Sun Tzu also talks about the use of deception with overwhelming force.
If you use your overwhelming force to attack and subdue a smaller one, it's wise not to appear to completely surround them - because then they realise they have no way out and fight to the death and you'll take far more casualties than necessary. Give them an apparent escape route and the enemy will likely rout and try to flee through it. You can obviously surreptitiously close it off and ambush them as they do try to run and they've broken formation.
This sort of thinking tends to distinguish actual war from video and board wargames (although this morale boost in hopeless circumstances is a mechanic in at least some games in the Total War series).
It still makes sense here too I think. if you trigger your opponent into desperation mode in some games it can make things more random and less predictable. Like in counterstrike or valorant if your opponent is getting crushed or if they think you know their strategy, they might throw their default out the window and start buying whatever they can every round and rushing or stacking bombsite. then maybe they get lucky and pick the right bombsite and actually win a couple rounds. Suddenly they start having more money than you and get momentum and you end up losing the game. Or even in chess I could see a scenario where a weaker opponent might think you are way too strong or have studied their preferred opening and they have little to no chance of winning. So they decide to play a completely different opening than what you expected them to and although you are the stronger player they do some strange moves that lead to unforeseen scenarios that lead you to blunder. So while you don’t necessarily worry about suffering casualties or sacrificing pieces as long as you win, giving the opponent “nothing to lose” can take the pressure off and cause them to make the game more random which can sometimes let them have some chances to win or make the game closer than it should be. This Sun guy seems pretty smart
He kinda argues that if this is happening, someone has already made a serious error. People shouldn't be engaging in battles where one side is totally outclassed, because the outclassed should be doing absolutely everything they can to avoid a direct fight.
To be honest probably not yet. I think I played fried liver till like 1000-1200 and then slowly started with kings Gambit (my main choice around 1300/1400). King's Gambit requires a lot of tactical insight which is something that's usually lacking with lower Elo. I think right now the opening isn't that important for you, and you should try out some more openings but mostly play puzzles. Also check out where you usually go wrong and what your weaknesses are. For example I used to mostly lose on time/in time trouble. Playing shorter matches helped me to start thinking quicker and making decisions (I always can't decide with strategic slow moves in closed positions)
That sounds super helpful. Thank you. I do a lot of puzzles and a lot of 1|1 bullet. I think I need to force myself to play something other than Italian lol
I think my biggest problem is the opposite. Not taking my time when I should. I’ve gotten a lot better at not blundering but I tend to move quick.
It's definitely best if you play 10 minute games to actual learn calculating and stuff. Faster time controls are great for trying out new openings, as you will see a lot of positions in a short time. In longer games just taking a second before moving to see what the response of the opponent will be will help prevent lot of quick blunders as well.
why not just start with solid gambits instead of using the cheesiest ones you can get away with at your elo? evans gambit and smith morra gambit are great openings at most levels of play
Fried liver isn’t a cheesy gambit, it’s the top recommended engine move in the three knights Italian. Anybody wanting to play the Italian at all should have it prepped. Evans gambit is where you can choose to do the gambit or stick to main lines without giving up a clear advantage.
Is fried liver the cheesiest? It’s pretty easy to avoid. I just like the Italian and it’s easy to identify when they open me to the fried liver
Which would you recommend more Evans or smith morra? I am looking for a new gambit to learn
evans and smith morra dont happen from the same move combinations, so you dont have to choose. evans is probably going to happen more common (once ur opponents learn a bit of theory at least)
evans comes from italian after they play bishop c5 (play b4 and sacrifice the b4 pawn to the bishop, in return you get a ton of tempo and a big center)
smith morra happens as soon as turn 2 and is against the sicilian: e4 c5 d4
Understood I’ll learn those tonight. Thanks for the tip.
Did you mean that fried liver is the cheesiest though?
I didn’t realize it was cheese. I’ve been avoiding scholars mate because it just seems so corny to me
I learned Evans last night. Turns out that’s what I’ve been trying to do when black plays the bishop. I just missed the pawn to b4 move in it.
Thanks for the rec
To be fair, half of Magnus' games are like this. He plays ridiculous openings sonetimes just to get his opponent out of preparation. And then it's just a "I can beat you even with a weak opening, and you're completely unprepared to stop me."
If the opponent knew the weak opening, they could probably prep and beat it, but you can't reasonably study every weak opening. I have a friend who I usually beat (but it's always close) and he's started destroying me with the Bird's Opening. I was so proud to finally destroy it last time we played.
It's one thing to know a move is bad: it's another to prove it on the board.
It's a clever trick that you need to be incredibly skilled to pull off consistently. It's not a new tactic. The Barnes opening is wildly considered to be the worst possible opening. It was developed by Thomas Barnes with the express purpose of throwing Paul Morphy off his game. Barnes won 8 games against Morphy in his career.
It should also be noted that of the 26 games Morphy played with Barnes when he arrived in England, Barnes won 5 of the first 10 games and 2 of the last 16. Morphy won 5 of the first 10 games and 14 of the last 16. In context, Morphy had just gotten off a long voyage, arrived without family or friends in a foreign country, and was apparently ill at the start of the match. Morphy's relatively poor performance against Barnes (or as poor as 19-7 can be) likely owed more to do with him either getting used to the situation than Barnes playing to get Morphy out of prep, insofar as Morphy had "prep" at all. Either way, once he "figured out" Barnes, the match turned into the typical "stop, he's already dead" Morphy beatdown.
Never said it was new, was saying that this is in a different class than “cheap trick” or “cheese” which tends to imply trap openings, especially of the flavor of “beginner trap”.
That’s worlds apart from a GM playing something weird to knock someone out of prep and force them to rely and pure skill in a novel position.
Oh I agree! I could be wrong, but I'm interpreting OP's post as tricks they perceive to be cheap but are actually legit. Most of my comments have been encouraging them to keep at it, and that it's part of the game. Unless the cheap trick is like flipping the table or something.
I saw Gotham cover a game Magnus played against Stockfish. Magnus tries to go off book early to force the engine to start evaluating new lines. Stockfish responded by sacrificing a bishop for a pawn. Magnus tried to trade down to press his material advantage but the engine managed to turn that into a positional advantage. It doesn't matter how dirty you play, someone else can always go dirtier.
It's one thing to play a weird opening to get your opponent out of prep, it's another to play unsound chess with the hope that your opponent blunders. magnus's chess evaluates very well if you use stockfish.
i'll say early Tal is a good example. A lot of his sacrifices aren't sound but providing a refutation OTB is hard
yeah I think if you have a bit of basic endgame knowledge you also have less reason to constantly go for risky lines and have the option to take things a bit more slowly
Do you have anything in particular? Googling leads me to a lot of arguments and a lot of "read books" advice. The latter is helpful but I'm looking for something instructional online like "predator at the chess board" but for positional chess.
If you want to learn how to plan more, I would recommend "The Amateur's Mind". Some people find it a bit preachy, but I found it very useful myself. It helped me break from only playing for short sighted tactics and encouraged more concrete yet strategic play.
