. It's not just about memorisation but also about understanding the positional and long term ideas of each opening - this is what makes chess beautiful for me.
I know! I was just providing a counter-view to the "I have to start treating it like an academic exercise instead of just having fun with it" since I don't view them as being mutually exclusive.
Chess has a real lack of sportsmanship problem and it runs from the top, all the way down to casual/online only players. A large majority of players can't even shake hands properly.
I tried to shake the hand of an opponent at a friendly club tournament and instead of extending his hand he stared me in the eyes, lifted his leg off the chair, and passed wind. He was around 12 so. I lost against him as white and black.
In retrospect it's a funny story. But when it happened I was shocked. I looked around for a parent but it seemed like he was there on his own. I've come to think, based on my interactions with him after that, that he was definitely on the spectrum and didn't necessarily know exactly what he was doing (from a manners perspective).
I’ve got some infuriatingly rude child in my local club and I’m always torn between calling him out for being disrespectful or being more understanding because hes like a 15 year old kid. No parents in sight. Its not that he is actively trying to be hostile but he will just loudly say “You lost to that guy? But he’a so bad” or will shout that he’s so good after he wins.
That's awful, and can be quite the distraction. I'm always tempted to pull a kid aside and have a conversation about manners and respect but you just never know if the parent will end up going ballistic on you (even if they aren't around, the kid may go home and say so-and-so was hassling him).
Yeah. I remember getting yelled at as a kid by grownups too and I always took it way more seriously than the adults do, and I don’t want to make the kid feel awful when he sees me either.
My issue is people being sore losers and throwing spurious cheating accusations around. I feel people like me who got back into chess because of the drama model their views after the top players and sling cheating accusations on people who didn’t hang a rook like they did.
I do think that chess has a lack of good role models problem. It’s not sportsmanship per se, but for a game/sport that is immediately more accessible to the average Joe than other physical sports, the people at the top generally talk to others like everyone else is an idiot. There is an incredible amount of arrogance. Fabi is a borderline robot and he hosts the most popular chess podcast. Anish speaks so fast that I can’t understand him half the time but he is miles ahead of others at his playing level in terms of sociability and approachability. This is something that top stars in other sports have mastered, public perception and image.
Most, if not all sports are a social affair, especially team sports. The demeanor of their top stars reflects that. Chess, unfortunately, historically mostly attracts upper middle class dweebs so its top stars reflects this as well (though maybe this is changing). I think F1 is closest to chess in terms of top talent being socially inept. Another sport that's pretty bougie so it's no coincidence.
I think a lot of games suffer from a problem where the characteristics that make someone "great" (or close to "greatest") at the game have very little overlap with the qualities that make someone good at social interaction.
I suspect this happens less in most sports because they are - at the end of the day - largely social activities that demand players be at least nominally comfortable interacting with others.
When considering "solo games" (chess, but also Starcraft and a lot of other esports games) I think it's often wise to follow and look up to people who are a tier or two below the "top".
Danya, for example, strikes me as an excellent role model. He's just not in the top 10.
I was playing a league game last week and there was another match going on in the same room. In one of those games someone knocked over a piece and his opponent claimed touch moved and despite 2 fide arbiters (it was not fide rated so they had no official control) telling them that touch move doesn’t count if it’s by accident. The guy who claimed the touch move and the team captain then bullied the guy into resigning.
Chess is pretty much the only online game where I've encountered people who just run the clock out for 30 minutes after a blunder as some type of way to save face. Not only is it the only game where I've seen this, but it also happens at least a few times each day that I play.
Having a great team of seconds makes all the difference, especially in tournaments like the Candidates. We overestimate ELO and we believe players alone hold all the cards, but ultimately good mental coaches and professional players behind you can tilt the balance in your favor.
In the latest WCC Nepo was backed by a team of seconds that had basically every somewhat relevant Russian GM and Peter Leko.
Meanwhile, out of all people, Ding only had Richard goddamn Rapport with him, and still won.
Fans are not owed that very good players "live up to their talent".
I'm thinking of people mocking Alireza for being interested in fashion and calling it a waste of his talent.
I'm thinking of Ding Liren who's been dealing with mental health issues being called an undeserving World Champion.
no? people focus so much (too much) on openings. look at all the chess content, books, videos, courses, etc. most of it is about openings because it's what people want.
Sometimes I think there's a lack of humility among many chess players. Things like stopping disrespect towards those who play games similar to chess but easier.
You just have to go to any checkers video on YouTube and look at the comments to see the disrespect from chess players.
I didn't appreciate checkers until i realized that, if it's easier in checkers for me to see ahead 4, 5, 6 moves...then it's also easier for my opponent
Magnus was the person who acted badly in the Niemann-Carlsen drama. The way Chess.com handled the situation was also terrible. I left them after that event and I'm very happy on Litchess. And I don't like Hans at all.
Agree with this the whole way. There's a lot of focus on Hikaru's behavior with hyping up the drama (which also didn't help the situation), but for a WCC and such an established figure and (even role model) in the chess world, Magnus's behavior really was terrible. In hindsight, it's led to a lot more cheating accusations, most with little evidence. He has highlighted a serious problem in the game, but in that instance suggesting Hans was cheating but not saying anything else or providing any concrete proof set a dangerous precedent. Sometimes I wonder if people like Kramnik would be doing the things they are today had Magnus handled the situation better.
Dayna very often conditions his play for the audience, and is talking a lot the whole time. Not the best measure to judge relative playing strength imo.
Danya’s streams are a tough barometer because he’s playing a specific way to show his viewers good habits, not to just demolish 2000 elo chess.com people. My suspicion if that were his intention you wouldn’t see nearly many close-ish games.
