So I've been playing chess now for a couple years exclusively on chess.com. One thing I have noticed is that my rating was around 1200 and then would jump to 1600 and then back down to 1200. It then stayed the same at 1500 for most of 2016. In the last quarter of 2016 it has stayed above 1600 and even hit 1700.

Here is the deal though. I play all crap inferior openings. For white I play the Danish and if Sicilian I move my b pawn. Any other opening with white and I play a kings gambit style. When I play as black, I've kind of come up with my own system as I move my queenside knight and always castle long.

Another thing is they have a rated tactics training thing. I've noticed most of my opponents are much higher rated on tactics than actual playing rating. However my tactics rating is around 1450. I play mostly 3 min or 5 min and would like to reach 2000

So um.. where is the said "chess" that you want analyzed?

Study tactics and sound openings, both will be absolutely necessary sooner or later

Do you win more open games or more closed games?

OP says he plays mostly 3 and 5 min blitz and wants to get to 2000. 2000 what? Chess.com blitz? FIDE? USCF? Whatever it is, you won't get to 2000 blitz by playing blitz alone. 3 and 5 min games are pure blitz...nothing more. That's not how you learn chess. It's an effective learning tool (imo) for pattern recognition, clock management, and opening awareness - in moderation. The large brunt of your games need to be over 60 min + increment in order to get to the level you're talking about. 15+0's should be your "blitz" at the moment. But bouncing around 1200-1400 on Chess.com and continuing to play blitz all day and night is a surefire way to end up "like everyone else".

And Chess.com is terrible. Try ICC or PlayChess. ChessTempo has a nice live server up but it's far softer than the former two sites that I mentioned. Much better competition, much better learning tools, much better for what you're trying to accomplish. They don't even have any solid level of disconnection protection on Chess.com so you can't reliably play long games. Don't even get me started on the list of reasons why Chess.com is just garbage.

Maybe ****ing stop?

play long games against people slightly better (100-200 points) and go over the game with that opponent afterwards.

then go over the same game with someone (a human) significantly stronger than u and ur opponent.

u'll probably have to play otb tourneys and then hire a coach or make friends with stronger players.

i'm not sure what sam shankland's story is but I remember right when I quit chess, he was rated around 2200 and kinda slumping.

i think he then got really involved with a chess club formed by IM (maybe FM back then) david pruess, GM (maybe IM back then) vinay bhat, and FM (maybe NM back then) andy lee. His rating just skyrocketed from then on. I knew a lot of people who hit expert/master in a relatively short time frame, but just never progress from then on.

^ source: https://en.chessbase.com/post/sam-sh...in-bidding-war

forgot to mention josh friedel came into the norcal scene shortly afterwards.

also playing online everyday will get you no where. i quit studying chess roughly 10 years ago and my online rating has only been stagnating the past decade. my dad's been playing chess online since chessmaster 3000. i haven't seen the slightest improvement in his game ever.

there's also debates as to whether or not certain people can pass a certain strength ever in their lifetime.

- "playing online everyday will get you no where."

I'm sorry but, I have to vehemently disagree with this statement. I'm sure you didn't actually mean what you said, to be honest. I think what you meant was that the truest, purest improvement comes from playing OTB tournaments against stronger players, followed by deep analysis with your opponent and then by yourself. Obviously, using Fritz 15, SF Development, ChessTempo, ICC, etc, to compliment your OTB play is definitely going to help you improve. Your dad is your dad. He's one person out of a massive sample size. I don't know what he's doing with his chess time online but he's definitely not doing the right things if he hasn't improved in 10 years. The thing is, as you said, most people are like that. They hit 1200-1500 and that's it. That's where like 95% of the players are. They have a set ceiling and once they hit it, they don't improve anymore. But an intelligent, thinking player using the power of a laptop and the internet today is DEFINITELY going to improve significantly if they have innate chess talent. I and others I know are doing (have done) it.