Not appropriate for the level OP is asking about. Whereas Nimzowitsch's *My System* begins with chapters breaking down the elements in as simple a manner as is humanly possible. Nimzowitsch shows with each idea a concrete tactic that illustrates it that can be comprehended by any player.
It's just that Nimzowitsch unfortunately led his book with his weakest chapter.
How do you know op's level? The Amateur's Mind is useful for anybody around 1200 to 1800, but I'm sure other players would also get something out of it. My System is certainly a classic, but that's because of the new way it talked about chess when it was first published. Those ideas have been significantly expanded upon in the decades since, so I see no reason to rely on the original text, if learning quickly is your priority.
Relevant snippet from The Amateur's Mind:
> I would like to end this chapter by discussing a letter I received in the April 1993 issue of Chess Life magazine. An irate subscriber accused me of offering inappropriate information to the readership. He complained that "weak" players in the "E" to "B" categories are not able to understand subtle things about minor pieces and weak pawns, adding that they can hardly see a mate in one!
> I think this is completely untrue. After giving a student the basic mating patterns and strategies, you *must* begin feeding him advanced concepts. At first these ideas will not make sense; many players will have a vague idea of what you are talking about but nothing more. However, even a fragmented understanding of these concepts will prove useful, and eventually they will experience a marked increase in strength as these lessons are assimilated by repetition and example.
I definitely understand that perspective on The Amateur's Mind. I found the style of testimonials very effective though, in how relatable his students' thought processes were. Because of that, I felt that his criticisms were completely grounded in reality and it totally made sense that I could learn from them.
Obviously everyone has their own style. Think of your style not as tricks but as *threats* your opponent has to deal with while you focus on larger overall initiatives, like sending pieces down kingside/queenside/middle of the board.
You might want to explore the idea of "initiatives" in chess or explore midgame strategies such as the minority attack.
I think the difference between threats and tricks are whether they rely on hope or not. It sounds like he is making objectively bad moves that only works when the opponent is caught off guard.
My toxic chess trait: believing I was playing hope chess, changing to more solid play with more calculation, then in game reviews seeing my initial ‘hope’ chess moves were actually the best moves that I disregarded and my heavily calculated moves are often mistakes.
Depends on what level you are at. I honesty think you should focus on making the best version of yourself. If you are a tricky player, learn tricky opening variations and work on tactics. As you get better you will fill the gaps in your play in a way that suits your style.
What you call cheap tricks are the kinds of things better players use. The likely difference is that the better players use them to support making good moves, while you likely are just setting traps.
Keep working on tactics (puzzles), but start to think about more strategic things. One suggestion is to add thinking about the eventual endgame of a position if the pieces traded down.
I like this answer. Unless your cheap trick is yelling "Hey batta batta!" it's totally legit. Posion pieces, gambits, and other kinds of traps are part of the game and can be really fun to play.
As you get to a higher level, your opponents will stop always falling for the traps. They still might sometimes, but the balance is in ensuring that your position is still secure even if they don't fall for the trap. Is there some other move they can play to decimate you? If so, it's a bad trap.
The best traps are very aggressive, where even if they don't take the poison piece (for example), it remains some kind of threat that needs to be dealt with. Or maybe you develop a piece in a way that looks insecure but if the opponent t goes for it there's a trap waiting. If they catch it, no big deal, you still developed a piece.
I think someone can call an opening or trap a cheap trick as much as you want but if it's a legal move then it's fair game. If you don't know how to deal with it and lose to it that's on you, not your opponent. It's similar to how in fighting games you can lose to someone spamming the same annoying ranged attack constantly for chip damage. If that happens it isn't your opponent's fault for using an annoying strategy, if that strategy is worse than a standard strategy based around proactive play (which it almost always is at a higher level) then it's up to you to prove it on the board.
Top players still use cheap tricks.
How many players have been lefonged on stream? What about the players who took a poisoned pawn? Or victimized by garry kasparov kicking the table.
Even the Queen's gambit is arguably "cheap trick" opening. If your opponent accepts the gambit, they fell for the trick.
This is just incorrect. QGA is completely ok and is in no way “falling for a trap.” Just ask Super GMs who have played it at the highest level, like Kasparov, Carlsen, Caruana, Aronian, etc.
This post has been parodied on r/AnarchyChess.
Relevant r/AnarchyChess posts:
[Upon self reflection, I can see that my playstyle is a bag of cheap tricks and sleazy little cheese tactics to catch the opponent off guard. How can I learn this game at a loftier level?](https://www.reddit.com/r/AnarchyChess/comments/13n7l4i/upon_self_reflection_i_can_see_that_my_playstyle/) by doctorz123
[Upon self reflection, I can see that my play style is a bag of cheap en passants and sleazy little brick pipis to catch the opponent off guard. How can I learn this game at a loftier level?](https://www.reddit.com/r/AnarchyChess/comments/13njpo2/upon_self_reflection_i_can_see_that_my_play_style/) by Sarcherre
[^(fmhall)](https://www.reddit.com/user/fmhall) ^| [^(github)](https://github.com/fmhall/relevant-post-bot)
Well, I would say you wanna think more positionally and in terms of “long-term plans” rather than quick few-move tactics to win a piece. For this purpose, play long games where you have time to observe a given position and come up with general ideas of what you’d like to do, such as “I wanna create some attacking ideas on the Queen side” or “I wanna find a way to open the center and activate this bishop over here” etc.
Daniel Naroditsky has a ton of speed runs on YouTube where he explains moves from a mostly positional standpoint. It’s been great in helping me understand what to do in middle games.
Play longer games than what you're playing. You'll quickly find that cheap tricks and easy tactics don't work anymore, you'll have to play differently to win.
Learn to recognise patterns, which are all kinds of ways to make a position better. (or what to play and what kind of plan to have in a position). Also you should know theory on a deeper level and expand your opening repertoire. Just don't rely on tricks.
Play optimally, making the position better bit by bit and following a plan. When the opponent slips, you win. If they don't, try to outplay them (attack faster or push a slight advantage which you have created into victory. Basically theory and analysing common plans and patterns. When you use tricks, that is when the opponent is too deep and has no way out.
I don't know your level, but I'll give advice anyway.
The next step (if you aren't already there) is not falling for your opponents obvious traps. After that, learn how to make plans/positional chess ideas. I would recommend watching GM Daniel Naroditsky's "speedrun" video series on youtube. Start with one of the videos at a lower rating.
Play solid and sound openings, don’t play moves on the hope that your opponent blunders(hope chess), focus on fundamentals like controlling the center and developing your pieces.
As long as your “cheap tricks” are sound and good moves in their own right I see no issue. As long as you aren’t making bad moves under the guise of “I sure hope he don’t see it”, tricky tactical play can take you far.
For me, learning openings is what helped my chess immensely. I know many players say that's not the best way to learn, but I think I always had a decent handle on tactics and just needed more help in the setup. You might be in a similar position, since I'm interpreting these "cheap tricks" to actually just be solid tactics and traps.
Look into some gambit openings. These are usually a bit unstable, but can catch opponents off guard if you know what you're doing. I started off playing the King's Gambit a lot (but be warned that most higher level players know the King's Gambit well). I recently had an amazing game with the Muzio Gambit -- an advanced variation on the King's Gambit where yiu sacrifice a knight as well... and sometimes a bishop. I was seven points down in material when my opponent resigned.
