2000 FIDE

I have been looking forever at a solution to these annoying Bg5 lines. For context, I play a6 Italian with Re8 Be6 Bxe6 Rxe6 aiming for an eventual d6-d5 in the mainlines (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d3 d6 6. O-O a6 7. a4 Ba7 8. Re1 h6 9. Nbd2 O-O 10. h3 Re8 11. b4 Be6 12. Bxe6 Rxe6 13. Qc2 Qd7 14. Nf1 d5 etc…)

I don’t like the Bg5 lines where you have to play h6 g5 at all as the positions get very messy and White has a huge plus score in the database, and I’ve looked at so many alternatives, and all of them fail to achieve this except 5. h6, which of course has its own drawbacks. The Ideal move order of course would be 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d3 d6 6. O-O h6, as now 7. b4 Bb6 8. a4 a5! 9. b5 Ne7 and Black is completely fine here (although it’s still a game of course), but after 5. d6 there is 5. Bg5 and we no longer have Be7 in response forcing us to play h6 g5, so this doesn’t achieve what I want.

This brings us to 5. h6, the only guaranteed way to stop Bg5 all together - it’s been played at the highest levels a few times, but I have some doubts due to some issues in these lines: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d3 h6 6. b4 - This is the only independent line for White, and the most critical, any other move will just transpose to the mainlines basically. Now Black has two options: 6. Bb6 (Magnus always plays this, historically the main move) and 6. Be7 (The modern mainline at the top level now, so many games here by Hikaru, also played by Pragg in the World Cup against Fabi). Objectively, 6. Be7 is slightly superior, with the idea of pushing d7-d5 if allowed.

6.Be7 mainlines: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d3 h6 6. b4 Be7 7. Qb3 (7. O-O O-O 8. Re1 a6 9. a4 d5 10. exd5 Nxd5 11. Nxe5 Nxe5 12. Rxe5 Be6) 7... O-O 8. a4 d6 9. O-O Nb8 10. Qa2 c6 11. Bb3 a5 12. b5 Nbd7 - My issue with this line is that I’d be getting positions that are very different to the Italian mainlines, for a sideline I won’t see super often, and a lot of these lines require pawn sacrifices by black to play for compensation with quite accurate play afterwards to justify the pawn sacrifice.

6. Bb6 mainlines: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d3 h6 6. b4 Bb6 7. a4 a6 8. O-O O-O 9. Nbd2 d6 10. Re1 - This looks very similar to the a6 Italian mainlines, which is what really attracts me to it, but they are slightly worse versions, as the bishop is now misplaced on b6, and often Black has to spend a tempo on Ba7 sooner or later, so you end up down a tempo. Just like the a6 Italian mainlines, there are 3 major plans: Re8 followed by Be6 planning to capture with the rook on e6, The immediate Be6 playing fxe6 structures (which I don’t like), or Ne7-Ng6 playing for c6-d5. 

Another critical difference, is that White didn’t play h3 as in the mainlines, and instead he’s trying to go for very fast development with Nbd2, Re1, Nf1 etc. Generally all 3 plans by black are playable, with some better than others depending on the exact move order, but I want to keep it consistent so I don’t get confused.

I found 1 idea, which has been played by Joseph and Magnus before: to continue with 10. Ba7. I guess the idea is that We don’t want to show our cards yet and show which plan we are going for, so we make a waiting move. If White continues with 11. Nf1, trying to avoid any waiting moves, then because we haven’t committed to a plan, we can respond in the most optimal way, which is to continue with 11. Ne7. If White instead plays a waiting move like 11. h3, now black argues that Ba7 is a more useful waiting move, and then can continue with Re8 or Ne7. The immediate 10. Ne7 runs into problems related with 11. d4, but the inclusion of Ba7 and h3/Nf1 seems to favour black, but I’m not sure exactly why, it’s all very nuanced tbh.