The problem is that they’re more difficult to catch too, since you have to be somewhat competent to get to 1900; one engine move per game won’t be detected
For a player who is strong without an engine, they can play most of the game on their own. Then they can still gain a massive advantage by just using the engine in critical positions or in positions where they think a tactic might be possible but they can't see it. A good player probably wouldn't play any of the "obvious engine move" type things you see called out on stream too even if it's the top move. They probably would go for the 2nd or 3rd best move that looks normal and still wins.
I almost always avoid trades if possible because it makes the game more complicated and exciting with higher winning chance for both players (I'm a beginner so I'm more likely to lose than my opponent though). Moreover, the chess board looks more beautiful with more pieces on it.
Fischer didn’t defend his title vs. Karpov, and instead made ridiculous demands for the match that he knew FIDE would never accept, because he knew Karpov would likely defeat him if the match occurred.
I feel like there is something of a bell curve of enjoyment with the tip of the bell approximately 400-500 points better than the viewer. Enough better than you that you would struggle to play them, but not so far ahead that you struggle to understand the ideas.
Studying opening theory is a very good way for beginners to learn.
The key is to understand the moves, rather than just memorizing them. When I teach new players, I'll often take them through the Italian and the Spanish move by move, talking about what their objectives at the beginning of the game are, and what problems they're trying to solve,
e.g. "Nf3, I've developed a piece, it's controlling the center, I'm closer to castling, and I'm attacking your pawn on e5. Look how many objectives I've achieved with a single move; that's the kind of move you want to play in the opening. Now, do you have a way to achieve multiple opening objectives while also defending the pawn (or creating another threat)?"
This leads them to Nc6 (sometimes with a little more guidance), and ultimately into the Italian after Bc4 (developing a piece, controlling the center, getting ready to castle).
Afterward, I explain to them that we've just played a sequence of moves that have been played and studied for hundreds of years, solely based upon understanding what we're trying to achieve in the opening, and I explain a little bit what opening theory is. "For those few moves, you played like a grandmaster entirely with your own reasoning. How cool is that?" When you tell a kid that, they tend to get excited, hahaha.
Carlsen’s abdication of the WC will be looked back on as the end of high level competitive chess. It bored him to tears to prepare tirelessly only to draw nearly every game so he could win in the rapid tiebreaks, and it’ll feel the same to the next Carlsen.
Advanced computing and opening theory has squeezed the life out of high level play, and nearly every win now comes down to superior prep or a blunder under pressure.
My unpopular take is similar, in that I think high-level classical chess is rapidly approaching a point with engine analysis and opening prep where it will be appreciated more as an aesthetic exercise rather than a competitive activity. Sort of like certain martial arts that have no practical utility and hold little interest as a spectator event, so the people who become experts do it more because they love the aesthetics and mindset of the martial art rather than its athletic or practical qualities.
Part of it is due to the time control format, which is also how magnus won in the blitz tie breaks of the WCC. In the recent Alireza vs Gukesh game they were blitzing out moves and Gukesh blundered because they were so low on time.
Nepo was able to think through the preps from Hikaru and Pragg and draw. That shows superior prep can only get a player so far. Even if the prep got them a slight advantage, if they can't capitalize on it once they're out of prep, then it's useless.
Perhaps what used to seem like a subtle error is now instantly identified as a blunder by the computer.
The players are better than ever but the commentators are using computers.
I don't know if this is unpopular opinion, but "digitalism" of chess made it worse. I mean that everything now is super counted, even your skill. It took some magic from this game.
Not sure I agree with this, but then again I'm not sure I follow what you mean by "digitalism". FIDE starting using the Elo rating system in 1970 so ratings were a thing long before online chess took off.
I also think rating systems are important for match making because there is such a large range of skill in chess, it's no fun for anyone if skill levels aren't matched in some way.
People act as if opening study isn’t useful until XXXX rating (I’ve heard as high as like 2000) when in fact it would boost a lot of lower rated player’s ratings a lot if they spent some time on it. But people treat opening study as if they should just rote memorize one sharp mainline 20 moves deep and study no sidelines which won’t get you very far.
Edit: and I’m getting downvoted so you know it’s an unpopular opinion lol
I think a lot of beginners like studying openings for cheap tricks (like scholars mate), which isn’t that helpful for a better understanding of chess which is probably where the advice to not worry about openings until a certain level comes from however, I do agree that it’s beneficial for anyone of any level to learn openings as long as they are learning ones that give a decent position even if your opponent doesn’t fall for some trap
Praggnanandha is overrated.
Before jumping on me, please read.
He is of course a very promising player. He can become a world champion. But people talk about him like he is clearly above the other prodigies. That is not the case. On classical chess, he is on the same tier as Gukesh (who is slightly better than Pragg based on accomplishments and age).
He is very popular but not the best prodigy.
He is popular mainly because he has good score against Magnus. I don't know about overrated tho. Gukesh and Pragg's performance in candidates is so very impressive, especially if you compare it with Alireza.
960 has no shot of gaining popularity.
It doesn't work online -- there are so far no time controls alloted for it and no website has implemented a portion of time allowed to analyze prior to the first move.
Just because it's not as established or popular rn, you think it won't work ever in the future? I think 960 has great potential because of the way it sidesteps the monotony of playing standard openings at the highest level. Not to mention if regular players start playing it more because of organic popularity, the websites can always implement it properly with initial time given and stuff.
Yeah I think the biggest influence will be that high level players want to play it and tournaments with it will gain more notable attendees than regular classical. I mean Kasparov comes out of retirement to play the St Louis 960 event each year and I followed it because of that.
