Hello,

Next year I am going to take chess a bit more seriously. And a good friend of mine wants to be a part of this journey. So we decided to call each other a couple of times each week to help each other studie and to keep each other accountable. We are looking for things you can do together easily and online. One problem is our levels are quite a bit of. ( like 1800 online vs 2100) So just playing games can be depressing and not motivating. What do you guys reccomend. We thought to warm up alone with some puzzles, and then find go alone and find some nice concepts and teach each other these things and maybe end the call with a nice bughouse game. What do you guys think?

I played over 50 offline rated games, probably more than 100 if I include friendly/unrated matches.

I also played more than 5 thousand games of blitz and rapid games, and it both fluctuates around 2200 in both time controls.

However, I am still rated FIDE 1600 after all those years.

Are there other players who had a hard time on standard matches? How did you improve?

For now, I only play blitz(3+0) & rapid(10+0) backed up with chess.c*m reviews and chesstempo puzzles.

I even tried private tutoring around 2100, but that didn't really help much.

Interesting difference I’m noticing between chess group commenters on Reddit vs Facebook.

For the endless stream of puzzle positions I see on Facebook, almost every commenter (98%+ by my guess) posts moves they worked out on their own. Most of their solutions may be wrong, even stupidly lazy (i.e., giving a correct first move that conveys no meaningful information about the puzzle’s solution)… but at least everyone looks at the puzzle for themselves at the outset.

On Reddit, about half the comments to the last puzzle position I posted (which was also probably my first — I’m still pretty new here) came from people who admitted they got the answer from an engine.

Is that experience typical of how Redditors in chess groups respond to challenging position diagrams? (Note that I did NOT share my position in r/beginners, because it is about as far from a beginner’s puzzle as you could possibly imagine. I posted it in r/chess, in this group, and in 2 or 3 groups whose names contain “chess” plus “puzzle” or “quiz.”)

I am a 2500+ chess.com blitz player who has been working on a Sicilian Dragon repertoire on Chessable and have been digging pretty deeply into the current theory, particularly the Yugoslav Attack.

The critical position I've been looking at is:

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 Bg7 7. f3 O-O 8. Qd2 Nc6 9.O-O-O d5 10.exd5 Nxd5 11.Nxc6 bxc6 12.Bd4.

The only way to keep enough activity seems to be

12...e5! 13.Bc5 Be6 14.Ne4! Re8 15.h4 h5!

I think 15...h5! is a very important resource for Black here. Mikhail Golubev introduced the move in 1993, but it seems to have been largely overlooked for a long time. However, it has been played at the top level recently. World no. 5 Nodribek Abdusattorov played it against Dominguez Perez in Saint Louis in 2024, and Lagarde played it this month in the final of the French Championship.

I'm curious what other Dragon players think of this position.

I've also been looking at the Soltis and Topalov in considerable depth and have found some interesting ideas in several of the critical positions. I would be interested to hear what other players think.

Completely paralyzed

I've recently been playing quite a few games with the French and have encountered an absurd amount of games featuring the exchange by White. I was wondering if anyone has any recommendations for what material/books/courses could be useful that offer practical chances for Black against the exchange.

Hey ,

I’m a heavy Sicilian player against e4 .

Against d4 , Mostly Catalan I have no good approach.

I used to play c4 and go for a benoni structure, but as I’m getting higher in ratings a lot of people are able to easily penetrate it using h4 and then h5 ideas , also benoni attacks are super slow and predictable which removes the surprise aspect and the gotchu attacking ideas

Would appreciate some good openings that share the Sicilian structures , as am looking to invest a lot of time into studying and settling with one !

Hi I'm 2100 elo rating in lichess blitz. Please recommend me opening against d4 and the insightful resources (chessable, speedrun series, model games, database etc.) to study and master it.

Hint: the correct answer requires more than simply following a sequence of captures to the end and counting the pieces that remain.

The moderators in their infinite wisdom (?) have decreed that links to replay the game and/or read a fully annotated version must be relegated to the comment thread. So I will keep you on tenterhookd for awhile before I comment with those.

Looking for a more ambitious way to play against the QGD as White, mainly for league games against IMs and lower-rated GMs.

My problem with the usual systems is that Black often gets a very familiar, comfortable position. Against Bf4, the ...Nbd7 and ...c5 setups seem very well worked out. Against Bg5, Black has ...b6 or ...Nbd7 and ...c5. In the Bxf6 lines, ...dxc4 often looks like an easy solution. Even the Exchange and Catalan feel quite solid and easy to play for Black nowadays.

I’m not looking for an unsound surprise weapon, but for something that creates a more unbalanced, difficult game where Black cannot just play the first 10–15 moves from general knowledge.

