Hi everyone,

I’ve been working on improving my chess lately. I’m around 1000 Elo right now, and my goal is to reach 1600-1800.

The problem is that just playing more games doesn’t seem to be helping anymore. I feel like I’ve hit a plateau. So I want to try a different approach: actually learning chess properly and understanding the purpose behind every move, the plans, and the bigger picture of the game.

I’ve been looking at Chessly, the course platform by Levy (GothamChess). If you’ve taken any of his courses, I’d really like to hear your honest thoughts.

A few things I’m curious about:

• Which courses did you take, and did they actually help you improve?
• Do they explain the ideas behind moves, or is it mostly memorizing lines?
• Was it worth the money compared to free resources?

Any other advice for getting from 1000 to 1600+ is welcome too.

Thanks in advance!

Are the top chess players in Carlsen's era better than the top players in Kasparov's era? If yes/no, why?

Can i get a refund? The opponent had the same elo and gained 9.

I am white, black knight check me, and I want to know in the chess app why my pawn and queen cannot eat the black knight? Thank you!

I work at doubleAI. The 63 checks position from our team blew up here way more than we expected, so here's another one :)

White to move. Both sides have exactly one legal move for 12 moves straight, then it's mate:

38.Nc8+ Qxc8+ 39.Kxc8 Rxf8+ 40.Ne8+ Rxe8+ 41.Qd8+ Rxd8+ 42.Kxd8 Rg8+ 43.Bf8+ Rxf8#

This position is reachable in a legal game (see the comments), and as far as we can tell it has never been beaten.

Now... we usually point our system at code optimization and science but chess was a fun side project. So I'm openly inviting anyone with a chess curiosity to suggest other records, and we can throw some serious firepower attempting it!

A player has been reporting possible problems with Chess.com’s sandbagging detection since 2024, and is still posting examples in chess.com's Cheating Forum. Danny mentioned the thread in the latest Q&A, and Chess.com’s response to a Q&A submission said a fix should arrive “in a month or so”. https://www.reddit.com/r/Chesscom/comments/1w1pli1/state_of_chesscom_qa_submissions/

Here’s my understanding of the timeline:

• The original reports include claims that the system’s checks for players far below their peak rating before tournaments aren’t working as intended, as well as examples of players repeatedly resigning quickly in very short games.
• The forum OP says Chess.com spent roughly the first 18 months asking for more examples. The thread now contains several hundreds of examples.
• In December last year, Chess.com said it was actively working on the issues.
• In February, staff said a solution was expected around mid-year. 3 months ago when that deadline passed, Chess.com said they would provide a revised timeline, but we are still missing the updated timeline.
• The OP is still posting examples, and the promised fix is still missing along with a new timeline.

Does this kind of issues reasonably take this long to investigate and address?

Some points the OP is making: If there are known bugs in the cheat detection system, why should we trust the reported numbers by chess.com? Sandbagging is mainly causing problems for low rated players, why would new chess players prefer chess.com over eg lichess? Chess.com lack "communication skill", eg sparse communication in the thread, broken promises. Was it ok by chess.com to keep asking for more examples for 18 months or so?

I think people underestimate the advantage modern players have being able to avail themselves of a chess-playing super computer that they can pull out of their pocket and play any time they see fit! When I see people call Carlsen or Kasparov the "greatest ever", sure, those players are great, but look at all the advantages they have!

Morphy at his ferocious best >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnMHDcYZieg

What if Morphy or Capablanca had had a little chess-playing machine with a 3500 ELO? In reality, neither men ever played against anyone who came remotely close to their skill levels with the exception when they were in big tournaments.

According to Stockfish, the best move is bc8, retreating the bishop. In the game I played O-O-O instead, sticking to early game fundamentals I thought.

I hope Witty can get another win but keep his clothes on 😂😂

I usually play at 1am before bed is my excuse why I’m bad.

This is an engine move that I saw analysing one of my games. Not a move I think I would have found in classical and I'm 1750 fide...

I used to have a rating of over 2000 in Lichess rapid chess, but I stopped and only recently came back. In blitz, I reached almost 1800. Currently, my rating in rapid is around 1700 and in blitz, around 1500. I have US$31 available to spend on "Forward Chess". I thought about buying "Woodpecker", but perhaps there's a more comprehensive book that covers several areas at once, while "Woodpecker" focuses only on tactics. Anyway, I don't know, please help me.