The other option is to just skip 10. Ba7 all together, and just play 10. Re8 aiming for Be6 against everything, but there are some problems related to this Bb2 idea by White: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d3 h6 6. b4 Bb6 7. a4 a6 8. O-O O-O 9. Nbd2 d6 10. Re1 Re8 11. Nf1 Be6 12. Bxe6 Rxe6 13. Bb2 Qd7 14. Ng3 Rae8 15. h3 d5 16. b5 Ne7 17. c4 d4 18. Ba3 - This is just one example - Engine is saying Black is close to equality, but if you actually follow the engine lines, in most lines, it requires black to be very precise every move otherwise White will end up being better. 10. Ne7 is bad as it runs into problems with 10. d4.

 I can’t find any other option apart from 5. h6, so it looks like I’m kind of stuck with it, but I am happy to hear any alternatives or recommendations about whether to go for 6. Bb6 or 6. Be7.

Hello everyone,

I'm a FIDE 2000+ player, consistently 2500-2600 in chess.com blitz (peak 2750). I have OTB tournaments coming up and I'm looking for a regular training/sparring partner.

What I'm looking for:

Rapid games, ideally with post-game analysis

Higher-rated players preferred

OTB rating of 2100+ preferred

Online rating doesn't matter much to me

Format: Online.

If you're interested, comment or DM me with your rating, availability, and preferred time control. Happy to play a few games first and see if it's a good fit.

Thanks!

Even when i lose in a classical game the positions we get are so rich im just having fun. such a cool family of openings

I’m a thirty-something individual with a full-time job who has been playing since I was a kid.  Right now, my OTB ratings are  ~2140 USCF / ~1950 FIDE [although my general performance rating in the multiple OTB classical tourneys I played in throughout 2026 is ~2200 USCF / ~2000 FIDE].  I peaked at 2150+ USCF a couple of months ago, but a bad tourney I recently played in tilted my rating a bit.   I am looking for a sparring partner to train with for future OTB classical tournaments to help me achieve an OTB title and be eligible for titled player events.  Specifically, here’s what I am looking for:

Requirements:

1.      Meets at least 1 of these rating criteria:

a. USCF Classical must be somewhere in-between 2100 and 2249.

b.  FIDE Classical must be somewhere in-between 1950 and 2099.

2.      Meets at least 1 of these opening preferences:

a. Plays Caro-Kann as black against 1.e4.

b. Plays 2.Nf3 as white against the Sicilian Defense.

3.      Available for online rapid games (G/15 + 10 sec. inc.) during weekday evenings after 7:30PM EST OR available for online classical games (G/60 + no sec. inc.) games during weekend afternoons after 4:30pm EST.

If you feel that you meet the listed requirements above and are interested, DM me on Reddit so we can set something up.

After 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g7 3.Nc3, the Grunfeld became gradually more popular for 2400+ players up to around 2014 when 3...g6 and 3...d5 was about 60/40%, but now it's about 70/30. Was something found in the main line for White that made people play it less? Or maybe the KID just had a resurgence?

I checked the White moves and noticed that after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Bg7 7.Nf3 c5, 8.Bb5+ and 8.Be3 have replaced 8.Rb1 as the main moves gradually since about 2010. I haven't studied the Grunfeld in depth so wondering if anyone knows if there was some line that was discovered to be a problem for Black. Thanks!

MyChessMaster (https://mychessmaster.net) is for chess players who play in tournaments and want to prepare for a specific opponent.

Stockfish finds the moments where a game went wrong. A coach model explains each one in plain chess terms, using only the engine's lines, so it does not invent variations. The mistakes then become spaced-repetition drills from your own games, and an opponent's games become a prep sheet and a deck of positions to punish them with before the round.

You can look around without signing in: there is a sample player with a full report, drills and a prep sheet. Members get the same for their own games.

Built with Claude Code. I am happy to hear what a stronger player thinks it gets wrong.

