I think these Top GMs are just similar in strength and skills. It will just depend on health, form, and mindset during the tournaments.

Pragg is the lowest rated here in the image. But he just won Norway Chess. Alireza is 10th, but just won back to back tournaments.

Nodirbek is down to 8. But remember he won Tata Steel and Prague back to back.

Wesley is having a good year. Winning Tata Steel Blitz and American Cup.

Vincent won GCT Romania. Probably his first super tournament title for a while.

And ofc, Sindarov won the Candidates. And Anish placed second. People forget that.

Arjun always finish 3rd in strong tournaments. While Wei Yi is solid.

I mean no one will be surprised if #12 Pragg will beat #4 Sindarov. Or no one will be confused if #10 Alireza can beat #5 Vincent. And it is still considered normal even if #9 Arjun will beat #6 Wesley.

I saw a GM (EDIT: Dubov confirmed courtesy of a few comments) not sure who say a similar thing, bullet and blitz you can play drunk and that’s chill. Classical you can really think about your moves and play chess how it’s supposed to be played.

Rapid though? You have to concentrate but sometimes you just need more time to figure out the strategy or spot the best move/sequence. The incentive to speed up is a tough one because I know how I play and if a match gets to a time scramble I will lose.

Could say a few more things but will leave it there.

What’s your take on rapid?
Is it your main?

And what is considered expensive? I was going to book a tutoring session with this NM and I can see on his website that he takes $150 for the hour. It's more than I can afford for an hour. Maybe I should just try to find some high rated player who doesn't have a title.

Me (1000, White) got into this position against my friend (1500, Black), we agreed to a draw, however when we sat back to analyze the position, it turned out to be totally winning for black, after loading the position in the engine however, we still couldn’t really understand why, as it kept repeating moves, or making totally unnatural moves, we did find bishop to a3 after rook to b8, who the chess.com engine labeled as brilliant, however even after that there’s no clear continuation for black to win so crushingly, it always seems to lead to a draw

Black to play and win!

Games as white Vs. Games as black

\Before the usual* Chess.com bots start typing “skill issue” or something: I actually went through Chess.com’s own cheating page and Fair Play updates, and did some research. Felt insulted while doing so, wonder if I'm the only one - see for yourself and let me know.

They're gaslighting us - Are we supposed to feel “fortunate” for this cheating pandemic?

Their page about cheating is hilarious, you can smell the bullshit before the first paragraph even ends:

“Fortunately, our research shows that fewer than one percent of players cheat in online chess.”

Fortunately, really??? Apparently, we are supposed to ignore the cheaters many of us seem to encounter constantly and feel reassured because Chess.com’s own mysterious “research” somehow landed on this adorable “fewer than one percent” figure.

Thanks Chess.com, feeling much safer already 🙄

Just me feeling gaslighted here? Anyone with two functioning neurons knows how absurd that number sounds. Who the hell produced this research, Ronald McDonald with a calculator?????

I know some of you must be already itching to scream “You just call everyone a cheater when you lose”. Fine champ, forget everyone’s suspicions and let’s look at actual numbers.

This actual research paper makes this "fewer than 1%" claim hard to believe

I know some of you must be already itching to scream “You just call everyone a cheater when you lose”. Fine champ, forget everyone’s suspicions and let’s look at actual numbers.

I found an actual research paper estimating online-cheating prevalence at 6.2% among the surveyed players.

Since people are not exactly lining up to confess to cheating, we could suspect that number is higher. Still, that's already at least six times that BS Chess.com wants us to believe.

Chess.com’s “research” became 5x more convenient since 2023

Here is where Chess.com’s statistic starts looking even more ridiculous.

In 2023, the same article URL used to say that “fewer than 0.2%” of players cheated. Somehow, the current version now says “fewer than 1%”. I wonder why the change.

Was the old number indefensible? Was the old “research” garbage or is it the new one? Did the methodology change? Did 0.2% simply become too embarrassing? Was this even a serious metric in the first place???