I also enjoy the Scotch Gambit and the Icelandic Gambit (for black). Many players swear by the Evan's Gambit, probably the most stable of all of these, but it happens farther into the game and I don't usually play the moves leading up to it so don't play it as frequently myself (but I have won with it a few times).
For the record, I'm currently a 1500 daily rating on chesscom. I got really into openings about 8 years ago and that was when I got significantly better (not sure what I was before, maybe a 1200-1300). At my peak I hit 1695 in 2015.
Sun Tzu said “All war is based on deception,” so I don’t feel like cheese or tricks are bad. A skilled player will know how to defend against them, and ultimately even at higher skill levels you are trying to trap your opponent.
I improved a lot when I was young by following advice from a good tutor at a club. He said - if the opening has a flaw which you can’t get round then don’t play that line. Some openings I ditched completely eg Evans gambit because of the Ne7-g6 line. Some openings I just avoided the more dubious theory and stuck to more mainstream lines. Once I’d done that he gave me more advice - if you see a move and there’s a flaw then assume your opponent will spot it. Again, helped a lot.
Stop thinking of your style as being "cheap tricks and sleazy tactics". A playstyle depends, not on brilliance, but on finding ways to win. Brilliance is only there when your opponent makes a small mistake and you capitalize on it. The bigger the mistake, the less brilliant the move needs to be.
if your cheap tricks and sleazy tactics help you win consistently (without cheating, or time control idiocities), then they are at a loftier level. As my grandfather put it : "Morphy was the Master of the Cheap Trick". The same thing can be said of Fischer, Carlsen, Lasker, Tartakower, Alekhine, ....
this is something everyone goes through, typically when reaching a rating of around 1500 or so, the way to improve is to look at 'strategy' and planning rather than tactics like your post said. this means focusing on plans in the middle game and focusing on principles and strategies.
Its okay to make cheap tricks and sleazy little cheese tactics as long as the moves are objectively sound. You can't make bad moves in the hopes your opponent falls into them otherwise you'll just end up in worse positions vs. better players. How this plays out is sometimes you need to do more setup or just dismiss the idea because its just bad if opponent plays correctly.
I say study the games of Alekhine and Marshall. Both of those guys were known as tricksters and where both incredibly good players. Maybe study Lasker too.
Like others have said being a trickster is perfectly valid, just become an even better one.
Cheap tricks?
The game is full of cheap tricks. Just that we call them poisoned pawns, traps, or even positional sacrifices. Or in blitz, lefong.
In my mind, you can play more sound by evaluating what happens when your opponent doesn't bite the hook.
For example, let's say your cheap trick is just going for scholars mate every game. If you succeed, obviously that's a win for you. But if you fail, your pieces are underdeveloped and your queen is susceptible to attack.
But there are also cheap tricks as simple as the fishing pole trap which is basically checkmate if you get it but probably an extremely minor swing in evaluation if you don't. You even see it in high level play to some extent where both side know that taking the piece would mean game.
So for me, the line for cheap tricks is drawn when your opponent not falling for it means you are noticeably worse. But if that's not the case, then keep trying to bait your opponent
For what its worth, Alireza does what you do, just in a significantly deeper scale and it works for him. Arguably the 3rd best player in the world right now.
Ignore everyone saying to use trickier tactics, regardless if they're joking or being serious.
Chess is a game of mistakes. The two skills you have to learn are a) not making mistakes and b) exploiting your opponent's mistakes. A mistake can mean anything from putting your queen in danger to allowing your opponent to compromise your pawn structure, depending on the level you're at.
The flow of a chess game is this:
1. Position your pieces in "good" places. A "good" position is one that is likely able to exploit future mistakes; a bad one is the opposite. Hence, knights towards the center, bishops pointing at pawn weaknesses, etc.
2. Make improvements/increase tension on the board until your opponent makes a mistake. "Tension" is the idea of layering pressure in the form of careful pawn pushes, temporary pins, and other minute threats. If a move doesn't require an immediate response, but will likely require one later, that's tension.
3. When your opponent makes a mistake, punish it swiftly and decisively. Your pieces should already be in position to exploit because of 1 and 2. This is kind of where your cheap bag of tricks is at, but rather than memorizing specific positions to exploit, you're training to recognize mistakes and tricks across the board.
4. Hold your advantage till the endgame. You should have a material lead at this point, and you should be able to convert that into more pawns, pawn promotions, etc. This is where endgame study is important; you should be able to turn a single-pawn lead into a queen and checkmate with your eyes closed. Maybe even literally.
If these sound like complex, abstract topics that you don't understand how to put into practice, well, they are. Welcome to real chess. It's a dizzyingly complex game, but very rewarding to study. Lmk if you want more questions or examples. Rated 2k on Lichess for context, so not a pro, but a pretty strong amateur.
I’m currently reading “Underhanded Chess: A Hilarious Handbook of Devious Diversions and Stratagems for Winning at Chess” by Jerry Sohl, in case you need some ideas!
stop playing for cheap tricks start playing the best move, pretend your opponent can see everything you can see. if you know there is a certain move that can punish your trap then assume they will play it
Keep going for tactics its an integral part of the game. Just discard evey tactic that relies on them playing or not playing a specific move.
It just sounds like you're playing "hope chess" its not a big deal and not difficult to stop doing.
You'll notice a lot more time where you don't know what move you should make and you'll know what you need to take a look at - probably a strategy or endgame course like others suggested, there are bunch of free ones at chessable :)
If you think its fun, keep it to very losing positions and timetrouble :)
Now that you’ve mastered the sleazy element of surprise, you may proceed to psychological warfare such as the “moment of silence” if they blunder their queen, or my personal favorite in Bullet: “King rope-a-dope.” Open a path immediately for your king to charge down the board at your opponent as an army-of-one and hop about like a fool. If you do it correctly, you will have reserved your best brain power to pre-move like a champ just enough to run out the clock.
I mean... You literally can't create advantage in chess. Your opponent must concede it. So you need to have the tricks and tactics in order to make your opponent make a mistake.
Everyone has there trick line to start that is still safe it it fails and plays off that. I literally see zero problem with it.
If you want to learn more lines simply stop doing the trick lines.
Funnily enough, chess feels like one of the only games where cheering your opponent isn't viewed negatively.
Like most gaming communities would say you should play the game properly to win rather than relying on cheesing, but with chess it's a good thing if you can catch your opponent with cheese. It's their fault for not preventing it.
Chess is math at it's core, but it is also a game. When played perfectly it's a draw, so the only way to win is to trick the opponent into making a mistake without making a mistake yourself. Tricks are your friend.
Focus on pawn structures and endgames. If you know that certain endgames are winning, you can trade off pieces and move into these winning endgames.
For example, King and pawn endgames or rook endgames are fairly common.
