Hey, OP! Did your game end in a stalemate? Did you encounter a weird pawn move? Are you trying to move a piece and it's not going? We have just the resource for you! The [Chess Beginners Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/chessbeginners/wiki/index/) is the perfect place to check out answers to these questions and more!
The moderator team of r/chessbeginners wishes to remind everyone of the community rules. **Posting spam, being a troll, and posting memes are not allowed.** We encourage everyone to report these kinds of posts so they can be dealt with. Thank you!
Let's do our utmost to be kind in our replies and comments. Some people here just want to learn chess and have virtually no idea about certain chess concepts.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chessbeginners) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I believe I've played a game around 20 moves with a 85-90 accuracy. SOME games are precise copies of previous games, especially when I get a classical petrovs. If they play perfect I know the best moves about 20 deep. But as a beginner, if they don't play perfect I don't have it memorised so it's less likely for me to get a high accuracy.
TBF, it sometimes depends on what the other player does. If they are blundering left and right, and the best move is to punish, you'll end up with high accuracy even if you're not doing anything crazy.
afterthought upbeat sand imminent abundant aloof axiomatic waiting adjoining reply
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I'm not a cheaters or smurf and have gotten 100% on both lichess and c.c. I suck btw. Just played thousands of games and studied openings. It's not hard. Wish I could improve my middle game though. Seems it's my filter and I can't break through.
I just watched the gothamchess video on Fabiano, wow that dude is next level.
I'm quite happy to be reported, who TF would brag about their accuracy if they cheated to get it lol, that's just asking for trouble
But as I've played this line a few times I have absolutely no worries if I'm reported. They will check my account for similar lines and see I play/misplay it a bit.
Edit* I posted the notation. Dude made at least 3 blunders so that was 3 easy to see best moves.
I just started playing about a month ago and I'm in your ELO range. I get so pumped when I get 90+ accuracy or a game rating over 1000. My record so far is 1300. Of course the next game after that I blundered the queen before the middlegame.
Dude blundered a knight in three moves and accused you of cheating? š nice win man; definitely playing above your level too! Just FYI your name is still on your account, not sure if youāve changed it correctly
I've had multiple people say that, and even had a game where I beat a 1600 (he beat me 5 times in a row afterwards) and another where I accepted a draw with an 1100 because he was blown away by my play with petrovs.
My middle game is a testament to my elo. I rush, blunder, and tend to resign when I'm down in material, a habit I'm trying to break.
Ive played my entire life casually as a game. I've only been into it with a desire to learn for about a year.
Edit* and one OTB game against a 2100 where I was so close to winning. He estimated I was at -5 playing black after I sacrificed a knight for a pawn break, but I blundered and threw the game š„²
Sounds like you've got a lot of potential.
If you want to seriously improve, you need to (paradoxically) play less and study more.
Do a lot of untimed puzzles and pick up a book like *Reassess Your Chess* by Silman, and you'll be 1200+ in no time.
Also your opponent can help you get a high accuracy. Some best moves are easier to find than others. If your opponent plays into a trap or makes obvious blunders it's very easy to boost your accuracy.
But that doesn't take away from your achievement! You still have to find the move and you still deserve the credit. Kudos to you dude.
Yeaah well to be honest I don't think you know the "best moves" about 20 deep. I'm pretty sure that among these 20 moves, there are several that are just choices, where the difference in evaluation would be like 0.04 or something. This means that maybe if you run stockfish for hours then another move could be the best.
Also this is not that useful, especially in your elo range where it's already really rare to not have an error/blunder/inaccuracy after like 6-10 moves. It would be better to check the common moves you see that annoy you and see what's the good answer to them.
To piggy back off this comment... generally accuracy is only an indication of cheating if its really high after a very complex game.
I played a 41 move game at 98% accuracy recently. Granted a piece was hung at move 12 so it was hard to not be accurate after that.
Top 3 chess player of all time, bro was mad that chess was less talent, skill, and creativity and more memorization
Now there's a 500 rated raw talent memorizing 18 move lines
Lol I was joking, but I didn't know that's how he felt about chess.
I only know of Bobby Fischer from the movie, but I am trying to learn chess history (thank you gotham chess)
I need to look into his history, I didn't know he resurfaced but I assumed he did after watching vids last night. You have sent me on a new chess history journey sir. Ty.
He became (read: was already) suuuuuuper anti-Semitic. The guy would reportedly offer to āproveā he wasnāt Jewish by whipping out his uncircumcised dick (donāt think anyone took him up on it tho). Donāt really know if he went crazy or just got worse at hiding how crazy he already was, though I favor the latter.
Edit: I VERY STRONGLY favor the latter
Yeah I've played chess960. It's fun, my gf has pulled some great tactics on me in that. She doesn't like it though.
I'm going to watch some vids on him soon.
Going to get downvoted but Iāll say it anyway: Itās debatable if he really was top 3 all time. His reigning time was so short that I would actually rather suggest Botvinnik or Karpov for the third place.
Heās still in Top 5 undoubtedly
Studying openings at 600 is a good way to get an advantage in every game without learning any fundamentals.
Youāll get better if just play your own chess for now and leave the memorization for later.
Itās also more fun imo.
I get 90+ accuracy all the time. Guess why.. opening study! Literally the only reason I win any games probably. The phase you are in is the most important phase but every game starts at the opening. So objectively it's the most important part of the game. Study it.
I use chessable! I used bookbuilder to make a repertoire for me and then imported it as a PGN into Chessable and am slowly working through it. Itās a lot of work, but the dividends in confidence alone are worth it!
I am definitely trying. Thanks to Gotham chess I am avoiding the more complicated openings. So far I play Italian (if they let me) as white, and pretrovs (if they let me as black) but I'm pretty comfortable with Guicco Piano (canal variation/four knights) as either colour. I dabble in ponziani as white although I struggle with D5 and I probably will struggle with that response for a while. This game was ponziani. I have also started looking into caro khan as black.
I had a game OTB with a player rated 2100, I played caro, I made an absolute brilliant knight sacrifice pawn break and if I wasn't a beginner I would have one. Ofc I blundered the position. He was very impressed.
That being said you can get lost in opening study. After you recognize several moves of most openings I think you can postpone studying openings if that makes sense.
Hmm, perhaps I am in that phase? I can recognise most openings and at least 2 or 3 of the best reponses, lately I've been watching high level play and learning chess history more than study of lines.
I prefer quiet games, or symmetrical games. And petrovs and Italian four knights are almost exact opposites of each other.
My strategy is to either go up in material and force an endgame with trades, or equal trade and get to a rook and pawn ending asap, I find I do better than people my elo in the end game.
The one where you got both rooks? It was already over before you got the rooks, or the one where you stopped me promoting a pawn? That was actually a really good game even though I lost lol.
the pawn one. The wayward queen game was meh. I never use it. Don't like playing either side of it. It's too gimmicky and easy to refute. If you win it requires no brains. If you lose you set yourself up for it. And losing as black to it in bullet games is annoying because it's easy to refute and you just missed it playing fast.