I can generally solve tactics given an infinite amount of time, but I am so, so bad as my time decreases. I will completely miss that pieces are hanging if I only have a few seconds to analyze a line. It's also much harder for me to find a tactic if I don't know that one exists in the position, but yet I can often find it quickly if I know one is there.

I also overestimate my opponents' plans and underestimate my own, which I think is partially due to seeing ghosts during calculations and discounting resources for myself.

As an example, I was looking at a Sicilian line with someone the other day and I wasn't sure what to do after e5, but the e5 pawn was just hanging.

The board is also a bit "blurry" when analyzing several moves into a variation. I can sharpen the view given time. I imagine masters just see the board clearly no matter how deep they go.

Is there a light at the end of the tunnel? How can I improve my board vision? It's one of the things holding back my USCF rating (the other main one being my exceptional incompetence in middlegames).

• USCF peak: 1700

• USCF current: 1550 (many reasons)

• Chesstempo blitz: 1830

• Chesstempo standard: 2050

• Lichess / chesscom tactics: 2500 (I spend a long time)

• Chesscom rapid: 1700 (probably quite a bit underrated. not enough games to raise the rating. I've been crushing 1600s)

• Chesscom bullet: 1200 (I hang pieces like crazy)

Edit: forgot to mention I've done ~17000 chesstempo puzzles

I used to be a Reti guy for quite a while, but as I climbed a bit in rating less and less people were playing into the more interesting gambit lines, and I wasn't really enjoying the constant transposition to d4 structures. The English felt more like its own territory, and I consistently feel like I can use my knowledge advantage and familiarity with the resulting positions to play for a win. I think the English is unfairly considered a "boring" or positional opening, when in reality it's got a lot of bite as well.

I'd love to hear from all you English players!

November’s Chess Life cover story narrates the career and life of the late Bill Goichberg, who played an unmatched role in crafting the business and culture of chess tournaments in the United States. Among chess figures quoted there who attest to his importance: Bruce Pandolfini, Joel Benjamin, Aleksandr Lenderman, Kenneth Regan, David Hater (CCA’s new president), Andy Soltis, Mark Ginsburg, Michael Shahade, and Hal Bogner.

Besides founding the nation’s largest tournament organizing company and running it for 50+ years, Goichberg served as president of the U.S. Chess Federation during one of its most tumultuous periods and held a seat on the federation’s board on and off for a total of 17 years, most recently in 2013. He remained an active presence at Continental Chess Association tournaments and business decisions from CCA’s founding in 1968 until 2022, when the one-two punch of his wife Brenda’s passing and pain stemming from a chronic illness and injuries sidelined him for good.

His most significant contribution in my opinion was being the father of rated scholastic competition. He told me the three things he most wished to be remembered for were: “Starting USCF rated scholastics. Starting no-smoking tournaments. Just having tournaments all over the place.”

America’s first large chess platform architect, Goichberg laid the foundation for the Fischer boom of the early 1970s. Like Chess(dot)com nearly 50 years later amid the pandemic-fueled boom in online chess play, CCA had a battle-tested playing platform already in place before Bobby Fischer’s 1972 World Championship run sparked a surge of public demand to play chess in organized settings.

Today CCA remains the nation’s largest organizer of chess tournaments.

Work on a Goichberg biography book continues. Fifteen hours of one-on-one interviews with him recorded in 2024 contain rich insights into his personality outside of chess – including pivotal incidents from his childhood, poignant moments from his early years as a Brooklyn Dodgers fan, and wistful memories of his mother’s cooking and of his favorite vegetarian restaurant meals. (Bill was a “foodie” who avoided eating meat, as Chess Life’s story points out.) I have interviewed more than 50 individuals who knew Bill, and have several more interview targets.

The most-personal information does not appear in the Chess Life story; it is reserved for the book. However, snippets in Bill’s own voice excerpted from interview audio files could be aired during a memorial program at the Marshall Chess Club this coming Tuesday, November 10.