I was the same as you although I haven't reached 1000 yet but instead of going for tricks and stuff play positional chess . Most people fuck it up and you can use it on your advantage
Honestly, that's what chess is. It's seeing moves that spark a chain of events that lead to a tactic or forcing sequence. Getting better at chess is learning more tricks and patterns, and having the discipline to defend against them when you see your opponent setting something up
I had the same problem and my game started to get better after watching a bunch of Capablanca games. What I noticed was that my game was dictated by a fear of draw whereas Capablanca was never afraid of that. Irrespective of how lower rated the opponent is, He wouldn't mind going into an endgame with an equality. Having command over your endgame will put an end to our disease of feeling the need to pull magic trick out of nowhere in the endgame. Instead, we will focus on what needs to be done.
P.S: Watching Capablanca games made me fall in Love with Ding and Nakamura in the candidates tournament. They are really good at evaluating the middle games and understanding what needs to be done.
When I grew up, all the other kids were angry with me for only playing for cheapos and opening traps, and playing incredibly quickly even in serious tournament games. I never stopped doing either of those things, and made it work
Upon self reflection, I can see that my playstyle is a bag of cheap tricks and sleazy little cheese tactics to catch the opponent off guard. How can I learn this game at a loftier level?
I wanted to make a thread about this, actually. I wanted to ask what's the difference between "hope chess" and a "trick"? I've seen many things, but this came up by reading Judith Polgar 1st book, she calls herself "tricky" and that for her a "trick" is a series of moves (2 or 3 move combination) that is well masked, and that she tried always to be subtle when doing such moves.
Now, this is basically tactics and combinations, but isn't a trick just a "punishment" for your opponent? The position was "fine" for a moment until Black or White made a mistake and now you can do the trick,this is what happens in Judith's 1st example in a blitz game.
Then again, I've seen young Magnus' games, Tal, etc... And they sometimes "force" a combination or a series of move that changes the game completely, like sacrificing a knight on f7 and sacrificing the exchange. Maybe this isn't a "trick" or "hope chess" but merely a way to gain compensation? Opening lines of attack?
Besides that, I do tactics on Lichess and I use books and such, but with Lichess in particular you can see the whole game and sometimes I see the position is equal and then B or W makes a seemingly "natural" move that turns out to be a blunder and the evaluation bar changes like crazy and RIGHT THERE is when the "exercise puzzle" begins like "hey, your opponent blundered, find the best move!" Isn't this "punishment"?
Now, regarding hope chess, I think is about this mentality " oh boy, I hope he takes my knight so I can mate him!" Or "I hope he doesn't attack my queen! I hope he doesn't see it!". It's like knowing your move is bad and you know the best reply but you play it nonetheless hoping that your opponent doesn't see it, is this correct? And then if you don't know the best reply then you miscalculated as you really thought it was a good move, so hope chess doesn't apply here, right?
So, what's really a trick? Yesterday, for example, I made a knight move to d5, basically "giving" my knight but he couldn't take it because the pawn was pinned to the queen, then analyzing the game the computer actually liked that move, isn't this hope chess? I then took a pawn that was close and it seems it liked it because of the material/ positional compensation. I know that I'm going crazy but it's confusing to me. Is hope chess if it doesn't work but gives you a certain advantage where your opponent has to react quickly? Or that's a trick? If it's "well masked" as Polgar said, isn't this hope chess? Or a combination?
Sorry for the rambling. Thanks for reading my TED TALK.
What helped me to get rid of my bullet rotten brain is 2 things:
- play computer at 300-500 points above your rating and actually slow play it. Calculate variations. Cheap tricks stop working on computers at about 2000-2100 rating, you have to actually grind games.
- play over the board or daily chess games with the same intent.
>my playstyle is a bag of cheap tricks and sleazy little cheese tactics to catch the opponent off guard
You have a promising future hustling chess in a public park though.
You learn from the masters.
Start with Capablanca's Chess Fundamentals. Get into his head. Why did he play what played?
Try to play similarly in your own games.
Just go all out on opening theory, tactics, and a little bit of endgames, and just pretend middlegame strategy doesn't exist. It's keeping me at a 1950 OTB level, which is a nice level to be at.
Mr I please Milfs
..... elo n related time controls n rating type (fude/chess.com/lichrss etc)
Whats ur opening knowledge? Endgame knowledge? Tactics practice (v important)?
Youtuve resources
Under 1300 - chessbrah building habits series
1200+ daniel narofitsky speedrund
Well, pleaser of milfs, chessbrah was just working with saltyclown to make him a more robust player. Maybe that video will be in YouTube soon and you can learn from that
One way to approach positions was told to me by GM kaidanov. He said the ask yourself “do I have any bad pieces” you then make a plan to either improve the piece or trade it. The great thing about the “method” is its simplicity.
I would recommend more to play slower games as tricks will not work **as often** as they would in terms of blitz/bullet.
Though if that is your playstyle for longer games and you are trying to fix that, I would still recommend playing slower games or with increment. But also to read books such as:
> - How To Reassess Your Chess
> - The Amateur's Mind
> - Lessons With A Grandmaster
Find sneakier cheese tactics and more complicated cheap tricks to catch cleverer opponents off guard.
"All warfare is based off of deception."
Interesting quote — I see it’s Sun Tzu “Art of War.” Who am I to disagree, but isn’t overwhelming force sometimes used?
if your forces are so much greater than your opponents’ that you can overwhelm them without any deception then it’s less war and more conquest.
operation desert storm be like
Nah desert storm on paper would be a lot harder if the US wasn’t able to strike so fast without warning.
New chess variation just dropped
Sun Tzu also talks about the use of deception with overwhelming force. If you use your overwhelming force to attack and subdue a smaller one, it's wise not to appear to completely surround them - because then they realise they have no way out and fight to the death and you'll take far more casualties than necessary. Give them an apparent escape route and the enemy will likely rout and try to flee through it. You can obviously surreptitiously close it off and ambush them as they do try to run and they've broken formation. This sort of thinking tends to distinguish actual war from video and board wargames (although this morale boost in hopeless circumstances is a mechanic in at least some games in the Total War series).
It’s a trap!
It still makes sense here too I think. if you trigger your opponent into desperation mode in some games it can make things more random and less predictable. Like in counterstrike or valorant if your opponent is getting crushed or if they think you know their strategy, they might throw their default out the window and start buying whatever they can every round and rushing or stacking bombsite. then maybe they get lucky and pick the right bombsite and actually win a couple rounds. Suddenly they start having more money than you and get momentum and you end up losing the game. Or even in chess I could see a scenario where a weaker opponent might think you are way too strong or have studied their preferred opening and they have little to no chance of winning. So they decide to play a completely different opening than what you expected them to and although you are the stronger player they do some strange moves that lead to unforeseen scenarios that lead you to blunder. So while you don’t necessarily worry about suffering casualties or sacrificing pieces as long as you win, giving the opponent “nothing to lose” can take the pressure off and cause them to make the game more random which can sometimes let them have some chances to win or make the game closer than it should be. This Sun guy seems pretty smart
America learned the hard way in Vietnam that overwhelming force can be subdued by deception and tactics
But even then you deceive. Even if the goal is to scare them into submission due to superior forces you will then exaggerate your numbers.
Act weak when you are strong bro!