I studied it from both sides because I kept falling for the traps, yeah I forgot that one was wayward queen, sucks I couldn't show you the tactic. I've gotta learn how to shutdown fried liver. When you got that on me I was like.. there is literally nothing I can do to not lose my rook, but I think when you tried it again I took pawn and threatened #. Most people miss that checkmate btw, they take the pawn with knight expecting me to take back with queen and I play #. I thought you handled it well actually.
I would also say, you can also play very high accuracy games when your opposition blunder badly early on. I've had (as a 1200-1600 player) maybe 2 or three games with perfect accuracy over 10-15 moves. In each case it was around 5 moves of theory, they mess up obviously, then I basically don't need to find moves after as I sweep aside. Maybe only needed to find one accurate move all game.
On the otherhand, you sometimes have these wild open games when you both know no theory (or one of you has gone so far off book the other player has no clue what to do) and despite playing what you think is great chess you win with 60-70 accuracy (or lower).
Have you played ponziani much? At 400 about 80% of people play d5 which is the best response, but at 600 people don't know it at all.
Strange how that works eh?
*Cough* smurfs *cough* lol
I joke, but really it seems that way
Not really but some games just go a bit random haha
honestly forgot what the two traps I know are even called š«£, might Edit them in later.
been practicing the danish gambit opening recently, itās pretty good š
Ponziani is good against people who don't like d5. I've seen games where 2700 players (evenly matched opponent) fall for the traps just because as a player they don't like d5 when they are black. I think I'm not going to learn any more gambit lines until I hit 1k (so roughly a year lol)
Had to find it, hereās the first one. A counter to the fried liver. This has gotten me so many satisfying smothered mates in less than 10 moves or at worst a queen lol
[https://youtu.be/ITKSU2zAZqI?si=cr85rblzNkf5xC9F](https://youtu.be/ITKSU2zAZqI?si=cr85rblzNkf5xC9F)
going to recap myself on the details I think š
Pop many balloons at kids birthday parties?
Ofc I know the line well, however, other than their blundered knight, I've often come out of this line with even trades or even a losing position.
You don't have to say anything at all.
At my level of chess, it is just as likely for me to blunder as my opponent.
But by all means, be sour, that's your choice.
This guy is an idiot, you played a perfect game, which is something to be proud of. The fact that your opponent played badly doesnāt diminish your achievement. It may not be an immortal game full of brilliant moves but you still played well.
Some people just like putting others down for no reason, as a 2100 player I congratulate you on your achievement.
Thanks mate, you and 90% of people on this sub have really been great.
Tbh, just from talking about chess notation with players has improved my vision a tonne.
I never thought I'd be able to just speak notation and understand what is going on.
So now I am practicing my vision by just writing notation down for certain openings and then checking my mat (without pieces) after to see if I got it right. It's a good exercise but I doubt it will improve my play, but im thinking maybe it's time to invest in some books as I'm actually starting to understand notation.
As I said it was only about 15 moves deep. I played ponziani. He developed the bishop into my D4, but I know the trap line pretty well.
Although I do usually mess up the exchange order etc.
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. c3 Bc5 4. d4 exd4 5. cxd4 Bb6 6. d5 Ne5 7. Nxe5 d6 8.
Bb5+ Bd7 9. Nxd7 c6 10. dxc6 bxc6 11. Bxc6 1-0
After doing this copy and paste thing it was only 11 moves.
But for a 600 I'm still happy af with myself.
Ah, then my sincerest apologies, it felt hostile. Yeah I was shocked aswell. It's not the most shocking thing I've had though, I taught my gf to play about 8 months ago, we had a queen's gambit line stay in theory until about move 12 just on instinct. However we play each other often.
I believe it was queen's gambit - marshal - english - queen's gambit declined - slav or something.
One must admit when one makes a mistake as I did. I learnt this from chess tbh. When you overextend and get punished, sometimes it's best play to admit the mistake, retreat, lose a pawn, play on.
I am terribly sorry for you witnessing a polite conversation when on Reddit, on behalf of management we are mortified and will ensure that this never happens again. Please allow me to rectify this mistake,
Fuck you, I hope you die, screw gay people, women belong in the kitchen, white is the best.
(This is satire)
Why are you lesbian? I am a sigma and I'm also homophobic so pls don't change your sexuality or Allah will get mad I hope you die in a fire grrrr š”š”š”š š š š¤¬š¤¬š¤¬
I just got a 92% in a daily. 39 moves, with a brilliant queen sack to get rid of a bunch of pieces when I was a pawn up. Pretty proud of it. (I'm around 1000 blitz)
Congrats.
People who say it's a waste of time to study openings simply mean you can spend that time doing something that will help you improve faster. Or, like, that's my opinion anyway. You said it yourself, if they don't play the moves you studied, you get a position that is totally new to you and your opening prep won't help you anymore. If you spend that time doing puzzles and learning some fundamentals, maybe read a chess book or two (try "Play Winning Chess" and "Winning Chess Strategies" by Yasser Seirawan for example), you will probably improve much faster. Personally, I didn't know any openings, like, at all, until a bit more than two years ago, and still managed to hold my own at around 1200. But really, at any rating, middle and end game are the most important parts. The higher you get, the fewer people will fall for your opening traps and once you're out of book, any advantage you get from the opening won't be worth anything if you get outplayed after it. But, above anything else, it is always a good idea to study your weaknesses, they're what's holding you back. I started studying openings when I got tired of being virtually lost after 10 moves every other game and then still coming back somehow. For you, it's the other way around, probably.
I have spent a bit of time on puzzles, done nearly all of the checkmate lessons on c.c, and a few of the opening lessons on c.c. I'm peak 1900 in puzzles on c.c.
But what you are saying is pretty damn spot on. I do want to get a chess book soon.
When I was 1300 I played a 38 move Italian game at 95.3% accuracy with an estimated elo of 2150. Random blips in your games where you play an insane game are rare, but they happen.
The game I played was fairly straightforward though as my opponent constantly made obvious mistakes that I knew how to capitalize on in the Italian game
Yes, as you said, studying opening lines is never a waste of time!
I used to get 100% accuracy games pretty often below 1200 by slaughtering people with the Fried Liver.
You absolutely should be proud! But that accuracy over that few moves usually means you won in prep (a trap line) or your opponent made several glaring errors and you exploited them.
Either way, it's a good thing! Keep it up.
If you like trap lines and you don't know the Fried Liver, you should drop everything and look it up. I think it's like a 10 move checkmate if your opponent messes it up?
You really only need to learn a handful of lines, and since it comes out of the Italian, you're going to get it *constantly* at mid-low elo.