960 exists for professional competitive events. The problem it’s designed to solve — excessive opening memorization — is not an issue for the vast majority of nonprofessional players
I find 960 much more fun because I don’t enjoy “well here go the same 10 first moves for this opening again… well here’s this same old structure for the 7th time in a row…”
I have no idea how correct or (un)popular my opinion is, but I think the biggest issue with chess960 is that it appeals to such a narrow audience. It's good for the top \~0.1% of players who are bored of playing the same optimized openings. What about the other \~99.9% of players?
I think the opposite, I think 960 is the future of pro chess as the normal game becomes boring. 960 removes all the opening theory and repetition of similar games and allows true calculation freedom.
Studying it & trying to get better doesn’t mean your goal should be anything beyond having fun. Unless you’re literally a prodigy you’re always going to lose to more talented players eventually, so the goal should always be to enjoy playing the game, not improving your elo.
Probably a terrible attitude, but:
I've sort of lost interest in playing for fun though because games start just feeling random and every loss is a gap in understanding that seems to need filling.
Improvement is actually satisfying because you get to see results for work.
Most people that play chess don't actually like to play chess. They like to win in a game that is usually considered to be for genius.
Proof of that is that videos and lessons that make you memorize an opening with a trap, or that teach you hard principles that must be always followed have much more reach than videos that teach you how to think in general terms and for determined positions.
That's what I used to think when I was a 12 year old kid. Back in those days (mid 90s) the top chess players were these legendary humans, even the crazy ones like Fischer had some sort of aura around them. Now with the internet allowing them to broadcast their unedited personality, combined with most of them now being at least a few years younger than me, I think of them as savants, many of which are goofy, some of which are idiot savants.
About the sexism:
I noticed that among my peers and friends who play chess at a comparable level (I’m 1750 rapid) I am the only girl and I win significantly less games via resignation. I don’t really mind - it’s good practice to end games and prevent counterplay - but fascinating to me and the only noticeable difference between me and my peers is our gender
Bumping this study: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.3982/QE1404
> We also find that, on average, men persist longer before resigning when playing against a woman, decreasing the points that a female player can expect to earn against a male opponent.
Read this a while ago and don’t remember if I thought it was a good quality study, but it does reveal some interesting data and affirms that statistically men do indeed resign later when playing women.
When boys are taught that they will be laughed at for "losing to a girl", that's the result you get. It's the kind of thing people are talking about when discussing "toxic masculinity".
I remember my first tournament, second opponent: a little girl, maybe 12, which was super nice, and even reminded me about the clock, because I was not used to it and it was running down after my move.
This girl was a NIGHTMARE to play against. I had absolutely no chance. But I never had "i am losing to a girl" in my mind.
Thank you for pointing that out to me, that people really think that way.
1000 is a good rapid rating on chess.com
All of the blog posts online act as though you are a total beginner up to 1400 or 1800. But 1000 puts you in the 80th percentile which in my opinion is at least an intermediate hobby player
It's completely useless to learn openings if you are unable to deal with the late game. Learn the late game first, especially how to checkmate without a queen.
The online cheating “problem” is in fact not a problem and in my 2000 hours of playing on lichess I have not noticed a single cheater after I reached 1500 or so. And even the cheaters that I did face, there was only one that was blatantly obvious for me to recognize. If I can’t tell my opponent is cheating, I don’t care.
Yes!
I've never understood why a proportion of cheaters is ever really a problem to me. With or without them I'll have the same rating I have and the same win/lose rate.
Sure, in real life it would be a pain, but there's not a huge amount at stake in club level play.
It makes sense to me that we should have anti-cheat measures at the highest levels and then everywhere else it is not obvious to me how important it is.
Anyone who cheats will rise up the ranks until they reach the stringent arenas at which point they'll fail.
Online chess can never be secure
If you post something like “I’m 18 years old, rated 1300, and play chess for two hours a day, is it possible for me to become a GM?” Then you are delusional, egotistical, and are getting into the game for all the wrong reasons. And the answer is “no.”
Even worse if you say something like “Can I become a GM or should I settle for NM?”
Anyone under 2000 should be banned from giving chess advice. The amount of garbage I read on this sub and the chessbeginners sub blows my mind and the worst part is other beginners actually listen to it.
Also I think how do I improve posts should be banned. Its incredibly simple to improve at chess. You study something, literally anything and you'll improve if you work hard enough and aren't like 80 years old. Its just like losing weight, no one wants to do what works, they want some "trick" or "strategy" they can employ to do it quickly without effort.
Basically everyone and everything is banned. Break out the banhammers
Stalemates should be a win for the player who caused the stalemate with their move.
I believe stalemates are clearly against the so-called spirit of the game which is eliminating opponent's king from the board.
That a player trapped their opponent into a position where the opponent cannot play a move without putting their own king into check shouldn't punish the player. Ofc to avoid illegality of putting your own king into check, rules should declare the winner is the player who caused the stalemate position with their move.
As a truly noob chess player, I am not sure if there are stalemate positions where the player really couldn't move at all but if there are such positions, then those should be declared draws.
People say it's easy to not get stalemated so 'just learn' and it's true, after a while it's a non-issue other than in severe time constraints, but I agree in spirit. I've only ever heard 2 arguments for stalemate being a draw, and I'm unconvinced by both:
1) *The rules state that to win you must checkmate the king, and the king can't put itself in check, hence it's a draw* -- which is an argument that focuses on the actual wording of the rules instead of the spirit of them. The reason a king can't put itself in check is so a game wouldn't end because of a blunder move where someone suicides their own king and instead is only won when a player truly traps the opponent's king. That makes the game more fun and strategical. But there's no reason why this rule can't have an exception to include the game *also* being won if the opponent's has no legal moves that won't put him in check. Chess is already a game where you *can* win without checkmating your opponent -- when you win on time. If you go by this absolutist interpretation of the rules where 'a game can only be won when checkmate' then you'd also have to grant a draw to every player that loses on time, because technically they weren't checkmated, which is clearly absurd. It's fine to make exceptions to a rule if there are applications of the rule that go against the spirit of that rule / the game.