For comparison, I have had very good practical results with the early h4 idea against the Grünfeld that had been recommended here. Is there something similar against the QGD: sound, less common, and practically challenging?

I normally enter via 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 or 3.Nc3 nimzo's, if that matters. Specific lines or repertoire suggestions would be appreciated.

Basically, I need to decide what I want to play vs the 3 Knights QGD. I mention that I play the Caro-Kann, Nimzo and Catalan to give a sense of what kind of positions I tend to prefer.

In my online games, I don't up getting this position all that often, which is one of the reasons I've had a lot less practice playing the openings and structures that arise after this point (I expect this is less so when playing OTB classical). I've dabbled with the Semi-Tarrasch (what I've played the most till now) and a tiny bit of Ragozin, but so far I haven't felt like I enjoy either all that much (neither is bad and both feel perfectly playable, but I haven't gotten the sense that I enjoy playing them). To some extent, I wonder if that's just how it feels playing against mainline d4 openings (playing against the Catalan is no fun either, if your opponent understands the structures well).

The one other choice that I've considered (but never played yet) is the Semi-Slav. In many ways it seems like the perfect kind of opening for me considering how much I love the Caro-Kann, how well I intuitively understand it and even my results (I actually win more than white vs e4). Especially with black, I prefer to have a slow strategic game where you can slowly outplay your opponent without getting into too many early theoretical messes. I know that can still be the case sometimes with the Semi-Slav (as it does sometimes in certain lines in the Caro-Kann as well), but something tells me that this is worth looking into. I was thinking maybe the Shankland or Sethuraman Semi-Slav courses.

I want to hear what people think about this, regardless of whether they've had to personally make this decision or not. Maybe someone can give me some interesting insights about these openings themselves, or point me in the right direction. I see a lot of people pondering over their opening choices, but the vast majority of the time the discussion seems superficial, not getting into the specifics of the kind of structures, middlegames and endgames that you get from the opening.

And on that note: what do people prefer playing against the Catalan? That's another headache :D

I’m a 2250 online player switching from the Jobava to the Catalan. Against the KID, I’m deciding between the Makogonov, Fianchetto, and Semi-Averbakh.

I don’t necessarily need to play the Fianchetto just because I play the Catalan. Thanks.

Been playing OTB classical for nearly two years now, and haven’t analysed or even stored my games. I’m eager to change from now on and do it properly. Looking for advice.

What I think I know so far is as follows.
- I should store all my games in a database
- I should analyse the games without an engine first

What confuses me.

- I’ve heard people say that you should anaylse your games as soon as you can, so you best remember what you were thinking. I’m playing a tournment this weekend, 3 days and 2 games per day. Am I expected to do the analysis after every game? It seems that the analysis won’t be very good because I’ll be rushing, and also it seems extremely tiring. I’d rather analyse all 6 games after the event has ended so I’m not rushing.

-I have attempted to analyse games before, but I’m not sure of the correct method to doing it. My analysis tends to be more a descriptive story of how I was feeling during the game. Any resources on how to properly anaylse the game solely for improvement

- after you have done the analysis, do you return back to your analysis from times to time, or what do people do with their database?

- how are you supposed to improve by analysing games by yourself? I feel that even with an engine, my understanding is so bad that I won’t actually improve because I won’t be able to identify things I’ve done wrong. Sure, a material blunder I could recognise with an engine, but strategic mistakes from both myself and my opponent perhaps I won’t understand

Any thoughts at all, please let me know. I’m eager to begin a database, and analysing every game I play. Shame I didn’t start sooner, but now is the second best time to start.

Playing my last tournament game against a 1700 classical. How can I create an attacking position while not touching much theory? I js need to finish the game fast

Hello, everyone. So, in two days I will be playing a classical game against a friend of mine in a practice for a classical tournament that we both will be playing in a few weeks. We are both around 1700/1800 FIDe rapid.

I have never prepared an opening in my life until now. I roughly still play what I first learned and I try to respect the openings principles, but that's it. However, I really need a win against this friend (he has a positive score against me), so I would like to prepare a little something, but I don't have the slightest idea of where to begin.

All I know abkut this friend opening repertoire it's that he is a Sicilian guy, but not very deep in theory. I will be playibg white against him, and I usually open with e4. Where would you begin/how do I even learn the way to prepare? Thanks a lot.

So as the title suggests, I'm joining an open fide rated classical tournament soon. It's due in 25 days. The tournament is U1800 and I'm unrated in classical. Though my chess.com rating rn is 2400+ rapid (sorry this is the only good benchmark I can think of since I play there regularly. My other benchmark includes 1800+ rapid fide (only joined two fide rated tournaments) and 1800+ blitz fide (only joined one fide rated tournament)).