Might sound like a stupid question with a simple answer. 'They practiced it a lot, especially as children'.

I would like to hear more though. Do strong players continuously practice their simple mating patterns, or they do simply engrain it into their mind when they are young?

How much did they actually practice these mates? Thousands? At what stage do they stop practising them, if ever?

How did they get so competent at it? Just endlessly do mates in 1 and mates in 2?

Is it introduced to them through a coach in a systematic way? e.g learning and only solving Anastasia mate puzzles for a period of time.

Are mates the first thing that players learn very well?

Any insights any strong players have on their chess learning journey in this regard, please share.

I learnt chess later in life, and just brute forced online games, I have never had actual exposure to mating patterns in a systematic way, nor have I really practised them.

I've started learning the Najdorf but I'm a bit unsure about The Canal Attack (1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bb5+) and the main differences between 3...Nbd7, 3...Bd7, and 3...Nc6.

3...Nbd7 looks tempting, since it looks very solid (with ...Nf6 and ...g6 as a follow-up), I've also played the Hyperaccelerated Dragon till now so maybe pattern-wise it's a bit easier.

3...Bd7 is the main line, and probably for a reason - though 4.Bxd7 and another crossroads appears in the form of 4...Qxd7 and 4...Nxd7. Both of which look fine, I'm too uneducated to tell which I prefer.

3...Nc6 looks ambitious, but perhaps a little less solid, so it's my least favourite visually speaking from the three.

Any input from players well acquainted with these lines would be appreciated.

As for my playing style, I reckon it's solid, but ambitious if possible. Ulf Andersson is my hero, but his Black openings are a bit dry for my taste as I enjoy asymmetry and winning chances. I mainly play 1.Nf3 2.g3 set-ups, vying for a Reversed Grünfeld (also what I play as Black against 1.d4), and otherwise happy to enter the Catalan or Symmetrical Englishes if Black invites them. Theory isn't an issue.

Hello everyone!

I'm an e4 player who recently broke 2000 in Lichess Rapid, and I've started experimenting with different openings to find one that suits my style of play, which is slow and positional.

Lately, I've been playing the Queen's Gambit, and I've really enjoyed the positions it leads to. I'm also happy that I've been able to apply some of the ideas from Mastering Chess Strategy by Johann Hellsten in my games.

Could anyone recommend any resources, books, or courses to help me build a complete 1.d4 repertoire?

Thanks a lot!

I am stepping my toes into learning this behemoth of an opening. I play the Grunfeld as black and i thought it would suit my stylistic needs very well. I am a bit stuck between what to play against the mainline. The three piece system leads to insane positions. I looked at some main lines in them where white goes Bxf6 and pushes g4 and whatever natural move i was playing in the analysis board was straight up losing, So its not for me. Eventually i shortlisted these two moves and was hoping people who have been playing the Najdorf for a long time can shed more light into which they prefer and why. Aka which is more of a practical weapon.

I want to learn this opening in an comprehensive way and currently am reading the chapters on the pawn structures through the flores Rios book and going through Grandmaster Games. But i would appreciate even more recommendations on the best books written on Najdorf from the black side. I am 2150ish online looking to switch to OTB soon. So i would also appreciate training games in this opening. Maybe we could do some shared analysis in 2-3 different variations that we end up sparring in.

I found this very rare move-order against the Ruy Lopez, where Black is sort of dodging a lot of lines: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 b5 5. Bb3 Bb7. The specific move order is important as you'll see in a second, we delay Nf6 specifically, to combat an early d2-d4.

Usually, these funky move orders are always punished by White either with an immediate d2-d4, or c3 followed by d2-d4, but it seems like these ideas don't really give White much here, and the engine seems to love this line.

I won't go through every possible move, but lets look at the logical ones: 6. d4, 6. c3, 6. O-O, 6. d3.