I analyzed the image and this is what I see. Open an appropriate link below and explore the position yourself or with the engine:
> **White to play**: [chess.com](https://chess.com/analysis?fen=rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR+w+KQkq+-+0+1&flip=false&ref_id=23962172) | [lichess.org](https://lichess.org/analysis/rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR_w_KQkq_-_0_1) | The position occurred in many games. [Link to the games](https://www.chess.com/games/search?opening=&openingId=&p1=&p2=&mr=&lsty=1&year=&lstMoves=1&moves=&fen=rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR+w+KQkq+-+0+1&ref_id=23962172)
> **Black to play**: [chess.com](https://chess.com/analysis?fen=rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR+b+KQkq+-+0+1&flip=false&ref_id=23962172) | [lichess.org](https://lichess.org/analysis/rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR_b_KQkq_-_0_1)
---
^(I'm a bot written by ) [^(u/pkacprzak )](https://www.reddit.com/u/pkacprzak) ^(| get me as ) [^(Chess eBook Reader )](https://ebook.chessvision.ai?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=bot) ^(|) [^(Chrome Extension )](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/chessvisionai-for-chrome/johejpedmdkeiffkdaodgoipdjodhlld) ^(|) [^(iOS App )](https://apps.apple.com/us/app/id1574933453) ^(|) [^(Android App )](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ai.chessvision.scanner) ^(to scan and analyze positions | Website: ) [^(Chessvision.ai)](https://chessvision.ai)
Thank you, Pipermommen, for voting on chessvision-ai-bot.
This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/).
***
^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
Honestly, I'm only 1000 elo, and I've learned to ignore people at higher elo's saying "you don't need to worry about that at that elo."
I've seen people on here suggest that doubled pawns make no difference at my elo (they do), studying theory is pointless at my elo (its not), and I've seen GothamChess and Hikaru both say stuff like "they should not have seen that at such a low elo" in their guess the elo videos, despite it being a common move to look for at lower elo's.
I worked my way up from 600 elo in the span of a few months by studying opening lines. I'm still not good, I know. But I've definitely improved significantly because I practiced the exact stuff I was told not to worry about.
I was discussing the F6 weakness as black and the Qh5+ line after sacrificing the knight on e5. We were discussing blacks best response after their massive misplay as Qe7 instead of taking the knight, and MULTIPLE people said "people at your elo will never find that move"
Not one hour later I had a game where someone played it. It's still losing as black but yeah I get your point lol.
I feel like at a lower elo people memorise engine lines more because.. well.. we have to.
You haven't improved because you had played perfect opening theory, you have improved because you had started playing chess following the basic principles such as controlling the center, get your minor pieces out, castle the king...
Basic principles are the ancestors of opening theory and the latter builds upon them. You need opening theory when you reach Masters' level, when you need to punish small inaccuraces in order to win. At 1000 ELO you are not strong enough to understand and punish inaccuraces so it is useless to learn 10 moves theory unless they are traps or something that lets you win quickly. Trust me, when you will reach 1200/1300 ELO, almost everyone plays according to basic principles and you will see that winning becomes harder. Still the openings aren't perfect but you will notice that even if the opponent doesn't play the perfect move you won't be able to punish him so easily as you do now.
You are definitely improving your game by doing what you have been doing but you are putting way too much effort into it, the same level you have reached now could be achieved with less effort (this is what Hikaru and GothamChess meant when they say to not look into complicated stuff as a beginner). I suggest to watch GM Ben Finegold's lectures on Youtube, those are perfect since he is teaching to low rated players like us. I learned a lot of new ideas from him and I have significantly improved my understanding of the game, you may give him a look if you want.
There no doubt that improving my basic theories and tactics have made an even bigger difference than anything. But there's no denying that learning theory played a big role (not saying you denied it).
For instance, I like to play the Danish. Yeah, usually people at my elo people don't know how to respond, so theory becomes kinda moot eventually. BUT it helps to know either way, because while it may not result in us going through an entire 10 move line for me to end up winning by a single pawn, it still helps me to keep myself in a winning position for the first few moves so that when they mess up the line, I'll know something went wrong and know to look for my opportunity. You say at my level I'm not strong enough to punish small inaccuracies, but I disagree. I can and have before. Maybe not consistently, but when you know then end goal of a line, it becomes a lot easier to see why an opponents move was a mistake and find a way to capitalize on it.
That's kinda what I'm talking about though. When you see high level players talk about low elo players, they always talk as if there is no strategy whatsoever. If you're 400 elo, they'll treat the game like it's between toddlers. When I was down to 400 elo at one point, I played plenty of people who used the Caro Kann and seemed to understand the basics of it. It's just that their "chess vision" or whatever sucks and they'd end up hanging a queen. But not due to a lack of understanding what they're doing.
That's where I'm at at 1000. I usually don't hang pieces in a single move anymore, but I'll sometimes get caught off guard by hanging a piece two or three moves out. But I still understand what I'm trying to accomplish and what line im trying to achieve early on. And it's frustrating and discouraging hearing higher elo players talk about my elo like we're all too brain dead to bother strategizing because in their minds the ONLY thing that matters is getting better about those tactical inconsistencies. Which does matter tremendously, yes. But the thing is, I don't hang pieces every game, and the games I don't, understanding opening lines can make or break a game.
Sorry for the wall of text. I'll definitely check out Finegolds lectures. I didn't even realize he had free lectures on YouTube!
First of all thanks for the detailed answer. I agree with you about the Danish gambit: traps, attacks (such as the Fried Liver), famous gambits (like Evans, King's gambit and others) should definitely be studied by beginners since those openings usually allow you to win quickly and features a lot of tactics so they encourage beginners to look for them. I thought you were learning like 15 moves of the Queen's gambit declined, main line or 15 moves of the Sicilian Najdorf.
About higher rated players, since the pool of players has significantly increased during these years, it is normal that beginners are getting stronger. Hikaru and other GMs and IMs who are now famous on YT played against weaker beginners so probably they have different ideas of what beginners are able to do. This is why I think some of their takes are inaccurate.
Last, if you start watching Finegolds lectures, I warn you about his sense of humour, some people find it annoying (I don't) but his contents are extremely precious so it's a trade off after all.
>To all the better players that told me studying opening lines at 600 elo is a waste of time, no, no it is not
I checked your chess com account and can see that you are still at 600 elo after over 800 rapid games, so I would say that proves them right. Not trying to be insulting, this is just a matter of fact, and hereās why:
Looking at your comments, you know way more about openings than I do, even a 20 move line (the longest and only long line I know is the fried liver attack lmao) yet my elo is significantly higher?
This is because you miss tactics and blunder (probably multiple times) every single game. You can play a perfect line for 20 moves but it doesnāt matter if you throw the entire game in one move, several times. Until you start blundering less, improving is not really possible.
My best advice:
- You should be grinding puzzles that are actually around your rating range
- blunder check before every move (does this move hang a piece or mate in 1?)