You're apparently much younger than I and clearly much better at chess. I didn't even start playing until I was like 31. I'm 34 now. I've only played on and off, have only played OTB tournaments a few times, and yet I've spent a ton of time studying and playing online. Right now I can walk all over 1400 USCF's. They're cake compared to 1200-1500 ICC standards. In some player pools offline, I've seen 1550+ players who weren't up to par with 1300 standards on ICC. Truth. I just keep improving and it's a result of a ton of hard work. I do a lot of tactics. I go over a ton of games, past and present. I obsessively go over my games and analyze my errors. I put myself back in the moment and recreate my thought process so I can identify how I actually got to making the wrong move. So, naturally, I keep improving. The problem for me isn't "how do I get better at chess?" the question for me is "what's the point of getting better at chess?". At 34 years old and the game of poker evolving around money, it's difficult for me to justify taking my chess to the next level and starting to hit up regional tournaments regularly. I honestly don't have that much pride and ego anymore and we all know I won't be making any money. Further, the amount of overall time spent on studying/traveling/playing would basically mean that chess would have to be my life. once again: I love chess but we only get one life. I don't want to wake up in 10 years and be a 44 year old 2300 with absolutely nothing to show for it but the games, the memories, and the certificate. Or maybe I do. That's what I've yet to fully decide.

I've definitely improved a ton from studying and playing online, though. That's just an absolute fact. If you don't play online you're just not going to be able to play as many games against as diverse a field of opponents. Further, as I talked about earlier, a lot of the time the players on ICC and PlayChess are far better than what you would see at the same rating USCF and, in some cases (but not many), even FIDE. It's just invaluable experience, especially for someone in my position who started so much later than someone like you and desperately needs to compensate for lack of experience by putting in tremendous volume. I simply can't do that without playing online.

Oh yeah, shoutout to my main man Andy Lee up ITT. 2p2 has arrived! Pretty sure he is 99% responsible for Shankland and, by extension, Carlsen's recent victory due to sneaky opening prep.

Fwiw of course you can get better just playing online. However, it becomes pretty difficult to find long enough games for this purpose, especially once you get decent and then pretty good at chess. I do not have that problem yet () but I have never tried to get an actual long game (60+ min per side) without joining the slow chess league or whatever. Which, again, may be helpful up to a point but then there won't be anyone better than you are.

If you are >2k USCF/FIDE I think it will be tough getting better without finding longer games with very good opposition, which may simply not be possible online.

Okay, top 3 reasons?

Ok so here is my typical line as black


Event "xbvc vs. jcy1776"]
[Site " Chess.com"]
[Date "Dec 30, 2016"]
[White "xbvc"]
[Black "jcy1776"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "1640"]
[BlackElo "1678"]
[TimeControl "1 in 0 day"]
[Termination "jcy1776 won by checkmate"]
1. d4 Nc6 2. d5 Nb4 3. a3 Nba6 4. e4 b6 5. Bd3 e6 6. Qe2 Nc5 7. c4 Nxd3+ 8. Qxd3 Bb7 9. Nc3 Qe7 10. Nf3 O-O-O 11. O-O h6 12. Nb5 a6 13. Nbd4 g5 14. Bd2 Bg7 15. Bc3 g4 16. Nd2 e5 17. Ne2 h5 18. Ng3 h4 19. Nf5 Qg5 20. f3 gxf3 21. Nxf3 Qg6 22. N3xh4 Rxh4 23. Nxh4 Qh5 24. Nf3 Nf6 25. Bxe5 Rh8 26. Bxf6 Bxf6 27. e5 Bxe5 28. Nxe5 Qxh2+ 29. Kf2 Qxe5 30. Qc3 Qf4+ 31. Ke2 Re8+ 32. Kd3 Re3+ 33. Kc2 Rxc3+ 34. bxc3 Qe4+ 35. Kb3 a5 36. Rxf7 a4+ 37. Kb4 Bxd5 38. Rf8+ Kb7 39. Kxa4 Qxc4# 0-1


Basically I make the same 6 moves at the beginning with the black pieces. If you could suggest a better system for black? Sometimes with the system above I get mated quite quickly which used to never happen

1) It's technologically way, way behind the other sites. ICC, PlayChess, even the free for all Lichess is way beyond Chess.com. The engine analysis on Chess.com still uses Stockfish 6 and doesn't let you run your own UCI engine lol. That alone is just ridiculous.

2) The diamond sub here is the only way to have full access to the site and it's $14 a month or $99 a year. This makes Chess.com the most expensive online chess server in existence. I'm sorry but - It does nothing better than any of the other sites to justify costing that much more than them. Its just a ripoff.

3) No disconnection protection, no adjournment system, no adjudications. You just can't legitimately play long games on here without worrying about the game ending by someone disconnecting.

4) The staff @ chess.com, by in large, is filled with people who either don't play chess or play extremely casually. On the contrary, most of the staff helping you over on ICC and PlayChess are titled players who really know the game. Chess.com's #1 tech support rep is some housewife rated under 1000.