2) *It makes endgame more fun, even if one player is being crushed, they still have a fighting chance* -- I don't disagree, but by that logic you'd also have no problem with a rule in soccer where a goal scored in the last 10 minutes of a game is worth 5 goals instead of one. Sure, it'd make some 4x0 games way more exciting at the final minutes, but would it be fair and in keeping with the spirit of the sport?
Ironically this rule would lead to really boring play at the top level. Because no one is going to want to go even a pawn down when lots of KP vs K endgames are all of a sudden winning for KP.
The candidates is way more exciting than the WCC.
The main reason, I think, is there are 4 games at once. 4x the drama. People ignore the flat draws, see one win, and go "what an exciting day."
The National Football League model.
I need Scott Hanson when they bring up the quad box.
Makes sense. No one is talking about Pragg vs Firouzja, all discussion is about the other games.
Also, a winner-take-all tournament encourages more aggressive play than a 1 v 1 match.
I believe many people agree with this (including me).
The world cup is one of the most exciting for me. Knockout format means you can get some wild upsets.
The stakes, pressure, and amount of preparation in the Candidates brings it to a different level IMO
I dont feel like this is at all unpopular. 80% of chess games are a draw at that level so in the wcc 80% of days are going to be just draws but in the candidates because there are four games, you see wins a lot more. And the rating disparity helps too.
Not unpopular at all, therefore incorrect for OP's request.
Threefold repetition should be called Double repetition, because one repetition already means something has happened twice.
Triplicate is already a word
🤯
Nice but nah, calling a position that happens three times a "double repetition" is hella confusing. Keep it the way it is.
Same in the gym, the first squat is no repetition
No it's not. A 'Rep' or repetition is the description of one cycle of full motion of an excersize; ending back at your starting position. Your first rep is your first full completion of that cycle. It does not begin on number 2.
He's agreeing with op - linguistically, you'd think "one rep" should mean "one repetition" - doing the thing twice. Obvs that's not how it's used.
But you didn’t invent squatting. The first one is a repetition of an existing thing.
I have no interest in becoming very good at chess if it means I have to start treating it like an academic exercise instead of just having fun with it. Rote memorization of openings is not nearly as rewarding as finding ideas on your own.
that's a reasonable opinion but luckily for you you don't need a lot of memorization to become a good chess player
Exactly, I can't remember the last time I sat down to forcefully remember some lines in an opening. The fun part about studying openings is learning the ideas and specialties of the position. What the strengths and weaknesses are for both sides. What your main goals are, and how to react to your opponent's moves. It's more so learning methods to solve a puzzle rather than learning the puzzle by heart. Also makes it so that every game is a different puzzle, rather than a repetition of the previous one.
What is your elo? Not being passive agressive or anything, just curious!
I don't have an official FIDE rating, but the people I have the most interesting games with at the club are rated 2000-2200. 2350 online if that helps. Also I should add that through basic analysis I of course know a few moves by heart. But it's not a consequence of studying the line per se, but a consequence of playing and analysing so many games that you eventually just remember.
I had a crisis of faith a while ago when focusing on rating climb. It's just incredibly frustrating how much study it takes. I quit chess for a couple of months. But, I love the game, and I had to figure out what it was that I missed about it when I wasn't playing. For me, the answer was playing exciting games with cool combinations and lots of opportunities for beautiful, exciting moments. I changed my opening repertoire to pursue that aim, and I not only climbed more, but I started to think about how to improve my chances of getting into exciting games—and that led me back to the studying, hahaha. But now when I study, I'm not thinking: I have to know this to be good. I'm thinking: I can use this information to play beautiful games. Somehow, that makes all the difference. Also just as a fun aside, there's a guy at a chess club I play in who is like, my complete opposite. He says (facetiously) chess is not supposed to be fun, and he plays as boring and solid as he can. But he loves it! The key is finding what it is about chess that you love.
Im on a bit of a chess hiatus and this idea resonates with me. Thanks for the perspective!
How is this an unpopular opinion?
Welcome to unpopular opinion threads where the entire thread that has any upvotes are always super popular opinions. Firsttime?.jpg
| I have no interest in becoming very good at chess Morphy famously said that to become good at chess was the sign of a gentleman but mastering chess means you wasted your life.
Ironic, the saying is remembered only because he was such a masterful chess player.
Who went crazy, like Fischer.
Smart to go insane after you’re famous. I’ve known many people who went crazy, no one quotes them.
Reminds me of the joke from the simpsons movie "You've gone mad with power!" "Of course, I've gone mad with power. Have you ever tried going mad without power? It sucks! No one listens to ya"
I think he took it even further, saying that just knowing how to play chess is the sign of a gentleman, but being good at it means you wasted your life 😬
“To play chess is the sign of a gentleman. To play chess well is the sign of a wasted life”
The version I heard is, “To play a good game of chess is the mark of a gentleman. To play a perfect game of chess is the mark of a wasted life.”
Morphy also wasn't the most well adjusted person by most accounts, so his opinions outside of the chess board should be taken with a grain of salt.
that particular opinion is pretty sound though, and hilarious
I think being really really good at solving tactics puzzles will probably get you further in chess than rote memorizing opening moves. You figure out a lot of good and bad opening moves by playing against them and seeing what works and doesn't work. Spotting tactics is a lot harder to learn.
While I understand the point, not everyone views studying chess as an exchange for fun. I personally found chess more interesting after studying and memorising openings after getting past 1600 elo since it felt extremely rewarding in games. Knowing I am in a better position feels almost like cheating in the opening, having that mental evaluation bar always on. There's only so much to be played in the opening and it has all mostly been all explored. Having a good database and engine can help you choose across hundreds of openings, branches and variations to find the one that best suits your style. It's not just about memorisation but also about understanding the positional and long term ideas of each opening - this is what makes chess beautiful for me.