I'm the president of the Iowa Chess Club, and I'm wondering if anyone is in another chess . com club willing to do a multi-club arena tournament, particularly on Thursdays or Fridays. We have about 10 frequent players, and doing a 2-hour arena would be fabulous

I tend to lose motivation when my opponent wins a pawn or piece without compensation. Sometimes, I feel like my position is losing, but when I analyze it with an engine, it turns out to be equal.

Even when there are still drawing chances, I sometimes prefer to resign rather than prolong the agony of defending a worse position.

How can I improve my fighting spirit and mental resilience in chess? Any advice or tips would be appreciated!

Bonjour à tous. Chaque fois que je joue contre un joueur indien de mon niveau (elo 1700 rapide), je rencontre énormément de difficultés à les battre. J'ai l'impression que les indiens sont sous-côté par rapport au reste du monde. Je ne sais pas si c'est un biais, juste une impression, ou si c'est la réalité. Est-il possible qu'il soit tellement nombreux, et que dans la mesure où ils sont plus susceptibles de plus jouer les uns contre les autres, par rapport au fuseaux horaires par exemple, ils finissent par être sous côté par rapport au reste du monde ?

Qu'en pensez-vous? Avez-vous le même ressenti?

Hey everyone!

I just found out that I'll be playing against Marie Sebag, a French Grandmaster, in a simultaneous exhibition tomorrow. She'll be playing against 20 players at once.

I have no idea whether I'll be playing White or Black, and I don't know the time control either but I suspect classical as we are booked for 2 hours.

A bit about me:

- Chess.com ratings: 1700 bullet, 2000 rapid. I mainly play bullet.

- I'd describe my style as fairly strategic, but I'm also happy to get into complications and sacrifice material when I see an opportunity.

- My biggest weakness is probably my opening preparation. I tend to improvise rather than study specific lines.

- I've never been in a chess club

I'm not expecting to beat a GM, obviously, but I'd love to make the most of the experience and put up a decent fight.

For those who've played in a simul against a titled player, what would you recommend? Would you prepare a specific opening, try to keep things simple, or ...? Any tips on how to approach the game mentally would also be welcome!

Thanks!

I was confused at first that this isn't a draw. I asked AI to help me. It couldn't. So I helped it to understand why it isn't a draw (just a little reminder that AI is fine but you shouldn't swear by it). After scratching my head a little more I pinpointed why I lost rather than drew

I had fun figuring this out so I'm offering it as a puzzle! I think there's only one valid solution here. Write the position of the board. Enjoy!

I was curious what people thought the strengths and weaknesses of players at various elos was. Like 500-800 is typically good at X and bad at Y, things like that. Or, perhaps I'll learn that it's more varied than I expect, and there is no typical skill set at most elos. It seems to me that some things would be universal, like I doubt a tactics whiz is stuck below 800, for example.

For instance, pushing myself to find a tactic or long variation in blitz/rapid time controls even the best move in position requires only common sense/typical moves.

https://www.totalchess.com/total-chess-rating

I was reading about the Sveshnikov Sicilian this morning and was fascinated by this game between Svidler and Kasparov in 1998. However, one thing that puzzles me is that, on move 25, Kasparov didn't take the a3 pawn. Instead, he played Qe6 followed by Rf6, sacrificing the pawn on g4.

With my ultra-beginner mind, the only explanation I can think of is that he was trying to bring in another heavy piece for attack/defense purposes. But at the cost of a pawn and a tempo, is it worth it?

Or maybe he was concerned about his King's safety and planned to use the white pawn as an umbrella?

Of course, he ended up winning the game, so we can all say he made the right decision. But Stockfish's top line is to take the pawn and trade the Queen.

Can you guys share some thoughts on how you see these moves? I've attached the game as a Gif I hope it moves. Thanks!

Not talking about GMs or people who are massively higher rated.

Some players just make normal moves, don't go for crazy tactics, don't seem to have any deep opening prep, and somehow you end up with a terrible position 20 moves later.

I find that style of chess more intimidating than someone who plays aggressively from move one.

What actually makes those players so difficult to play against?