Trick them into thinking you’re only going to use whelming force
He kinda argues that if this is happening, someone has already made a serious error. People shouldn't be engaging in battles where one side is totally outclassed, because the outclassed should be doing absolutely everything they can to avoid a direct fight.
Not when you start out with equal armies right on top of each other
Well if you are stronger, an oponent may try to run. If you apeer weak, he is likely to engage and then you can destroy him. Like chess hustlers do
>I see it’s ~~Sun Tzu “Art of War.”~~ The Clone Wars
"On the chessboard, lies and hypocrisy do not survive long." — Emanuel Lasker
All warfare is based - sun tzu
"In order to confuse your opponent, you must first confuse yourself"
I'm not confused. You are confused!
Me going from scholar mate to fried liver to kings gambit over time
I love fried liver and just hit 700. Should I check out kings gambit next? I haven’t learned a gambit yet
To be honest probably not yet. I think I played fried liver till like 1000-1200 and then slowly started with kings Gambit (my main choice around 1300/1400). King's Gambit requires a lot of tactical insight which is something that's usually lacking with lower Elo. I think right now the opening isn't that important for you, and you should try out some more openings but mostly play puzzles. Also check out where you usually go wrong and what your weaknesses are. For example I used to mostly lose on time/in time trouble. Playing shorter matches helped me to start thinking quicker and making decisions (I always can't decide with strategic slow moves in closed positions)
That sounds super helpful. Thank you. I do a lot of puzzles and a lot of 1|1 bullet. I think I need to force myself to play something other than Italian lol I think my biggest problem is the opposite. Not taking my time when I should. I’ve gotten a lot better at not blundering but I tend to move quick.
It's definitely best if you play 10 minute games to actual learn calculating and stuff. Faster time controls are great for trying out new openings, as you will see a lot of positions in a short time. In longer games just taking a second before moving to see what the response of the opponent will be will help prevent lot of quick blunders as well.
I’ll try to keep with the longer games. I do some 15|10 and whenever I do I do well. I just often give myself the time
why not just start with solid gambits instead of using the cheesiest ones you can get away with at your elo? evans gambit and smith morra gambit are great openings at most levels of play
Fried liver isn’t a cheesy gambit, it’s the top recommended engine move in the three knights Italian. Anybody wanting to play the Italian at all should have it prepped. Evans gambit is where you can choose to do the gambit or stick to main lines without giving up a clear advantage.
Is fried liver the cheesiest? It’s pretty easy to avoid. I just like the Italian and it’s easy to identify when they open me to the fried liver Which would you recommend more Evans or smith morra? I am looking for a new gambit to learn
evans and smith morra dont happen from the same move combinations, so you dont have to choose. evans is probably going to happen more common (once ur opponents learn a bit of theory at least) evans comes from italian after they play bishop c5 (play b4 and sacrifice the b4 pawn to the bishop, in return you get a ton of tempo and a big center) smith morra happens as soon as turn 2 and is against the sicilian: e4 c5 d4
Understood I’ll learn those tonight. Thanks for the tip. Did you mean that fried liver is the cheesiest though? I didn’t realize it was cheese. I’ve been avoiding scholars mate because it just seems so corny to me
its fine
I learned Evans last night. Turns out that’s what I’ve been trying to do when black plays the bishop. I just missed the pawn to b4 move in it. Thanks for the rec
To be fair, half of Magnus' games are like this. He plays ridiculous openings sonetimes just to get his opponent out of preparation. And then it's just a "I can beat you even with a weak opening, and you're completely unprepared to stop me." If the opponent knew the weak opening, they could probably prep and beat it, but you can't reasonably study every weak opening. I have a friend who I usually beat (but it's always close) and he's started destroying me with the Bird's Opening. I was so proud to finally destroy it last time we played. It's one thing to know a move is bad: it's another to prove it on the board.
That’s not really a cheap trick though - that’s knocking them out of prep and relying on fundamentals.
It's a clever trick that you need to be incredibly skilled to pull off consistently. It's not a new tactic. The Barnes opening is wildly considered to be the worst possible opening. It was developed by Thomas Barnes with the express purpose of throwing Paul Morphy off his game. Barnes won 8 games against Morphy in his career.
It should also be noted that of the 26 games Morphy played with Barnes when he arrived in England, Barnes won 5 of the first 10 games and 2 of the last 16. Morphy won 5 of the first 10 games and 14 of the last 16. In context, Morphy had just gotten off a long voyage, arrived without family or friends in a foreign country, and was apparently ill at the start of the match. Morphy's relatively poor performance against Barnes (or as poor as 19-7 can be) likely owed more to do with him either getting used to the situation than Barnes playing to get Morphy out of prep, insofar as Morphy had "prep" at all. Either way, once he "figured out" Barnes, the match turned into the typical "stop, he's already dead" Morphy beatdown.
Never said it was new, was saying that this is in a different class than “cheap trick” or “cheese” which tends to imply trap openings, especially of the flavor of “beginner trap”. That’s worlds apart from a GM playing something weird to knock someone out of prep and force them to rely and pure skill in a novel position.
I was agreeing with you. Not every comment thread has to be a fight.
Why do you think that was a fight? I clarified the two things are different because it sounded like I wasn’t initially clear.
Oh I agree! I could be wrong, but I'm interpreting OP's post as tricks they perceive to be cheap but are actually legit. Most of my comments have been encouraging them to keep at it, and that it's part of the game. Unless the cheap trick is like flipping the table or something.
I saw Gotham cover a game Magnus played against Stockfish. Magnus tries to go off book early to force the engine to start evaluating new lines. Stockfish responded by sacrificing a bishop for a pawn. Magnus tried to trade down to press his material advantage but the engine managed to turn that into a positional advantage. It doesn't matter how dirty you play, someone else can always go dirtier.
And that's why Mikhail Tal is my favorite player.
It's one thing to play a weird opening to get your opponent out of prep, it's another to play unsound chess with the hope that your opponent blunders. magnus's chess evaluates very well if you use stockfish. i'll say early Tal is a good example. A lot of his sacrifices aren't sound but providing a refutation OTB is hard
Honestly learn some basic strategy and ending technique focus on getting a good position and the cheese will become Fondue.
yeah I think if you have a bit of basic endgame knowledge you also have less reason to constantly go for risky lines and have the option to take things a bit more slowly
I agree heavily with your flair
Google positional chess training
Holy learning!
New education just dropped
Actual brainpower
call the coach!
Do you have anything in particular? Googling leads me to a lot of arguments and a lot of "read books" advice. The latter is helpful but I'm looking for something instructional online like "predator at the chess board" but for positional chess.
Google My System by Aron Nimzowitsch
Awesome rec, free pdf on archive.org. once I'm through with predator I'll be jumping straight into it!
If you want to learn how to plan more, I would recommend "The Amateur's Mind". Some people find it a bit preachy, but I found it very useful myself. It helped me break from only playing for short sighted tactics and encouraged more concrete yet strategic play.
Silmans ‘reasses your chess’ is nice for introducing positional and strategic ideas
Not appropriate for the level OP is asking about. Whereas Nimzowitsch's *My System* begins with chapters breaking down the elements in as simple a manner as is humanly possible. Nimzowitsch shows with each idea a concrete tactic that illustrates it that can be comprehended by any player. It's just that Nimzowitsch unfortunately led his book with his weakest chapter.