This is exactly what OP is saying by he doesn’t like.
I know! I was just providing a counter-view to the "I have to start treating it like an academic exercise instead of just having fun with it" since I don't view them as being mutually exclusive.
Everyone who beats me is cheating
This is unpopular with me because actually people only cheat against *me*
Kramnik?
😂😂
Sometimes you do actually need to play f3
f3 Nimzo and f3 samisch
Chess has a real lack of sportsmanship problem and it runs from the top, all the way down to casual/online only players. A large majority of players can't even shake hands properly.
I tried to shake the hand of an opponent at a friendly club tournament and instead of extending his hand he stared me in the eyes, lifted his leg off the chair, and passed wind. He was around 12 so. I lost against him as white and black.
I wouldn't even be mad tbh.
In retrospect it's a funny story. But when it happened I was shocked. I looked around for a parent but it seemed like he was there on his own. I've come to think, based on my interactions with him after that, that he was definitely on the spectrum and didn't necessarily know exactly what he was doing (from a manners perspective).
I’ve got some infuriatingly rude child in my local club and I’m always torn between calling him out for being disrespectful or being more understanding because hes like a 15 year old kid. No parents in sight. Its not that he is actively trying to be hostile but he will just loudly say “You lost to that guy? But he’a so bad” or will shout that he’s so good after he wins.
That's awful, and can be quite the distraction. I'm always tempted to pull a kid aside and have a conversation about manners and respect but you just never know if the parent will end up going ballistic on you (even if they aren't around, the kid may go home and say so-and-so was hassling him).
Yeah. I remember getting yelled at as a kid by grownups too and I always took it way more seriously than the adults do, and I don’t want to make the kid feel awful when he sees me either.
15 is old enough to know better.
Yeah.
Is this a true story? Curious. How old were you when you played this disrespectful 12 year old?
Unfortunately true. I was 41.
My issue is people being sore losers and throwing spurious cheating accusations around. I feel people like me who got back into chess because of the drama model their views after the top players and sling cheating accusations on people who didn’t hang a rook like they did.
Yeah I agree with this, pathetic limp fish handshakes or barely touching.
I do think that chess has a lack of good role models problem. It’s not sportsmanship per se, but for a game/sport that is immediately more accessible to the average Joe than other physical sports, the people at the top generally talk to others like everyone else is an idiot. There is an incredible amount of arrogance. Fabi is a borderline robot and he hosts the most popular chess podcast. Anish speaks so fast that I can’t understand him half the time but he is miles ahead of others at his playing level in terms of sociability and approachability. This is something that top stars in other sports have mastered, public perception and image.
Most, if not all sports are a social affair, especially team sports. The demeanor of their top stars reflects that. Chess, unfortunately, historically mostly attracts upper middle class dweebs so its top stars reflects this as well (though maybe this is changing). I think F1 is closest to chess in terms of top talent being socially inept. Another sport that's pretty bougie so it's no coincidence.
I think a lot of games suffer from a problem where the characteristics that make someone "great" (or close to "greatest") at the game have very little overlap with the qualities that make someone good at social interaction. I suspect this happens less in most sports because they are - at the end of the day - largely social activities that demand players be at least nominally comfortable interacting with others. When considering "solo games" (chess, but also Starcraft and a lot of other esports games) I think it's often wise to follow and look up to people who are a tier or two below the "top". Danya, for example, strikes me as an excellent role model. He's just not in the top 10.
The amount of arguing in the playing hall I've experienced is staggering lol
I was playing a league game last week and there was another match going on in the same room. In one of those games someone knocked over a piece and his opponent claimed touch moved and despite 2 fide arbiters (it was not fide rated so they had no official control) telling them that touch move doesn’t count if it’s by accident. The guy who claimed the touch move and the team captain then bullied the guy into resigning.
I just brofist, because I seem the picking their nose on the ride to the tournament.
Chess is pretty much the only online game where I've encountered people who just run the clock out for 30 minutes after a blunder as some type of way to save face. Not only is it the only game where I've seen this, but it also happens at least a few times each day that I play.
Having a great team of seconds makes all the difference, especially in tournaments like the Candidates. We overestimate ELO and we believe players alone hold all the cards, but ultimately good mental coaches and professional players behind you can tilt the balance in your favor.
Richard Rapport would like to have a word.
Not sure I understand this comment, could you elaborate?
In the latest WCC Nepo was backed by a team of seconds that had basically every somewhat relevant Russian GM and Peter Leko. Meanwhile, out of all people, Ding only had Richard goddamn Rapport with him, and still won.
Rapport has played some crazy beautiful games.
He was Dings second in the WCC
Fans are not owed that very good players "live up to their talent". I'm thinking of people mocking Alireza for being interested in fashion and calling it a waste of his talent. I'm thinking of Ding Liren who's been dealing with mental health issues being called an undeserving World Champion.
Studying endgames is fun whereas studying openings is incredibly boring.
most common opinion ever lol
it isn't, people love opening content, openings always get clicks on Youtube
no? people focus so much (too much) on openings. look at all the chess content, books, videos, courses, etc. most of it is about openings because it's what people want.
I agree about the opening part, but I hate learning endgames, even tho they're my strongest part of the game
Sometimes I think there's a lack of humility among many chess players. Things like stopping disrespect towards those who play games similar to chess but easier. You just have to go to any checkers video on YouTube and look at the comments to see the disrespect from chess players.
The checkers example is extra interesting, because Ivanchuck loves checkers
Look into Russian checkers. Way different than American.