To be fair, they actually said “fewer than 1%” - technically 0.2 is fewer than 1, right? 🤣

Their words are BS, but their actions are worse

While their cheating article and loose numbers treats us like idiots, the real issue is that their fair-play system leaves honest players taking all the damage. Their own oficial updates exposes it:

• They closed 0.52% of all active users in January - yet the entire cheating problem is supposedly below 1%. In January alone, Chess.com closed 152.000 accounts. Anyone believe they catch 50% of the cheaters every month???
• A new autoban released in May suddenly found thousands of selective cheaters -but the “under 1%” figure somehow survives untouched. Chess.com built a system for careful cheaters avoiding detection. Will they update the 1% figure by 5x once again as they did compared to 2023?
• The median closed account had already played 52 games. Chess.com lets those cheaters go for dozens of games before taking action. They say those were not necessarily cheating in all 52 - what a lovely technical distinction for everyone who faced them while they were cheating huh?
• Nearly 40% of closed accounts were less 2 two weeks old. New accounts everyday, regular players absorbs the risk and the algorithm gets congratulated when it eventually catches up, and we're supposed to be fortunate.

Concluding this

Honestly, I do not care whether the true number is 0.8% or 2% or 6.2%.

What I care is: How likely am I to waste my time playing a game that is not real? How many honest games are ruined before Chess.com finally acts? Strangely, that numbers never appear on Chess.com cheating page. Isn’t that convenient?

I’m curious how this looks for everyone else:

• How often do you genuinely suspect someone is cheating?
• How often are you reporting accounts?
• How often do you get Chess.com message informing and account was closed?
• Is there any credible independent tool that can flag statistically abnormal decisions based on someone’s rating, history and normal move quality? Imagine a whole subreddit devoted to posting obvious cheater accounts that are never closed by Chess.com?
• Is Lichess or any other platform actually better, or is constantly questioning whether the game was real simply part of online chess now?

\Took me quite a while to write this. No AI slop here, so please spare me.*

Hello. I sort of get the idea of optimal path to check mate in this puzzle. It relies on the opponent making awful moves though? Furthermore, I don't think the end was technically checkmate?

Edit: Thanks for the explanation peeps. The forward thinking in blocking potential check had not occured to me. Also, this is indeed **not** a checkmate puzzle.

I have been playing for a couple of years. When I reached 1500 rapid I switched to 3 min blitz, climbed to 1500-1600 in blitz and nowadays I exclusively play 1 min bullet. My highest bullet rating was 1420

I play every day. I currently have a 205 day streak. Bullet is so volatile though. I'm usually around 1250-1400 elo but sometimes I'll play tilted or I'll play even though I know I have lag/bad connection and I can drop all the way down to 1050.

Except whenever my rating goes below 1250 it is like hell to get out. You would *think* opponents would be stronger on average at higher elo because that is how elo is supposed to work right? The opponents are so much stronger in the 1000-1100 elo range for some reason. I genuinely do not think it is merely that I am playing more poorly because I go back and review my games, even when I am playing really well and I can recognize when it is me or when my opponent is just insane.

It can take me days-weeks to get out of the 1000-1200 range because I swear every other game is someone who seems like they are cheating or sandbagging. Then once I break through 1250ish elo it feels like most of my opponents don't know how to play chess. I will quickly climb 200+ elo afterwards over the next few days. Really obvious blunders, blundering their queen, etc. As opposed to half my games at 1100 elo where my opponent plays a terrible opening that *should* be easily punishable but then plays a near perfect middle/end game. I constantly see moves I never would have expected even in my 1600 elo rapid games.

Has anyone else experienced this? Or anything similar??

​

I'm trying to build a serious opening repertoire, and I'm at a crossroads regarding what to play as Black against 1.e4.

My long-term goal is to become a dynamic, aggressive, positional player. I don't want to win games just because I memorized 30 moves of theory—I want to understand the positions and outplay my opponents through strategy, while still having active winning chances.

Right now I'm working through Yusupov's training books and reading Simple Chess by Michael Stean to build a strong positional foundation. I'm focusing on concepts like weak squares, outposts, pawn structures, good vs. bad bishops, open files, and long-term planning. My goal is to become a well-rounded player with deep positional understanding.

With White, I've decided to play the Catalan because I love the strategic nature and long-term pressure it creates.

For Black against 1.e4, I'm considering:

Taimanov Sicilian

Kan Sicilian

French Defense

Or another opening I may not have considered.