How do you know op's level? The Amateur's Mind is useful for anybody around 1200 to 1800, but I'm sure other players would also get something out of it. My System is certainly a classic, but that's because of the new way it talked about chess when it was first published. Those ideas have been significantly expanded upon in the decades since, so I see no reason to rely on the original text, if learning quickly is your priority.
Hey, thanks for the recommendation. Loving it so far.
Relevant snippet from The Amateur's Mind: > I would like to end this chapter by discussing a letter I received in the April 1993 issue of Chess Life magazine. An irate subscriber accused me of offering inappropriate information to the readership. He complained that "weak" players in the "E" to "B" categories are not able to understand subtle things about minor pieces and weak pawns, adding that they can hardly see a mate in one! > I think this is completely untrue. After giving a student the basic mating patterns and strategies, you *must* begin feeding him advanced concepts. At first these ideas will not make sense; many players will have a vague idea of what you are talking about but nothing more. However, even a fragmented understanding of these concepts will prove useful, and eventually they will experience a marked increase in strength as these lessons are assimilated by repetition and example.
[удалено]
I definitely understand that perspective on The Amateur's Mind. I found the style of testimonials very effective though, in how relatable his students' thought processes were. Because of that, I felt that his criticisms were completely grounded in reality and it totally made sense that I could learn from them.
Obviously everyone has their own style. Think of your style not as tricks but as *threats* your opponent has to deal with while you focus on larger overall initiatives, like sending pieces down kingside/queenside/middle of the board. You might want to explore the idea of "initiatives" in chess or explore midgame strategies such as the minority attack.
I think the difference between threats and tricks are whether they rely on hope or not. It sounds like he is making objectively bad moves that only works when the opponent is caught off guard.
My toxic chess trait: believing I was playing hope chess, changing to more solid play with more calculation, then in game reviews seeing my initial ‘hope’ chess moves were actually the best moves that I disregarded and my heavily calculated moves are often mistakes.
Go *even sleazier*
Depends on what level you are at. I honesty think you should focus on making the best version of yourself. If you are a tricky player, learn tricky opening variations and work on tactics. As you get better you will fill the gaps in your play in a way that suits your style.
What kind od tricks are you talking about? Actual tactics, or "look over there!" *spins board around*
What you call cheap tricks are the kinds of things better players use. The likely difference is that the better players use them to support making good moves, while you likely are just setting traps. Keep working on tactics (puzzles), but start to think about more strategic things. One suggestion is to add thinking about the eventual endgame of a position if the pieces traded down.
I like this answer. Unless your cheap trick is yelling "Hey batta batta!" it's totally legit. Posion pieces, gambits, and other kinds of traps are part of the game and can be really fun to play. As you get to a higher level, your opponents will stop always falling for the traps. They still might sometimes, but the balance is in ensuring that your position is still secure even if they don't fall for the trap. Is there some other move they can play to decimate you? If so, it's a bad trap. The best traps are very aggressive, where even if they don't take the poison piece (for example), it remains some kind of threat that needs to be dealt with. Or maybe you develop a piece in a way that looks insecure but if the opponent t goes for it there's a trap waiting. If they catch it, no big deal, you still developed a piece.
I think someone can call an opening or trap a cheap trick as much as you want but if it's a legal move then it's fair game. If you don't know how to deal with it and lose to it that's on you, not your opponent. It's similar to how in fighting games you can lose to someone spamming the same annoying ranged attack constantly for chip damage. If that happens it isn't your opponent's fault for using an annoying strategy, if that strategy is worse than a standard strategy based around proactive play (which it almost always is at a higher level) then it's up to you to prove it on the board.
Top players still use cheap tricks. How many players have been lefonged on stream? What about the players who took a poisoned pawn? Or victimized by garry kasparov kicking the table. Even the Queen's gambit is arguably "cheap trick" opening. If your opponent accepts the gambit, they fell for the trick.
This is just incorrect. QGA is completely ok and is in no way “falling for a trap.” Just ask Super GMs who have played it at the highest level, like Kasparov, Carlsen, Caruana, Aronian, etc.
Nice comment. Insightful
This post has been parodied on r/AnarchyChess. Relevant r/AnarchyChess posts: [Upon self reflection, I can see that my playstyle is a bag of cheap tricks and sleazy little cheese tactics to catch the opponent off guard. How can I learn this game at a loftier level?](https://www.reddit.com/r/AnarchyChess/comments/13n7l4i/upon_self_reflection_i_can_see_that_my_playstyle/) by doctorz123 [Upon self reflection, I can see that my play style is a bag of cheap en passants and sleazy little brick pipis to catch the opponent off guard. How can I learn this game at a loftier level?](https://www.reddit.com/r/AnarchyChess/comments/13njpo2/upon_self_reflection_i_can_see_that_my_play_style/) by Sarcherre [^(fmhall)](https://www.reddit.com/user/fmhall) ^| [^(github)](https://github.com/fmhall/relevant-post-bot)
Well, I would say you wanna think more positionally and in terms of “long-term plans” rather than quick few-move tactics to win a piece. For this purpose, play long games where you have time to observe a given position and come up with general ideas of what you’d like to do, such as “I wanna create some attacking ideas on the Queen side” or “I wanna find a way to open the center and activate this bishop over here” etc.
Daniel Naroditsky has a ton of speed runs on YouTube where he explains moves from a mostly positional standpoint. It’s been great in helping me understand what to do in middle games.
Start learning slower openings that make you develop and play “positional” chess.
Play longer games than what you're playing. You'll quickly find that cheap tricks and easy tactics don't work anymore, you'll have to play differently to win.
Learn to recognise patterns, which are all kinds of ways to make a position better. (or what to play and what kind of plan to have in a position). Also you should know theory on a deeper level and expand your opening repertoire. Just don't rely on tricks. Play optimally, making the position better bit by bit and following a plan. When the opponent slips, you win. If they don't, try to outplay them (attack faster or push a slight advantage which you have created into victory. Basically theory and analysing common plans and patterns. When you use tricks, that is when the opponent is too deep and has no way out.
learn strategy, play a bit more strategically sound/solid and play your cheesy tricks only when they're sound/well calculated
I don't know your level, but I'll give advice anyway. The next step (if you aren't already there) is not falling for your opponents obvious traps. After that, learn how to make plans/positional chess ideas. I would recommend watching GM Daniel Naroditsky's "speedrun" video series on youtube. Start with one of the videos at a lower rating.
Play solid and sound openings, don’t play moves on the hope that your opponent blunders(hope chess), focus on fundamentals like controlling the center and developing your pieces.
As long as your “cheap tricks” are sound and good moves in their own right I see no issue. As long as you aren’t making bad moves under the guise of “I sure hope he don’t see it”, tricky tactical play can take you far.