I didn't appreciate checkers until i realized that, if it's easier in checkers for me to see ahead 4, 5, 6 moves...then it's also easier for my opponent
This happens everytime everywhere intelect / inteligence is involved, as you would thinl in chess or any job
The board should be rotated 90 degrees so the kings are on their own color instead of the queens.
Not married eh?
Happy wife Happy life 😂😭💀
I had to laugh so hard 😂
One of the best Reddit comments ever
I open to do that
I'm struggling to come up with any reason why this would matter to someone
Old benoni defense is non-ironically an amazing blitz response to d4
Premove 1...c5 for the win!
Watch out for those Orangutan opening enjoyers - all four of them!
Magnus was the person who acted badly in the Niemann-Carlsen drama. The way Chess.com handled the situation was also terrible. I left them after that event and I'm very happy on Litchess. And I don't like Hans at all.
The whole situation was handled extremely poorly, especially when you consider who was involved and one would expect more of them.
Litchess 🔥
Agree with this the whole way. There's a lot of focus on Hikaru's behavior with hyping up the drama (which also didn't help the situation), but for a WCC and such an established figure and (even role model) in the chess world, Magnus's behavior really was terrible. In hindsight, it's led to a lot more cheating accusations, most with little evidence. He has highlighted a serious problem in the game, but in that instance suggesting Hans was cheating but not saying anything else or providing any concrete proof set a dangerous precedent. Sometimes I wonder if people like Kramnik would be doing the things they are today had Magnus handled the situation better.
There are more cheaters than suspected on CC
Right? Like Danya should be moping non-titled players in rapid. 15+10 format above 1900s seem to be filled with a lot of cheaters.
Dayna very often conditions his play for the audience, and is talking a lot the whole time. Not the best measure to judge relative playing strength imo.
Danya’s streams are a tough barometer because he’s playing a specific way to show his viewers good habits, not to just demolish 2000 elo chess.com people. My suspicion if that were his intention you wouldn’t see nearly many close-ish games.
The problem is that they’re more difficult to catch too, since you have to be somewhat competent to get to 1900; one engine move per game won’t be detected
For a player who is strong without an engine, they can play most of the game on their own. Then they can still gain a massive advantage by just using the engine in critical positions or in positions where they think a tactic might be possible but they can't see it. A good player probably wouldn't play any of the "obvious engine move" type things you see called out on stream too even if it's the top move. They probably would go for the 2nd or 3rd best move that looks normal and still wins.
I almost always avoid trades if possible because it makes the game more complicated and exciting with higher winning chance for both players (I'm a beginner so I'm more likely to lose than my opponent though). Moreover, the chess board looks more beautiful with more pieces on it.
This is so based but I would hate playing against you
Same. If drunk at 2 AM I might suggest that my opponent becomes a shopkeeper if he likes trading so much.
Fischer didn’t defend his title vs. Karpov, and instead made ridiculous demands for the match that he knew FIDE would never accept, because he knew Karpov would likely defeat him if the match occurred.
Games are more fun / exciting to watch at lower levels.
I feel like there is something of a bell curve of enjoyment with the tip of the bell approximately 400-500 points better than the viewer. Enough better than you that you would struggle to play them, but not so far ahead that you struggle to understand the ideas.
Elephants can’t play modern openings.
I'll one day be good.
Studying opening theory is a very good way for beginners to learn. The key is to understand the moves, rather than just memorizing them. When I teach new players, I'll often take them through the Italian and the Spanish move by move, talking about what their objectives at the beginning of the game are, and what problems they're trying to solve, e.g. "Nf3, I've developed a piece, it's controlling the center, I'm closer to castling, and I'm attacking your pawn on e5. Look how many objectives I've achieved with a single move; that's the kind of move you want to play in the opening. Now, do you have a way to achieve multiple opening objectives while also defending the pawn (or creating another threat)?" This leads them to Nc6 (sometimes with a little more guidance), and ultimately into the Italian after Bc4 (developing a piece, controlling the center, getting ready to castle). Afterward, I explain to them that we've just played a sequence of moves that have been played and studied for hundreds of years, solely based upon understanding what we're trying to achieve in the opening, and I explain a little bit what opening theory is. "For those few moves, you played like a grandmaster entirely with your own reasoning. How cool is that?" When you tell a kid that, they tend to get excited, hahaha.
That's awesome, I would have loved to have someone like you teach me when I was younger.
Yea learning a few openings really opens up a noobs mind to what "ideas" really look like.
Fischer didn't defend his WCC because he was afraid of Karpov.
I think everyone knows this, really
Not in America
the italian is a dry opening you end up with the same position over and over
Carlsen’s abdication of the WC will be looked back on as the end of high level competitive chess. It bored him to tears to prepare tirelessly only to draw nearly every game so he could win in the rapid tiebreaks, and it’ll feel the same to the next Carlsen. Advanced computing and opening theory has squeezed the life out of high level play, and nearly every win now comes down to superior prep or a blunder under pressure.
My unpopular take is similar, in that I think high-level classical chess is rapidly approaching a point with engine analysis and opening prep where it will be appreciated more as an aesthetic exercise rather than a competitive activity. Sort of like certain martial arts that have no practical utility and hold little interest as a spectator event, so the people who become experts do it more because they love the aesthetics and mindset of the martial art rather than its athletic or practical qualities.
Interesting take.
Chess was very drawish before advanced computing. In 84 out of 48 games 40 were draws. They had so many draws they could not finish the match.
Disproven by the current Candidates Tournament which is a lot of fun to watch. Fun matches after prep with changing favours till the end.
Part of it is due to the time control format, which is also how magnus won in the blitz tie breaks of the WCC. In the recent Alireza vs Gukesh game they were blitzing out moves and Gukesh blundered because they were so low on time.