5) Live broadcasts on ICC and PlayChess are miles ahead of the ones on Chess.com. Once again, technological inferiority plays a huge role here. Danny Rensch doesn't even seem to know how to plug a power cord in.

6) The video quality has gone downhill significantly and is way, way below the quality of the videos on ICC and PlayChess.

7) Of all the sites we're talking about, Chess.com has the softest competition.

8) Cookie cutter time controls encouraged by the preset time controls of 15/10, 30/0, etc. They encourage only a handful of different time controls be played, they're time controls that don't matter and aren't played seriously anywhere else (other than 15/10), and it takes forever to find a game like a 12+3 or a 30+15, etc. ICC has the pairing pools and separate rating system for each one. PlayChess has multiple ways to set your formula and offer seeks to various opponents. It's just easier to find quality games when you're not on Chess.com.

9) It's web based, offers no client, and as a result is extremely glitchy and buggy (the interface) compared to the competition. Lots of misclicks, lots of bugs, and V3 is still basically a beta. $99 a year? No way.

10) I could honestly sit here for hours and talk about all of the things that make Chess.com a total ripoff and piece of garbage but you asked for three and I gave you nine. Want more?

Have you ever even played on ICC or PlayChess? I would bet no because it's highly, highly unlikely that you would play there and ever even go back to Chess.com, let alone challenge someone's assertion that it's garbage. You would know, for a fact, that I was telling the pure truth. It *is* garbage.

Honestly, I don't know where you're getting that from. I know a lot of titled players who play 90+30 online almost exclusively and with PlayChess and ICC, they rarely have trouble finding a game with a quality opponent. I've heard others say what you're saying before but by in large, it's just a myth. There's more long chess being played online today than ever before. I scour the servers regularly to see what's being played. Sure, on Chess.com once you're over 1600 you're going to have a tough time finding quality chess. On ICC and PlayChess, you will never get too good to have trouble finding an opponent. Never. ICC is the toughest playing field online or off, anywhere.

I need your help and perhaps you will clarify. A few years back i played on ICC and had many people disconnect when I thought I had a better position; perhaps not easily winnable but still definitely a superior position. I had more games up for adjudication than I was able to play because of this-the adjudicated ones were one's tha ti definitely had a winner.

I stopped playing for this and other reasons, too busy. Now, do either of these sites automatically give the win to the undisconnected opponent no matter what ?

I'm not looking for a "quick win" but it becomes tedious when you know your opponent can disconnect and you have to jump through hoops to make yourself whole.

Does playchess have this feature and does ICC have it at present ? Thanx in advance.

Hmm, I haven't belonged to ICC in years so that's good to know. May sign up there again for that very reason.

I think chess.com is underwhelming but, I mean, it's free so the value can't be too poor as long as you don't pay for diamond membership.

I find it a bit surprising that this is a 1600-1600 game. I'd guess it was a 1300-1300 game on chess.com blitz (which afaik is a higher standard than 1300 USCF), and it's not just the first few moves that contribute to that impression. White's deferred knight maneuver to f5 is particularly baffling. The main point is it's much more than the opening that needs work. Just learn 5-6 basic moves in some openings, like 1. d4 d5 stuff; it's not really going to be so time-intensive at all.

ICC has a feature known as "noescape". If you're having opponents abuse the adjournment system, then you would set your formula to "noescape 1" so that any seek you offer comes with the condition that disconnect = forfeit. Now, you can go the other route, too when playing even longer games that you don't want a discon to = forfeit. If they just abandon the game in a totally losing position, you want to forward the game to "adjudicate" who will look at it and if it's clearly winning for you, the game will be adjudicated in your favor.

No other server has features like this. ICC is the only one. This, and other reasons, leave it alone at the top of the hill that is online chess servers today. The most serious players play on ICC. Period.

Of course it's difficult to complain to extensively about something that is free but the ironic thing here is that Lichess is legitimately free and it's offering far more than what Chess.com is. The only way to get it so that your Chess.com > Lichess is if you pay for the diamond sub and right there, you're paying a minimum of $99 a year.

The value is just legitimately not there with Chess.com's memberships.

Yeah, I mean I haven't been playing on chess.com at all since I played on lichess. I just don't think it's ridiculously bad. Just kinda bad. I mean, it has most things in one place but doesnt do any of them that well.