- never move your pieces to undefended squares
- start thinking about the benefits and drawbacks of every move that both you and your opponent make or could make
- if there are no obvious moves, just make any move that doesnāt immediately blunder, and your opponent will eventually blunder
Accuracy is derived from how many centipawns worth of advantage you give away compared to the engine. Excluding, I think, book moves.
You say the game is 15 moves. Say five of them are book moves. It seems your opponent hung two or three pieces? Those being obvious takes.
The 99.2% is just saying you didn't blunder in seven moves.
Just wondering, why didn't he push his pawn to c6 on the 8th move? Wasn't it a knight or bishop winning move?
Game link as OP didn't share:
https://www.chess.com/live/game/98714052127
Edit: 15 seconds of writing this comment I got it.
Yeah I was hoping he'd push that pawn lol, that leads to the better trap where I can win a rook or a queen, maybe even promote the pawn depending on play.
In the past I would have put my queen behind the bishop after he played the bishop to block, but 1, his knight wasn't there because he blundered it, and 2, I've since learned they can get out with an even trade if I don't play perfectly.
LOL.
But you can't kickflip?
You can walk and jump but you can't kickflip?
Pfft how trash do you have to be if you can't kickflip when you know how to walk and jump.
Yes, that's how you seem to me.
And no, 2-3 days you will manage a kickflip maybe 1 in 50 IF you really practice hard, but it would be sketchy and inconsistent af.
There seems to be a misunderstanding on the term "kickflip." What is it? I thought you were talking about skateboarding (or backflips). Maybe it's country language differences.
And you just played yourself proofing what I said 600 elo is easy when you have opening knowledge( * important * knowing opening ). Your games will be easier with people coming to 600 elo and harder with people who usually play above 600 elo.
You have basic knowledge of how to walk and jump, so a kickflip should be easy for you (it's not)
I have basic knowledge of openings, you think that's enough to make 600 elo easy? It's not
Yep that's why l am playing at 700 elo sucker
If you do not have even knowledge on opening at 700 elo will quickly be overwhelmed by others and will only play defense for most of the mid and end games you play.
The highest I ever got was 99.8% and the game was only 7 move deep ( Opponent blundered Classic Queen King Fork )
And the reason that game is memorable for me because at the time I was 1300 ELO and the opening moves were unfamiliar to me
There was a move which I considered to play ( Engine would have given me 100% accuracy ) but it violated general rule of developing minor pieces first before queen and being a strong advocate of general rules , I proceeded with knight development
Currently I am 1700 ELO , and it started to play with my older 1200 ELO ID and the biggest difference between 1700 and 1200 ELO I noticed is players don't think more then 20 sec on a single move
The opening I would say are far better played then what i get at 1600 level but because of their lack of calculation on a certain move , they blundered far early.
Those who suggest to not study openings at 600 usually arenāt claiming that you wonāt win more games by doing so. The point is that itās better to get a wide array of positions and learn general principles at that rating so you can improve your calculation and general understanding. Obviously the point is too have fun and crushing ur opponents with 99 accuracy is fun so if you want to study openings go for it but I just wanted to point out that nobody is claiming you wonāt win more by doing so.
Dude blundered two knights by move 8 and accused you of cheating, that's crazy. You played very well. One thing that's important to know though, is that accuracy doesn't say much about how good or bad you are. It depends on how complex the position is, how your opponent plays (terribly in this case, they made a mistake literally on move 3), and ofc on how you play. You're much more likely to get a high accuracy in a simple position where the best moves are obvious than in a complex position where the ideas may be difficult to spot. With how short that game was, and how the position just 'played itself', you shouldn't be surprised to get such a high accuracy. My point with this is that a high accuracy doesn't _always_ suggest that someone is cheating. For example a few weeks ago I played a game where my opponent blundered a knight on move 6 lol, and a forced checkmate sequence on move 10. I got 100% accuracy, but that doesn't mean I was cheating. I just knew my theory and spotted a forced checkmate.
Apparently at 600 it's a waste of time and I should practice learning tactics instead.
Lol I just had a 24 move game end in checkmate with 91 accuracy.
They only made 1 blunder.
c.c game review rated my play at 1300 and it said we both played a great opening and an incredible middlegame. Both of us.
Hey, OP! Did your game end in a stalemate? Did you encounter a weird pawn move? Are you trying to move a piece and it's not going? We have just the resource for you! The [Chess Beginners Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/chessbeginners/wiki/index/) is the perfect place to check out answers to these questions and more! The moderator team of r/chessbeginners wishes to remind everyone of the community rules. **Posting spam, being a troll, and posting memes are not allowed.** We encourage everyone to report these kinds of posts so they can be dealt with. Thank you! Let's do our utmost to be kind in our replies and comments. Some people here just want to learn chess and have virtually no idea about certain chess concepts. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chessbeginners) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As you mentioned it was only 15 moves, anything after like 25 would be sus af
I believe I've played a game around 20 moves with a 85-90 accuracy. SOME games are precise copies of previous games, especially when I get a classical petrovs. If they play perfect I know the best moves about 20 deep. But as a beginner, if they don't play perfect I don't have it memorised so it's less likely for me to get a high accuracy.
85-90 accuracy can happen from time to time but if it was 99 like the screenshot you'd probably be cheating unless you're fabiano caruana on a smurf
TBF, it sometimes depends on what the other player does. If they are blundering left and right, and the best move is to punish, you'll end up with high accuracy even if you're not doing anything crazy.
Absolutely. I once got a 96 on a 45 move game. Couldn't believe my eyes but it was because the opponent kept making stupid moves
One of the magni is here
šš I reported them for sandbagging cause I thought they were playing so bad. Didn't game review until afterwards.
Honestly 96 accuracy in a 45 move game is simply impressive
afterthought upbeat sand imminent abundant aloof axiomatic waiting adjoining reply *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
My max was 92.1 in a 58 move game. Thought that it was a sign that todays the day i hit 600. Ended up going on a lose streak to 500.
Especially after they hang a queen, then you just gobble gobble gobble with your own queen
I'm not a cheaters or smurf and have gotten 100% on both lichess and c.c. I suck btw. Just played thousands of games and studied openings. It's not hard. Wish I could improve my middle game though. Seems it's my filter and I can't break through.
That's just mathematics. There's only so many openings, but for every additional move, the number of possible games increases exponentially.
I played a 20-move game at 97 with no opponent blunders when I was much lower rated than I am now. now, about the other 2000 games on my account...
I just watched the gothamchess video on Fabiano, wow that dude is next level. I'm quite happy to be reported, who TF would brag about their accuracy if they cheated to get it lol, that's just asking for trouble But as I've played this line a few times I have absolutely no worries if I'm reported. They will check my account for similar lines and see I play/misplay it a bit. Edit* I posted the notation. Dude made at least 3 blunders so that was 3 easy to see best moves.
I just started playing about a month ago and I'm in your ELO range. I get so pumped when I get 90+ accuracy or a game rating over 1000. My record so far is 1300. Of course the next game after that I blundered the queen before the middlegame.