Nepo was able to think through the preps from Hikaru and Pragg and draw. That shows superior prep can only get a player so far. Even if the prep got them a slight advantage, if they can't capitalize on it once they're out of prep, then it's useless.
Perhaps what used to seem like a subtle error is now instantly identified as a blunder by the computer. The players are better than ever but the commentators are using computers.
Nf3 is best to go!
I don't know if this is unpopular opinion, but "digitalism" of chess made it worse. I mean that everything now is super counted, even your skill. It took some magic from this game.
Not sure I agree with this, but then again I'm not sure I follow what you mean by "digitalism". FIDE starting using the Elo rating system in 1970 so ratings were a thing long before online chess took off. I also think rating systems are important for match making because there is such a large range of skill in chess, it's no fun for anyone if skill levels aren't matched in some way.
We've been using Elo since 1960. The first rating system was implemented back in 1939. This is nothing new to the game of chess.
People should put more effort in setting up sensible positions for chess stock photos.
People act as if opening study isn’t useful until XXXX rating (I’ve heard as high as like 2000) when in fact it would boost a lot of lower rated player’s ratings a lot if they spent some time on it. But people treat opening study as if they should just rote memorize one sharp mainline 20 moves deep and study no sidelines which won’t get you very far. Edit: and I’m getting downvoted so you know it’s an unpopular opinion lol
I think a lot of beginners like studying openings for cheap tricks (like scholars mate), which isn’t that helpful for a better understanding of chess which is probably where the advice to not worry about openings until a certain level comes from however, I do agree that it’s beneficial for anyone of any level to learn openings as long as they are learning ones that give a decent position even if your opponent doesn’t fall for some trap
Yes, I’m a proponent of learning sound openings and not trappy stuff.
Praggnanandha is overrated. Before jumping on me, please read. He is of course a very promising player. He can become a world champion. But people talk about him like he is clearly above the other prodigies. That is not the case. On classical chess, he is on the same tier as Gukesh (who is slightly better than Pragg based on accomplishments and age). He is very popular but not the best prodigy.
He is popular mainly because he has good score against Magnus. I don't know about overrated tho. Gukesh and Pragg's performance in candidates is so very impressive, especially if you compare it with Alireza.
I won't say he is overrated he just has more media coverage. But he is definitely very good.
I’d love to see talking over the board, a la Coffee Chess.
960 has no shot of gaining popularity. It doesn't work online -- there are so far no time controls alloted for it and no website has implemented a portion of time allowed to analyze prior to the first move.
Just because it's not as established or popular rn, you think it won't work ever in the future? I think 960 has great potential because of the way it sidesteps the monotony of playing standard openings at the highest level. Not to mention if regular players start playing it more because of organic popularity, the websites can always implement it properly with initial time given and stuff.
Yeah I think the biggest influence will be that high level players want to play it and tournaments with it will gain more notable attendees than regular classical. I mean Kasparov comes out of retirement to play the St Louis 960 event each year and I followed it because of that.
960 exists for professional competitive events. The problem it’s designed to solve — excessive opening memorization — is not an issue for the vast majority of nonprofessional players
I find 960 much more fun because I don’t enjoy “well here go the same 10 first moves for this opening again… well here’s this same old structure for the 7th time in a row…”
I have no idea how correct or (un)popular my opinion is, but I think the biggest issue with chess960 is that it appeals to such a narrow audience. It's good for the top \~0.1% of players who are bored of playing the same optimized openings. What about the other \~99.9% of players?
I think the opposite, I think 960 is the future of pro chess as the normal game becomes boring. 960 removes all the opening theory and repetition of similar games and allows true calculation freedom.
It is, indeed, a horsey
Bishop pair is overrated.
Studying it & trying to get better doesn’t mean your goal should be anything beyond having fun. Unless you’re literally a prodigy you’re always going to lose to more talented players eventually, so the goal should always be to enjoy playing the game, not improving your elo.
Probably a terrible attitude, but: I've sort of lost interest in playing for fun though because games start just feeling random and every loss is a gap in understanding that seems to need filling. Improvement is actually satisfying because you get to see results for work.
Most people that play chess don't actually like to play chess. They like to win in a game that is usually considered to be for genius. Proof of that is that videos and lessons that make you memorize an opening with a trap, or that teach you hard principles that must be always followed have much more reach than videos that teach you how to think in general terms and for determined positions.
Not all draws are uninteresting
Elo does not equal intellect
That's not unpopular at all
That's what I used to think when I was a 12 year old kid. Back in those days (mid 90s) the top chess players were these legendary humans, even the crazy ones like Fischer had some sort of aura around them. Now with the internet allowing them to broadcast their unedited personality, combined with most of them now being at least a few years younger than me, I think of them as savants, many of which are goofy, some of which are idiot savants.
Chess today is 95% drama, 5% real Chess.
Honestly this is most sports
OTB amateur tournament players need to work on their hygiene, and the males need to be a lot less shitty and sexual towards the females.
I don’t go to tournaments so I’m asking this genuinely: is that really an *unpopular* opinion?!
No, it's common sense.
This is reddit, half of the comments never are actually unpopular.
Don’t think thats an unpopular opinion. Why do so many chess players smell awful? Don’t know.
The lucky sweater that wasn't washed in 30 years and missing a shower before the tournament.
About the sexism: I noticed that among my peers and friends who play chess at a comparable level (I’m 1750 rapid) I am the only girl and I win significantly less games via resignation. I don’t really mind - it’s good practice to end games and prevent counterplay - but fascinating to me and the only noticeable difference between me and my peers is our gender
Bumping this study: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.3982/QE1404 > We also find that, on average, men persist longer before resigning when playing against a woman, decreasing the points that a female player can expect to earn against a male opponent. Read this a while ago and don’t remember if I thought it was a good quality study, but it does reveal some interesting data and affirms that statistically men do indeed resign later when playing women.