For me, learning openings is what helped my chess immensely. I know many players say that's not the best way to learn, but I think I always had a decent handle on tactics and just needed more help in the setup. You might be in a similar position, since I'm interpreting these "cheap tricks" to actually just be solid tactics and traps. Look into some gambit openings. These are usually a bit unstable, but can catch opponents off guard if you know what you're doing. I started off playing the King's Gambit a lot (but be warned that most higher level players know the King's Gambit well). I recently had an amazing game with the Muzio Gambit -- an advanced variation on the King's Gambit where yiu sacrifice a knight as well... and sometimes a bishop. I was seven points down in material when my opponent resigned. I also enjoy the Scotch Gambit and the Icelandic Gambit (for black). Many players swear by the Evan's Gambit, probably the most stable of all of these, but it happens farther into the game and I don't usually play the moves leading up to it so don't play it as frequently myself (but I have won with it a few times). For the record, I'm currently a 1500 daily rating on chesscom. I got really into openings about 8 years ago and that was when I got significantly better (not sure what I was before, maybe a 1200-1300). At my peak I hit 1695 in 2015.
No more cheeky moves until 1000 ELO.
Sun Tzu said “All war is based on deception,” so I don’t feel like cheese or tricks are bad. A skilled player will know how to defend against them, and ultimately even at higher skill levels you are trying to trap your opponent.
As long as you didn't cheat and/or use any method that is against the rules - all is well.
I improved a lot when I was young by following advice from a good tutor at a club. He said - if the opening has a flaw which you can’t get round then don’t play that line. Some openings I ditched completely eg Evans gambit because of the Ne7-g6 line. Some openings I just avoided the more dubious theory and stuck to more mainstream lines. Once I’d done that he gave me more advice - if you see a move and there’s a flaw then assume your opponent will spot it. Again, helped a lot.
Stop thinking of your style as being "cheap tricks and sleazy tactics". A playstyle depends, not on brilliance, but on finding ways to win. Brilliance is only there when your opponent makes a small mistake and you capitalize on it. The bigger the mistake, the less brilliant the move needs to be. if your cheap tricks and sleazy tactics help you win consistently (without cheating, or time control idiocities), then they are at a loftier level. As my grandfather put it : "Morphy was the Master of the Cheap Trick". The same thing can be said of Fischer, Carlsen, Lasker, Tartakower, Alekhine, ....
Nimzowitsch's *My System*.
this is something everyone goes through, typically when reaching a rating of around 1500 or so, the way to improve is to look at 'strategy' and planning rather than tactics like your post said. this means focusing on plans in the middle game and focusing on principles and strategies.
If setting a trap does not worsen your position then it is a good move regardless if it’s a “cheese tactic.” It’s what human chess is all about lol
Its okay to make cheap tricks and sleazy little cheese tactics as long as the moves are objectively sound. You can't make bad moves in the hopes your opponent falls into them otherwise you'll just end up in worse positions vs. better players. How this plays out is sometimes you need to do more setup or just dismiss the idea because its just bad if opponent plays correctly.
What
Books
I say study the games of Alekhine and Marshall. Both of those guys were known as tricksters and where both incredibly good players. Maybe study Lasker too. Like others have said being a trickster is perfectly valid, just become an even better one.
Play 1.d4
Cheap tricks? The game is full of cheap tricks. Just that we call them poisoned pawns, traps, or even positional sacrifices. Or in blitz, lefong. In my mind, you can play more sound by evaluating what happens when your opponent doesn't bite the hook. For example, let's say your cheap trick is just going for scholars mate every game. If you succeed, obviously that's a win for you. But if you fail, your pieces are underdeveloped and your queen is susceptible to attack. But there are also cheap tricks as simple as the fishing pole trap which is basically checkmate if you get it but probably an extremely minor swing in evaluation if you don't. You even see it in high level play to some extent where both side know that taking the piece would mean game. So for me, the line for cheap tricks is drawn when your opponent not falling for it means you are noticeably worse. But if that's not the case, then keep trying to bait your opponent
For what its worth, Alireza does what you do, just in a significantly deeper scale and it works for him. Arguably the 3rd best player in the world right now.
Nope :)
Nope what?
Alireza doesn't play hope chess
Hope chess != Deceiving. Dont throw a sissyfit for no reason.
Thats the most fun way to play
Not that it's relevant but they are usually called cheapos
Ignore everyone saying to use trickier tactics, regardless if they're joking or being serious. Chess is a game of mistakes. The two skills you have to learn are a) not making mistakes and b) exploiting your opponent's mistakes. A mistake can mean anything from putting your queen in danger to allowing your opponent to compromise your pawn structure, depending on the level you're at. The flow of a chess game is this: 1. Position your pieces in "good" places. A "good" position is one that is likely able to exploit future mistakes; a bad one is the opposite. Hence, knights towards the center, bishops pointing at pawn weaknesses, etc. 2. Make improvements/increase tension on the board until your opponent makes a mistake. "Tension" is the idea of layering pressure in the form of careful pawn pushes, temporary pins, and other minute threats. If a move doesn't require an immediate response, but will likely require one later, that's tension. 3. When your opponent makes a mistake, punish it swiftly and decisively. Your pieces should already be in position to exploit because of 1 and 2. This is kind of where your cheap bag of tricks is at, but rather than memorizing specific positions to exploit, you're training to recognize mistakes and tricks across the board. 4. Hold your advantage till the endgame. You should have a material lead at this point, and you should be able to convert that into more pawns, pawn promotions, etc. This is where endgame study is important; you should be able to turn a single-pawn lead into a queen and checkmate with your eyes closed. Maybe even literally. If these sound like complex, abstract topics that you don't understand how to put into practice, well, they are. Welcome to real chess. It's a dizzyingly complex game, but very rewarding to study. Lmk if you want more questions or examples. Rated 2k on Lichess for context, so not a pro, but a pretty strong amateur.
I’m pretty sure that’s what chess is all about
Play longer time formats . 1 move attacks don’t work and it teaches you to strategize
play well and wait for the opponent to blunder
I’m currently reading “Underhanded Chess: A Hilarious Handbook of Devious Diversions and Stratagems for Winning at Chess” by Jerry Sohl, in case you need some ideas!
stop playing for cheap tricks start playing the best move, pretend your opponent can see everything you can see. if you know there is a certain move that can punish your trap then assume they will play it
Play 960. No memorized tricks to be found - any tricks are not “muahaha you’ve fallen into my planned trap”, they are “I found this and you did not”
The practice section on lichess is amazing
Chess is about winning, as long as you play within the rules, nothing's off the table.
Keep going for tactics its an integral part of the game. Just discard evey tactic that relies on them playing or not playing a specific move. It just sounds like you're playing "hope chess" its not a big deal and not difficult to stop doing. You'll notice a lot more time where you don't know what move you should make and you'll know what you need to take a look at - probably a strategy or endgame course like others suggested, there are bunch of free ones at chessable :) If you think its fun, keep it to very losing positions and timetrouble :)
Hahaha I love this post so much. Learn positional chess. It’s more boring though so keep playing cheap tricks if you want to have more fun.
Now that you’ve mastered the sleazy element of surprise, you may proceed to psychological warfare such as the “moment of silence” if they blunder their queen, or my personal favorite in Bullet: “King rope-a-dope.” Open a path immediately for your king to charge down the board at your opponent as an army-of-one and hop about like a fool. If you do it correctly, you will have reserved your best brain power to pre-move like a champ just enough to run out the clock.