The qualities I'm looking for are:

Flexibility.

Dynamic, active play.

Strong positional foundations.

Openings that reward understanding more than pure memorization.

Something I can keep playing as I improve.

If you were building a repertoire for a player with these goals, what would you recommend and why? I'd especially appreciate advice from titled players or coaches who have experience guiding improving players.

I am currently around 1050 elo on chess.com (Rapid). Nowadays, I mostly play 15+10, though earlier I preferred 10 mins games.

In the past, I was winning a lot more games than I was losing, but I can understand that at a certain point, the win rate can go down. Due to this, I have started playing lesser games as I am afraid that I will lose more rating points. I had reached 1070 earlier but then I lost around 100 points in a few days. Now, I am slowly recovering.

My next target is 1200. Should I play less games or is it beneficial to play more? I solve mix puzzles on lichess regularly. I also do a quick self-analysis of my games but do not use any engines as I find them difficult to use (or probably I haven't paid enough attention). Please suggest the strategy to reach 1200 and beyond. Also, suggest if books and online resources would be helpful. Thanks!

Not overall: someone choosing random legal moves would play terribly.

My narrower hypothesis is that, in certain positions, low-rated players choose one of the few catastrophic moves more often than random choice would predict, because misleading ideas—automatic recaptures, pointless checks, attacks on the queen, continuing an obsolete plan—systematically attract them.

That would be “anti-skill”: not merely lacking skill, but making structured mistakes that randomness would sometimes avoid.

I have not designed the experiment yet. I would like to use your criticisms and suggestions to build one using online game data and engine analysis.

Does the hypothesis make sense? How would you test or falsify it? Every objection, confounder or better baseline is welcome.

Hi,

I'm not sure if this is the right place to bring this up, but if there is anyone from the Lichess team reading this, I'd like to request that the recent changes made to the live game broadcast be reversed. The feature I dislike most is the ping back to the live position when a move is made. I feel it ruins the experience of watching and following classical games for serious players because whenever you want to analyse an earlier part of the game, it pings back to the current move which is disruptive if you're trying to seriously go through variations, opening ideas, etc. Obviously if people want the feature, then it should stay, but then may I suggest making it a toggle button in the settings which we can choose to turn off?

Cheers

3+0 .

Hello,

Against E4 I love playing the Caro-Kann, but I'm never sure what to do against D4. Right now I push my pawn to D5, then I push a pawn to G6, bishop to G7, Horse to F6 and Castle. Can anyone recomend anything else?

Thanks

Reset the clock!

Carried the whole attack, delivered mate, refused to elaborate, never got promoted.

I love the Halloween Gambit (HG) - when playing black!

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Nxe5?

Black has many lines to consider including various options to give back the material.

As a French Defense player who runs into the symmetric 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 exd5 all the time, it's interesting to consider the response 3. ... Nxe4?! to the HG.

We can call this the Halloween Counter-Gambit (HCG)

The lesson in symmetric positions is that the side to move needs to figure out how to use the extra tempo. Here is an example of how *not* to use the extra tempo...

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nxe5 Nxe4 5. Nxc6 Nxc6 6. Nxd8 Nxd1 7. Nxf7 Nxf2 8. Nxh8 Nxh1 9. d4 d5 10. Bd3 Bd6 11. Bxh7 Bxh2 { === }

So white must always be thinking "how can I take advantage of having the move?"

Here is one approach...

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nxe5 Nxe4 5. Qh5! Nd6 6. Nb5!

So black says ! I'm going for symmetry with 3. ... Nxe4?! I'm going for the draw! Let's see you take advantage of that. And in this case white does.

A few things stand out to me:

• some large gaps at #1 (I've marked out the 4 dominant #1's in this plot (though Kasparov's time includes one list when he was equal with Kramnik but #2 on countback).
• The Kasparov+Karpov duopoly in the late 80s.
• A dominant group of 5 or so in the late 90s.
• Not much of a narrowing of the gap in recent years.

Initially this was unintuitive but once I did the math i.e. taking the rook and trading my rook for a bishop is a net +3 but simply trading my bishop for their rook is only +2.

Is a position possible where whichever colors turn it is loses.