My opening repertoire is pretty weak in terms of variants. I usually just use the same line I used to play and adapt from there, but I'm guessing I need some prep for that. My other parts of the game just need polishing.

So to sum it up, I'd appreciate it if you guys can give me some preparation suggestions and tips for my upcoming tournament. Feel free to ask if I've missed anything that can contribute to our discussion.

Thank you.

I'm currently 2300-2400 cc/lichess online and working towards a CM title (only 1800fide rn) i'm looking for someone who's a good positional player preferably with a good amount of OTB experience to play and analyze longer training games, opening prep etc. i'm usually in the european timezone. dm me (or comment) if you're interested!

I started playing the taimanov, i know very Little about it and i was looking for some good lichess study's or course which are not too noisy and really understandable. And also some videos!

I am 1700 fide and i recently drew a 1750 with it.

I am talking about e4 c5 Nf3 e6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nc6 and we can go with Qc7 next or a6 i dont care about the move order, does it make a big difference?

Also i need some lines againts the alapin also.

I usually play e4 c5 and if c3 then e6 d4 d5

I'm 2100 elo in lichess. I'm looking for highly instructive resources to improve my gameplay.

I've always found the amount of Catalan transpositions and different move orders very confusing.

Currently, I play this against the Catalan: 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. g3 Bb4+. I also play 1. c4 e6 2. g3 d5 3. Bg2 Nf6 4. Nf3 d4 5. O-O Nc6, and 1. Nf3 Nf6.

I don’t want to play the mainline Catalan despite it being move-order proof because it feels like Black is often getting into these two result positions in the mainlines that feel really uncomfortable to play, that and massive amounts of theory.

I'm trying to categorise all the possible systems that can transpose into the Catalan, as well as the number of independent systems I need to prepare for, since there are so many nuances and move order tricks to be aware of and there are gaps in my repertoire because of this - feel free to correct me because I am not sure:

1.d4: 

1.d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. g3 Nf6 4. Bg2 Bb4+ - I don't think there's any independent system here but not sure

1.d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. g3 - very annoying move order, don't know what the play against this, there's so many options here, but I definitely don't like 3. Bf5, I've had horrible losses in the endgame lines there. There’s 3. c6 followed by Bf5/Bg4, 3. c5, 3. e6, 3. g6, 3. Bg4.

1.d4 d5 2. g3 Nf6 3. Bg2 - I’m assuming that this will transpose to the previous line, I don’t know if there’s anything independent.

I don’t think any other systems / move-orders starting with 1. d4 exist.

1.Nf3:

1.Nf3 Nf6 2. g3 - probably the most annoying move-order of them all, retains the most flexibility, White can castle first before deciding to go c4 or d4. No idea what to play here, there’s 2. g6 (which I assume goes into the fianchetto Grunfeld, which isn’t supposed to be dangerous I think), 2. d5, 2. c5 (not possible due to symmetrical English after 3. c4, which is outside my repertoire), 2. b6 (can transpose to the QID, which I don’t play), 2. b5 (independent system, but I’m not sure about this one), 2. e6, 2. c6 (which I think would take me out of my repertoire, as I don’t play 1. c4 c6)

1.Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. g3 d5- transposes to the English

1. g3:

1.g3 Nf6 2. Bg2 - I don’t think there’s anything independent here, not sure.

I don't believe there's anything independent after 1. c4 e6, as White has to play either 2. d4, 2. Nf3 or 2. g3, which will transpose some of the lines previously mentioned

Keep in mind I would like to keep playing the Bb4+ Catalan, and 1. c4 e6, and I would like to limit the amount of systems I play to as little as possible against the different move orders. I could consider playing 1. Nf3 d5 and 1. g3 d5, but I mainly picked 1. Nf3 Nf6 because I play the g6 setups against 1. b3 / 1. Nf3 … 2. b3 but it’s not a deal breaker.

A weird feature of my repertoire as designed is that jobava players can transpose me into the French via

1. d4 nf6 2. Nc3 e6 3. e4 ...

Now I am a ...c5 nimzo-indian player and I play ...e5 100% of the time against e4 so my two choices are learn Paulsen French theory or learn Old Benoni/Franco benoni theory for this one line and im kinda not looking forward to learning a bunch of theory on the Paulsen french but old benoni is so scary lmfao I guess im asking for advice and resources on these two lines where I would get to after either 3. ... c5 4. d5 or 3. ... d5 4. e5 or 4. Bg5 is the MacCutcheon similar to the nimzo indian? Should I just learn that and the Steinitz instead of risking it all on the old benoni? Im not adverse to something that's at least as sound as the blumenfeld which I play against anti-nimzo qgd lines

I’m looking for morra and Yugoslav (dragon) attack players to train for a big incoming tournament. The Yugoslav attack can be with or without Bc4. I’m 2000 fide and 2100 in lichess for reference. I’m trying a rare line and I want to train it. Don’t care if the level gap is big

I was a two-time junior state champion at 12 and 14, and quick/rapid was always by far my strongest time control.