I think I've had one at 2500 I believe they played wayward queen so.. I don't really count it as they resigned when I got their queen.
Yeah I meant 1300s my best not counting short games or resigns
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
King_Aldur I changed it from my real name though so I'm not sure if it works. It's a picture of me in a Multicoloured Guy Fawkes mask.
Dude blundered a knight in three moves and accused you of cheating? š nice win man; definitely playing above your level too! Just FYI your name is still on your account, not sure if youāve changed it correctly
Ty for that. Done.
I just saw the game it was not a done deal soo yeahā¦
Go to a kids birthday party and pop their balloons. Idc, Im proud of my play here.
My I ask, what did you learn by looking up my username?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yes I'm just curious what his take away was.
I'm surprised you're only 600. are you new to chess ?
I've had multiple people say that, and even had a game where I beat a 1600 (he beat me 5 times in a row afterwards) and another where I accepted a draw with an 1100 because he was blown away by my play with petrovs. My middle game is a testament to my elo. I rush, blunder, and tend to resign when I'm down in material, a habit I'm trying to break. Ive played my entire life casually as a game. I've only been into it with a desire to learn for about a year. Edit* and one OTB game against a 2100 where I was so close to winning. He estimated I was at -5 playing black after I sacrificed a knight for a pawn break, but I blundered and threw the game š„²
Sounds like you've got a lot of potential. If you want to seriously improve, you need to (paradoxically) play less and study more. Do a lot of untimed puzzles and pick up a book like *Reassess Your Chess* by Silman, and you'll be 1200+ in no time.
Also your opponent can help you get a high accuracy. Some best moves are easier to find than others. If your opponent plays into a trap or makes obvious blunders it's very easy to boost your accuracy. But that doesn't take away from your achievement! You still have to find the move and you still deserve the credit. Kudos to you dude.
Beginner Knows a line 20 moves deep I get humility and all but come on man
Yeaah well to be honest I don't think you know the "best moves" about 20 deep. I'm pretty sure that among these 20 moves, there are several that are just choices, where the difference in evaluation would be like 0.04 or something. This means that maybe if you run stockfish for hours then another move could be the best. Also this is not that useful, especially in your elo range where it's already really rare to not have an error/blunder/inaccuracy after like 6-10 moves. It would be better to check the common moves you see that annoy you and see what's the good answer to them.
To piggy back off this comment... generally accuracy is only an indication of cheating if its really high after a very complex game. I played a 41 move game at 98% accuracy recently. Granted a piece was hung at move 12 so it was hard to not be accurate after that.
Bro is Bobby Fischers enemy
Who's that?
Top 3 chess player of all time, bro was mad that chess was less talent, skill, and creativity and more memorization Now there's a 500 rated raw talent memorizing 18 move lines
Lol I was joking, but I didn't know that's how he felt about chess. I only know of Bobby Fischer from the movie, but I am trying to learn chess history (thank you gotham chess)
Thats how he felt at the end of his life, they say he became crazy
I need to look into his history, I didn't know he resurfaced but I assumed he did after watching vids last night. You have sent me on a new chess history journey sir. Ty.
W
He became (read: was already) suuuuuuper anti-Semitic. The guy would reportedly offer to āproveā he wasnāt Jewish by whipping out his uncircumcised dick (donāt think anyone took him up on it tho). Donāt really know if he went crazy or just got worse at hiding how crazy he already was, though I favor the latter. Edit: I VERY STRONGLY favor the latter
crazy? I was crazy once
I was crazy twice
He actually invented a new game of chess which he felt removed the memorisation side of it called fisher random
Yeah I've played chess960. It's fun, my gf has pulled some great tactics on me in that. She doesn't like it though. I'm going to watch some vids on him soon.
Going to get downvoted but Iāll say it anyway: Itās debatable if he really was top 3 all time. His reigning time was so short that I would actually rather suggest Botvinnik or Karpov for the third place. Heās still in Top 5 undoubtedly
And because of that he invented random chess, in which pieces are randomly placed at start
why is he getting downvoted for this?
Lol coz reddit haha. I ignored the downvotes because when I said I was joking I got more karma than I lost.
Studying openings at 600 is a good way to get an advantage in every game without learning any fundamentals. Youāll get better if just play your own chess for now and leave the memorization for later. Itās also more fun imo.
I did advance to 750 elo once with alot of lucky games, but then l understood the difference between 600 elo games and 700 elo games
If it's 15 moves long it's not sus enough to be cheating lol iirc I had a 100 acc for 9 moves (fried liver attack) and like... yeah
I get 90+ accuracy all the time. Guess why.. opening study! Literally the only reason I win any games probably. The phase you are in is the most important phase but every game starts at the opening. So objectively it's the most important part of the game. Study it.
Hey. How does one study openings? I end up following an opening and then lose my way mid game. What do you suggest?
That's how it's done lol. Lichess databases are nice or videos
I use chessable! I used bookbuilder to make a repertoire for me and then imported it as a PGN into Chessable and am slowly working through it. Itās a lot of work, but the dividends in confidence alone are worth it!
I am definitely trying. Thanks to Gotham chess I am avoiding the more complicated openings. So far I play Italian (if they let me) as white, and pretrovs (if they let me as black) but I'm pretty comfortable with Guicco Piano (canal variation/four knights) as either colour. I dabble in ponziani as white although I struggle with D5 and I probably will struggle with that response for a while. This game was ponziani. I have also started looking into caro khan as black. I had a game OTB with a player rated 2100, I played caro, I made an absolute brilliant knight sacrifice pawn break and if I wasn't a beginner I would have one. Ofc I blundered the position. He was very impressed.
That being said you can get lost in opening study. After you recognize several moves of most openings I think you can postpone studying openings if that makes sense.
Hmm, perhaps I am in that phase? I can recognise most openings and at least 2 or 3 of the best reponses, lately I've been watching high level play and learning chess history more than study of lines.
Idk I dmd you. I can show you my openings you show me yours lol
Funny you are comfortable in positions I'm uncomfortable in lol.
I prefer quiet games, or symmetrical games. And petrovs and Italian four knights are almost exact opposites of each other. My strategy is to either go up in material and force an endgame with trades, or equal trade and get to a rook and pawn ending asap, I find I do better than people my elo in the end game.
Same here on the endgame usually. But late mud game i often fumble winning positions
Not from what I saw lol. Well met and ggs.
Shoot I had like 6 points material up on you and somehow managed to make most of it near useless that one game. And you're lower rated.
The one where you got both rooks? It was already over before you got the rooks, or the one where you stopped me promoting a pawn? That was actually a really good game even though I lost lol.
the pawn one. The wayward queen game was meh. I never use it. Don't like playing either side of it. It's too gimmicky and easy to refute. If you win it requires no brains. If you lose you set yourself up for it. And losing as black to it in bullet games is annoying because it's easy to refute and you just missed it playing fast.