The Chess.com price tag is what really turns the disappointment into a bit of anger. They're taking in a lot of money over there and there just doesn't seem to be enough quality content on the site to justify the sub fees. Of course, you can play with a free account and be limited to the most bare bones features of the site which is just ....sub par to say the least.

ICC is $9.95/mo recurring or like $65 a year. PlayChess isn't even $5 USD a month (yes, they have a monthly payment option now). ChessTempo Gold = $4 a month or $36 a year. Chess.com's Diamond = $99 a year or $14 a month. There's just zero justification for them charging what they do other than to simply take advantage of the name "chess.com" where most beginners will find themselves.

Not only is it not a blitz game, it's a correspondence game with 24 hours per move. The quality of chess over on Chess.com's "daily chess" (correspondence) is just atrocious. Some of the beginners over there who have never played in a real tournament are in for a very rude awakening because they're actually considering their Chess.com correspondence rating to be a good indication of where they would stand in the USCF or FIDE. Obviously, a 1600 chess.com correspondence is going to play NOWHERE near that level in a 60/5 OTB USCF. They're probably a sub 1100 player in reality.

Wow greenbliss420, you certainly seem to have a lot of issues? The game above is most definitely a 3 min blitz game. The longest time control I have ever played is 5 mins.

Also to the Rei Ayanami, I understand why you would think that it's a 1300-1300 game. Playing blitz with uncommon openings leads to more that style.

Regarding the chess.com discussion, it's by far the best phone application for chess. And it has the most players.

Do you usually castle queenside when you play this system? If so, don't play a6 for no reason if you've already played b6 - advancing both pawns weakens your king. Kb8 is a better way to defend a7. Chessexplained once cited an adage made up by one of his German colleagues which I find precise too: long castling requires two moves instead of one - the actual castling plus the almost mandatory king move to b8/b1.

Let alone that I find long castling dubious whenever c6 (c3 for White) is taken away from the knights (by the d5/d4 pawn): then a7 becomes too weak and the threat of a pawn storm (a4-a5) is serious. If Black prevents this with a7-a5, then the b5 square becomes White's outpost.

Regarding the 4 moves of the same knight in the opening - in Alekhine's Defence, the knight moves a lot too, but he comes to a good b6 square from where he controls the centre (or back to d5 if c4-c5 is played). Whereas in your system, the knight is unstable on c5, as he can be kicked back easily with b4 quite soon (White having already played a3).

Putting the knight on a6 isn't necessarily bad on its own, but you need to make sure that the Na6-c5 move poses a threat of Nxe4 so that you have enough time to play a5 before White has a chance to kick your knight with b4. Of course, long castling is out of question once you commit to this plan. This is how the Na6 lines of the King's Indian Defence work, and that's what I recommend if you really like to put the knight on the rim and challenge the centre instead of occupying it with pawns.

I think White failed to offer you enough resistance. In particular, consider yourself lucky that he parted so easily with his light-square bishop.

In White's shoes, my instinct on move 7 is to play 7. Bc4, preserving the important bishop (who is supposed to counter the b7 monster) from exchange. The e4 pawn is yet untouchable anyway, e.g. 7... Nf6 8. Nc3 exd5 9. Nxd5! Nfxe4?? (self-pin) 10. b4 c6 11. bxc5 dxc6 12. Bxd5, winning for White.

There are other decent 7th moves for White, but 7. c4? is a blunder that allows the 7... Nb3 fork on the rook and the dark-square bishop that you'd have seen easily if you'd been exercising a lot with tactics trainers like Chesstempo. But if White leaves the c-pawn on c2 to guard b3, he'll be standing better.

But anyway, of course, White shouldn't have developed the bishop to d3 in the first place. The clearly best square for the bishop is c4, from where it reinforces the d5 wedge or, if Black trades on d5 and White recaptures with the knight in some variations, that knight becomes strong and the bishop x-rays f7 - this is why your system fails. Unlike in the Italian game, the bishop can't be challenged easily on c4 in your system because no knight can come to a5 fast. Black can't play d7-d6 as a response to 5. Bc4, as that would instantly lose to 6. Bb5+. Black can try 5... e6, but this doesn't solve the problem of his light-square bishop, who won't be doing much on b7. White will play Nc3, Nf3, e5, enjoying a vast space advantage for no compensation and preparing an attack.

A strong White opponent won't develop the bishop to d3 vs your system, then your knight jump to c5 won't accomplish much.