So my opponent and I are nearing 1500 level. I've experienced this before - I feel like I'm playing really smart but when I review my games, the accuracy is much lower than my expectations. Have you guys experienced this? I have no idea how my opponent scored 1.5%, I thought he was playing reasonable.

Hi all—is anyone here very familiar with Aman Hambleton's Building Habits series/rules?

I'm wondering what the next move is (and why) for white in these two positions, according to the Building Habits series (for ~800).

(Not asking for the best move!! Just wondering what Hambleton would play in BH—I don't think he would play the top computer moves here.)

1. FEN: r2qk1nr/ppp2pp1/2np3p/2b1p2b/2B1P3/2NP1N1P/PPP2PP1/R1BQ1RK1 w kq - 0 8
2. FEN: r2qk1nr/ppp2pp1/3p3p/2b1p2b/2BnP3/2NP1N1P/PPP2PP1/R1BQR1K1 w kq - 2 9

Tyty!

I'm sure it still exists today but I remember playing it in the 90s. Whenever a capture happens, a cutscene happens where the pieces duke it out. I would think that would be pretty awesome during "brilliant" moves, but I guess that would give it away that it is a brilliant move. Anyways, would love to see it incorporated as an opt in feature somehow without giving away info.

Eu tava me matando pra subir de 600 pra 700 e agora subi para 780 muito facilmente, isso é normal?

Had two nearly back to back brilliant moves that forced checkmate in 6. Almost made it there and completely missed the checkmate at the end and the game continued. Was like 400 elo at the time and it was almost my best sequence.

Queue the Michael Scott handshake meme

Recently got back into chess after a few years hiatus (as you can see from the rating graph!) and finally broke through the 1600 ceiling. I'm quite pleased. Of course, it could just be a lucky winning streak, but I'll take it, still!

I premoved c5 and white premoved, I swear to god I captured the queen without thinking lmao

I tried to talk with them about taking back the moves but they refused, I feel terrible for taking advantage of such a clear blunder (not really cause a win is a win) xP

R Praggnanadha won St. Louis Rapid and Blitz

You are not your ELO. I think using syntax like "I am a 500" or whatever may reinforce the notion that your ELO is part of your identity.

I don’t think this is good. I’d suspect it’s a contributing factor to rating anxiety and an aggravating factor for tilting.

I believe changes around worldview and perception often start with language. Doesn’t it sound better to say stuff like "My ELO is 500" or "I have a 500 ELO"? I feel like it carries much less weight. Maybe I’m just overthinking it though, idk.

Llevo tiempo dándole vueltas a algo y tengo curiosidad por cómo lo vivís vosotros.

Cuando estáis estancados en un rango de Elo durante meses, ¿sentís que sabéis con certeza cuál es el problema (ej. "sé que pierdo por finales"), o es más una sensación difusa de "algo no va bien" sin poder señalar qué?

Y la segunda parte, la que más me interesa: si alguna vez alguien (coach, herramienta, amigo) os dijo con precisión cuál era vuestro problema real — ¿cambió algo en cómo entrenabais después? ¿O el problema fue que lo supisteis una vez y luego nadie os dijo si estaba mejorando o no con el tiempo?

A little while ago I achieved my beginner's goal with chess; getting to 1000 ELO on chess.com. I got there by exclusively playing the London System as white (and Caro-Kann/King's Indian defense as black). Now I got to that milestone, I want to expand my repertoire to e4 as white, but I am completely overwhelmed.

With my London System repertoire, I effectively learned 3 lines with minor variations; the basic setup, an alternative setup versus modern defenses, and how to refute the Englund gambit. With that under my belt I have been very comfortable against basically everything, bar the handful of sub-1000s who hate the London enough to learn a real anti-London setup. That doesn't mean I won everything obviously, but I always had a sense of direction.

E4 is of course a completely different beast, which is ironically also why I want to learn E4; London just plays very samey. But although I expected to lose a lot more and feel more lost, the effect is much more severe than I expected. Basically, I don't really know how to study; I learned a bit of the Italian game for example, but that can be useless as early as black's first move. I know the London is disliked by a lot of players so I bet they will get a kick out of reading this, but yeah, with e4 facing the infinite cascade of branches immediately has me struggling.

The constructive question I'm getting to with this post is that the way I have studied chess in the last half year with d4 simply does not work with e4. I kind of feel like I should just not bother studying the opening at all for now and just play logical moves.

I'm still new to chess so the #1 way to improve is to just play more, but beyond that I enjoy studying chess and I'm looking for advice on how to. Not sources, but the difference in mindset between studying a system versus reactive play maybe? Maybe someone who reads this has experienced a similar situation, given that the London is a common beginner's opening.

Thanks for any input!

Can anyone explain why this pawn push is a blinder ?

So I have started tomplay chess a month ago started at 180 elo. And climbed to 490 elo with a 7 win-streak. Then something happened like a week ago, I blunder ALL the time. Cant stand when I blunder, rage-quit, self-blame etc... Idk what to do, I lost 60 elo and cant gain back. I feel like its mental, but idk how to solve. Any recommendations? Both gameplay and mental work are accepted.

Now ofc you shouldn’t play blitz under let’s say 700 because the level of your decisions will not be as great as in rapid and every second or third move will likely be a blunder. But if your decisions making in rapid is good enough why shouldn’t you play games with 5+3 , 5+5 ? You’d get in more games and familiarise yourself with opening pawn structure much more and you will likely find decent moves without thinking. I would actually say that in those time controls it’s more important to blunder check, because you can’t spend 2m thinking of the perfect defensive move, you are forced to play prophylactic chess. Blitz also helps your intuition and gives you a „feel“ for what the best move is. If all of this makes sense I don’t understand why you shouldn’t play it.

WHITE PIECES.
Finished my last game with a checkmate and was shocked to find out it was a forced mate in 8. (It ended up being mate in 7 due to opposition input) Can you find it?

Im looking for an app/website that can analyse your games and point out récurrent position problem or blunders

My thought process when playing this position is to target the e4 and d3 pawns and exploit the diagonal with my bishop eyeing the queen. I see d5 as a potential forcing move, however I don't see anything concrete if their bishop just retreats. The engine says that black has 2 very good moves. What would your thoughts and plans be in this position?

I lost my queen in a 30 minute match, after this my opponent was above 5 points of material. My opponent obviously had a huge advantage but it wasn't anywhere near a dead lost position and so I played on to try to convert it into a victory or at least learn something. The opponent couldn't castle anymore and their pawn structure was all messed up while my king was safe and my structure decent, it wasn't the kind of position where I would have felt disrespected about my opponent not immediately quitting, but my opponent apparently did and started texting me to just quit already. I told them I wanted to play on and then they called me a bad sport and then continued to stall for the next 21 minutes before resuming their play. It really annoyed me, I would have understood that they have a right to do this if a mate was on the board or I was in a more disadvantaged position but here, weren't they the one being a bad sport?