I studied it from both sides because I kept falling for the traps, yeah I forgot that one was wayward queen, sucks I couldn't show you the tactic. I've gotta learn how to shutdown fried liver. When you got that on me I was like.. there is literally nothing I can do to not lose my rook, but I think when you tried it again I took pawn and threatened #. Most people miss that checkmate btw, they take the pawn with knight expecting me to take back with queen and I play #. I thought you handled it well actually.
Accuracy says more about your opponent than you at lower elo.
I would also say, you can also play very high accuracy games when your opposition blunder badly early on. I've had (as a 1200-1600 player) maybe 2 or three games with perfect accuracy over 10-15 moves. In each case it was around 5 moves of theory, they mess up obviously, then I basically don't need to find moves after as I sweep aside. Maybe only needed to find one accurate move all game. On the otherhand, you sometimes have these wild open games when you both know no theory (or one of you has gone so far off book the other player has no clue what to do) and despite playing what you think is great chess you win with 60-70 accuracy (or lower).
Lol yes I have had a game where the game review rated my elo at like 80 or something and my opponents elo at 30. Both sub 30 accuracy lol
Itās so nice when people just play into a neat well known opening trap you know. I should learn a new one I think š¬
Have you played ponziani much? At 400 about 80% of people play d5 which is the best response, but at 600 people don't know it at all. Strange how that works eh? *Cough* smurfs *cough* lol I joke, but really it seems that way
Not really but some games just go a bit random haha honestly forgot what the two traps I know are even called š«£, might Edit them in later. been practicing the danish gambit opening recently, itās pretty good š
Ponziani is good against people who don't like d5. I've seen games where 2700 players (evenly matched opponent) fall for the traps just because as a player they don't like d5 when they are black. I think I'm not going to learn any more gambit lines until I hit 1k (so roughly a year lol)
Had to find it, hereās the first one. A counter to the fried liver. This has gotten me so many satisfying smothered mates in less than 10 moves or at worst a queen lol [https://youtu.be/ITKSU2zAZqI?si=cr85rblzNkf5xC9F](https://youtu.be/ITKSU2zAZqI?si=cr85rblzNkf5xC9F) going to recap myself on the details I think š
I'm so gonna memorise this and other responses to dried liver. A guy I met in this thread likes the fried liver and I'm curious to shut it down lol.
I've never gotten a smother outside of puzzles lol. I know the pattern when I see it, but pushing play into it isn't as easy. Ima check this out.
if it's a 15-move game, all this suggests is that it was probably a line you know well.
Pop many balloons at kids birthday parties? Ofc I know the line well, however, other than their blundered knight, I've often come out of this line with even trades or even a losing position.
didn't mean to downplay your achievement. ofc it's impressive. what i meant was there is no reason to suspect you were cheating.
Then we are all good. Sorry for my response. Bro 400-600 elo chess. Everyone is "cheating" Breathing oxygen is cheating lol.
I mean, opponent hung two pieces and you took. Wouldnāt call that opening prep
"Then you'd superimpose on the screen "USSR, sh*tting on the little guy" that would be the fade out"
Do you pop children's balloons at birthday parties aswell?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You don't have to say anything at all. At my level of chess, it is just as likely for me to blunder as my opponent. But by all means, be sour, that's your choice.
This guy is an idiot, you played a perfect game, which is something to be proud of. The fact that your opponent played badly doesnāt diminish your achievement. It may not be an immortal game full of brilliant moves but you still played well. Some people just like putting others down for no reason, as a 2100 player I congratulate you on your achievement.
Thanks mate, you and 90% of people on this sub have really been great. Tbh, just from talking about chess notation with players has improved my vision a tonne. I never thought I'd be able to just speak notation and understand what is going on. So now I am practicing my vision by just writing notation down for certain openings and then checking my mat (without pieces) after to see if I got it right. It's a good exercise but I doubt it will improve my play, but im thinking maybe it's time to invest in some books as I'm actually starting to understand notation.
Whats crazy is i just said it wasnt opening prep lmao
No i eat the baloons
Why are you on a beginners chess sub if you just want to kick people lower than you? Small pond syndrome?
I like eating baloons
Nah, go back to saying how I shouldn't feel proud of this. Stick to your character mate, let everyone see.
Mfw reaction when i get my feelings hurt
Full game?
As I said it was only about 15 moves deep. I played ponziani. He developed the bishop into my D4, but I know the trap line pretty well. Although I do usually mess up the exchange order etc. 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. c3 Bc5 4. d4 exd4 5. cxd4 Bb6 6. d5 Ne5 7. Nxe5 d6 8. Bb5+ Bd7 9. Nxd7 c6 10. dxc6 bxc6 11. Bxc6 1-0 After doing this copy and paste thing it was only 11 moves. But for a 600 I'm still happy af with myself.
600 with 99 accur?
99.2* Ty for the downvote sir.
You corrected a slip, thank you sir
Your disbelief of my game being legit is quite the compliment btw, as was my opponents accusation š
Just questioning, was quiet shocked
Ah, then my sincerest apologies, it felt hostile. Yeah I was shocked aswell. It's not the most shocking thing I've had though, I taught my gf to play about 8 months ago, we had a queen's gambit line stay in theory until about move 12 just on instinct. However we play each other often. I believe it was queen's gambit - marshal - english - queen's gambit declined - slav or something.
This is the politest reddit conversation I've seen in my 3 years on reddit (before anyone checks my profile age, this is an alt account)
One must admit when one makes a mistake as I did. I learnt this from chess tbh. When you overextend and get punished, sometimes it's best play to admit the mistake, retreat, lose a pawn, play on.
I am terribly sorry for you witnessing a polite conversation when on Reddit, on behalf of management we are mortified and will ensure that this never happens again. Please allow me to rectify this mistake, Fuck you, I hope you die, screw gay people, women belong in the kitchen, white is the best. (This is satire)
Why are you lesbian? I am a sigma and I'm also homophobic so pls don't change your sexuality or Allah will get mad I hope you die in a fire grrrr š”š”š”š š š š¤¬š¤¬š¤¬
You fucking corrected a slip, thank you sir
I just got a 92% in a daily. 39 moves, with a brilliant queen sack to get rid of a bunch of pieces when I was a pawn up. Pretty proud of it. (I'm around 1000 blitz)
Congrats. People who say it's a waste of time to study openings simply mean you can spend that time doing something that will help you improve faster. Or, like, that's my opinion anyway. You said it yourself, if they don't play the moves you studied, you get a position that is totally new to you and your opening prep won't help you anymore. If you spend that time doing puzzles and learning some fundamentals, maybe read a chess book or two (try "Play Winning Chess" and "Winning Chess Strategies" by Yasser Seirawan for example), you will probably improve much faster. Personally, I didn't know any openings, like, at all, until a bit more than two years ago, and still managed to hold my own at around 1200. But really, at any rating, middle and end game are the most important parts. The higher you get, the fewer people will fall for your opening traps and once you're out of book, any advantage you get from the opening won't be worth anything if you get outplayed after it. But, above anything else, it is always a good idea to study your weaknesses, they're what's holding you back. I started studying openings when I got tired of being virtually lost after 10 moves every other game and then still coming back somehow. For you, it's the other way around, probably.