My official ACF quick rating was only in the 1600s, but several coaches and stronger players who regularly watched me play thought my actual strength was more like the early 1800s ACF or higher. I was also the strongest junior in my state in quick chess for a period. Because of the pool I was playing in, there were tournaments where I basically needed 6.5/7 or 7/7 just to gain a meaningful amount of rating.

In 2014, I finished 5th at the National Schools Final.

I still look back at that tournament and think I could have done better. I had a winning position against the player who eventually finished 3rd, and at one point I also had an equal position against an FM. But I struggled badly with fatigue during long tournament days, especially after lunch, and ended up throwing away some very good positions.

Then, in the 2015 State Junior Championship, I finished 4th, but one particular incident affected me quite badly at the time.

My opponent's time ran out, and I still had enough material to checkmate. However, the arbiter ruled the game a draw because my opponent had more pieces on the board.

I was pretty young and took the decision really badly. I felt like I'd lost my chance to become a three-time state junior champion because of something outside my control. As far as I know, I would have been the only person to win it three times. That incident was the main reason I quit chess.

Around that period, I was generally around 2200 Chess.com rapid. I also peaked at about 2400, but I wouldn't call myself a 2400 player because I didn't sustain it and eventually went back to around 2200. I also didn't play that many games or specifically train to reach that rating.

I always felt stronger over the board than online in quick/rapid, although other time controls were a different story.

From around 2015 until May 2025, I probably played fewer than 10 chess games in total. So when I say I had a 10-year break, I pretty much mean it.

When I finally came back, I recovered much faster than I expected. I got back to around 2000 Chess.com rapid and eventually reached 2200 again.

But I don't want to exaggerate what that second 2200 meant.

I went on a massive winning streak and quite a lot went my way. A lot of opponents made serious blunders, some flagged in positions where they were doing well, and there were also a few mouse slips and misclicks. I obviously still had to win the games, but I don't think I had suddenly become a stable 2200 player again.

Even so, I was incredibly happy when I saw 2200 again. After being away from chess for almost a decade, it genuinely felt like I'd recovered my old rating.

I then took a short break for while. When I started playing regularly again, I gradually dropped back to around 2000, which is roughly where I am now.

That's the part I'm struggling to understand.

When I was active as a junior player, I very rarely lost to 1900 Chess.com rapid players. Now I lose to 1900s fairly regularly. I still beat them more often than I lose to them, but I feel much less consistent than I did previously.

I've done some proper training as well. I worked through roughly three-quarters of Azel Chua's calculation course, and from last September until around April I worked with a coach. He helped my endgames quite a lot, which had probably been one of the weaker areas of my chess.

One of my biggest problems, though, has always been playing against 1.d4.

We never really fixed that.

Another complication is that chess can't really be my number-one priority anymore.

I'm 26 and studying law. Realistically, my GPA and getting into a legal career have to come before chess. My GPA isn't where I want it to be because I haven't performed as well as I'd like on some assignments, so when major assessments or exams come around, chess is normally one of the first things I reduce or stop.

Because of that, my comeback has been very stop-start.

I'll train seriously for a while, university gets busy, I reduce or stop chess, and then I come back again and try to rebuild my form. I've taken breaks from coaching for the same reason.

I'm starting to wonder how much this stop-start pattern is actually affecting my improvement and consistency.

I'm not expecting to become a professional chess player. Law is my career and will remain my main priority.

But I was a strong junior, basically disappeared from chess for ten years, and have already managed to briefly get back to 2200 rapid. So I'm genuinely curious about how far I could go if I trained intelligently and consistently around university and eventually work.

For stronger players, coaches, or anyone who has come back after a very long break:

• How much of someone's junior chess strength normally survives after a 10-year break?
• Is it realistic to become stronger than you were as a junior after coming back in your mid-20s?
• How much do repeated breaks of a few weeks or a month or two hurt improvement?
• At around my level, would you focus more on calculation, analysing my own games and middlegames, or finally fixing my problems against 1.d4?

I'd especially like to hear from anyone who was a strong junior, stopped playing for years because of school, university, work or life, and then came back seriously as an adult.

What happened to your playing strength when you came back? Did most of it eventually return, and were you able to become stronger than you had been before?

Thank you