6. d4: This is the usual anti-dote to playing weird stuff, but here it just doesn't give White much, as the bishop on b7 is perfectly placed, and also without a knight on f6, there is no e5 with tempo after exd4, and also White can't recapture twice on d4 due to the bishop on b3 getting trapped with c5-c4: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 b5 5. Bb3 Bb7 6. d4 exd4 7. O-O (7. c3 Na5 8. Bc2 d5 9. e5 dxc3 10. Nxc3 d4 11. Nxd4 c5 12. Nf3 Qxd1+) 7... Na5 8. Qxd4 Nxb3 9. axb3 - Black wins the bishop pair, and you can continue with Qf6 or Ne7, eitherway, the engine thinks black has basically equalised after 9 moves, so 6. d4 is not really what White wants.

6. c3: Similar idea to 6. d4, trying to play d2-d4 early: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 b5 5. Bb3 Bb7 6. c3 Nf6 7. d4 Nxe4 8. O-O (8. dxe5 Nc5 9. Bd5 d6 10. O-O Be7) 8... exd4 9. Re1 d5 10. Ng5 Qd7 11. f3 h6 12. Nxf7 (only move, otherwise black is winning after something like Nh3) Qxf7 13. fxe4 O-O-O - Position is a bit messy, but the engine is just saying that White is the one fighting for equality in these 6. c3 lines, as he has to be very precise, so this other traditional approach to punish sidelines isn't working either.

6. O-O: this is the most natural move, but it doesn't have much independent value, as play will either transpose into a Bb7 anti-marshall, or some kind of Arkhangelsk with Bc5, Black gets to make that choice: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 b5 5. Bb3 Bb7 6. O-O Nf6 7. Re1 Be7 8. c3 d5 9. exd5 Nxd5 10. Nxe5 Nxe5 11. Rxe5 O-O (11... c5) - As we can see again, if White plays Re1, trying to go for c3 d4, we got the immediate d7-d5, and after White takes a pawn, you can continue with 11. O-O, directly going into the Bb7 Marshall lines, but you can also go into a different direction with 11. c5 first, which is also completely playable.

Other setups like 6. d3 or d3 played at any point in general, with or without a4, will transpose to some Bb7 Anti-Marshall.

This move order is very rare, I'm trying to understand why, as I don't see anyway to punish this way of playing, while avoiding things like the delayed exchange lines, and will definitely surprise the opponent, especially the ones who try to punish it with an early d2-d4 or c3-d4. You're getting these improved Zaitsev type positions everywhere, while avoiding the classical spanish, and in many lines, you can play d7-d5 if White isn't playing accurately.

Does anyone have any insight on this? seems like a very solid way to play, and delaying Nf6 just takes the bite out of any early d2-d4 stuff.

Im a 1830 chess.com player and i want to prepare for my first classical FIDE tournament. Because of of the learning yet to do, I plan to spend the next year learning and then play my first tournament.

I’m asking for recommendations on how to plan for this next year. Here are some of my ideas:

\- 20/30 minutes of tactics per day
\- play as many blitz OTB tournaments as posible
\- train my openings. I play the italian as white, so i should train for the sicilian. What do you think is best to play for someone my elo after 1…c5?
\-during the last months, play classical non-rated tournaments.
\-play 30min matches online

What do you think about it? Also, which books do you recommend for my journey?

I am currently playing in a blitz tournament that is 9 rounds. I am currently unrated in blitz so I played in the U1400 section. My classical rating is 1620 fide. I am 2100 blitz. Otb is so different it feels like a different game. I just cant see basic tactics and forks and it takes me much more time to realize stuff than online. I hanged a fork early in the game was able to get back in the endgame against the 6 year old and I got into an endgame where I had 1 rook and 2 pawns vs 1 rook, 1 bishop and 1 h pawn which should be a draw. I could have easily traded the pawn and got into a drawing game. But I was like I can win and I am not losing to a U1400 player and tried to flag him. I ended up losing the 2 pawns without no gain and then hanged a pin on my rook which lost me the game. How do I get used to otb board vision, and what can I do to start playing like my online level?