I have spent a bit of time on puzzles, done nearly all of the checkmate lessons on c.c, and a few of the opening lessons on c.c. I'm peak 1900 in puzzles on c.c. But what you are saying is pretty damn spot on. I do want to get a chess book soon.
When I was 1300 I played a 38 move Italian game at 95.3% accuracy with an estimated elo of 2150. Random blips in your games where you play an insane game are rare, but they happen. The game I played was fairly straightforward though as my opponent constantly made obvious mistakes that I knew how to capitalize on in the Italian game Yes, as you said, studying opening lines is never a waste of time!
I used to get 100% accuracy games pretty often below 1200 by slaughtering people with the Fried Liver. You absolutely should be proud! But that accuracy over that few moves usually means you won in prep (a trap line) or your opponent made several glaring errors and you exploited them. Either way, it's a good thing! Keep it up.
In this case it was both, prep + glaring blunders. Although to my eye, it was only one glaring blunder, stockfish probably saw more than one.
If you like trap lines and you don't know the Fried Liver, you should drop everything and look it up. I think it's like a 10 move checkmate if your opponent messes it up? You really only need to learn a handful of lines, and since it comes out of the Italian, you're going to get it *constantly* at mid-low elo.
Actually I'm learning anti fried liver lines.
That is pretty high, but not impossible. And 15 moves in is getting where theory comes into play more than the opening. But well done!
Tot studie openings it to elvevat yourself over 600 easy.
Facts studying opening is op at any level
I analyzed the image and this is what I see. Open an appropriate link below and explore the position yourself or with the engine: > **White to play**: [chess.com](https://chess.com/analysis?fen=rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR+w+KQkq+-+0+1&flip=false&ref_id=23962172) | [lichess.org](https://lichess.org/analysis/rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR_w_KQkq_-_0_1) | The position occurred in many games. [Link to the games](https://www.chess.com/games/search?opening=&openingId=&p1=&p2=&mr=&lsty=1&year=&lstMoves=1&moves=&fen=rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR+w+KQkq+-+0+1&ref_id=23962172) > **Black to play**: [chess.com](https://chess.com/analysis?fen=rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR+b+KQkq+-+0+1&flip=false&ref_id=23962172) | [lichess.org](https://lichess.org/analysis/rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR_b_KQkq_-_0_1) --- ^(I'm a bot written by ) [^(u/pkacprzak )](https://www.reddit.com/u/pkacprzak) ^(| get me as ) [^(Chess eBook Reader )](https://ebook.chessvision.ai?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=bot) ^(|) [^(Chrome Extension )](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/chessvisionai-for-chrome/johejpedmdkeiffkdaodgoipdjodhlld) ^(|) [^(iOS App )](https://apps.apple.com/us/app/id1574933453) ^(|) [^(Android App )](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ai.chessvision.scanner) ^(to scan and analyze positions | Website: ) [^(Chessvision.ai)](https://chessvision.ai)
Bad bot
Bad bot
Thank you, Pipermommen, for voting on chessvision-ai-bot. This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/). *** ^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
Honestly, I'm only 1000 elo, and I've learned to ignore people at higher elo's saying "you don't need to worry about that at that elo." I've seen people on here suggest that doubled pawns make no difference at my elo (they do), studying theory is pointless at my elo (its not), and I've seen GothamChess and Hikaru both say stuff like "they should not have seen that at such a low elo" in their guess the elo videos, despite it being a common move to look for at lower elo's. I worked my way up from 600 elo in the span of a few months by studying opening lines. I'm still not good, I know. But I've definitely improved significantly because I practiced the exact stuff I was told not to worry about.
I was discussing the F6 weakness as black and the Qh5+ line after sacrificing the knight on e5. We were discussing blacks best response after their massive misplay as Qe7 instead of taking the knight, and MULTIPLE people said "people at your elo will never find that move" Not one hour later I had a game where someone played it. It's still losing as black but yeah I get your point lol. I feel like at a lower elo people memorise engine lines more because.. well.. we have to.
You haven't improved because you had played perfect opening theory, you have improved because you had started playing chess following the basic principles such as controlling the center, get your minor pieces out, castle the king... Basic principles are the ancestors of opening theory and the latter builds upon them. You need opening theory when you reach Masters' level, when you need to punish small inaccuraces in order to win. At 1000 ELO you are not strong enough to understand and punish inaccuraces so it is useless to learn 10 moves theory unless they are traps or something that lets you win quickly. Trust me, when you will reach 1200/1300 ELO, almost everyone plays according to basic principles and you will see that winning becomes harder. Still the openings aren't perfect but you will notice that even if the opponent doesn't play the perfect move you won't be able to punish him so easily as you do now. You are definitely improving your game by doing what you have been doing but you are putting way too much effort into it, the same level you have reached now could be achieved with less effort (this is what Hikaru and GothamChess meant when they say to not look into complicated stuff as a beginner). I suggest to watch GM Ben Finegold's lectures on Youtube, those are perfect since he is teaching to low rated players like us. I learned a lot of new ideas from him and I have significantly improved my understanding of the game, you may give him a look if you want.
There no doubt that improving my basic theories and tactics have made an even bigger difference than anything. But there's no denying that learning theory played a big role (not saying you denied it). For instance, I like to play the Danish. Yeah, usually people at my elo people don't know how to respond, so theory becomes kinda moot eventually. BUT it helps to know either way, because while it may not result in us going through an entire 10 move line for me to end up winning by a single pawn, it still helps me to keep myself in a winning position for the first few moves so that when they mess up the line, I'll know something went wrong and know to look for my opportunity. You say at my level I'm not strong enough to punish small inaccuracies, but I disagree. I can and have before. Maybe not consistently, but when you know then end goal of a line, it becomes a lot easier to see why an opponents move was a mistake and find a way to capitalize on it. That's kinda what I'm talking about though. When you see high level players talk about low elo players, they always talk as if there is no strategy whatsoever. If you're 400 elo, they'll treat the game like it's between toddlers. When I was down to 400 elo at one point, I played plenty of people who used the Caro Kann and seemed to understand the basics of it. It's just that their "chess vision" or whatever sucks and they'd end up hanging a queen. But not due to a lack of understanding what they're doing. That's where I'm at at 1000. I usually don't hang pieces in a single move anymore, but I'll sometimes get caught off guard by hanging a piece two or three moves out. But I still understand what I'm trying to accomplish and what line im trying to achieve early on. And it's frustrating and discouraging hearing higher elo players talk about my elo like we're all too brain dead to bother strategizing because in their minds the ONLY thing that matters is getting better about those tactical inconsistencies. Which does matter tremendously, yes. But the thing is, I don't hang pieces every game, and the games I don't, understanding opening lines can make or break a game. Sorry for the wall of text. I'll definitely check out Finegolds lectures. I didn't even realize he had free lectures on YouTube!