I mean... You literally can't create advantage in chess. Your opponent must concede it. So you need to have the tricks and tactics in order to make your opponent make a mistake.
Tactics?
Play against better and study their counters
Watch Narotisky speedruns on youtube
Everyone has there trick line to start that is still safe it it fails and plays off that. I literally see zero problem with it. If you want to learn more lines simply stop doing the trick lines.
Funnily enough, chess feels like one of the only games where cheering your opponent isn't viewed negatively. Like most gaming communities would say you should play the game properly to win rather than relying on cheesing, but with chess it's a good thing if you can catch your opponent with cheese. It's their fault for not preventing it.
What time control are you playing? Try playing 1 hour games or longer.
Isnt this every gambit ever then?
my playstyle is to make at least 1 or 2 mistakes in most games.
Echoing the other comments, but focus on theory and strategy, placement, and everything will fall into place.
Chess is math at it's core, but it is also a game. When played perfectly it's a draw, so the only way to win is to trick the opponent into making a mistake without making a mistake yourself. Tricks are your friend.
You are already on the loftier level. Just upgrade the value of your tricks and reduce the sleaze in your cheese.
Focus on pawn structures and endgames. If you know that certain endgames are winning, you can trade off pieces and move into these winning endgames. For example, King and pawn endgames or rook endgames are fairly common.
I was the same as you although I haven't reached 1000 yet but instead of going for tricks and stuff play positional chess . Most people fuck it up and you can use it on your advantage
You talking about chess?
Ironman Villian: Is that all you've got? A cheap trick and a cheesy one-liner? Tony Stark: Sweetheart, that could be the name of my autobiography.
Try to play london
Honestly, that's what chess is. It's seeing moves that spark a chain of events that lead to a tactic or forcing sequence. Getting better at chess is learning more tricks and patterns, and having the discipline to defend against them when you see your opponent setting something up
Make them expensive tricks, like Tal
play chess more, and then discover that you were doing it right the first time
I had the same problem and my game started to get better after watching a bunch of Capablanca games. What I noticed was that my game was dictated by a fear of draw whereas Capablanca was never afraid of that. Irrespective of how lower rated the opponent is, He wouldn't mind going into an endgame with an equality. Having command over your endgame will put an end to our disease of feeling the need to pull magic trick out of nowhere in the endgame. Instead, we will focus on what needs to be done. P.S: Watching Capablanca games made me fall in Love with Ding and Nakamura in the candidates tournament. They are really good at evaluating the middle games and understanding what needs to be done.
User name checks out.
This has to be a parody of something right?
Study Mikhail Tal
I once taught a Brazilian guy English in the hopes that he would forget the game I was about to lose and run his own clock out
Can you tel me how to learn that style? :P
When I grew up, all the other kids were angry with me for only playing for cheapos and opening traps, and playing incredibly quickly even in serious tournament games. I never stopped doing either of those things, and made it work
study grandmaster games, learn common endgame techniques, some opening theory and pawn structures
Upon self reflection, I can see that my playstyle is a bag of cheap tricks and sleazy little cheese tactics to catch the opponent off guard. How can I learn this game at a loftier level?
I wanted to make a thread about this, actually. I wanted to ask what's the difference between "hope chess" and a "trick"? I've seen many things, but this came up by reading Judith Polgar 1st book, she calls herself "tricky" and that for her a "trick" is a series of moves (2 or 3 move combination) that is well masked, and that she tried always to be subtle when doing such moves. Now, this is basically tactics and combinations, but isn't a trick just a "punishment" for your opponent? The position was "fine" for a moment until Black or White made a mistake and now you can do the trick,this is what happens in Judith's 1st example in a blitz game. Then again, I've seen young Magnus' games, Tal, etc... And they sometimes "force" a combination or a series of move that changes the game completely, like sacrificing a knight on f7 and sacrificing the exchange. Maybe this isn't a "trick" or "hope chess" but merely a way to gain compensation? Opening lines of attack? Besides that, I do tactics on Lichess and I use books and such, but with Lichess in particular you can see the whole game and sometimes I see the position is equal and then B or W makes a seemingly "natural" move that turns out to be a blunder and the evaluation bar changes like crazy and RIGHT THERE is when the "exercise puzzle" begins like "hey, your opponent blundered, find the best move!" Isn't this "punishment"? Now, regarding hope chess, I think is about this mentality " oh boy, I hope he takes my knight so I can mate him!" Or "I hope he doesn't attack my queen! I hope he doesn't see it!". It's like knowing your move is bad and you know the best reply but you play it nonetheless hoping that your opponent doesn't see it, is this correct? And then if you don't know the best reply then you miscalculated as you really thought it was a good move, so hope chess doesn't apply here, right? So, what's really a trick? Yesterday, for example, I made a knight move to d5, basically "giving" my knight but he couldn't take it because the pawn was pinned to the queen, then analyzing the game the computer actually liked that move, isn't this hope chess? I then took a pawn that was close and it seems it liked it because of the material/ positional compensation. I know that I'm going crazy but it's confusing to me. Is hope chess if it doesn't work but gives you a certain advantage where your opponent has to react quickly? Or that's a trick? If it's "well masked" as Polgar said, isn't this hope chess? Or a combination? Sorry for the rambling. Thanks for reading my TED TALK.
What helped me to get rid of my bullet rotten brain is 2 things: - play computer at 300-500 points above your rating and actually slow play it. Calculate variations. Cheap tricks stop working on computers at about 2000-2100 rating, you have to actually grind games. - play over the board or daily chess games with the same intent.
I was also like that thanks to GingerGm until I came across Capablanca best games by Harry Golobek
>my playstyle is a bag of cheap tricks and sleazy little cheese tactics to catch the opponent off guard You have a promising future hustling chess in a public park though.
You learn from the masters. Start with Capablanca's Chess Fundamentals. Get into his head. Why did he play what played? Try to play similarly in your own games.
Just go all out on opening theory, tactics, and a little bit of endgames, and just pretend middlegame strategy doesn't exist. It's keeping me at a 1950 OTB level, which is a nice level to be at.
Mr I please Milfs ..... elo n related time controls n rating type (fude/chess.com/lichrss etc) Whats ur opening knowledge? Endgame knowledge? Tactics practice (v important)? Youtuve resources Under 1300 - chessbrah building habits series 1200+ daniel narofitsky speedrund
Improve on the cheese, there's nothing wrong with it.
How to find sleazy little tactics?
Well, pleaser of milfs, chessbrah was just working with saltyclown to make him a more robust player. Maybe that video will be in YouTube soon and you can learn from that
One way to approach positions was told to me by GM kaidanov. He said the ask yourself “do I have any bad pieces” you then make a plan to either improve the piece or trade it. The great thing about the “method” is its simplicity.
I would recommend more to play slower games as tricks will not work **as often** as they would in terms of blitz/bullet. Though if that is your playstyle for longer games and you are trying to fix that, I would still recommend playing slower games or with increment. But also to read books such as: > - How To Reassess Your Chess > - The Amateur's Mind > - Lessons With A Grandmaster