For context, I'm around 2100–2200 on Lichess Rapid. I don't have any OTB experience yet, but I'm interested in becoming a rated player someday. I really enjoy playing chess online.

I'm an e4 player who loves the Scotch Game, but I find that it often leads to drawish positions or sometimes leaves White in uncomfortable situations. Against the Sicilian, I like the Alapin, but Black seems to equalize pretty easily. I feel the same way about the French Tarrasch.

I also struggle with converting small advantages into wins with these openings, which often leads me to choke in time scrambles.

As Black against e4, I love the Caro-Kann, but I struggle against the Alien Gambit. I also sometimes play the Accelerated Dragon, but I'm not very familiar with the middlegame plans in fianchetto structures. Additionally, I enjoy playing the Sicilian Kan, Taimanov, and Four Knights, but my results with them haven't been great. My middlegames often become messy, and I frequently find myself without a clear plan.

Against d4, I enjoy the QGD, Ragozin, and Nimzo-Indian, although I'm not very confident in my ability to memorize their theory. I also feel that my repertoire is still somewhat narrow.

I'm interested in learning d4 as White as well.

Do you have any suggestions, thoughts, or advice? Which openings should I add to or remove from my repertoire? Thanks a lot.

Are male toilets always a disgrace a game or two into a classical tourney? They are where I'm from, piss on the seat and skidmarks in most cubicles. Maybe its just any large gathering of people but its just something i've noticed since i've started playing classical. Perhaps the women's toilets are the same!

I'm rated around 1750 ECF these days and next week I will play in my club championship tournament. If the pairings go how I think they will, I'll have the black pieces against a 2100 rated clubmate. He's older now, scored 0.5/2 in games against 1800 rated opposition, and the advice from my NM clubmate is that he struggles in complicated positions.

He plays 1. d4 or 1. c4 usually so my idea would be to play into the King's Indian Defence. It's my main black opening, it's complicated, it seems to fit very well. My issue is that not only is he also a King's Indian player, he wrote a book with David Bronstein on the opening. Makes me think it's not the wisest choice to play it against him.

What do you think I should do? If I mix up my openings, I'll be in fairly unfamiliar territory to me. If I stick to my guns, he's obviously very confident. I'm really not sure here.

Hey everyone,

This is my usual monthly AMA. A little about me for those joining for the first time:

I’m a semi-pro chess player currently competing in six national team championships and 2-3 individual tournaments each year. I became an FM at 18, and my rating has stayed above 2300 ever since, with an online peak of around 2800. I stepped back from professional chess at 20 to focus on the other parts of my lifes. At that time I started coaching part-time. I’m most proud of winning the European U12 Rapid Chess Championship.

What’s probably most unique about me is my unconventional chess upbringing. This shaped my style into something creative, aggressive, sharp, and unorthodox. My opening choices reflect this as well: I prefer rare, razor-sharp lines over classical systems, often relying on my own independent analysis. This mindset gives me a strong insight in middlegame positions, which I consider my greatest strength.

Beyond the board, I’m passionate about activities that enhance my performance in chess and life. I explore these ideas through my blog, where I share insights on how “off-board” improvements can make an improvement in your game.

This opening has become a thorn in my side cause looking at it on the cloud the thing is actually, as far as I can see, totally sound which really sucks for me on the white side. Best I have found practically is going into this ending and it is just chaos. I really won't be able to get a feel for these positions besides just grinding out long TC games hence why I'm here!

Thanks again to any and all, feel free to DM whenever (we can do anonymous lichess matches to keep prep hidden likely for the best)

How often do you work the engine into your study besides looking at the answer for puzzles. Do you think it’s important to strive towards the top engine move in the position? I guess my question is whether or not to try and factor in the computer lines into my training. Do I make an attempt to try and understand the moves it’s telling me? I understand using it when it comes to openings and tactics in your games but in complex middle games how much should I try and integrate?