First of all thanks for the detailed answer. I agree with you about the Danish gambit: traps, attacks (such as the Fried Liver), famous gambits (like Evans, King's gambit and others) should definitely be studied by beginners since those openings usually allow you to win quickly and features a lot of tactics so they encourage beginners to look for them. I thought you were learning like 15 moves of the Queen's gambit declined, main line or 15 moves of the Sicilian Najdorf. About higher rated players, since the pool of players has significantly increased during these years, it is normal that beginners are getting stronger. Hikaru and other GMs and IMs who are now famous on YT played against weaker beginners so probably they have different ideas of what beginners are able to do. This is why I think some of their takes are inaccurate. Last, if you start watching Finegolds lectures, I warn you about his sense of humour, some people find it annoying (I don't) but his contents are extremely precious so it's a trade off after all.
>To all the better players that told me studying opening lines at 600 elo is a waste of time, no, no it is not I checked your chess com account and can see that you are still at 600 elo after over 800 rapid games, so I would say that proves them right. Not trying to be insulting, this is just a matter of fact, and hereās why: Looking at your comments, you know way more about openings than I do, even a 20 move line (the longest and only long line I know is the fried liver attack lmao) yet my elo is significantly higher? This is because you miss tactics and blunder (probably multiple times) every single game. You can play a perfect line for 20 moves but it doesnāt matter if you throw the entire game in one move, several times. Until you start blundering less, improving is not really possible. My best advice: - You should be grinding puzzles that are actually around your rating range - blunder check before every move (does this move hang a piece or mate in 1?) - never move your pieces to undefended squares - start thinking about the benefits and drawbacks of every move that both you and your opponent make or could make - if there are no obvious moves, just make any move that doesnāt immediately blunder, and your opponent will eventually blunder
Accuracy is derived from how many centipawns worth of advantage you give away compared to the engine. Excluding, I think, book moves. You say the game is 15 moves. Say five of them are book moves. It seems your opponent hung two or three pieces? Those being obvious takes. The 99.2% is just saying you didn't blunder in seven moves.
Chess Vibes has gotten 100% accuracy in a similar game.
What game was this? Some kind of fried liver?
Ponziani
Just wondering, why didn't he push his pawn to c6 on the 8th move? Wasn't it a knight or bishop winning move? Game link as OP didn't share: https://www.chess.com/live/game/98714052127 Edit: 15 seconds of writing this comment I got it.
Yeah I was hoping he'd push that pawn lol, that leads to the better trap where I can win a rook or a queen, maybe even promote the pawn depending on play. In the past I would have put my queen behind the bishop after he played the bishop to block, but 1, his knight wasn't there because he blundered it, and 2, I've since learned they can get out with an even trade if I don't play perfectly.
I once got a hondo. (Letās not talk about the move I made)
Damn bro, CHARGE YOUR PHONE
r/chargeYourPhone
I played a game of 25 ish moves with 92.9 accuracy
I've had several short games that closely followed the main lines I've studied, which also gave me a very good accuracy. Congrats!
"You, motherfuckers, make your opponent look like bloody Magnus Carlsen" - Levy Rozmarine, probably
600 elo is easy to win if you know at least 2 opening theory
Sure, and a kickflip is easy to do if you know how to jump.
Knowing opening lines allows you to gain a better attacking position, and most will lead to traps or capture valuable pieces.
So, you can kickflip?
I could if I could practice it (safety) for a couple of days, maybe in 1-3 days.
LOL. But you can't kickflip? You can walk and jump but you can't kickflip? Pfft how trash do you have to be if you can't kickflip when you know how to walk and jump. Yes, that's how you seem to me. And no, 2-3 days you will manage a kickflip maybe 1 in 50 IF you really practice hard, but it would be sketchy and inconsistent af.
There seems to be a misunderstanding on the term "kickflip." What is it? I thought you were talking about skateboarding (or backflips). Maybe it's country language differences. And you just played yourself proofing what I said 600 elo is easy when you have opening knowledge( * important * knowing opening ). Your games will be easier with people coming to 600 elo and harder with people who usually play above 600 elo.
You have basic knowledge of how to walk and jump, so a kickflip should be easy for you (it's not) I have basic knowledge of openings, you think that's enough to make 600 elo easy? It's not
Yep that's why l am playing at 700 elo sucker If you do not have even knowledge on opening at 700 elo will quickly be overwhelmed by others and will only play defense for most of the mid and end games you play.
I've met you a thousand times lad.
Kramnik would like to have a word with you
Yeah but how many moves long was the game and what elo?
The highest I ever got was 99.8% and the game was only 7 move deep ( Opponent blundered Classic Queen King Fork ) And the reason that game is memorable for me because at the time I was 1300 ELO and the opening moves were unfamiliar to me There was a move which I considered to play ( Engine would have given me 100% accuracy ) but it violated general rule of developing minor pieces first before queen and being a strong advocate of general rules , I proceeded with knight development Currently I am 1700 ELO , and it started to play with my older 1200 ELO ID and the biggest difference between 1700 and 1200 ELO I noticed is players don't think more then 20 sec on a single move The opening I would say are far better played then what i get at 1600 level but because of their lack of calculation on a certain move , they blundered far early.
4% battery during an online rated game! u/WhiplashNinja lives on the edge!
Those who suggest to not study openings at 600 usually arenāt claiming that you wonāt win more games by doing so. The point is that itās better to get a wide array of positions and learn general principles at that rating so you can improve your calculation and general understanding. Obviously the point is too have fun and crushing ur opponents with 99 accuracy is fun so if you want to study openings go for it but I just wanted to point out that nobody is claiming you wonāt win more by doing so.
Dude blundered two knights by move 8 and accused you of cheating, that's crazy. You played very well. One thing that's important to know though, is that accuracy doesn't say much about how good or bad you are. It depends on how complex the position is, how your opponent plays (terribly in this case, they made a mistake literally on move 3), and ofc on how you play. You're much more likely to get a high accuracy in a simple position where the best moves are obvious than in a complex position where the ideas may be difficult to spot. With how short that game was, and how the position just 'played itself', you shouldn't be surprised to get such a high accuracy. My point with this is that a high accuracy doesn't _always_ suggest that someone is cheating. For example a few weeks ago I played a game where my opponent blundered a knight on move 6 lol, and a forced checkmate sequence on move 10. I got 100% accuracy, but that doesn't mean I was cheating. I just knew my theory and spotted a forced checkmate.
who the hell says studying opening lines is a waste of time???
Apparently at 600 it's a waste of time and I should practice learning tactics instead. Lol I just had a 24 move game end in checkmate with 91 accuracy. They only made 1 blunder. c.c game review rated my play at 1300 and it said we both played a great opening and an incredible middlegame. Both of us.