Your male peers resign less against you? That's interesting.
When boys are taught that they will be laughed at for "losing to a girl", that's the result you get. It's the kind of thing people are talking about when discussing "toxic masculinity".
I remember my first tournament, second opponent: a little girl, maybe 12, which was super nice, and even reminded me about the clock, because I was not used to it and it was running down after my move. This girl was a NIGHTMARE to play against. I had absolutely no chance. But I never had "i am losing to a girl" in my mind. Thank you for pointing that out to me, that people really think that way.
Opponents in general - who are overwhelmingly male if demographics at local chess tournaments are to be believed
Vladimir Kramnik is correct.
Spassky, at his best, was a more creative and exciting player than Fischer.
1000 is a good rapid rating on chess.com All of the blog posts online act as though you are a total beginner up to 1400 or 1800. But 1000 puts you in the 80th percentile which in my opinion is at least an intermediate hobby player
D4 > E4
Chess is as addictive a habit as smoking and can ruin your life if not checked.
Magnus is right and classical chess needs to be somewhat phased out in favour of rapid chess
Computers ruined the game.
Hans didnt cheat, magnus threw a tantrum bc he lost.
Yeah kinda feels like that now, although it is still interesting that Hans cheated so much online.
Fischer Random should be played more at high levels
The only cognitive benefit of playing chess is becoming a better chess player.
Eh, I think the thinking exercises, calculations and studying are good for stimulating the mind. But it doesn't mean you're a genius
Online chess website are full of people who uses bots
"it's been a lousy game since the very beginning" - Bobby Fisher
Simply winging it is so much more pleasing for a one then having detailed sets after your opening.
It's completely useless to learn openings if you are unable to deal with the late game. Learn the late game first, especially how to checkmate without a queen.
Computers ruined chess.
At midlife I’m too old to get really really good at chess.
Among players of roughly equal rank, time management is the most important skill.
Chess is perfect as is.
The online cheating “problem” is in fact not a problem and in my 2000 hours of playing on lichess I have not noticed a single cheater after I reached 1500 or so. And even the cheaters that I did face, there was only one that was blatantly obvious for me to recognize. If I can’t tell my opponent is cheating, I don’t care.
Yes! I've never understood why a proportion of cheaters is ever really a problem to me. With or without them I'll have the same rating I have and the same win/lose rate. Sure, in real life it would be a pain, but there's not a huge amount at stake in club level play. It makes sense to me that we should have anti-cheat measures at the highest levels and then everywhere else it is not obvious to me how important it is. Anyone who cheats will rise up the ranks until they reach the stringent arenas at which point they'll fail. Online chess can never be secure
If you post something like “I’m 18 years old, rated 1300, and play chess for two hours a day, is it possible for me to become a GM?” Then you are delusional, egotistical, and are getting into the game for all the wrong reasons. And the answer is “no.” Even worse if you say something like “Can I become a GM or should I settle for NM?”
People like having goals, and without having a good understanding of chess it's hard to understand how unreachable GM is.
What fischer said was right.
Maybe you should be more specific, because Fischer said a lot of stuff....
Anyone under 2000 should be banned from giving chess advice. The amount of garbage I read on this sub and the chessbeginners sub blows my mind and the worst part is other beginners actually listen to it. Also I think how do I improve posts should be banned. Its incredibly simple to improve at chess. You study something, literally anything and you'll improve if you work hard enough and aren't like 80 years old. Its just like losing weight, no one wants to do what works, they want some "trick" or "strategy" they can employ to do it quickly without effort. Basically everyone and everything is banned. Break out the banhammers
Stalemates should be a win for the player who caused the stalemate with their move. I believe stalemates are clearly against the so-called spirit of the game which is eliminating opponent's king from the board. That a player trapped their opponent into a position where the opponent cannot play a move without putting their own king into check shouldn't punish the player. Ofc to avoid illegality of putting your own king into check, rules should declare the winner is the player who caused the stalemate position with their move. As a truly noob chess player, I am not sure if there are stalemate positions where the player really couldn't move at all but if there are such positions, then those should be declared draws.
People say it's easy to not get stalemated so 'just learn' and it's true, after a while it's a non-issue other than in severe time constraints, but I agree in spirit. I've only ever heard 2 arguments for stalemate being a draw, and I'm unconvinced by both: 1) *The rules state that to win you must checkmate the king, and the king can't put itself in check, hence it's a draw* -- which is an argument that focuses on the actual wording of the rules instead of the spirit of them. The reason a king can't put itself in check is so a game wouldn't end because of a blunder move where someone suicides their own king and instead is only won when a player truly traps the opponent's king. That makes the game more fun and strategical. But there's no reason why this rule can't have an exception to include the game *also* being won if the opponent's has no legal moves that won't put him in check. Chess is already a game where you *can* win without checkmating your opponent -- when you win on time. If you go by this absolutist interpretation of the rules where 'a game can only be won when checkmate' then you'd also have to grant a draw to every player that loses on time, because technically they weren't checkmated, which is clearly absurd. It's fine to make exceptions to a rule if there are applications of the rule that go against the spirit of that rule / the game. 2) *It makes endgame more fun, even if one player is being crushed, they still have a fighting chance* -- I don't disagree, but by that logic you'd also have no problem with a rule in soccer where a goal scored in the last 10 minutes of a game is worth 5 goals instead of one. Sure, it'd make some 4x0 games way more exciting at the final minutes, but would it be fair and in keeping with the spirit of the sport?
Ironically this rule would lead to really boring play at the top level. Because no one is going to want to go even a pawn down when lots of KP vs K endgames are all of a sudden winning for KP.